Whoever wins, we lose

Londoners really are spoilt for choice in the forthcoming mayoral elections. Who can differentiate between the three towering statesmen, those intellectual colossi and ornaments of public life, who have done us the honour of seeking our votes? Not me, that's for sure! To me, they all seem exactly the same. Consider the forthright and insightful approach that they've all taken to the question of Islam:

Boris Johnson was today forced to defend his stance on Islam, insisting he believed it was a "religion of peace".

What an original way of looking at it!

The Conservatives candidate for London mayor, Mr Johnson, has been criticised for an article he wrote in the wake of the 7/7 London terror attacks in 2005 claiming "Islam is the problem".

But in a televised debate today, Mr Johnson said the problem was extremists taking the words of the Koran out of context.

No trite platitudes from independent-minded Boris! He really does offer a fresh perspective. And isn't it impressive that he knows so much more about the correct context for Koranic verses than, you know, actual Muslims?

In fairness, Johnson did then follow up by suggesting that "there has certainly been too much uncounted and unfunded immigration into London". Which is correct. However, one might be inclined to take him rather more seriously on immigration, had he not repeatedly called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Note to Johnson: you do not reduce immigration by rewarding people for entering the country illegally.

But Johnson's genius was more than matched by the wisdom of the incumbent:

The current Mayor, Labour's Ken Livingstone, said London could be a "model for the world" in terms of its ethnic diversity.

But he was forced to justify his decision to share a platform with the controversial preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The cleric has described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating as "a possibility" in certain circumstances.

He's also expressed support for suicide bombers.

Mr Livingstone said: "He is a man who is prepared to say al Qaida is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation."

However, I think that, on this occasion, the award for most idiotic candidate has to go to Brian Paddick, formerly Britain's most senior homosexual policeman, and also, we now discover, a renowned Islamic scholar:

Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said: "What I said in the immediate aftermath of July 7 was that the term Islamic terrorism, as far as I was concerned, is a contradiction in terms.

"In that there is nothing in the Koran to justify the murder of 52 innocent men, women and children."

First, that's patently untrue. There are plenty of verses in the Koran which could be, and are, used by practising Muslims (a category which does not include Brian Paddick), to justify the use of violence against non-Muslims. There are also plenty of Islamic scholars who are prepared to endorse such violence. On what basis, I wonder, does Paddick assert that his knowledge and understanding of Islam is greater than theirs?

Secondly, it it deeply disingenuous to suggest that when devout Muslims commit acts of terrorism, in the name of Islam, it should be called anything other than "Islamic terrorism". But presumably Paddick prefers Jacqui Smith's Newspeak definition of such atrocities as "anti-Islamic activity".

At a time when the majority of British people see Islam - not a "tiny minority of extremists", but the religion as a whole - as a threat to our country, the three leading contenders for the mayoralty of our capital city are bending over backwards, and performing all sorts of linguistic contortions, to avoid saying anything that might conceivably upset any Muslim. On the fortieth anniversary of Enoch Powell's great speech, when the nation is crying out for someone to take a similar stand against Islam, craven politicians of all parties are merely spouting meaningless platitudes about "religions of peace". This applies not only to the mayoral candidates, but to the overwhelming majority of politicians, and certainly to the senior figures in all three main parties. I have no idea whether Livingstone or Johnson will emerge victorious on polling day (at least it won't be Paddick, thank Heavens). But I can be sure of one thing: whoever wins, London and Britain will lose.

More Newspeak

A new counter-terrorism phrasebook has been drawn up within Whitehall to advise civil servants on how to talk to Muslim communities about the nature of the terror threat without implying they are specifically to blame.

Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.

Whoever could imagine that such a link might exist?

In any event, describing people like the July 7th bombers (for example) as "Islamic terrorists" does not necessarily imply anything. It is simply fair labelling: these people were Muslims, and they committed terrorist attacks, which they justified on the basis of their interpretation of Islamic theology. The fact that most Muslims don't blow people up, and that there may be other interpretations of Islamic theology, does not change any of this.

It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a "confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures". Instead it suggests that talking about the idea of shared values works much more effectively.

40% of Muslims in Britain want to impose Sharia law upon the country. 36% of young Muslims favour executing those who convert away from Islam. Apologies if my frequent reiteration of those figures is getting boring, but they really do demonstrate the breadth of the ideological gulf between Islamic and British cultural values. Talk of widespread "shared values" is just myth-making.

