UK: Arresting Moslem Extremists Is A No-No

(Two postings today. Please scroll down)

I knew this kind of dhimmitude was coming.

Infidel intuition!

The UK is determined to try everything to sink itself into full submission.

Via this posting at Jihad Watch, citing the Daily Express (entire article):

TAKE IT EASY ON MUSLIM EXTREMISTS, POLICE TOLD

POLICE will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.

Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.

Officers will be advised not to proceed when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline”.

Examples of crimes to which a blind eye may be turned include incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the internet.

Last night critics warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.

Some saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain.

It could even mean officers tolerating many activities of Muslim preachers of hate like the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.

Tory MP David Davies said: “This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

“It doesn’t matter whether someone is suspected of incitement to hatred or shoplifting – they should all face the same risk of prosecution.

“There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community.”

Officials insist there is no suggestion that people who have clearly committed offences will avoid prosecution.

Instead, they want to avoid alienating Muslims on the fringes of extremism by dragging them to court over petty allegations unlikely to result in conviction.

One fear is that some young Muslims are falling under the influence of extremist preachers while serving prison sentences or on remand awaiting trial.

A senior Whitehall official said the guidance was being drawn up as part of a drive to use persuasion rather than the criminal justice system to fight extremism.

He added: “The aim is to stop people being dragged into extremism.

“We are not talking about letting someone off who has committed a clear offence, but where it is unclear if an offence has been committed.

“For instance, where there has been incitement or someone has been on the internet there can be a grey area where there is some discretion and it would be more sensible to avoid going down the criminal route.”

The Government’s counter- terrorism board is drawing up the advice, which will be sent to all police forces, including the Metropolitan, later this year.

The move follows an updated Home Office counter-terrorism strategy announced earlier this year. The new strategy urges preventative measures to win round potential extremists instead of arrest and prosecution.

“We need to be able to provide support for individuals who are drawn into criminal activity,” the document says.

Councils, community groups and the Government’s youth justice board will be among organisations expected to identify those drawn into extremism or at risk.

Social workers, teachers and other professionals will be asked to try to work with some Muslim youths to reduce the likelihood of them turning into extremists.

But the new strategy is likely to reduce the likelihood of prosecutions against Islamist extremists protesting against troops.

In Luton earlier this year, protesters displayed placards bearing the words “butchers” and “animals” at a homecoming parade for 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment. There were no arrests for incitement.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Preventing people becoming radicalised is a key priority for the Government. The police response needs to be proportionate to deal with crimes people commit while reducing the risk to public safety.”

The latest move represents a reversal of the policy introduced under Tony Blair in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London in 2005, when as Prime Minister he called for an overhaul of the criminal justice system to root out and prosecute extremists.

Past attempts to win over potential Muslim radicals have frequently run into controversy. Millions of pounds have been pledged to fund Muslim groups, drawing claims that they are receiving special treatment.

Different rules of law and different methods of law enforcement for different groups? How can a nation remain a nation with that kind of division?

I can see how this special treatment for Moslems could be extended to an official governmental politcy of no criticism of Islam allowed by anyone in the UK. Mustn't rile up those extremists, you know.

Four short years after the London bombings, the UK is apparently moving from prosecuting traitors, terrorists, and seditionists to giving a pass to those wanting to destroy the UK's way of life. In other words, "reach out" to Moslems. Where have we heard that phrase before?

Anything to avoid addressing the ideology driving the jihadist movement.

Turn the page ....

UK: Go To Jail, Demand Shari'a (With Addendum)

In the name of human rights, of course. Please note the addendum at the end of this post!

From this source:

Jailed Islamic extremists want women prison officers banned from guarding them during Friday prayers - claiming it's against their human rights. Terrorists at Wakefield jail say having them there while they pray is an "insult to their religion".

They also want an in-the-slammer mosque as the interfaith facility is tainted:

Services are held in the prison's gym after the 60-strong group refused to pray in the jail's multi-faith chapel because it was used by "non-believers".

Now they want a mosque built there.

So far, the demands have been refused:

Their single-sex guards demand was refused - but it's feared they could now take their complaint to the European Court and use the Human Rights Act to claim they are being victimised....

Last week, the UK did take an anti-dhimmitudinal stand on another issue:

A Muslim chef who accused the Metropolitan Police of religious discrimination when told he must handle pork has lost his tribunal case.

Hasanali Khoja was told he would be expected to handle pork products at his new job at the Empress State Building in Earls Court, west London.

The 60-year-old from Edgware, north-west London, also said racist gestures were made to him when he complained.

However,

A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said:..."Mr Khoja remains a valued member of staff."

Why, particularly if he has such a strong commitment to Islam and accused some of the police force of "racist gestures"? Was that accusation a false one?

ADDENDUM (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance): "Muslims Have Own Human Rights Systems." Excerpt from this article in the Iran Daily:

Head of the Foreign Ministry’s College of International Relations Bahador Aminian on Sunday said western countries have become used to abusing human rights to exert pressure on other countries.

In an interview with Iran Daily he said Iran as an Islamic state continues to promote human rights.

“The definition that Islam renders about human beings and the value system that it offers is what the masses demand from the international community. As such, Iran should not be accused for non-observation of human rights. We believe that the notion of cultural diversity and human rights can open new vistas for human rights-related issues and hence the college has attended to the issue both from academic and diplomatic perspectives,“ he noted.

