William Shawcross is right: Islamists are skilled at lawfare
The Telegraph reported…
Muslim men having ’20 children each’ because of polygamy, peer claims
Muslim men in some communities are having up to 20 children each because of polygomy and the rise of “religiously sanctioned gender discrimination” under Sharia Law, peers have warned.
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer, highlighted a series of “shocking” examples of the impact of Sharia law on Muslim women in Britain as she called for them to be given greater protection under equality legislation.
“The rights of Muslim women and the rule of law in our land must be upheld.” she said.
She added: “My Muslim friends tell me that in some communities with high polygamy and divorce rates, men may have up to 20 children each.
Clearly, youngsters growing up in dysfunctional families may be vulnerable to extremism and demography may affect democracy.”
Note that rather important last bit about how democracy could be under threat from the rise of Islam in the UK….even the BBC let slip that the rising number of Muslims in Europe could radically alter politics…and it won’t just be on Israeli/Jewish issues either…..
Germany’s traditionally pro-Israeli stance has been shifting, particularly since the 2014 Gaza campaign.
A growth in Germany’s Muslim population, not least through the acceptance of hundreds of thousands of refugees, may also have an effect, long term.
Then there is this from the same report in the Telegraph…
Lord Green of Deddington, chairman of MigrationWatch, said Britain was entirely different to Muslim countries, adding: “Those who come must accept that.”
The independent crossbench peer said: “We must be prepared to insist that there can be only one law.
“We must get away from what I call the Rotherham complex where the authorities were so afraid of offending a minority community that they turned a blind eye to the appalling abuse of young mainly British girls.”
Which brings us to this rather surprising statement from the BBC’s Roger Scruton concerning ‘Islamophobia’…..
At the time of the attacks on the twin towers, many expressed their shock at the gratuitous murder of 3,000 innocent people, blaming doctrinal Islam for the perversion of the criminals responsible. Immediately a new word entered the public discourse – Islamophobia.
The religious fanaticism of those who had flown into the twin towers and the so-called Islamophobia of their critics were both represented as crimes, hardly distinguishable in their destructiveness. The main purpose of future policy, it was implied, must be to ensure that neither crime is committed again. Pressure mounted to forbid Islamophobia by law – and in its way that is what the Racial and Religious Hatred Act has tried to do.
This takes us back to what John Stuart Mill had in mind. It is not falsehood that causes the greatest offence, but truth. You can endure insults and abuse when you know them to be false. But if the remarks that offend you are true, their truth becomes a dagger in the soul – you cry “lies!” at the top of your voice, and know that you must silence the one who utters them.
That is what has happened in the case of Islamophobia. Muslims in our society are often victims of prejudice, abuse and assault, and this is a distressing situation that the law strives to remedy. But when people invent a phobia to explain all criticism of Islam it is not that kind of abuse that they have in mind. They wish to hide the truth, to shout “lies!” in the face of criticism and to silence any attempt at discussion. In my view, however, it is time to bring the truth into the open, including the truth about the Holy Book itself.
So Muslims invented ‘Islamophobia’ to silence their critics. You heard it here first!
I await the ‘truth about the Holy Book [Koran] itself.’….will the BBC suddenly have to admit that Islam is not a ‘religion of peace’ after all as it urges its followers to fight the unbelievers until Islam reigns supreme never mind happily killing apostates and homosexuals and chopping various bits off of their own citizens? Mishal Husain thought Christianity was deeply backward and unpleasant…God knows what she thinks of Islam then.
Hopefully many on here will therefore support the idea of government cash benefits only being available to a maximum of two children,
Could do wonders to reduce the number of birth to mothers not born in the U.K., reduce the number of children “born into poverty” and end having four kids the answer to not needing to work.
You can imagine the BBC adverts – Have you been affected by this cruel government’s restriction of having children?
I do indeed support that. Universal child benefit limited to only two children per Mother, or Father, whichever is the greater, would be much easier to administer and would stop the Islamic and the teen chav baby factories from parasitically leeching from the hard work of others.
Because Islam is a RELIGION, the offence of racism does not apply.
