Islamic Human Rights Council – a Joke that’s hard to swallow

I reprint this article by Douglas Murray because of the ire it has provoked in me – the though that Rowan Williams supports this ridiculous group and that more than that the Charity Commission grants it Charitable Status is intolerable. Read on –

A new low: Charlie Hebdo’s murdered staff receive an ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award

485 comments 10 March 2015 10:22 Douglas Murray Follow @douglaskmurray

The IHRC gave their international ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (Photo: Damien Meyer/AFP/Getty)

I have always treated the ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ event with the scorn it deserves. Not least because each year this fantasy prize for a fantasy concept is run by a British Khomeinist organisation laughably named the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission.’  The nominees include anybody opposed to the agenda of Islamic extremists, including Muslims.  Of course each year, whilst laughing at it, those of us who are regular nominees also regard it as being to our great good fortune that the IHRC is a British charity operating in the United Kingdom rather than an Islamic charity operating in an Islamic country.  If the latter were the case then rather than laughing at the IHRC every year, those of us who it annually attacks would be hanging from cranes.

However, readers will perhaps excuse me if the laughter is slightly quieter this year.  The first reason is that the ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award seems to be gaining ‘mainstream’ ground.  This year the awards were not only endorsed by Islamic extremists on the one hand and pseudo-academics like Arun Kundnani on the other, but also by a number of more prominent public figures including the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and former Telegraph journalist Peter Oborne.

Once again I made the shortlist but missed out on the main award.  However the UK award for ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ did go to Maajid Nawaz.  It would be hard to invent a better display of the agenda of the IHRC and the people involved with it.  Because of course Maajid has devoted his life to, and risks his life by, attacking the extremists within the Islamic faith – his faith.  The IHRC and their supporters seem to have much in common with fundamentalist and extremist Muslims, in that both are deeply irritated by the few brave Muslims like Nawaz.  Indeed they hate him even more than they hate people like me.  Readers will have to guess what variety of Islamic group might choose to attack liberal Muslims, what this says about their agenda and what it tells us about the intelligence of the people who support them.

But there is another reason why my laughter is lessened this year. Although I am assured that the laughter at the IHRC’s ‘ceremony’ in London on Saturday was as raucous as ever, this weekend the IHRC gave their international ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the left-wing French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.  This might be thought laughable in any other circumstances.  The IHRC, one should remember, is a registered British charity.  But of course it is not very funny, because only two months ago another group of people who thought Charlie Hebdo is ‘Islamophobic’ went into the magazine’s offices and gunned down their journalists and cartoonists.  This is the way the pattern works now – the Islamic terrorists break through the front door with Kalashnikovs and then a whole network of fellow travellers try to sneak in through the back door and explain why the cartoonists and journalists might have had it coming.

Of course the IHRC and their supporters like to pretend that Muslims in Europe are being ‘otherised’ in the manner of Jews in Nazi Germany.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  Not just because it was concentration camps rather than ‘othering’ which was the main issue in Germany in the middle of the last century.  But also because Muslims in Europe enjoy full equal rights – far more so than in any Islamic country in the world today or ever.  If there are any negative feelings towards elements of the Muslim community it is towards the extremists.  And why shouldn’t people hate those who blow up trains and buses, crash planes into buildings, shoot at free speech seminars and synagogues and target Christians, Hindus, Jews and liberal Muslims around the world?  If that ire does end up being more widely and less discerningly directed then it will be precisely because a growing number of non-Muslims begin to notice that Muslim communities seem capable not only of producing the sort of people willing to slaughter journalists and cartoonists but also of then providing a multitude of pseudo-moderate organisations which compare the victims of Islamist violence – rather than the perpetrators – to Nazis.

I hope the IHRC and their supporters had an amusing time at their awards ceremony at the weekend, laughing as they smeared and mocked dead journalists.  To my mind it provides a good reminder of what the civilised world is up against, abroad and at home.

Reprinted from The Spectator – http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/

Is the UN fit for Purpose – Anne Marie Waters

I’m re-blogging this excellent article from annemariewaters.org – an excellent source of considered and honest opinion on all aspects of Islam.