On the occasion of the World Day of Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development, a two-day international training workshop themed ’Cultural Diversity and Human Rights’ opened at the college on Sunday.

Aminian went on to emphasize that human rights should not be necessarily in unison with particular western values and standards as Muslim communities have their own reading of human rights.

As I noted in a post in 2005, differing definitions.

Turn the page ....

UK: Jihad Summer School

Via Creeping Sharia, who points out that these UK teenagers will be able to travel all over the world if they have passports:

RANT PREACHER OPENS JIHAD SUMMER SCHOOL

RANTING preacher Anjem Choudary is planning to peddle his hate to teenagers at a “jihad” summer school.

The vile extremist has appointed himself principal lecturer of a 20-week course in his twisted version of Islam.

Now fears are being raised Choudary and his followers will indoctrinate a new generation of Muslim fanatics.

The minimum age advertised is 15, but his School of Shari’ah has promised to consider even younger students.

They will learn about the Islamic “struggle” and how to enter the “Gardens of Paradise”.

Last night disgusted Tory MP Philip Davies, 37, said: “This is appalling. We know what this character is like and the kinds of things he will be saying. We need summer schools to encourage people to integrate into British society.

"The last thing we need is individuals like this spreading their poison and indoctrinating more people into their cause.”

Choudary, 41, has joined fellow fanatics to set up the School of Shari’ah, based in east London.

A police source said: “Choudary is well on the radar and is considered safe because he is so high profile.”

English Democrats chairman Robin Tilbrook criticised Choudary’s right to preach hate while also raking in handouts.

He said: “Not only is he spreading his warped view of Islam, but he’s flaunting it in our face by doing it with our cash.”

Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: “Anjem Choudary is not regarded as a qualified Islamic scholar by mainstream UK Muslims.

“That said, however, he is free to promote his own views and teachings in the UK as long as he acts within the law.

“We live in a country that is proud of its tradition of free speech after all.”

At this rate, not for long.

Interview of Anjem Choudary:



(crossposted to Infidel Bloggers Alliance)

Turn the page ....

UK: Moslem Attacks Christian Minister

Woman Honor Thyself has the details.

[END OF THIS POSTING]

Turn the page ....

London Police Flee From Moslems Screaming, "Allahu Akbar!"

WARNING! STRONG LANGUAGE!

Please pause the PlayList on the right sidebar before playing the video (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance:





Part Two:



All of the above video footage was filmed on January 3, 2009, in central London.

Note: I've been having a posting frenzy the past few days. Please scroll down to other recent postings.

Turn the page ....

Rum-Flavored Ice Cream Is Offensive

To Moslems, of course, citing a violation of human rights. Even those in prison (hat-tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance). An apology was demanded and received:

From Weasel Zippers:

UK: Jailed Cleric Abu Hamza Says Human Rights Violated After Being Served Rum Ice Cream, Prison Promptly Apologizes.....

Hate preacher Abu Hamza claimed his human rights were breached because he was served rum ice cream in prison.

The hook-handed cleric, 50, said the sweet broke halal rules because it contained alcohol.

A source at top-security Belmarsh jail in Woolwich, South East London, said: “It’s utterly barmy and a massive over-reaction — most prisoners would see it as a treat.

Other notorious terrorists in the jail — including dirty bomber Dhiren Barot, 35 — have joined the protest.

It is backed by a website linked to controversial lawyer Mudassar Arani.

The site said: “Muslims were provided with rum ice cream. This obviously contains alcohol and therefore could not possibly be deemed compatible with the Islamic faith.”

It also claimed that Muslims were given yoghurt containing traces of unsuitable products.

The site urged inmates to write to their MPs to complain their rights are being breached.

A Prison Service spokesman said yesterday: “Regrettably, non-halal food was offered in error. It was quickly substituted with appropriate halal alternatives.”

And who is Abu Hamza? He's the jihadomaniac with hooks for hands and a destroyed left eye. Read about him here and here. Note that he is the leader of the Supporters of Sharia group in the UK.

After all Abu Hamza has done to promote terrorism, he's worried about some rum flavoring in his ice cream?

Turn the page ....

Undercover Mosque: The Return

The trailer:



Released yesterday, the latest from Dispatches can be viewed in its entirety is below the fold (the total viewing time about 50 minutes in length, approximately 10 minutes per video).











Some reading for those so inclined: The Wahabbi Invasion of America

Turn the page ....

Protecting A UK "Asian"

"Asian" is the Twenty-first Century code word for Muslim, of course.

For over seven months, Jamie Bauld, who has Down's Syndrome and the mental age of five, was investigated for assault and the crime of racial hate after a minor incident on a school campus.

Excerpt from this article at the Times Online:

Jamie, 18, cannot tie his shoelaces or leave home on his own, nor can he understand simple verbal concepts such as whether a door is open or shut. But his parents said that he was charged with attacking a fellow student, an Asian girl who also had special needs.

[...]

The incident in question took place last September at the special needs department of Motherwell College, in Lanarkshire, where Jamie is a student. Fiona Bauld, Jamie’s mother and full-time carer, claimed that the Asian student, who is only slightly older than Jamie, had been following her son and staring at him. Jamie had earlier complained to his parents that her behaviour scared him, and they had advised him just to walk away.