Islamaphobia is an invented offence. There’s arachnaphobia (irrational fear of spiders), but how can ‘phobia’ apply to a religious group?
Why is Islam the only religion to which phobia applies? How has this come about? About 60 innocent people have been murdered in the UK by muslims in connection with Islam in the past ten years. Other murders have fortunately been thwarted.
Those suffering a phobia are Christians and Jews. This phobia is exhibited by muslims.
Christianaphobia? BiasedBBCphobia? Where does it end?
Islam has created victimhood for itself. Blair hasn’t helped by saying that IS was caused by the 2003 Iraq invasion. Strange, but AQ existed long before 2003 and 2001.
I fear Islam, but my fear is not irrational, it is extremely rational.
Indeed, Islam is not a race; it is a religion. But any offence to Islamists will be regarded and reported at race hate. Islam is whatever the party want it to be.
‘Look at my hand, Winston. Right now, you see indeed four fingers held up to you. But as you can see… I have in fact five fingers. That is the essence of Multiculturalism, Winston: you think you know the truth by seeing things with your senses, but as you can see, your senses can disappoint you. The Party knows everything, is everything: the Party knows that there are five fingers here, even if you only see four of them. … Multiculturalism is strong and omniscient, and therefore if the Party says that Islam is a race or that two and two equals three, or five, it will always be right: you, by yourself, cannot know the truth’.
Twice it has been stated here that Islam is a religion. Once and for all, it is not. It is an ideology which tells its followers what to do in every circumstance of life, politics, religion and everything else. It is a complete way of life which is inimical to the way we English live, and it’s bound to end in tears eventually. I for one will never bow to it, whatever the cost.
Correct Dadad Islam is an ideology & a despotic one at that-the Muslim lives by this ideology, follows the teachings as instructed by those that control the interpretation of the Qura’n-a complte life as you say, & one I will also never bow to & how could one when you read.. ‘The body of a 20-year-old Syrian woman, “Rokstan M.,” was unearthed from a shallow grave in the small Saxon town of Dessau last week. Her father and brothers stabbed her to death on her mother’s orders, after she was gang-raped by three men. The rape left her “unclean” and the mother allegedly demanded the killing to restore the family’s honor. German police are seeking the father and brothers.’ Germany’s elite knows perfectly well that the migrants bring social, sex, pathologies, because they have already seen the world’s worst sex crime epidemic unfold in Scandinavia. Sweden now has the highest incidence of reported rape outside of a few African countries, and nearly ten times the rate of its European peers—and all this has happened in the past ten years.
Read Roger Scruton here , A Point of View: Why we should defend the right to be offensive
First Robert Plomin’s theory on genetics of intelligence in last week’s Life Scientific and now Roger Scruton’s Point of View. Add that to a strangely balanced AQ and QT with almost respectful audiences and it makes you wonder, firstly, if there isn’t an agenda and secondly, why hasn’t this been done regularly before
Thanks for the link JimS. I didn’t hear the actual broadcast. What a wonderfully eloquent speech.
You are mistaken about Professor Scruton – he is not in any way ‘the BBC’s Roger Scruton’. He is controversial and divisive. He is a great champion of freedom of speech, and his limpid and precise use of language which he wields as a surgical tool is a delight. Sometimes when he speaks, he reminds me of Enoch Powell, whose speeches in the House of Commons had MPs queueing up to hear him, regardless of their own political allegiances.
Sometimes when you are cold, you don’t realise just how cold you are until you enter a warm room. Sometimes, when you are alone, you don’t realise just how lonely you are feeling until you unexpectedly meet a friendly face. So it was for me with hearing Roger Scruton’s A Point of View this morning. You get used to feeling marginalised, ignored and muzzled, derided and ridiculed for holding such a point of view. To hear it expressed by someone on the BBC itself is surreal. I was surprised there was no prefatory warning that ‘strong language is used in the following programme, and the views, which are not those of the BBC, may cause offence’. I was almost hoping for an afterword to the effect that ‘if you have been offended or upset by this programme, there is a helpline..’. I await an apology from the BBC in due time, to some poor person complaining that Professor Scruton’s ten minute spot has prejudiced community coherence and is a disrespectful affront to various minorities who may indeed be oppressed. But that is not the Point, is it?
