Breibart here echoes something I tweeted earlier today.
“The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) – a public broadcaster funded by a “TV licence” fee forced on UK television owners – has declared that resistance to Shariah law is “Islamophobic”. According to a news clip, BBC online coverage, and the comments of its reporter Catrin Nye, a man called “Paul” approached a BBC film crew while recording an interview with Islam campaigner Ruqaiya Haris. Ms. Haris, a Muslim activist and student at the School of Oriental and African Studies, is told by Paul, “There’s no Sharia law here”. Her and Ms. Nye’s reactions to the statement made freely in a public place are nothing short of hysterical.
In essence, the BBC thinks it “Islamophobic” to oppose Sharia Law in the UK and will tarnish the reputation of anyone who dares say otherwise. It’s another reason why the BBC is such a danger. It shills for a dark ages ideology.
I know I have mentioned this before, but according to the left , Rabid, homophobic and anti Semitic Muslims can only be seen as victims in the UK.
UK: So called Islamic victim is an anti-Semitic, homophobic bigot
Lets not forget how the bBC saw Mr Anjem Choudary:
The newspaper campaign against Anjem Choudary
BBC criticised over comparison of Anjem Choudary with Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi
The bBC, the mouthpiece for Islamic intolerance paid for by you.
Hmmn… Her first 2 comments sound like some of the regulars here.
Forgive the ignorance of a man in his declining years but isn’t this the cake baking Muslim?
I am afraid the BBC news editors will still be pushing Sharia law even when they are being pushed off a high building.
This is all for very good reasons. What most of you morons on this blog dont realise is that in essence sharia law is all about empowering women!
As I understand it in sharia law ……
A woman’s testimony is worth only half a man’s. – My wife told me that new dress came from the charity shop hmmmm……
Women only get 50% inheritance due their brothers; – That seems fair my new alloys for my car are bloody expensive.
A woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. Dont know why anyone has a problem with this one us blokes are generally better at choosing cars- same principles really, the buyer will always look for low mileage, good engine and bodywork so this must be retained “at all costs” Stick to these principles and you are halfway there so why do some people object to this = must be waycists!
Men can marry up to four different women at once. I dunno about this one – I think if I had four wives I would be the one with the headache!
Divorce under sharia appears much easier, all it appears a man need to do is to tell her “I divorce thee” three times and bingo – Ahmed is no longer your Uncle and Fatima is not now your Aunt ! Hooray thats the answer marry em and trade em in for another pronto – bish, bash bosh – job done!
However if a woman wants to divorce she must give specific reasons with evidence as to why the marriage should be ended. Well my wife generally does the washing up and if she thinks she can leave me to that shes got another thing coming .
Oh yeah and one last thing Women also lose custody of any kids if she re-marries. Sounds a fair one – I want my kids to be just as enlightened as me and after all I did the difficult bit bringing them into the world.
So there we have it girls sharia sounds a good deal for all of you. After all it cant be so bad cos neither the BBC or most of the mainstream feminist movements dont seem to have much negative comments to make about it.
And at the end of the day if you leave all the thinking to us – you will have much more time to think about kittens, ribbons and planning all those baking sessions where you can make us lots of scrummy cakes!
You forgot one thing. If your wife gets a bit too uppity, and decides to take the husband and lord (pbuh) to court. He can always rely on “honour” killing to shut her up for good. No sharia court will ever convict. In fact, the man is likely to be awarded a civic prize.
With all this going for men, I’m surprised why men don’t adopt Islam. Why is it that they they continue to protect women and feminists from Sharia, when Sharia will stop all this gender equality nonsense.
Oaknash, I love your explanation of ‘Divorce under sharia…..’. For the Muslim male that’s had enough of wive(s), I have a mental picture of a queue forming and each one in turn being told, “I divorce thee”. Brilliant. Although I don’t want to go and live back somewhere in 700AD, I wish that I could have said, simply to my ex-wives, “I divorce thee” and that would have been an end to it!
I fear that one day, everyone commenting upon this website is going to be accused of being “AlBeebophobic”..
Isn’t a buzzword what all of these hateful (publicly funded) groupings introduce, when they feel that their views are being threatened?
The BBC hates religion – especially The Judeo-Christian – therefore the BBC loves Islam! Islam is a cult not a religion!