But one day, his mother said, the girl came close up to Jamie as he was eating lunch. He pushed her with one hand and told her to go away....

Not an unusual action from one with Down's Syndrome, but his rejection of her led to charges of lawbreaking, in part because the "Asian" girl

had scratched her own face to mark it and referred to herself as “blackface”.

The police at first told the Baulds that no legal consequences would occur.

That's not how the situation worked out.

For over seven months, Jamie and his parents endured the legal ordeal. Finally, the charges were dismissed:

Mrs Bauld said: “The incident was blown out of all proportion. I can’t believe that two special needs people should be dealt with like this. The whole thing was handled so badly.”

Apparently, Jamie's mental age isn't enough to prevent an insulted Muslim from finding a way to make an infidel's life miserable. After all, an infidel touched a muslima. Can't have that!

The fear and anxiety which Jamie endured are inexcusable. Jamie did understand that he was in some kind of trouble. From this article in the Daily Mail:

[O]ne night shortly after Christmas, as the family watched TV, Fiona realised to her horror that Jamie was not as oblivious as she'd hoped.

A scene featuring a prison appeared on screen, at which point Jamie said quietly: "I don't want to go to jail, Mum. Please don't let them take me away." He then burst into tears.

"I rushed over, put my arms around him and told him everything was going to be fine," says Fiona.

"All through this nightmare I've done my best to put on a smile and act normally around Jamie, simply to protect him from everything that was happening. But that night, as he sobbed in my arms, I wasn't sure everything would be OK.

"My worst fear was that Jamie would be taken away somewhere that I wouldn't be able to protect him. I said: 'Jamie, you're not going to prison', but I found myself in tears, too."

When Fiona - who lives in Cumbernauld, Lanarkshire, with her husband James, 46, a telecommunications contractor, and their daughter Stephanie, 17 - uses the word "nightmare" she is making no understatement.

It is the insane climate of political correctness which led to a legal and emotional situation which should never have transpired at all.

Further reading: Robert Spencer's take on the above story.

(Hat-tip to Aeneas)

Turn the page ....

Video: Mapping The Islamist Threat

In the following video, about 3 minutes in length, note the mention of Luton, about which blogger Lionheart has been speaking for some time as a center of Al Qaeda activity:



YouTube Link

In the video, notice the concern about how Muslims might object to the tracking of extremists. And Dhimmi Gordon Brown is concerned that mapping extremists could interfere with winning the hearts and minds of Muslims. Furthermore, "a raft" of programs also gets a mention.

Still, it looks as if the UK is ahead of the States on the mapping of extremists. As the video mentions, a plan for the similar mapping of the Los Angeles area was dropped because Muslims objected.

[END OF THIS POSTING]

Turn the page ....

Missing Schoolchildren

(Click directly on the image to enlarge it)

In Bradford, England, over thirty-three schoolchildren (mostly girls?) are missing, and the cause may be marriages arranged in Bangladesh. From the March 5, 2008 edition of the Daily Mail (UK):

Dozens of children are missing from school amid fears they have been forced into arranged marriages, it was revealed yesterday.

In Bradford, 33 children remain "unaccounted for" after being off school for at least two months with no explanation.

The Government is also concerned about another 14 areas of the country where it is feared children under 16 could also be missing from school rolls.

The figures were disclosed yesterday by Children's Minister Kevin Brennan during evidence to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, which is investigating the controversial issue of forced marriages.

He revealed the results of worrying inquiries by officials in Bradford, a city with a substantial Asian population....

I have no comment. I'll leave the commenting up to readers here.

Turn the page ....

Approving Honor Killings & Undermining Hygiene?

The UK doesn't officially approve honor killings. Not yet.

Nevertheless, the silence and the omission to act is coming from the tyranny of political correctness — an idiotic idea carried to unimaginable extremes and, according to this article at the Daily Mail, threatening even the proper enforcement of the law, thereby endangering the lives of women and young girls:

Police and authorities 'afraid to act against honour crimes in case they are called racist', claims report

Honour killing victim: Surjit Kaur Athwal disappeared on a trip to India in 1998
Teachers, police and councils are afraid to take action against so-called honour crimes for fear of being accused of racism, it is claimed.

Women are also being betrayed by community figures who believe those who break traditional taboos deserve to be punished, the report found.

Researchers say taxi drivers, police and government workers of Asian origin are returning women to the domestic abuse they want to escape...

Read the rest of the article at the Daily Mail.

Have the police in the UK become so politically correct, so afraid of criticism, that they are reticent to prevent murder?

Moral relativism and political correctness are eating away at the very fabric of Western society in the UK, as reflected in two other recent stories: the recognition of Muslim polygamy and the Archbishop of Canterbury's declaration about the inevitability of some aspects of shari'a law being implemented in the UK so as to prevent further fragmentation of British society.

Right now, the outcry of outrage over the archbishop's remarks has British citizens all fired up. One can only hope that they hold onto that anger. Maybe then the politicians will understand that the people, including many Muslim immigrants, want British law in the UK — not shari'a law.