Well said, Stuart.
Islamophobia™ is known to have been invented some time ago, circa 1990, please see:
http://wisermonkeys.uk/islam.html#iphobia and
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2217/moderate-muslim-speak-out-on-capitol-hill
Abdur-Rahman Muhammad (a former radical Islamist) says “he was present when his then-allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term ‘Islamophobia’. Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term ‘homophobia’ to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw ‘Islamophobia’ as a way to ‘beat up their critics.'”
It is only in this country.
Even in Muslim countries ,you are allowed to be ignorant of their faith , so long as you abide by the law .
But here you have fanatical proselytisers who say You Don’t Understand The Muslim Faith and shout and hector and want unbelievers bombed or their heads hacked off .
Islam is an aggressive political ideology whose intrent is to take over not just the governments in its own area, viz Egypt in the Arab Spring, but take over nations in non-Muslim areas. Islam masquearades as a religion, which gives it cover.
Anyone who opposes Islam is confronted not just by violence from Muslims, but is confronted by Western governments for attacking a “religion”. On the other hand, if Christians attempt to evangelise Muslims, Muslims raise the political banner. It is I believe a reason why Christian evangelical efforts have, by and large failed, as the assumptions of Christian evangelists was that Muslims were religious figures, when in fact they are political as well.
Its a difficult nut to crack.
Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social and political life of mankind in all its aspects — the life of its followers without qualification, and the life of those who follow the so-called tolerated religions to a degree that prevents their activities from getting in the way of Islam in any manner.
Alan.
You are using the terminology of the enemy whist criticising the use of this terminology.
Please cease and desist.
Stop calling these nasty, smelly, unwashed, unwanted, militant invaders migrants, refugees or asylum seekers.
Thank you.
NCBBC
“it is a difficult nut to crack.”
If Joseph Stalin was running the West we could conquer every Islamic country in five years.
Then keep them conquered.
The USA and Russia have a preponderance of weapons that the Muslims can only dream about.
We should be letting Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. kill each other. Forget humanitarian aid to the barely human.
What we lack, at present, is the willingness to use our nutcrackers.
In fact it is worse than that, our so-called leaders hand over the nut crackers, to the enemy.
“If Joseph Stalin was running the West we could conquer every Islamic country in five years.
Then keep them conquered.”
That didn’t work for Brezhnev, who was a stalinist, in Afghanistan.
D
I did not paste the part in my draft where I anticipated this criticism.
Stalin moved whole peoples, Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, to Siberia, many died on the way, many more died in Siberia.
Stalin would have done the same with the Afghans.
Two more points
#1 The “success” of the mujahideen was due largely to US arms gifts worth billions of dollars, accompanied by advice, training and other logistical assistance.
#2 In the scenario I am describing the USA AND Russia will be on the same side.
Demon…Brezhnev was not Stalin…..he was plain old Brezhnev….Stalin, there was only one, thank God.
Stalin really would have wiped out Islam….
Indeed, the only way to truly conquer Afghanistan, is to throw out all laws of war, all human rights and be just as savage as they are, but with much more heavy weaponry. It would require eradicating Afghanistan of Afghanis. A total genocide. The Afghan people will never ever surrender peacefully to an outside force.
I am not advocating doing this, merely stating that IF a government in future were ever to want to permanently and successfully colonise Afghanistan, then total genocide of the Afghan people would be the only way to do it.
When I first heard the term islamaphobia, so obviously adapted from homophobia I believe I actually laughed. Surely no one would take such an absurdity seriously – most people knew what a phobia was. Clearly I was wrong. It has indeed become a weapon in what is now a war against free speech in the West – a word so powerful, that just like “racism” can close down any argument. Thwart any criticism.
Islam is not the only enemy in this war. Whether through foolishness or destructiveness the real facilitators are the liberal left.