I think Aunty and her friends are hoping that most people will not wish to be seen as anythingthebbclovesophobic and therefore turn a blind eye as these tossers relentlessly destroy our hard won freedoms and change our society . However I do think that at some juncture a turning point will be reached and then there could well be some sort of backlash.
Unfortunately Auntie thinks she is in a win win situation – If things turned violent then it will be ” look at those waycists officer awwest them” or if nothing happens then we have lost our society and culture anyway as the liberals continue to take it apart.
All this talking up of hate crimes recently has obviously been to justify more control of our freedom to tell the truth as we see it. At least now polish owned sheds around the country will be sighing with relief! I was going to write something shedophobic but have decided its best not said – obviously too incendiary!
The BBC a truly are manipulative slime!
Is there such a word as shitephobia? – a fear of being bombarded with shite every time you switch on al-Beeb.
It shills for a dark ages ideology.
It shill for an ideology that makes Nazism look benign. In the mass genocide stakes, Sharia law has taken more blood of innocents, particularly Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Jews – in that order. Something of the order of 200 million. Nazism comes in with a mere 30 million tops. Figures are not accurate, as such things can never be. Who will ever know how many Mao killed – 60 million?. If sharia is installed in Britain, it will be the end of historic Britain. Western civilisation will be wiped out. Neither the Nazis, or the communists would do such a thing.
Needless, Islam and Sharia have exacted more blood, in a more grotesque ways, then any other ideology. Sikhs leaders for instance, were sawn in half. Christians were, and still are, being crucified in a mockery of the Chrucifixion of Christ. And while doing so Muslims, keeps asking the crucified, “where is your Jesus Christ?” while screaming “Allahu Ackbar”.
Islam is responsible for a far larger amount of persecution, and over a far longer period, then either Nazism or communism. Islam is satanic in origin.America is the only country that has the power tp destroy it. 9/11 was a once in a 100 year opportunity. Bush muffed it.
For the BBC to shill for Islam for the following
1. They are ignorant of Islam, as well as skillfully manipulated by Muslim Taqiyya merchants
2. They are under orders from the government.
Great idea from Bill Warner at Political Islam.
He said a few weeks back that we need a Museum of Islam.
Got plenty stuff now to put in it….and could well be an alternative to the London Dungeon.
There IS a great Museum of Communism in Prague that I would use as a model of how to do it.
It keeps its North Korean section live, but the rest is an atrocity exhibition that we have just lived through.
Think I`ve got the historical themes and rooms allocated in my head…trouble is that I`ll be needing extensions every few years as things stand.
But the BBC would happily pay to be associated with their favourite RoP, I`d have thought.
Please don’t fall for the deception of BBCs support/promotion of Islams scientific claims:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/science.aspx
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/06/07/islam-and-science-2/
That image capture paints several thousand words in its own right.
How many folk has Catrin had to block for not sharing her views?
Muslims in Corsica are trying to impose their culture in Corsica, by force, as is required.
Corsicans aint having it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiX9qyqrKPk
Time is approaching soon when the people of France will start taking action. This will happen as the state is not protecting its citizens, its primary duty. In fact European states are the prime cause of deaths due to Islamic terrorism, as they have allowed mass Muslim immigration.
But Arnaud is telling the intolerant Muslims to fuck off to the continent – to the Western nations. He says Corsica is not Western – it is Christian!
Jesus would be proud of him.
NCBBC – Wow, one angry Corsican!
Here’s my translation from my school French: “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take this anymore.”
There. Just saved you 5 minutes of viewing.
And Germany, but then they will call them Nazis.
Well said that man.
When I watched the BBC clip first time around I felt something very familiar in the exaggerated response from Ruqaiya Haris. Then I realised what it was.
Back in the mid-Eighties I worked in a wine merchant shop (off-licence) near Clapham Junction. One day a couple of women (about my age at the time – 20) came into the shop and browsed the wines. I remember both of them looking like tomboy/skinhead types, and were perhaps a same-sex couple. Who knows? Who cares?
Then, to my astonishment, they both came up to me at the counter and accused me of being a racist! They informed me that because there was South African wine on our shelves, I was promoting South African Apartheid and should be ashamed of myself.
The thought had never crossed my mind (I was only 20 years old, and a simple working-class lad from “up north”) but these two women – who had obviously only entered the shop to check out the South African wine situation – pissed me off royally.