Another lesser known story is one which threatens the health of the everyday person in the UK. Article from this source on February 3, 2008 (Hat-tip to WC of The Gathering Storm):

Muslim women working at U.K. medical facilities are increasingly refusing to comply with the basic hygiene standard of rolling up their sleeves when their washing hands, it was reported.

According to the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, female workers are ignoring Britain's Department of Health rules requiring medics to be "bare below the elbow" because they consider showing any skin — outside the hands and face — immodest.

The guidelines were put into place to stave off the spread of infectious killer bugs like MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have been implicated in the deaths of hundreds of hospital patients, according to the paper.

Hygiene experts said the standard should hold for all workers— even if it goes against their religion.

"I don't think it would be right to make an exemption for people on any grounds. The policy of bare below the elbows has to be applied universally," Dr. Mark Enright, professor of microbiology at Imperial College London told the Telegraph.

Some fear the enforcing the rules will open the door to lawsuits charging discrimination against female Muslims working within the medical professions.

The Islamic Medical Association, for one, has issued a statement that "no practicing Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," according to paper.

Western countries are going to have to make some unnegotiable decisions and stick to them if all of us are not to be endangered even further. Otherwise, we are headed for a New Dark Age, just as Mark Alexander has been warning.

[Hat-tip to World Divided for the first link in this posting]

Turn the page ....

Muslim Polygamy

Just how far is the UK willing to go in appeasing Muslims? According to this article in the Telegraph, Muslim polygamy will be recognized, with all "wives" getting full benefit:

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review...

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

[...]

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.

The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds....

Shari'a law allows for Muslim men to have a harem of up to four.

So, the UK is going to allow for and fund its own Islmamification by demographics? Not to mention that bigamy has been against UK and Western law for centuries!

As noted by Punditarian here at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS on Sunday, February 3, in "Britain Capitulates to Polygamists":

[T]he British will surrender the sovereignty of British law within the borders of Britain, and grant cultural extra-territoriality to Muslims. With Muslim areas no-go for infidels, including the police, and the Labour government falling over itself to allow Muslims to govern their lives according to shariah, Britain is rapidly becoming a colonia of the Ummah. How long will it be until British law no longer even holds for infidels?

For well over two years, I have been attempting to catalogue, at least in part, the Islamification of the West. But never in my wildest imagination approaching paranoia did I ever dream that the UK, a country firmly rooted in Judeo-Christianity for the past several centuries, would recognize Muslim polygamy and fund it as well.

Some days, I dread turning on my computer!



(Posted to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS on February 6, 2008)

ADDENDUM: Read the post on the same topic at Sons of Apes and Pigs. Excerpt:

The drama unfolding in Britain - a drama that contains elements that might have been borrowed from the theater of the absurd, making it uncertain whether we are dealing with a surreal farce or an all too real tragedy....

Read it all.

Turn the page ....

Being Muslim Isn't Voluntary

This post isn't what you think it is.
------------
According to this article, being Muslim is much the same as being born to a particular race, and Muslims are being let down by the race laws in the UK:

Dr Nasar Meer, research associate in the Department of Sociology at Bristol, found that Muslims are let down by race legislation because being a Muslim is recognised as a lifestyle choice or a "voluntary identity".

Dr Meer says other religious identities - such as Sikh and Jew - have had race law applied in their favour in a way not extended to Muslim communities.

He said many Muslims view their faith as an "involuntary identity" as they are born into the religion.

Considering what happens to Muslims who decide they no longer want to be followers of Islam, I suppose that being Muslim could be viewed as involuntary. You can get your head lopped off for becoming an apostate. So, if you're a Muslim and you want to stay alive, you'd better hold onto that Muslim identity.

Continuing now with the article:

[Dr. Meer said] said: "We explored what legislation exists to help protect people with what we call an involuntary identity. People with an involuntary identity shouldn't be disadvantaged by others' views.

"The legislation should offer them support and make sure they're not discriminated against."

And here's the kicker:

"Muslims have been totally missed out of the protection offered by race-relations legislation because it treats Islam as a religion and not a race."

Dr Meer said he has come across various examples of when hatred towards Muslims was dismissed but hatred towards other religions had not been tolerated.

Get ready for it: "involuntary identity" will refer to both ethnic origin and adherence to Islam. At least, so appears a trend in the UK, a trend endorsed by a university study.

Is that position official under the rule of law? Not quite, but it may well become the reality in time — unless the West quits allowing Muslims to determine certain definitions.

Before this decade ends, Islam may well be defined as a race, at least in the UK. If that happens, criticizing Islam will become designated as racism. Then what?

Turn the page ....

Be Careful Not To Offend Muslims

From Pastorius of Infidel Bloggers Alliance (slightly edited):

Muslims will huff and puff and blow your house down ...

if you let them.

How pathetic do you have to be to censor fairy tales because you fear they might be offensive to Muslims? Sure, Muslims might be offended. That's the fun of having Muslims around. You never know what might offend them.

From Up Pompeii:

A digital book based on the story of the Three Little Pigs has been rejected by judges presiding over the annual BETT awards of the government's educational technology tentacle, Becta, because the literary deployment of porkers "raises cultural issues".

The CD-Rom - produced by Newcastle-based Shoo-fly - is aimed at primary school kids, but the judges said they had "concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues", according to the BBC.

