Tariq Ramadan and the Charlie Hebdo problem

What is left to be said about the Charlie Hebdo crisis that unfolded in Paris earlier this month?  Perhaps not much, but it won't stop me.

So a gang of muslim cowards hiding behind their semi-automatic weapons kills twelve innocent people in an office and runs away.  This was somehow excused by the victims' 'crime' of depicting and ridiculing someone elses's non-existent prophet.  Few people recognise that nothing was written about Muhammed until about 200 years after he is supposed to have lived.  This makes his historical existence even less convincing than that for Jesus!

What's more, in what civilised part of the world does non-violent satire excuse a violent response?  

On the day after the shootings, BBC Radio 4 interviewed the 'islamic scholar' from Oxford, Tariq Ramadan.  I have heard him speak live and been amazed (and almost impressed) at how he twists sentences to convey a message that both Muslims and infidels are meant to think is wise and more-to-the-point 'harmless'.  This time takes the biscuit.  OK, he gently condemned the violence in Paris, but within a minute or two he was claiming that we should all feel responsible for what has happened.  Our government's involvement in Iraq - in his mind at least - has something to do with the cowards killing the journalists.

Call me naive if you like, but I thought the shootings were about the magazine being satirical and about the way the 'religion of permanent offence' chooses to try to dictate what free people in free countries are allowed to say about imaginary beings.  It was about islamic intolerance of the principles behind human rights and human dignity

Ramadan went on to claim that we're "all on the same side".

Let me assure you, Professor Ramadan, that I feel no responsibility for what has been done this month, and that I am on the same side as you on absolutely nothing of any consequence at all.  You can't excuse the violence in Paris.  They were islamic thugs behaving inexcusably by any objective standard.

Sharia gets put back in its rightful place!

Unlike the USA, the United Kingdom has no '1st Amendment' to its constitution.  When it comes down to it, it has no constitution either.  People argue with me that a constitution would not help us in any way and that might be a moot point, but the net result is that there is no requirement for the separation of church and state.  Indeed, with the Church of England still performing the function of 'the established church' in England (although not in other parts of the Union) the prospect of such separation is a long way away.

Few would argue that the established church is much of a threat to morality and decency in England.  Its priests have generally behaved much better than their counterparts in the Roman Catholic Church and although it has an unfair and entirely undemocratic influence on the running of the government it is hard to find it as threatening to to justice and decency as Islam.

Last year, the supposed guardian of justice in the legal profession "The Law Society" decided unwisely to publish guidance for the preparation of wills which were compliant with 'sharia law'.  Now wasn't that a strange thing to do?  Sharia has no legal position in UK (thank God!) and those who agree to be bound by it are giving up the legal rights that they have under the real law.  The big problem is that the oppressive and self-elected 'leaders' of Islam have taken time and trouble to 'shelter' their followers from the truth of the legal rights that they do have.  Any guidance from the Law Society seemed to support this abusive relationship between Islamic leaders (all men of course) and the people.

Thanks to the National Secular Society (and others), The Law Society finally saw the error of its ways at the end of last November.  Apparently "the Society had 'reviewed the note in the light of criticism' and they had 'withdrawn the note' and were 'sorry' ."

That gives two causes for delight.  The main one is that it is 'one in the eye' for creeping sharia and a blow for secularism in England.  The other is the rare opportunity to see a hint of contrition from the blood-sucking lawyers.  It is not often that we see that happen!

Read more at this NSS link.

Government-sponsored cruelty to animals

Here is another example of the spinelessness of the UK's barely elected government, and its indifference to animal rights along with human equality rights. 

The government has decided not to take the correct moral decision in this allegedly Christian country.  Instead they pander to the profits of religious minorities . . . for it is profit and commerce that counts for Cameron and his cronies . . . isn't it?  And halal and kosher butchers obviously need to make their profits.

Why is this decision stupid and wrong?  There are many reasons, but the following are obviously candidate reasons.