The Guardian goes on to tell us that this newspeak represents "a new sophistication", on the part of the government. Which is, I suppose, one way of expressing it, although I prefer the more concise 'dishonesty'. It is dishonest, rather than "sophisticated", to pretend that terrorism carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam. Still, what else do you expect from a government which characterises terrorist attacks by Muslims against non-Muslims as "anti-Islamic activity"?

Embarrassing Parents

Like ATW's JammieWearingFool, I'm not overly impressed with Omar (son of Osama) Bin Laden's claim that he wants to be a "peace envoy". However, the following extract from a report by China's Xinhua News Agency did provide me with mild amusement:

...Omar also called on his father to try to stop using bombs and weapons and to find another way to reach his goals.

And some people think they have it bad when their father gets over-competitive at sports day...

Hat-tip: Jihad Watch, which also has some rather more serious comments on young Bin's rejection of his father's methods.

Black is white; white, black

In March, I reported on the news that the EU had called on its vassals national governments to stop using the phrase "Islamic terrorists", in favour of the term "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam". As the (sadly, ex)-blogger Michael Cadwallader commented, it "just rolls off the tongue".

Well, now I read that our beloved government has gone one better. Today's terrorists no longer merely "abusively invoke Islam"; rather they are positively Islamophobic. Well, at least that allows the liberals to designate them as a legitimate enemy...

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

In her first major speech on radicalisation, Miss Smith repeatedly used the phrase "anti-Islamic".

In one passage she said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief.

"Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic'.

Another section referred to enlisting the Muslim community against "anti-Islamic activity".

It is marvellous, isn't it, that our government is filled with such experts in Islamic theology as the Imam Jacqui Smith. We must all be grateful that she knows so much more about Islam than, er, Muslims.

The fact is, that Islamic terrorists are committing terror attacks because they are Muslims. This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists. But it is to say that the acts of murder or attempted murder committed by some Muslims are carried out in the name of Islam, and under the banner of Islam, rather than for any other reason, or in the name of any other cause. These terrorists target those whom they perceive as being genuinely "anti-Islamic", and view themselves as being "Islamic terrorists" (which, being Muslims who engage in terrorist activities, is what they are). If they themselves were really "anti-Islamic", then they would actually target Muslims. It is simply irrational to deny this. But the government seems determined to try.

Some Muslims may well find it offensive when Islamic terrorists are linked to the Islamic religion. But this is hardly the fault of those who make the obvious link. Rather, it is the fault of those who actually carry out these crimes under the Islamic aegis. Those Muslims who take offence at the linking of their religion with terrorism should focus their anger on those among their coreligionists who commit or support terrorist attacks, rather than upon the westerners who remark upon the abundantly evident connection between Islam and terrorist violence.

Meanwhile, I am driven to ask, if people who bomb non-Muslims in the name of Islam are now "anti-Islamic", what does that make those of us who genuinely oppose and dislike Islam? Are we now Islamophiles?

Hat-tip: Jihad Watch; thanks also to Homophobic Horse

Pot, meet kettle

Without wishing to belittle the possible political significance (not to mention the human tragedy) of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, I must say that I laughed heartily when I saw that Gordon Brown has accused her killers of being "cowards afraid of democracy".

Because, for the avoidance of doubt, this is the selfsame Gordon Brown who has in the past few months backed down from holding a general election, and reneged on Labour's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the EU constitution. Yes, it's that Gordon Brown. Not another one.

Great euphemisms of our time

"Hunting the Loch Ness monster" - an activity (ooh er) commonly engaged in by "militants":

AN ELECTRICIAN accused of being a Muslim holy warrior claimed he was hunting Nessie during an alleged jihad training course.

Somali-born Kader Ahmed, 20, told a court he went on a trip arranged by preacher Mohammed Hamid, 50, to Scotland at Christmas 2004.

He said they visited Inverness and Loch Ness and added: "I'd never been to Scotland before. It was very cold when we went up. It was snowing.

"It was very beautiful as well. I had never seen reindeer before."

He said they stopped near Loch Ness for a few days, sleeping in their minibus as it was too cold to camp, and tried to spot the elusive monster.

Ahmed, from east London, admits going on camping trips and paintballing sessions with Hamid's group, who included four of the men later convicted of the plot to bomb London on July 21, 2005.

But the trainee electrician, who was 17 when he met Hamid, told Woolwich Crown Court he assumed it was harmless fun "like Scouts or Cadets".

He denies three counts of attending a place used for terrorist training.