The book recently secured the "Best Primary Resource and Innovation in Education" prize at the Education Resource Awards, but Becta explained to the publishers that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community"..................................................

This just had to happen, well quite frankly who gives a damn about what the Muslim community thinks.

This is another utterly stupid act of dhimimitude and oversensitivity.When are they going to declare Animal Farm unclean or unfit after all the Pig was the leader (if I remember correctly).

Piglet, Teddy Bears and now the three little Pigs, what idiotic people are making these fatuous decisions....

Note from AOW: Below is an excerpt from the January 23, 2008 article in the BBC News:

A story based on the Three Little Pigs fairy tale has been turned by a government agency's awards panel as the subject matter could offend Muslims.

The digital book, re-telling the classic story, was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

Becta, the government's educational technology agency, is a leading partner in the annual Bett Award for schools.

The judges also attacked Three Little Cowboy Builders for offending builders.

The book's creative director, Anne Curtis, said the idea that including pigs in a story could be interpreted as racism was "like a slap in the face".

'Cultural issues'

The CD-Rom digital version of the traditional story of the three little pigs, called Three Little Cowboy Builders, is aimed at primary school children.

But judges at this year's Bett Award said that they had "concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

The Three Little Cowboy Builders has already been a prize winner at the recent Education Resource Award - but its Newcastle-based publishers, Shoo-fly, were turned down by the Bett Award panel.

The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-Rom highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

They also warned that the story might "alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)".

The judges criticised the stereotyping in the story of the unfortunate pigs: "Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"...

Huh??? "The Three Little Pigs" is a children's story! Does "Little Red Riding Hood" create offensive stereotypes too? What about "Cinderella"? Give me a break, O easily-offended ones!

Of course, the statue of a boar is potentially offensive to Muslims, too (emphases mine):

A historic statue of a wild boar is unlikely to return to Derby's Arboretum, because it could offend Muslims living nearby. The Florentine Boar stood in the Derby park from 1840 to 1942, when it was beheaded by flying masonry during an air raid. Derby City Council had hoped to replace the statue with an identical replica when plans for a massive overhaul of the park were first considered a decade ago. But following reservations raised by some people in Normanton about a new boar statue, the authority decided to consult with local community leaders.

At a meeting of the council's minority ethnic communities advisory committee it was recommended that the boar be replaced with something else because of the strength of feeling among nearby residents as pigs are perceived as offensive creatures by many Muslims. Derwent Ward councillor Suman Gupta said, "If the statue of the boar is put back at the Arboretum I have been told that it will not be there the next day, or at least it won't be in the same condition the next day at least. We should not have the boar because it is offensive to some of the groups in the immediate area."...

Comment to that article:

I was amazed to read that for ethnic reasons the historic statue of the Florentine Boar may not be returned to the Arboretum. If this decision is upheld, how long will it be before the sale of bacon is banned and white cows are allowed to wander down the motorways? I am an atheist, but I am tolerant to the religious beliefs of others where such beliefs do not impact on their place in this society or myself. I express my beliefs, but I do not impose them on others.

No doubt this logo would be offensive as well:



Last summer, Mr. AOW and I visited the Gigglin' Pig store in upstate New York. There, I bought a Gigglin' Pig baseball cap, black with a hot-pink pig's head. I don't see the cap on the store's web site. Perhaps the cap is available only at the retail center. Anyway, I plan to start sporting my cute little cap as soon as the weather here warms up. I want to see if my cap and I are deemed offensive.

Regular readers here know me and my push-the-envelope attitude:

Turn the page ....

The Bible Is "Unclean"

Excerpt from this January 15, 2008 article in the UK's Daily Express, via this posting at Infidel Bloggers Alliance:

A MUSLIM store worker refused to serve a customer buying a children’s book on Christianity because she said it was “unclean”.

Shopper Sally Friday felt publicly humiliated at a branch of Marks & Spencer when she tried to pay for First Bible Stories as a gift for her young grandson.When she put the book on the check-out counter, the young assistant refused to touch it, declared it was unclean and summoned another member of staff to serve instead....

There's been an outcry, of course, and from several sides:

Last night politicians and religious leaders supported her in condemning the high street giant and reigniting the debate over religious beliefs in the workplace.

Conservative MP Philip Davies said the refusal to serve Mrs Friday, 69, was “unacceptable” and “damaging” to community relations.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, described the assistant’s comments as “offensive” and called for Marks & Spencer to carry out a thorough investigation.

The sensitivities of Muslim employees are not limited to Marks & Spencer:

Mrs Friday’s treatment is just the latest example of Muslim staff refusing to serve customers on religious grounds.

In October 2006, Lloyds chemist was forced to apologise to mother Jo-Ann Thomas after a Muslim pharmacist refused her a morning-after contraceptive pill on religious grounds in Rotherham.

A smoker was refused cigarettes at a Cambridge store in January last year because the Muslim shop assistant said it was against her religion to sell tobacco.

Islamic checkout staff at Sainsbury’s who refuse to sell alcohol are allowed to opt out of handling bottles and cans of drink by calling other staff to take their place.

Other staff have refused to work stacking shelves with wine, beer and spirits and have been found alternative roles in the company.