• Animal rights
• Surely we should avoid cruelty wherever possible
• Lies about these animals not suffering are to be doubted
• Religious rights
• Christians have to follow the law
• Secularists and atheists have to follow the law
• Muslims are exempt and can use their cruel slaughter techniques
• Jews are also exempt and can use their same-but-totally-different, cruel, slaughter techniques
• Human rights
• Why do secular abattoirs have to go to the extra expense of humane slaughter when religious abattoirs are permitted to avoid them?
• Since halal and kosher meat is over-produced and distributed on the open market, why should I have to eat it and not have a right to know what I'm eating?
• Since this meat is not labelled, what Quality Assurance is imposed?  Or are they exempt from QA too?  It wouldn't be a surprise . . . would it?
• Are religious people to be trusted in a secular world anyway?  When did you ever hear of anyone 'lying for secularism'?

I think the government is just frightened of the likely response from religious minorities if it took a fair and just stance. In doing this, it discriminates against the majority.

But then again, if this was an effective democracy they would not be in government anyway.

Malala for Nobel Prize again!

Following the successful Canadian campaign which had a positive influence on politicians, here is a message from a UK version. 

I just signed the petition "UK Party Leaders and Foreign Secretary: Nominate #Malala for the Nobel Peace Prize #Nobel4Malala" on Change.org.

It's important. Will you sign it too? Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/petitions/uk-party-leaders-and-foreign-secretary-nominate-malala-for-the-nobel-peace-prize-nobel4malala-2

Thanks!

Follow this link for my previous post on the subject.

Wherever you are, please sign it if you have a minute or two to spare.  It might make our risible Prime Minister realise that there are important things to do in the world!  It might even make the compliant quisling take an interest too. 

That might mean that he has disagreed with his boss twice!

Backing Maryam's One Law

Maryam Namazie represents the organisation One Law for All and she founded the Council for ex-Muslims of Britain which reaches its 5th anniversary this year.

Her talk 'Sharia Law Sex Apartheid and Secularism' was the best of the day, last month at the National Secular Society's 2012 conference in London on 22nd September.  The following is not intended as an accurate transcript of her speech which is available as an MP3 download from the Pod Delusion Extra site, but I tried to capture the essence of her words as she was speaking.  Hopefully I can say enough to get you interested in listening to her speech.

She began by stating that 'sharia is the code of death and despair'.  People will use any excuse to defend it.  In Iran, 130 separate offences are punishable by death.  A court based on the bible or Torah would be just as bad, but at least in the UK we don't have either of those.  [Sadly the same can't be said of sharia courts.]

In sharia, a woman's word is worth half a man's.  It has been explained that this is because 'if one forgets, the other can remind her'!  This comment is apparently 'not derogatory', but 'the secret of woman's nature'.

You will often be faced with comments like “I have a Muslim friend who says that sharia is not as bad as you say”

She urged everyone in the audience to question these statements and if you are accused of islamophobia continue to question other aspects.

• How can you tolerate the news that a sharia judge recently said that "calling it rape IS the act of aggression".
• How can you defend that child marriages are positively sanctioned by sharia.  It is estimated that there were 30 of them in Islington alone in 2010, with girls as young as 9 married to older men.
• While you may be happy to promote it for another, would you like it for yourself?
• By what right can parasitic immans to deem what is acceptable and what is not for other free people?

Question those who use the language of human rights to excuse and promote barbarity.

Even if there is a right to religion, remember that rights are rarely absolute.  Muslims are hiding behind claims to rights and choice in order to excuse blatant misogyny.

Islamism and sharia have killed a generation.  Under an inquisition there is no personal religion.  When religion is sponsored by the state it is no longer a matter of belief but of political power.  Islamist scholars choose to resort to abuse and violence and as if they have a right to speak for others.  But . . .

“You have got to read more than one book if you want to call yourself a scholar.” -- Richard Dawkins

Islamists claim that secular family law is biased against Muslim people, but by saying that they really mean that it is biased against Muslim men! 

There is a surprising difference between the way that sharia is seen in different countries.  In Iran the debate is not framed as part of islamophobia, but apostasy instead. 

In a climate where society is forcing people into submission she says 'bravo Charlie Hebdo'.  Is it true that cartoons are unhelpful?  No!  Criticising Islam and islamism is not prejudice.  The countless humans who are living under sharia are the victims of prejudice.