Hat-tip: Jihad Watch

Vaz and the terrorists

I see that my favourite MP is in the news again:

The MP who heads the parliamentary body scrutinising Britain’s counter-terrorism laws addressed a rally at which a plea for support for suicide bombers was broadcast, The Times has learnt.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, addressed the annual Tamil rally in the ExCel centre in East London.

He spoke after participants watched a televised address by Velupillai Prabhakaran, the commander of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a terrorist organisation banned by the Home Office.

Mr Vaz, the MP for Leicester East, was joined by a fellow Labour MP, Joan Ryan. Their presence drew an angry response from the Sri Lankan High Commission, which released a statement claiming that the event was a “clear violation of the UK terrorism laws”.

The rally was organised by British-based Tamils on the birthday of the Tamil Tiger leader. In his address, Mr Vaz told an audience of more than 10,000 people: “I understand the demands made by some for an independent Tamil state. They will grow, unless there is justice.”

The arch-Europhile does not, however, feel the same way about demands for an independent Britain.

Ms Ryan, the MP for Enfield North, told the rally: “I am sorry to have to remember the 70,000 innocent Tamils who lost their lives in the struggle. We must pursue the aims and values for which they lost their lives.”

Earlier in the day, Mr Prabhakaran, in full military dress and in front of the LTTE flag, appeared on six giant screens calling for “the entire Tamil-speaking world to rise up for the liberation of Tamil Eelam”.

In a reference to the LTTE’s use of suicide bombers, he said: “The immeasurable dedication and sacrifice of our heroes is delivering a message to the Sinhala nation.”

The Sri Lankan High Commission accused Mr Vaz yesterday of being “partisan to a proscribed terrorist group” and claimed that the event was organised by apologists for terrorists. “This event was organised by a front organisation of a terrorist group for fundraising and propaganda purposes,” a spokesman said.

When told of the contents of the LTTE leader’s speech and of the criticisms of the Sri Lankan Government, Mr Vaz, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils, responded: “I’m not really interested in [the contents of Mr Prabhakaran's speech].

“I was there to deliver a message from the all-party group, which is what I do. I was there to deliver a message from my constituents. I have many Tamil people in my constituency.” Mr Vaz said he was unaware that the Tamil leader was going to speak.

[...]

Ms Ryan also said that she did not realise that Mr Prabhakaran had spoken.

It would not have been difficult for them to work out that he might speak, however:

The date of the rally, November 27, Heroes Day, is linked with the LTTE. It falls on the birthday of Mr Prabhakaran, and it is marked by Tamil Tiger sympathisers around the world. Mr Prabhakaran’s speech from the Sri Lankan jungle has been televised at every previous UK Heroes Day.

So, either Vaz and Ryan agreed to speak at this event, without bothering to find out anything whatsoever about it, or they are lying (and you can't imagine Keith Vaz doing that, can you?). Either way, it doesn't reflect particularly well on them.

But then, what has Keith Vaz ever done that did reflect well on him?

Postscript: This is not the first time that Vaz has been associated with representatives of the Tamil Tigers. As documented by the Green Arrow back in July, he has in the past campaigned to have the UK-wide ban currently imposed on the political wing of the organisation lifted.

Some are more welcome than others

Last month I wrote that the Stop the War Coalition had invited Ibrahim Moussawi, chief foreign news editor for Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV station, to speak at its rather misnamed (considering that the representative of a genocidal terrorist organisation was among the speakers) "World Against War Conference". Despite Tory calls for the government to prevent Moussawi from entering Britain, he attended the conference, which was held last Saturday. Admittedly, his speech was rather more restrained than that given by George Galloway, who proclaimed Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah the rightful president of Lebanon, but nonetheless his presence shames both the Stop the War Coalition, who invited him, and the government, which, unlike its Irish counterpart, did nothing to prevent the entry of this terrorist propagandist into Britain.

But that's not all. Because, while Moussawi is free to enter Britain, and speak to a bunch of terrorist supporters and delusional liberals, the Israeli public security minister, Avi Dichter, has had to decline an invitation to give the keynote speech at a counter-terrorism seminar held at King's College London, for fear that if he set foot in this country, he would be arrested. This is because in 2005 Israeli "human rights activists" persuaded a British court to grant an arrest warrant against Mr Dichter, in relation to the assassination in 2002 of a Hamas terrorist by the Israeli Air Force, in which a number of Palestinian civilians were killed. As the then head of Israel's internal security service, Shin Bet, Mr Dichter had played a part in planning the operation.
English courts have jurisdiction to try suspected "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention, under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. While Mr Dichter would normally enjoy diplomatic immunity, he has been told that this would not apply in this case, since his visit to Britain would be in a personal, rather than a diplomatic capacity. The British government has reportedly promised the Israeli government that the law will be altered to ensure that Israeli officials can come to Britain without the threat of arrest hanging over them, and it is to be hoped that it will do so swiftly. But until it does, we have in this country an intolerable situation whereby Hezbollah propagandists can come and go as they please, but government ministers in the Middle East's only democracy cannot.