Odd that these incidents involving Muslims' sensitivities keep cropping up in Western countries: a UK dentist who refused to treat a female patient if she didn't wear a hijab, UK doctors demanding alcohol-free germicides, Minneapolis cab drivers who refuse to transport liquor in their taxis, a clerk who refused to check out bacon at her cash register in an American grocery store. A more detailed list is HERE, at The Amboy Times. And the list keeps growing.

Could it be that Muslim sensitivities are becoming more and more obvious because firm stands against such self-righteous behavior exhibited by some Muslim employees? Or is there another reason? As ever, I'm interested in your comments.

(Crossposted at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

Turn the page ....

The Union Jack As A JHijab

The following post by Pastorius is lifted in its entirety from Infidel Bloggers Alliance:




The British seem to be doing everything they can to invite Muslims in to take over their country. So, I wonder if they think Muslims become "cheerio" Muslims? It seems to me more likely that, were Britain to become majority Muslim, it would be like any other country in the Islamic world; backward.

Click here to view the British Embassy website.

Note from AOW: CLICK HERE and follow the directions to view the slide show The Art of Integration Exhibition: Islam in Britain’s Green and Pleasant Lands.

[END OF THIS POSTING]

Turn the page ....

Challenging Shari'a Law

(All emphases by Always On Watch)
Photo credit
Recently, Saudi Arabia defended the sentence passed on a nineteen-year-old Muslima who was gang raped. Originally she was sentenced to ninety lashes, but upon review the Saudi General Court in Saudi increased her sentence to 200 lashes. The woman had defied shari'a law in that she was in the company of an unrelated male. According to this November 21, 2007 article in the Washington Post,

The attack occurred in 2006. The victim says she was in a car with a male student she used to know trying to retrieve a picture of her. She says two men got into the car and drove them to a secluded area where she was raped by seven men. Her friend also was assaulted.

Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by a system of religious courts according to the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islamic law.

Our State Department has "expressed astonishment" over the barbarism of punishing the victim. Hello, State Department? Are you unaware of how Saudi enforces shari'a law? Are you aware of how all-encompassing shari'a law is in some Muslim countries? According to this source,

[C]alling the Sharia 'law' can be misleading, as Sharia extends beyond law. Sharia is the totality of religious, political, social, domestic and private life.

[...]

Dogmatically, Sharia is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong, it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of God.

According to this article in the Washington Post, the victim's attorney has himself become a target because he has repeatedly challenged the application of shari'a law in the Saudi justice system:

Saudi officials have revoked the license of human rights lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, who has handled the country's most controversial cases and defended a gang-rape victim sentenced to jail time and lashes.

Lahem, 36, faces a disciplinary hearing Dec. 5 to determine the length of his suspension.

Lahem is accused by the prosecutor general of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image," according to an official letter he received Monday.

Since he started practicing law almost five years ago, Lahem has defended clients whom other lawyers refused, including a school administrator suspended for criticizing the religious establishment, a man convicted of promoting homosexuality for saying it was genetic, three political reformists seeking a constitutional monarchy, and the first Saudis suing the country's powerful religious police.

Lahem said that losing his license would be a blow to the country's budding human rights movement.

"If I am banned from practicing law, nobody will dare go up against the judiciary again," said Lahem, a slight man with a limp from a childhood accident. "If I win, it will open a new chapter for human rights in Saudi Arabia."....

At the same time that this modern-thinking Saudi attorney is himself facing a legal battle, we read the following in the Telegraph, a news source in the UK:

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

[...]

Mr Yusuf told the programme he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country. "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious — it's just a cultural thing."

Sharia's great strength was the effectiveness of its penalties, he said. Those who appeared before religious courts would avoid re-offending so as not to bring shame on their families.

Some lawyers welcomed the advance of what has become known as "legal pluralism".

Dr Prakash Shah, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such tribunals "could be more effective than the formal legal system".

In his book Islam in Britain, Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, says there is an "alternative parallel unofficial legal system" that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis.

"Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their traditions," he says. These are based on sharia councils, set up in Britain to help Muslims solve family and personal problems.

Sharia councils may grant divorces under religious law to a woman whose husband refuses to complete a civil divorce by declaring his marriage over. There is evidence that these councils are evolving into courts of arbitration.

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. "It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it's less awesome an environment than the English courts," he said.

Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.

And to add to the irony, this source states the following:

Sharia is primarily meant for all Muslims, but applies to a certain extent also for people living inside a Muslim society. Muslims are not totally bound by the Sharia when they live or travel outside the Muslim world.

As at least some in Saudi are attempting to modernize its interpretation of shari'a law, will the West be allowing the entire camel into the tent?

Turn the page ....

The British Exodus

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

According to this article in the Telegraph UK, Britain is undergoing an exodus on the scale of one British citizen emigrating every three minutes (some 400,000 annually) at the same time that more than half a million foreigners arrive in a single year. Such a large exodus of British citizens has not occurred there in almost fifty years.

Are these emigrants fleeing? If so, from what?
-----------
My UK friends are increasingly telling me, "Britain doesn't feel like home any more." Some might write off their comments as racism. But is the basis of my friends' concerns racism? Maybe, but I don't perceive my British friends as racists. Instead, their concerns seem rooted in the concern that they are losing their British culture.