Echoing the comments of other speakers of the day, she said that the controversial movie 'Innocence of Muslims' produced by members of the US Christian far right is “just a very very bad film”.   These Christians are just as bad as those who promote sharia.

But the issue is not  about religion but about political power.

“We must be brave” -- Salman Rushdie.

In Islam the individual has no rights and no dignity.  Most religions have been restrained by freethinking activity over hundreds of years but this one has not. 

This statement was greeted with a standing ovation.  The questions and answers were interesting too.  Listen to the mp3 file for yourself.

And if you ever get the chance to witness Maryam at work, don't miss it!

Malala for Nobel Prize

A petition has been started to attempt to nominate the brave Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the cowardly Taliban recently.  Her crime was to protest against the closure of girls schools in Pakistan!

Malala Yasufzai- should be nominated for a Nobel Prize

As an ex-muslim friend said to be at lunch time today, if the Taliban are so scared of a little girl it shows a lot about them.  What cowards!  What bullies!  Surely we all have to stand up to them in our own small ways.

I've signed this petition at Change.org.

Have you?

Why not?  It will only take you 2 minutes.  Read more about it here.

Hamza's Health

As the criminal 'Abu Hamza', as Hamza Al-Masri is generally known, makes one last attempt to avoid being extradited to USA, he is claiming poor mental health as a justification for remaining in the UK.

Hamza Al Masri - will he get off the hook this time?

There are several things to say about that.

Firstly, I don't think most of us want him.  It is better that he is in jail than wandering free stirring up hatred, but I think he could be better looked after in another country which knows haw to treat its criminals appropriately.

Secondly, what is new about his state of mind?  I would say it was a bit late to make such a claim.  Surely it has been clear for decades that he is borderline psychopathic.  That's why he is currently serving a 7 year jail sentence in UK.  So why would this claim get him off the hook this time?  (Did you spot what I did there?) 

Here is yet another example of an Islamist trying to claim rights of free speech and access to the rule of law purely in order to justify his own aims - namely to bring about a political system in which he can deny those very same rights to other people.

For too many years, the UK government has allowed him to play silly legal games, costing the UK tax payer millions and drumming up supporters who believe that he has been ill-treated.

In the spirit of fairness, equality and free speech, I would say that it is exactly the right time to let a suspected terrorist and kidnapper have a chance to demonstrate his innocence.  This time let's see him try it in another country, the other side of the Atlantic.

I think he will find it a little harder to play silly legal games with American law.

Of course the term Abu literally means father.  I don't like Christian leaders claiming to be my father, and I can't say I like it any better from Islamic 'clerics'. 

I'm glad my own father wasn't like any of them!

Legal competition from Sharia - a government plot?

Sharia law is becoming much more widely used in UK, or so we are told in the news this week. It seems that it is much cheaper to resolve legal disputes in a religious court than in a real court.

It is not new news that there are at least 85 Sharia courts operating in UK, because this surprising revelation was made in a Civitas report in 2009.  However it is about time we had an update on this aspect of creeping Islam, just in case the country is completely infiltrated before the apathetic public notices anything happening.  After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief Justice have already acquiesced to the start of the process as you can read in that report.

Thinking about it though, perhaps there is one good thing in this news.  Almost everyone in the world (except lawyers) believes that solicitors and barristers charge too much for their services.  When did you last see a barrister on a bicycle?  Maybe it is time they had some competition. 

In fact, it is tempting to speculate that the current government - being largely right of centre - might have introduced sharia deliberately in order to create a competitive market.  The next thing will be to privatise the Magistrates Courts.  I suspect that the Crown Courts will have to wait until after the next election but at least it would be a start.

After that the Church of England might reintroduce some of its own medieval institutions.   Prerogative Courts, Consistory and Commissary Courts, Archdeaconry Courts and Peculiars.  We could do with a few witch burnings to keep the public in control.

The more the better in a free market!

So . . who will be the first person to volunteer to be judged by sharia?  It is very cheap you know - and some of the punishments are administered swiftly.  No lingering in jail waiting to be sentenced to a humane punishment.

Decapitation can't hurt for very long can it?