Idiotic Academic of the Day

THE head of a Celtic supporters' trust has provoked outrage by defending the singing of pro-IRA songs by the club's fans during matches.

Dr Jeanette Findlay [actually Ms Findlay - she doesn't have a PhD], who chairs the Celtic Trust, which represents supporters and small shareholders, claimed chants about the IRA were "songs from a war of independence".

She was speaking during an interview on BBC Radio Five Live's breakfast programme. Her comments prompted a furious response from listeners.

Dr Findlay, who is a research fellow and economics lecturer at Glasgow University, had been replying to questions by presenter Nicky Campbell about the trust's opposition to the appointment as club chairman of the former home secretary, John Reid, who was a cabinet minister at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Dr Findlay said the trust's opposition was to do with Mr Reid's "leading role in relation to what many believe is an illegal and immoral war".

Mr Campbell then asked her if she was more uncomfortable with the singing of pro-terrorist songs or the appointment of Mr Reid.

Dr Findlay responded: "I have tried to explain about the nature of Celtic as a club. It was founded to help the poor Irish immigrants to Scotland.

"They may take a particular view of the history, of what happened in Ireland, which is different from many other people, so I don't call those pro-terrorist songs. What history tells us is that it is facile to say that politics and sport will ever be separated."

Mr Campbell said he was not referring to songs such as The Fields of Athenry, but to "actually chanting: 'The IRA'."

She replied: "Many of those songs are songs from what was essentially a war of independence going back over a hundred years."

What a vile woman. Still, I can't say that I'm surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from within the groves of academe. After all, academics have repeatedly sided with the various terrorist organisations seeking to destroy Israel - supporting the IRA, or at least acting as an apologist for those who do, is simply in character for most of them.

Terrorists for Peace?

I read that the Tories have called on the government to ban the head of Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV station, Ibrahim Moussawi, from visiting the UK next month. Moussawi, who, as head of Al-Manar, has presided over the showing of, among other fascinating programmes, a series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, will be visiting the UK as a representative of Hezbollah, to speak at a conference scheduled for the first of December.

So, what conference is this, that Moussawi will be attending? The annual general meeting of Hizb-ut Tahrir, perhaps? Or a gathering of neo-Nazis and rabid anti-Semites?
Well, no. Actually it's the "World Against War Conference", organised by that splendid organisation, the Stop the War Coalition, where Moussawi will be speaking alongside such heroes as George Galloway, and the "campaigning comedian", Mark Thomas. Why, next to such creatures, he has half a chance of coming off as the sane and rational one!

Now, whatever one's opinions regarding the Iraq war, or any other war, it ought to be patently obvious by now that, whatever the Stop the War Coalition's interests may be, stopping war is not among them. If they were genuinely anti-war, would they invite to their conference a representative of an organisation which exists primarily for the purpose of waging war, an organisation that has carried out terrorist attacks against targets as far afield as Argentina, an organisation whose leader has been quoted as saying that "if Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"? No, of course they wouldn't.
This is not the first time that the Stop the War Coalition has shown its support, not for peace, but for Hezbollah. In August 2006, a great abundance of Hezbollah flags (you know, the ones with the big gun in the middle, which might give some indication as to their stance regarding the use of violence) were on display at the Stop the War Coalition march demanding that Israel call a ceasefire in its campaign against Hezbollah. No, the Stop the War Coalition has never truly been anti-war. They're fine with war and violence - just as long as it's waged against the West.

Some are more equal than others

In the wake of the recent conviction of the self-styled "Lyrical Terrorist", Samina Malik, the Muslim Council of Britain's Inayat Bunglawala has penned a characteristically rambling piece, entitled "An attack on liberty", at the Guardian's Comment is Free site. After ranting for some time on various stock Muslim grievances, he concludes by saying that "a foolish young woman who did not harm anyone now faces a maximum 10-year term in prison for what can only be described as a thought crime".