I threw them out!
They got into their little car and, as they pulled away, I gave them 2 fingers. THEY STOPPED ABRUPTLY! They both got out and walked briskly towards the door where I was standing – the door which I then locked. As one of them pushed the door, in vain, I smiled the biggest smile I could muster. They both shouted something (which I cannot remember), gave up and returned to their little car (it was as small as a Renault 5, and might actually have been a Renault 5) and drove away.
That was one experience early in my adult life that had a major influence on my political views in later years. I came to the conclusion that some people enjoy satisfying themselves with petty sanctimonious acts. They feel they can sleep well at night as long as they let other people know just how “right” they are, without doing anything tangible to help the people they are so concerned about.
It took another decade for me to realise that this approach is almost always associated with those on the Left of politics.
And so it is with Ruqaiya Haris. Her reaction to the guy with sunglasses is the same as the reaction I received in the shop I was working in. It’s nothing but faux outrage – they are not offended! They are scoring “moral” points – they are holier-than-thou!
The BBC are experts at acting in this way. When will they be brought to judgment?
Beeb ‘journo’ showing she really, really doesn’t get it.
“Why do some people find the burkini offensive?” By Shaimaa Khalil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37130963
Let me help Shaimaa: 9/11 maybe? 7/7 perhaps? NY. London. Madrid. Paris. Brussels. Orlando. Boston. Atlanta. Bataclan. Charlie Hebdo. Cologne. Munich. Malmo. Nice. Tunisia. Egypt. Mumbai. Bali. Rochdale. Oxford. Rotherham. Keighley. Bristol. Telford. Birmingham. Wycombe. Harrow. Bury. Stevenage. Burton. Chesham. Leeds. Blackburn. Blackpool. Preston. Nelson. London. Barking. Derby. Peterborough. Bradford. Bristol. Coventry. Bolton. Middlesbrough. Pakistan. Afghanistan. Thailand. Philippines. Syria. Nigeria. Ethiopia. Kenya. Kashmir. Somalia. Yemen… and on… and on… and on…
You forgot Beslan. This was a deliberate attack to kill children.
There is a persistent rumour, that the children were raped before they were murdered. In Muslim views these innocent Kuffar children could get to the Islamic paradise. To make sure they didn’t, the brave warriors of Islam, raped them, so they would not be “innocent”
.
The item of clothing in itself would normally not be an issue, but like a black shirt through the East End in the thirties, it is the reasons it is worn and deployed.
When it is clear that a bloody sack has been weaponised in the West as a provocation when it is used a lot less in other parts of the world (dark age Middle East exempted) shows their hive controllers know exactly what they are doing and how it works with the supine politico media estate that passes for so called leadership here.
“Why do some people find the burkini offensive?”
Oh, and it looks really stupid. And threatening.
And you have a good chance of suffering from rickets. The body needs exposure to sunlight to maintain physical health. The burkini is a health hazard.
Bandylegism is a scourge…
The burkini is a health hazard
Indeed yes. We should all be concerned.
Put in context, in a country such as Britain today, the Burka is an item of clothing which offers privilege and authority. Wear one. No one can offend you, push to the front of queues, grab the seat on the bus marked for elderly people and spread your children around it. Those who object will be done for racism and religious inspired hate. Go to college or university and all will kow tow before you. This is the uniform of the specially protected. Our cops have posted notices in the shopping area stating zero tolerance for racism, and that means doing anything that is offensive in the mind of the wearer of the black sack. Can we now drop this nonsense about the burka being an item of clothing that indicates the oppression of women. It is the exact opposite in the UK today; it conveys power over others.
I disagree to some extent. The wearer becomes invisible and is ignored. In a heavily Muslim populated area this might not be so but everywhere else the burka wearer becomes a non person.
Nothing is more guaranteed to prevent any integration.
As I have doubts that integration is ever possible given the numbers involved the burka only ensures this probability becomes a certainty.
Nothing is more guaranteed to prevent any integration.
An integration is possible if Islam wishes to integrate, which it doesn’t. More worrying, is the assumption that Western values are fungible to be able to integrate with Islam. Which they aren’t.
Either way, integration of Muslims and Islam in the West, is not possible. It will destroy one or both.
“The burkini is a health hazard”
Good !
Vitamin D deficiency I`d have thought?
Or is that last fortnights ” health issue”?