Only this week, the liberal leftie students have called for Germaine Greer to be banned from speaking at Cardiff Uni. Her offence? For being misogynistic!!!!
This is of course against Trans genders as she refuses to accept they are women and is therefore also being labelled……….wait for it…….Transphobic!
Meanwhile Caitlyn Jenner is being awarded Woman of the Year………… Therefore the woman with the bigger metaphoric balls, who has done more for women’s rights in the last few decades is being branded misogynistic and the Tranny with actual Balls is being branded a great feminist……….You really couldn’t make it up!
The liberal left is eventually starting to eat itself!
Indeed. I have never accepted the term “homophobia”, which literally means an “extreme, irrational fear of the same.” Likewise CISphobia, whatever the hell that is.
Should we start demanding that lefty bigots be charged with Christianophobia? Heterophobia? Conservativophobia? Realityophobia? Truthophobia? and our rights protected? Why is it that only lefties are demanding special protections from made up phobias? Could it be because lefties are actually mentally disturbed and cannot handle even the idea that other people have different opinions? Why are we appeasing such reality denial and overt, blatant mental delusions from those on the left? It is the same with the issue of gender, and the insane idea of gender-fluidity, where people can choose what gender they are from week-to-week.
I honestly have no problem with people having delusions. What I do have a massive problem with is those delusional retards and their PC supporters, slaves and acolytes, legislating to force other, non-delusional, people to take on and support those blatantly wild delusions as well.
G
I do not have homophobia, I have homonausea.
I’m not sure if this post is relevant to this thread, but here goes. Last night I watched a documentary on one of the digital channels about Major Nidal Hasan , who killed 13 soldiers and wounded 32 others at Fort Hood in the US. The programme outlined the facts of the case, the jihadi websites he visited, his outrage at US soldiers killing his Muslim brothers in Afghanistan and the red flags his behaviour and public rants that should have warned the authorities about him. The US witnesses had no doubt about Hasan’s motives, but a British psychological profiler came up with all sorts of excuses for him. He was a loner, showing paranoid schizophrenic tendencies and was delusional. His dysfunctional upbringing gave him anger management issues which finally exploded in violence at Fort Hood. Every excuse except the obvious one – he was following his religion. This trick cyclist seemed extremely reluctant to admit Hasan felt compelled to kill because of his Islamic ideology.
The programme did reveal that Hasan was lazy, incompetent, just scraped through his medical examinations and totally unsuited to being an Army psychiatrist. Even his presentation, on a subject of his choice as part of his medical exam, was about the incompatability of being a Muslim in the US Army when they were at war with fellow Muslims. It seems the military were reluctant to admit he was a danger to others and discharge him, which they had the power to do. On top of that, the US government, to the anger of the squaddies at Fort Hood, described the massacre as “workplace violence” and not a terrorist atrocity. It seems “Islamaphobia” has embedded itself in Western consciousness.
The programme is repeated tonight at 9 or 10pm on CBS Reality if anyone is interested. It’s called “Doctors On Death Row.”.
So in other words, everybody else’s fault and not his. Sounds a bit like those darling teenagers that were brainwashed into leaving this country to go to Syria via Turkey.
And those RoPers who were tempted by white prostitutes into simulated sexual activity of a hard BDSM variety, which was obviously the fault of the very young white girls.
Or back in reality, those Islamic brutal, perverted, child rapists who brutally raped and tortured thousands of young white and non-Islamic kids. Clearly everyone else’s fault.
Personally, I couldn’t give a damn about others people’s sexuality, and I don’t quite understand why anyone would – but that is your right in a free society. Although I think “phobia” is the wrong suffix on pedantic grounds, I have more sympathy with gay people using it than Muslims. I really don’t think homosexuals are a threat to anybody.
However the fear that the critics of Islam have is concrete and not in the least irrational.
The Left like to control language because all reality is against them. A Leftist thought crime is essentially paying attention to your actual experience rather than to what you have been told to think.
For a bit of light relief it’s worth checking out this piece on using Mohammad as the perfect moral compass at:http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/10/perfect-moral-compass.html