Now, some might say that possessing terrorist propaganda and joining an organisation, Jihad Way, which aimed to disseminate such propaganda and to support al-Qaeda goes some way beyond mere "thought crime". Personally, I would definitely say that organisations such as Jihad Way ought to be illegal, although I don't really think that she should be punished for her (admittedly appalling) poetry, or for downloading offensive material from the internet. In any event, I fail to see why Samina Malik should be prosecuted, while the likes of Anjem Choudhary are left free to incite murder in peace. So, to some extent I do actually agree with Inayat Bunglawala, and I am certainly glad to see that he is taking a stance against thought crime, an issue which greatly concerns me, and about which I have written on numerous occasions.

But hang on a minute! This Inayat Bunglawala, this champion of free speech, this enemy of the criminalisation of thoughts, surely he cannot be the same Inayat Bunglawala who, in 2005, wrote in favour of the introduction of laws creating a new crime of "incitement to religious hatred"? He must be a different Bunglawala from the one who then said that:

We believe stirring up hatred against people simply because of their religious beliefs or lack of them should be regarded as a social evil...We understand the concerns about free speech, but we think that they are totally misplaced.

And he can't possibly be the same Bunglawala who last year supported plans to widen the scope of the laws against "inciting racial hatred", following the acquittals of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett. No, because anyone who felt that Nick Griffin should go to prison for saying that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" (which statement, I would point out, does not contain any explicit or implicit threat, nor any reference to individual Muslims), but that punishing Samina Malik for writing such delightful couplets as "Kafirs your time will come soon/and no one will save you from your doom" and "For the living martyrs are awakening/and Kuffars world soon to be shaking" is "an attack on liberty", would be a complete hypocrite.

Postscript: To be fair to Bunglawala, he's not the only person displaying a distinct hypocrisy over this. Following Malik's conviction, Martin Sullivan, of the Islamophobia Watch blog, quoted approvingly from both Bunglawala's article, and Boyd Tonkin's rather better written piece on the same theme. Yet in the past he too has repeatedly come out in favour of restricting the free speech of people like the BNP.

Legitimate targets

Via North East Scotland Nationalists, the following story:

A British teenager who is accused of plotting to blow up members of the British National Party appeared in court today.

The 17-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared at Westminster Magistrates Court in London to face two charges under the Terrorism Act 2000.

It is alleged that he had in his possession a copy of the "Anarchists' Cookbook", containing instructions about how to make home-made explosives.

The charges are that he was in possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year and that he collected or had information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

The teenager, who is a British national but has dual nationality with Pakistan, stood in the dock wearing a baggy, blue hooded top.

"Dual nationality with Pakistan". No religion mentioned, but I wouldn't mind betting that he isn't a Pakistani Christian.

I am not at all surprised to see that BNP members are now being targeted by Muslim terrorists. Not only is the BNP the only British party of any significance that is prepared to come out and challenge Islam, but it has also been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of demonisation by all three major parties, and the MSM. There have also been a number of cases in which public figures have openly advocated the use of violence against members and supporters of the BNP. For example, in November 2004 the "alternative" (as in "alternative to funny") comedian Jeremy Hardy expressed the view that those who support the BNP "should be shot in the back of the head". Earlier in the same year, the singer Billy Bragg announced that he was "in favour" of "duffing [BNP members] up in the street". This constant drip feed of anti-BNP propaganda is in many ways comparable to the campaign of vilification with which the Dutch establishment targeted Pim Fortuyn. And we all know what happened there.

Of course, many Muslims are quite capable of behaving in a violent manner against any non-Muslim, and especially against one who opposes them, straight off their own bat. They do not need the encouragement of the likes of Billy Bragg in order to get aggressive. But the vitriolic and hysterical anti-BNP language of many in the British media-political elite does often imply that anti-BNP violence is justified - that the BNP are legitimate targets - thereby reinforcing the views of those who would like to commit violence against the BNP anyway, and perhaps encouraging others, who would not otherwise wish to commit anti-BNP violence, to seek do so. If - perhaps when - a BNP member is murdered solely for being a member of this legal political party, then people like Billy Bragg and Jeremy Hardy will have blood on their hands (of course, being communists, they'll probably regard that as a point of pride).

Postscript: Laban Tall points out that al-Beeb is once again spinning for Islam and the left in its coverage of this story. Their report of this trial completely fails to mention either that BNP members were the intended targets of the alleged plot, or that the defendant in this case has dual British-Pakistani nationality. As with the case of Nicholas Roddis, the BBC is doing all it can, short of actually telling outright lies, to imply that this is just another one of those white British Christian terrorist plots. They really have given up even trying to be fair and impartial purveyors of fact, and the sooner the whole corporation is shut down the better.