Look, all we ask is to be allowed to follow our peaceful religion and impose it on you. Maybe behead those who resist or make them second class citizens in their own country. Is that so very unreasonable?
Another example of the turkey retards on the left,in this case a lesbian who works for CNN,voting for christmas
Mentally ill……have to be
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/lesbian-cnn-political-commentator-defends-sharia
The Western Journalism report’s title says it all: “Here’s A Contender For ‘Dumbest Tweet Of The Year’ When A CNN Lib Says THIS About Sharia Law“. The title referenced a tweet by CNN’s Sally Kohn that defended Sharia law.
One wonders whether Kohn realizes what will happen to her in an Islamic state that enforces Sharia, given that she is openly gay. The Religion of Peace site reports:
Homosexuals are beheaded, hanged and stoned in modern Saudi Arabia and Iran….Five other Muslim countries also have the death penalty on their books for homosexual behavior. In the past, gays were burned.
As one cleric recently put it, the only point of theological debate is not whether the homosexual should be killed, but how it should be done.
In 2016, an educated imam in Tunisia explained that while it may seem harsh, there is not ambiguity about this in Islam:
God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Quran.”
An imam also preached openly in an Orlando mainstream mosque about the duty to murder gays as an act of love and compassion.
Here’s A Contender For ‘Dumbest Tweet Of The Year’ When A CNN Lib Says THIS About Sharia Law”, by Joe Saunders, Western Journalism (thanks to The Religion of Peace), August 16, 2016:
She would never defend Christianity like this.
If any conservative on the American political scene came close to suggesting anything good about religion-based foreign law that treats women like animals and gays even worse, he would be disowned by every American political movement from the Democratic National Committee to the Westboro Baptist Church.
But let a liberal loose on Twitter — with an outrageous dislike for conservatives and an utter contempt for the truth — and you get CNN’s Sally Kohn, along with her ludicrous social media posting Tuesday that was drawing even more contempt than Kohn usually elicits from the saner side of the political aisle.
As a lesbian who wears her gay activism on her sleeve, Kohn often jumps to the defense of those she feels are persecuted minorities. The CNN political commentator — and a lawyer, by trade — has now explicitly sided with allegedly “progressive” Muslims who somehow share values with Western liberals, while still embracing the bloodthirsty, medieval and utterly barbarous civil code known as Sharia law that governs too many of the world’s people.
Hey @realDonaldTrump, many *progressive Muslims* — the ones we should support in ideological fight against extremism — believe in Sharia!!
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) August 16, 2016
(Note the double exclamation point. That means she’s dead serious.)
The people we should support in the ideological fight against extremism believe in Sharia? That’s like saying the people we should Here’s A Contender For ‘Dumbest Tweet Of The Year’ When A CNN Lib Says THIS About Sharia Law”, by Joe Saunders, Western Journalism (thanks to The Religion of Peace), August 16, 2016:
She would never defend Christianity like this.
If any conservative on the American political scene came close to suggesting anything good about religion-based foreign law that treats women like animals and gays even worse, he would be disowned by every American political movement from the Democratic National Committee to the Westboro Baptist Church.
But let a liberal loose on Twitter — with an outrageous dislike for conservatives and an utter contempt for the truth — and you get CNN’s Sally Kohn, along with her ludicrous social media posting Tuesday that was drawing even more contempt than Kohn usually elicits from the saner side of the political aisle.
As a lesbian who wears her gay activism on her sleeve, Kohn often jumps to the defense of those she feels are persecuted minorities. The CNN political commentator — and a lawyer, by trade — has now explicitly sided with allegedly “progressive” Muslims who somehow share values with Western liberals, while still embracing the bloodthirsty, medieval and utterly barbarous civil code known as Sharia law that governs too many of the world’s people.
Hey @realDonaldTrump, many *progressive Muslims* — the ones we should support in ideological fight against extremism — believe in Sharia!!
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) August 16, 2016
(Note the double exclamation point. That means she’s dead serious.)
The people we should support in the ideological fight against extremism believe in Sharia? That’s like saying the people we should have supported during the Cold War believed in communism!…..have supported during the Cold War believed in communism!…..
These people will decide the future of America, and thus the world.
I can understand why men might like sharia. But women will be back in the kitchen, and to please their husband at all times, day or night. If not, a good beating to set her right.