UN Watch, a Geneva-based NGO which monitors the activities of the United Nations, reported at the end of 2013 what it felt were the ten worst decisions of the UN throughout that year. All ten are worth a look, but what stands out like a sore thumb is the aggressive promotion of Islamist states (and the resulting sanitisation and legitimisation of sharia), along with the not un-related harassment of Israel.
Of particular interest are the activities of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). UN Watch mentions Mr Richard Falk, a UNHRC investigator, who it said had blamed the Boston Marathon bombing on “the American global domination project” and “Tel Aviv”, and was later praised for doing so by council members.
Also in 2013, the UN’s human rights body elected Mauritania as its vice-president. In a statement from UN Watch in September, Karoline Ronning stated that “nowhere is slavery so systematically practiced as in Mauritania, a country that is an elected member of this Human Rights Council.” She added “According to Abidine Merzough, a man born in Mauritania as a slave, and who is now the European coordinator of an anti-slavery NGO, sharia is used to justify this system.”
Other countries elected to the UNHRC in 2013 include China and Russia, but perhaps the most controversial election winner of the year was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is well known that Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s most oppressive states, particularly for women, and is a nation where apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and homosexuality all carry the death penalty. You can read Amnesty International’s most recent report on Saudi Arabia’s human rights record here.

In 1948, the UN’s General Assembly (the main deliberative body of the organisation) adopted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This document was initiated to represent the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are entitled. Though not enjoying the legal status of a treaty in its own right, the Declaration was partly intended to define the words “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights” in the UN Charter, which was legally binding on all signatories. Of utmost significance in the UN Declaration was the notion of the universality of human rights – for how else could we recognise and protect our common humanity?
Needless to say, some Islamists took issue with such a notion. Saudi Arabia refused to ratify the Declaration at the time, claiming that it violated sharia law. Criticisms continued over subsequent decades and in 1982 (not long after the Islamic Revolution) an Iranian representative Said Rajaie-Khorassani described the Declaration as “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition” which could not be implemented by Muslims without transgressing sharia.

A notable criticism of the Declaration from within the West came from Faisal Kutty, who founded the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association in 1994. Kutty’s remarkable comment got right to the heart of the matter – he said “A strong argument can be made that the current formulation of international human rights constitutes a cultural structure in which western society finds itself easily at home … It is important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may have equally valid alternative conceptions of human rights.”
Kutty argues, and the UN seems to concur, that societies such as those of Iran or Saudi Arabia, where citizens face execution for pursuing religious or philosophical freedom (apostasy carries the death penalty in both countries), are of equal validity in terms of human rights, as states that guarantee religious freedom for their citizens.
The problem of course is that the UN has fallen victim to the dangerous and deeply racist ideology of relativism. Relativism purports that concepts such as rights and freedoms vary in character across societies and cultures. They do not. Freedom for example has only one meaning. How one chooses to utilise freedom can of course differ, but that fact does not change its simple definition. Freedom refers to the right of a human being to organise their lives as they wish, with limits only to protect others. It has the same meaning everywhere in the world, and it is desired everywhere in world; freedom is human, it is not cultural.
In depicting freedom as a Western concept, as Islamists demand and the UN appears to sanction, fighters for freedom within Islamic countries are increasingly disempowered. Islamists routinely accuse human rights campaigners in Islamic states of pushing a Western agenda, and the UN is providing a buttress.
While relativising universal concepts and aiding the passage of blasphemy laws (proposed by countries that punish it with death), the United Nations is simultaneously engaged in a relentless quest to punish any potential breach of human rights laws by the tiny state of Israel. The United Nations passed 21 resolutions critical of Israel in 2013, compared to only 4 for the rest of the world combined.

Now, since the start of the recent Middle East conflict, the UN (as well as the Western media) has focussed its criticisms almost exclusively on Israel. In late July, the UNHRC passed a resolution to set up a new Commission of Inquiry on Israeli “war crimes”. UN Watch argued that the inquiry “encourages Hamas to continue killing Israelis with deadly rockets and terror tunnels”. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, agreed with UN Watch and said that the decision “sends a message to Hamas that the use of human shields is an effective strategy”.
Whether Israel’s response to the rocket attacks of Hamas is proportionate or justified is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion however is what Israel is actually facing; religious genocide. The Jewish state is confronting an enemy that quite openly calls for the death of all Jews. The UN, and the Western media, do not appear to consider this point relevant, and you certainly won’t hear it referred to on the BBC.
The Hamas Charter, its founding document, is a festival of Jew-hatred and it is hard not to conclude therefore that Israel is under attack simply because it is a place of safety for Jews – and because Jews top the jihadi hitlist. Just last month, Hamas confirmed again that their “doctrine in fighting you (Jews) is that we will totally exterminate you” and will “not leave a single one alive”.
Given its tendency to promote some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, and its relentless pursuit of the only democracy in the Middle East, it is clear to me, as it must be to many, that the UN is not only unfit to uphold global human rights, but instead represents a serious and growing threat to those rights, and their retention.

By Anne Marie Waters, 2015

We cannot afford to continue ignoring Islamic threats.