Rowan Williams: Morally and Intellectually Retarded

Via Dhimmi Watch, I find the latest display of completely indescribable stupidity from Rowan Williams:

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the eve of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America yesterday to defend religion against claims that it promotes division and violence.

Dr Rowan Williams said that although Islam and Christianity had histories scarred with violence, they carried the “seeds of non-violence and non possessive witness.”

Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said.

Well, he may interpret it that way, but Yusuf al-Qaradawi does not. He interprets it as meaning that one can wage violent war against those living in Dar al-Harb ("the domain of war", i.e. non-Islamic lands). Al-Qaradawi is seen by Muslims as one of the greatest contemporary Islamic scholars. Rowan Williams, by contrast, is seen by Muslims as a useful idiot, and by everyone else as simply an idiot. Which one do you think knows more about Koranic interpretation?

He added that both faiths could offer society an ideal of peaceful co-existence despite their violent histories because they were guided by beliefs that transcended human conflict.

Note the moral equivalency between Christians and Muslims. Williams appears not to regard Christianity as in any way superior to Islam: both offer an equally good vision of peaceful co-existence. Now that's a pretty odd position for an Archbishop of Canterbury to adopt. Not an unexpected one from this particular Archbishop, though.

The Archbishop’s lecture to a Christian Muslim Forum conference in Cambridge follows mounting criticism of religion as dangerous and destabilising.

While there are some who attack all religion in this manner, I can think of one religion which has carried out more than its fair share of dangerous and destabilising actions, and which consequently tends to get rather a lot of (richly deserved) criticism. Can you guess which one I mean? Because Rowan Williams can't.

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”.

He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg.

He said that Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that “simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor.”

Now, this is the real low point. As Robert Spencer at Dhimmi Watch points out, Williams actually appears to be saying that the 9/11 terrorists had a just cause, but simply went about expressing their justified grievance against violent US "oppression" in the wrong way. To say this at all is indicative of a severely dysfunctional moral compass. To say it on the eve of the anniversary of the attacks themselves is simply reprehensible.

al-Beeb: Biased beyond redemption

From the BBC:

A man has appeared in court accused of preparing acts of terrorism in his home town in South Yorkshire.

Nicholas Roddis, of Reedham Drive, Bramley, Rotherham, appeared at London's Old Bailey on Friday by video link from custody.

The 22-year-old was remanded in custody for a plea and case management hearing on 21 November.

At his next court appearance, the charge of preparing acts of terrorism will be put to him.

Another Robert Cottage, perhaps?

Well, no, actually. Because al-Beeb appears to have left out a rather salient detail regarding Mr Roddis. Thankfully, other, more reputable, news outlets were not quite so reticent. Here's the South Yorkshire local paper, The Star:

A WHITE Muslim convert has appeared in court accused of plotting to bomb his hometown of Rotherham.

Nicholas Roddis, aged 22, allegedly kept a list for attacking Rotherham, along with chemicals for making explosives and bomb-making recipes.

Counter terrorism police claim he also kept extremist propaganda including beheadings at his then home during a two-and-a-half year period.

This is not the first time that the BBC has deliberately misled licence fee payers in this manner. Some readers may have come across the Wroughton Hammer Attack case, in which a white schoolboy was subjected to a racist assault by a large gang of Pakistani thugs. Mysteriously, al-Beeb omitted to make any reference whatsoever to the case's racial aspect, only reporting the fact that an assault had taken place.

The BBC is supposed to be an impartial news organisation. Indeed, as the price for its guaranteed licence fee income, it has a positive obligation to be impartial imposed on it by its charter. However, it now has a liberal bias so deeply ingrained, that it is actively misrepresenting the facts that it reports, in order to avoid doing harm to its liberal agenda. The bias now goes so far, that it is too late to talk about reforming the corporation: the only solution is to close it down.

Hat-tip: Biased BBC

Bin Laden's new job...

...promoting hair dye.

Although he still keeps his hand in the old mass-murdering terrorist business too.

'Solicitor to the terrorists' under investigation

A leading solicitor is being investigated by police over allegations of bribery after a senior judge raised concerns about her conduct.

Mudassar Arani will be the subject of a criminal inquiry into whether she attempted to bribe a defendant in the recent July 21 bomb trial and asked the man to change his case.