According to the article, despite the increased rate of emigration, the population of Britain is increasing every year, to the tune of the size of the city of Bristol.

Furthermore, as the population grows, pressures on the UK system of public services are increasing:

In a bid to deflect criticism and fulfill Gordon Brown's controversial conference pledge to create "British jobs for British workers", the Government will today announce plans to create millions more adult training places to ensure that people living in Britain have the skills to compete for jobs with immigrants.

Read the entire article.

Recently, this article appeared in the Evening Standard. Excerpt:

Women are being given controversial "virginity repair" operations on the NHS [National Health Services], it emerged last night.

[...]

Doctors said most patients are immigrants or British of ethnic origin.

The trend has been condemned by critics as a sign of social regression driven by Islamic fundamentalists.

Apparently, this surgical procedure is gaining in popularity (connection to the above-cited figures on immigration?), even though, so far, such surgeries remain small:

...Dr Hend [a gynecologist at the Regency Clinic in London] said he was surprised by the "very good response" to the service and said there is "big competition on the market".

"They might be British of ethnic background, they might be immigrants, or some people come from abroad, Asia, Middle East, the Gulf, and they don't want to have it done back home," he added.

Dr Hend said demand is increasing, particularly from UK residents....

Labour MP Ann Cryer stated the following:

"It is a form of abuse of women and it may be that the woman who is asking for the operation to be done does not recognise the abuse that is taking place against her, but in later life she certainly will.

"We have to also ask whether our National Health Service should be providing this sort of facility. I don't think it should be available on the NHS."

Tory health spokesman Mike Penning also weighed in:

"If there is any cultural or other pressure being put on the women from any source to have this done, that would be a very retrograde step.

"If a woman has been violated or raped and lost her virginity, clearly everything possible should be done to assist her.

"But what nobody would understand is if taxpayers' money is being used to fund operations of this kind for cultural or cosmetic reasons."

Read the entire article. Talk about a bizarre procedure, with even more bizarre motivation!

In a posting entitled "Hip or Hymen: Let the NHS Decide," Raven contrasts the virginity-repair surgeries with NHS's denial of surgery to Mrs. Kinley-Manton, a British woman who needed hip-replacement surgery:

What should concern people is the stark reality of a culture that disregards a real medical condition vs. a politically correct and religiously based “demand”.

Muslim non-virgin women should be the ones going to other countries and paying for their own non essential surgeries with their own money; not slightly to moderately overweight women who could very well end up living in nursing homes for the lack of a simple and very effective surgery. Of course Mrs. Kinley-Manton could claim herself a Muslim, demand a hymen repair and perhaps as an added benefit ask for the hip replacement surgery: She would probably have a good chance of getting both.

As the demographics of the UK undergoes more changes, as mentioned in the first-cited article here, will the NHS be required to adapt to the religious demands of Muslims? And will similar adaptations occur here the United States?

Turn the page ....

Belated Ramadan Celebration

The ominous clouds over Rufford Primary School symbolize the gathering storm of the Islamification of the West. I'm seeing a lot of symbolism these days. Part of my ramping-up process, no doubt.

This October 31, 2007 article, "Teachers' Muslim Dress Order," in its entirety:

A SCHOOL was yesterday accused of MAKING teachers dress up as Asians for a day – to celebrate a Muslim festival.

Kids at the 257-pupil primary have also been told to don ethnic garb even though most are Christians.

The morning assembly will be open to all parents – but dads are BARRED from a women-only party in the afternoon because Muslim husbands object to wives mixing with other men.

Just two members of staff – a part-time teacher and a teaching assistant – are Muslim.

Yesterday a relative of one of the 39 others said: “Staff have got to go along with it – or let’s face it, they would be branded racist.

“Who would put their job on the line? They have been told they have to embrace the day to show their diversity. But they are not all happy.”

The day aims to belatedly mark Eid, the end of Ramadan.

Sally Bloomer, head of Rufford primary school in Lye, West Midlands, insisted: “I have not heard of any complaints.

“It’s all part of a diversity project to promote multi-culturalism.”

Don't you just love the beginning of the article? The teachers had to dress up as "Asians." And what is this nonsense about a belated celebration? Can the oh-so-multicultural wait until the next Ramadan to push their agenda? I guess not. They are pressing their advantage, and the targets acquiesce and appease.

HERE, from one of my earlier postings, is a reminder as to what Ramadan celebrates — the codification of militant Islam. From this Islamic source, which I cited in my posting about Ramadan:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful.

The battle of Badr was the most important among the Islamic battles of Destiny. For the first time the followers of the new faith were put into a serious test. Had victory been the lot of the pagan army while the Islamic Forces were still at the beginning of their developments, the faith of Islam could have come to an end.

No one was aware of the importance of the outcome of the Battle as the Prophet (S.A.W.) himself. We might read the depth of his anxiety in his prayerbefore the beginning of the Battle when he stood up supplicating his Lord:

God this is Quraish. It has come with all its arrogance and boastfulness, trying to discredit Thy Apostle. God, I ask Thee to humiliate them tomorrow. God, if this Muslim band will perish today, Thou shall not be worshipped.

[...]

This battle laid the foundation of the Islamic State...