I think what we need now is a clear statement from a member of the Government (perhaps the sultry Amber) setting out just exactly what the Government truly believes with regard to sharia law in the UK.
Surely with the current terror and migration crisis hitting Europe and the Government having a strong mandate to maintain our sovereignty, and the majority of people worrying about how committed our leaders are to our culture and heritage. Now is the time to put sharia law back into the black box where it belongs to in the UK, and declare the supremacy of our own judicial system. A system that is generally fair to all races, colours or creeds. And seems to have worked generally ok until now. This is all the thin end of a very large wedge. Parallel governments next?
Anything less just shows just tacit support and encouragement for the BBC stance on this.
Frankly though I know this will not happen. All we will hear from the Government is the sound of tumbleweed sweeping down Whitehall. Theresa hoping it will all go away so Al Beeb and co can make the “adjustments” to society it knows we all “need”. With of course the help of the new right on “phobia police” – Stalin would have been proud.
And frankly I am depressed we are even having to discuss this – what cowards these people are.
Oaknash,
I think what we need now is a clear statement from a member of the Government (perhaps the sultry Amber) setting out just exactly what the Government truly believes with regard to sharia law in the UK.
————————————
Await a statement from the Appeaser and Tory Conference speech on how Islamic hate preachers will be curbed. Then see the opposite; critics of sharia criminalized, and the BBC will back the government – or is it the government backing the BBC?
It’s not that resistance to Shariah law is “Islamophobic”. But randomly shouting ‘There’s no Sharia law here” in public at women you don’t know who are wearing hijabs would seem to qualify.
You think that was “random”? a bloke, plays up to a BBC camera, is confronted by a hijab wearing muslim…….on camera…..makes his point….on camera…….is rebuffed……on camera…..and it’s all shown on the BBC who, coyly, won’t release the unedited footage for Breitbart to have a look at……you think all that is “random” ha ha ha ha!
If that’s “random islamophobia” I’m a banana.
It was “nudge” propaganda.
Why is it Islamophobic, KooKooKooChoo? Is there Sharia(h?) law here? Are the women wearing hijabs doing so because Sharia(h?) law requires them to do so?
It’s a plain statement of fact surely, and is greatly different from an Islamist nutter aggressively shouting ‘There is but one God and that God is Allah’ when Christians who disagree would rightly feel aggrieved.
Your ‘Islamophobic’ is just a revival of the old ‘Raaacist’, and will go the same way sooner rather than later despite the Emir of London’s diktats.
Miss Kiikkichooflower,
Isamophobic is a piece of nonsense, even if the BBC and many of our cops think otherwise.
The man in the video stated a fact, which I know is offensive to those who want to be offended.
But we often state facts in response to wearing certain clothes. The man wears his huntsman outfit in front of a crowd of animal rights people and they might say ‘no hunting here’. People have opinions.
But Ropers and the BBC want to eliminate negative opinions about sharia
However, this video looked like a well rehearsed BBC film. Give the tart with the hijab a chance to stand her ground.
Which is why we need Choudhary still out here, talking crap.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant…and if he was skyping from Raqqa(as opposed to being feted by the BBC and Channel 4) then so much the better.
How come Choudhary is never put up against Spencer or Geller then?…always a friendly appeasing type instead.
Failure: ‘Misunderstanding’ should be replaced by,’misrepresentation’. The former is absolutely incorrect whereas the latter is totally accurate.
I guess it would be ‘Islamophobic’ to bring this in here, but given the self-imposed unemployed but benefit-claiming status of too many women from the sub-continent, it is much needed.
“Kurz told a press conference: ‘It was reported last year that many refugees are highly-skilled, but in fact many are not.”
“‘Among those from Afghanistan alone, there are many that are illiterate.”
“The Minister has also proposed sanctions for refugees who do not attend German language or ‘Austrain values’ courses, and has also said a ban on full face veils is under consideration.”
Not just from Afghanistan, as we know only too well!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3751681/Do-menial-work-87p-hour-LOSE-state-handouts-Austria-set-force-migrants-earn-left-wingers-slam-proposals-slavery.html
Meanwhile the beeb are happy to report “Most nations lack ability to deal with invasive species” – funny how the potential migration of animals en masse is seen as immensely problematic but the actual movement of huge populations of people and their customs is being pushed as wonderfully beneficial and enriching.