The investigation will be conducted by Scotland Yard’s Specialist Crime Directorate. Depending on the outcome of that, she could face a charge of perverting the course of justice. That offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The Times has learnt that the investigation began this week after Mr Justice Fulford, the judge in the trial, expressed concerns about Ms Arani’s activities. Lawyers for Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, the so-called fifth bomber who abandoned an explosive device on July 21, 2005, said during the trial that Ms Arani had attempted to bribe him to change his case. She was said in court to have sent Mr Asiedu £650 in cash and a card marking the Islamic festival of Eid with the message “lots of love Mudassar Arani”.

It was further alleged that documents were smuggled to Mr Asiedu inside Belmarsh jail suggesting how he might change his defence case to tally with statements made by other defendants who were Ms Arani’s clients. At the end of the trial last month, the judge was highly critical in public of what he said were delaying tactics by Ms Arani and her clients which had prolonged the trial unnecessarily.

But it has now emerged that he raised the matter of the alleged bribery privately with prosecution lawyers.

While Miss Arani has, so far as I know, no previous criminal record, this would not be the first time that she has behaved in a manner that might not be regarded as entirely ethical: in 2005, she was sued for racial discrimination and non-payment of earnings by her former paralegal. More recently, she attracted attention after claiming that jailed terrorists should be given prisoner of war status.

Obviously, the investigation has only just commenced: while Mudassar Arani gives the strong impression of being a woman of rather dubious character, with an attachment to her terrorist clients that goes somewhat beyond mere professional interest, she has not yet been charged with anything, still less convicted. Still, it should be interesting to see how this pans out...

Prince Charles faces "represcusions"

In June, there was a piece at Pub Philosopher about the truly terrifying threat posed by Cornish terrorists, who were reportedly targeting such "celebrity chefs" as Jamie Oliver. Well, you can sympathise with that, can't you?

Now, I read that Prince Charles has been the target of threats by another bunch of incompetent IRA wannabees, the Welsh Republican Army. The threats relate to Charles's purchase of a farmhouse in Carmarthenshire: apparently, the WRA doesn't want the Prince of Wales living in their neck of the woods (again, one can sympathise), so they issued the following rather amusing statement:

We, the representatives of the Army Council of the Welsh Republican Army call upon Charles Windsor the English Prince and usurper of the Title Prince of Wales, to vacate his Welsh mansion Llwynywormwood, Myddfai, Llandovery, Carmarthenshire, by December 11th 2007 or become a legitimate target for Republican action.

We further call upon Mr Windsor to relinquish his claim to the title Prince of Wales. Failure to accept the terms of this warning will result in the most severe represcusions [sic].

I'm not sure, though, that Prince Charles has all that much to fear in terms of "represcusions", or even repercussions. The WRA is linked to the Free Wales Army, which attempted to blow Charles up back in 1969. Sadly for the FWA, its heroic bombers, evidently the spiritual forefathers of the Glasgow Airport terrorists, succeeded only in blowing themselves up.

Pogrom time!

I see that Strathclyde Police - who clearly have nothing better to do than pander to the Muslim victimhood complex - have revealed that there has been a shocking surge in "racist" crime following the recent attempts by hardline GPs to commit mass murder. Yes, in this latter-day Kristallnacht, the number of racially-motivated crimes in the West of Scotland has soared from a mere 200 (on average) in previous months, to a massive 258 in July. And of these, as many as 31 are related to the attack of the fanatical Galenists on Glasgow Airport. Apparently, among the more shocking crimes of the evil racists, was "name-calling", although the BBC report also mentions graffiti.

So, to put that in context, there have been an extra 58 racist attacks, spread across a population of 2.3 million people who live in the area covered by Strathclyde Police. That's an extra attack for every 39,655th person, folks! A pogrom if ever there was one.

Of course, what the BBC, and the Strathclyde Police, fail to mention is that, as the majority of racist crime nationwide is directed against whites, then it seems fairly likely that at least about 120 of those 258 attacks were targeted against native Scots. And, it also seems to me that the police have left a rather important incident out of their calculations: specifically, the one in which a gang of Muslims attempted to blow up an airport and murder hundreds of people, on the sole grounds that they were not Muslims. If that's not a hate crime, I don't know what is.