The UK is ahead of the United States when it comes to Islamification and dhimmitude. By how many years? After all, last spring "Open Tent Day" was celebrated in Amherst, New Hampshire:

The picture's caption reads as follows:

Second-grader Lucas Bellipanni tries on the traditional thobe, gutra and igal during the ‘Open Tent’ night at the Amherst Middle School.

Can you see the parallels with what happened at Rufford Primary School?

In public and secluded locations, Western nations are, in effect, being forced to celebrate Eid al-Fitr, but not at the point of the literal sword. Rather, the compulsion is political correctness, multicultural, and the fear of losing one's job — all of which serve as weapons of the cultural jihad.

I feel like this on a regular basis:

Turn the page ....

Creeping Shari'a

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

Two recent stories, both involving medical professionals, from the UK:

1. Story from September 27, 2007 edition of the Times Online:

A Muslim dentist insisted that a young woman wear an Islamic headscarf before he would agree to treat her for toothache, the General Dental Council was told yesterday.

The patient, a community nurse, alleges that she reluctantly told Omer Butt, 31, who runs a dental practice in Bury, Greater Manchester, that she was a nonpractising Muslim.

It is alleged that the dentist then told her that he would refuse to register her as an NHS patient if she did not cover her head. She was in so much pain that she agreed to borrow a scarf from a nurse at the clinic.

The panel was told that when the dentist, quoting the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, told her to wait in the waiting room, she felt so humiliated that she left the clinic and made a complaint about his behaviour.

Mr Butt denies the charge that he has undermined public confidence in his profession by discriminating against a patient and failing to act in her best interests. If found guilty of the charge by the council’s professional misconduct committee he could be struck off the register.

After learning of the charges laid against him, he wrote to the council praising Allah. He referred to the patient as his “sister” and concluded: “May Allah protect us all from the evils of Shaitan [Satan].”

John Snell, for the council, said that the woman, referred to as Patient A, went to see Mr Butt at his clinic in April, 2005.

Mr Snell said: “He asked her if she was a Muslim and she asked him why it mattered. He said he needed to know.”

The nurse allegedly told her: “Inside the surgery it is Mr Butt’s world and his rules that apply.”

Patient A told the hearing: “I did ask what would happen if I did not wear a headscarf and was told I would not be able to register there as a patient. I did feel that I was under duress.”

Andrew Hockton, defending the dentist, said that Mr Butt asked Muslim women to cover everything except their hands and faces “in order to protect his honour”.

The hearing continues. [Hat-tip to Kender, who alerted me to the above story]

2. Story from the October 7, 2007 edition of the Times Online:

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.

Some trainee doctors say learning to treat the diseases conflicts with their faith, which states that Muslims should not drink alcohol and rejects sexual promiscuity.

A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.

The religious objections by students have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions.

It will intensify the debate sparked last week by the disclosure that Sainsbury’s is permitting Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers’ alcohol purchases on religious grounds. It means other members of staff have to be called over to scan in wine and beer for them at the till.

Critics, including many Islamic scholars, see the concessions as a step too far, and say Muslims are reneging on their professional responsibilities.

This weekend, however, it emerged that Sainsbury’s is also allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds.

The BMA said it had received reports of Muslim students who did not want to learn anything about alcohol or the effects of overconsumption. “They are so opposed to the consumption of it they don’t want to learn anything about it,” said a spokesman.

The GMC said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate”. Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice”.

Shazia Ovaisi, a GP in north London, said one of her male Muslim contemporaries at medical school failed to complete his training because he refused to examine a woman patient as part of his final exams.

“He was academically gifted, one of the best students, but gradually he got in with certain Islamic groups and started to become more radical,” said Ovaisi.

“You could see there was a change in his personality as time went by. During the final exams he was supposed to treat a female patient in hospital. He refused to do it, even though it would have been a very basic examination, nothing intrusive.

“But he refused and as a result he failed his exams. I was quite shocked and disappointed about it because I don’t see there being anything in our religion that prohibits us from examining male and female patients.”

Both the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Doctors and Dentist Association said they were aware of students opting out but did not support them.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, of the Islamic Medical Association, said: “To learn about alcohol, to learn about sexually transmitted disease, to learn about abortion, it gives us more evidence to campaign against it. There is a difference between learning and practising.

“It is obligatory for Muslim doctors and students to learn about everything. The prophet said, ‘Learn about witchcraft, but don’t practise it’.”

[Hat-tip to Mark Alexander for alerting me to the above story]

I've been doing research for an upcoming speech and learned that, according to some sources, shari'a law is supposed to apply only to Muslims or to those living under Islamic rule. But Muslims living in Western nations are pushing the envelope. The above two examples are extremes, but other less obvious attempts at applying shari'a law and Islamic customs are also proceeding, most in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism.

Will the West refuse to slide further into dhimmitude (defined HERE by Bat Ye'or)? The National Health Service of the UK must take a solid stand against Muslims such as those in the above two stories! Otherwise, the pushing of the envelope will continue to get worse.

The greater danger of Islamification lies in the West's concessions and in the media's not making certain stories very public, not in the sporadic attacks by jihadists, though the latter get a lot of attention. The West's own desire to be tolerant is leading us down the path of the destruction of Western civilization. No wonder I'm sick!

Turn the page ....