In any event, I am thoroughly sick of hearing, every time a Muslim tries to bring about mass carnage and slaughter, how terribly victimised the coreligionists of the psychotic maniac are. We had it after 9/11, we had it after 7/7, and we're getting it now. Let's face it, being spat at in the street, or having abuse shouted at you, isn't pleasant, but it is as nothing compared to what would have happened to we infidels if the terrorists had succeeded; it is as nothing compared to what did happen to nearly 3,000 infidels on 9/11, to 50 infidels on 7/7, and to tens of thousands of other infidels in other attacks in the years since 9/11. And it is not only completely ridiculous and over-the-top for Muslims to complain in shrill-voiced outrage about a microscopic increase in minor attacks against them, but, considering what their people have been, and are, busily doing and trying to do, it is also in extremely poor taste. And the fact that our police, and our politicians, are joining with the Muslims in their whinging, is just testament to what utterly dhimmified scum they are.

Muslim-only jails?

I read that the government is considering building a Muslim-only prison, in order to better ensure the safety of Muslim prisoners, particularly those of the terrorist persuasion. This follows attacks on the jailed terrorists Dhiren Barot (which I discussed here) and Hussein Osman, and the alleged receipt of death threats by Omar Khyam. Aside from protecting these terrorist lowlife from the justified anger that they arouse even in criminals' hearts, it is expected that the special Muslim-only prisons will enable staff to better cater (or should that be pander?) to Muslims' dietary and prayer requirements.

Well, screw that! Personally, I really couldn't care less if "people" like Barot or Osman are getting attacked - indeed, as my comments following the attack on Barot show, I am more supportive of than opposed to prisoners (or anyone else) giving such creatures the beating of a lifetime. So what if they suffer in jail: it's no more than they deserve.
Neither do I see why Muslims, or anyone else, should have their unusual dietary requirements catered to. If you're a law-abiding person, you have every right to insist on keeping Halal, or Kosher, or on being a vegetarian. But when you're in prison, then your right to deviate from the expected norm vanishes: beggars can't be choosers, and neither should prisoners. That's one of the purposes of having prisons, and punishments for those who break the law: you lose some of your rights, and some of your freedoms. In my opinion, prisoners should be given the cheapest, most low-quality food available, and told that if they don't like it, they can, to coin a phrase, lump it.
Equally, while I would generally say that religion in prisons is a good thing, I think that it is clear to all thinking people, that Islam is an exception to this rule. After all, if you've been sent to jail because of terrorist offences committed because you are a Muslim, then I would think that the last thing anyone should want is for you to be further exposed to the religion that has driven you to commit such actions. The worryingly high number of young Muslim men who are radicalised while in prison is a further reason to be suspicious of a plan to put them in an environment where their religious demands are catered for in every conceivable way, and where, indeed, they would only be in the company of their fellow Muslims.

Indeed, the only possible reason that I can think of for wishing to segregate Muslim prisoners from non-Muslims, is to protect the non-Muslims. After all, there have been reports of Muslim inmates forcibly converting non-Muslim prisoners to Islam. But a better solution to that problem would be to simply split up Muslim prisoners, so that, rather than mixing exclusively with other Muslims, as the government seems to wish, they mix almost exclusively with non-Muslims. Then, not only would they be unable to form themselves into gangs and intimidate other inmates into converting, but they would also be unable to radicalise young Muslim inmates, or to plan further terrorist atrocities. And if Dhiren Barot gets his neck broken, well, that's just a price we'll all have to pay.

Postscript: Some readers may recall that in the aftermath of the latest efforts by followers of the Religion of Peace to slaughter hundreds of people, Yusuf al-Qaradawi's favourite dhimmi, Ken Livingstone, claimed that "Muslims are more likely to be law-abiding than non-Muslims". I wonder, in that case, how he accounts for the fact that, while Muslims currently make-up for just 3% of the total UK population, they constitute fully 12% of the UK's prison population. Don't seem to be quite so law-abiding after all, do they?

A brief flash of sanity

Back in September, one thing that really, really, irritated me was the news that the Metropolitan Police were planning to consult with Muslim leaders before carrying out raids on Muslim terrorists. The idea, which came from the somewhat stunted mind of the Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, would have entailed four security-vetted Muslim leaders (nice friendly moderates, of course, like Iqbal Sacranie, or Inayat Bunglawala) examining police intelligence, and then advising on whether they considered it to be of sufficient significance to justify carrying out potentially violent arrests.

The plan was stupid on a variety of different levels (the risk of one of the Muslim leaders passing on information to the terrorists, the fact that this is clear preferential treatment for Muslims, and the fact that these people are not security experts and have no authority on which to base the judgements on the basis of which they were to give their advice, to name three), and I am glad to report that it has been abandoned. Presumably even senior police officers were able to spot the utter idiocy of the plan. Of course, knowing Sir Ian Blair's appalling track record, it can only be so long before he disgraces himself and his office once again.