Since the global recession started in 2008, we have all had to make do, accept cuts to pay cheques and to public services just so as not to go bust. In the UK we hear our government is considering cutting our armed forces to under 50,000 in the next Parliament, and is struggling to keep defence spending to 2% of GDP.

Our health service is stretched beyond what is reasonable, and the poorest are surviving on food from food banks. Yet despite all this belt-tightening, we heard yesterday that Jihadi John’s family is now receiving police protection at a cost to the UK tax-payer of £5000 per week. I would say it is entirely debatable whether they really are in danger here anyway – for the British people are not prone to lynching people for the sins of their children.

We have put up with Muslim rape gangs all over the UK – not one lynching of any Muslims. We have put up with the horrific slaying of one of our soldiers in our streets – not one lynching followed. In fact – there is simply NO basis for the fanciful premise that somehow there is a rampant Islamophobic threat to Muslims in this country. Frankly – Muslims are safer in the UK than they would be back in Muslim nations where Muslims are routinely killed by other Muslims. It is us non-Muslims who are increasingly at risk from Muslims in our own countries – yet this is not dealt with adequately by our leaders. Rather, valuable money is spent protecting Muslims from OUR non-existent hatred!

The fact that we are not lynching anybody is a great testament to our civilised nature – but it is not to say that the people of Britain are overjoyed at their hospitality and tax money being squandered on people who are so ungrateful as to throw it back in our faces in the most vicious ways. Clearly, had the Emwazis not brought up a son who now specialises in the public beheading of innocents from the UK and elsewhere, there would be no need (even imaginary) for such expensive protection.

In fact this family was so ungrateful that Britain had fed, housed and educated them since taking them in as asylum seekers in 1992 that they never bothered to work for their living – relying on the state to pay for absolutely everything. We’ll never know what they taught their children precisely, but it can’t have been a love of Britain, Western values, a sense of fair play, patriotism to the land which gave them a safe home away from the ‘danger’ they claimed back in Kuwait (even though daddy Emwazi seems to have no problem residing back there today), or a sense of gratitude to the British people for having done so much for them for so long.

So instead of despatching this ungrateful family back to Kuwait where they could clearly live in safety again, we are spending £5000 per week protecting them from imaginary threats.

Similarly, we spent at least £2.75 million on funding hook hand Abu Hamza during his stay in the UK where he and his family lived solely off the tax payer, and he engaged in open treason and sedition on the streets of London, preaching hate and violent Jihad against us. Yet the state did nothing for decades of this – until finally Theresa May managed to deport him in this Parliament.

Around all mosques in the country today, you will see men in traditional dress milling around during the day – whilst everyone else in the country is hard at work at their desks. Not all of these people can be their own boss, business owners who can work the hours they please. Surely it is not too difficult to imagine many are indeed living off the state? And yet nothing is done. And at the same time we KNOW that there is blatant hate preaching going on in these Mosques, whilst we work to pay welfare for the attendees so they may be free from the hassle of work, to listen to it.

Baroness Flather, who was Britain’s first female Asian peer said in September 2011 that Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities were failing to adopt the values of British society and said they should have their benefits slashed.

In a speech the House of Lords during the second reading of the Welfare Reform Bill, she said: “The minority communities in this country, particularly the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis, have a very large number of children and the attraction is the large number of benefits that follow the child.

“Nobody likes to accept that, nobody likes to talk about it because it is supposed to be very politically incorrect.”

Baroness Flather has been accused of stirring up hatred for this comment – yet it is backed up with facts:

“…compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively” – (Migration Watch report)

This is a problem of false concern for the ‘rights’ of these immigrant populations to continue to live here without learning English, to continue to have large families and even to have more than one wife. This is a clear example of both Labour and Coalition governments putting the ‘rights’ of immigrants over those of the existing population. The same Migration Watch report shows that the cost in terms of benefits for a family on low incomes is huge, over a lifetime:

“There is a high concentration of immigrants in London. For example it is estimated that 70% of illegal immigrants live in London.[1] As rents are considerably higher in London, the total lifetime costs for a two child family resident in London is £1.1million, of which £505,000 is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.”

Pamela Geller, noted Islam critic, states this blunt summation of why so many Muslims are living off British welfare:

“53% of Muslim men are depending upon the kuffar. It’s the jiyza. It’s the duty of non-Muslim to pay for the upkeep of the non-Muslim”. – (See more at: Pamela Geller.com)

Yet still our governments pretend that we are a cohesive society where Muslims are contributing just as much as anyone else. Clearly, this is a complete lie – and it is the British people who suffer for this unfair situation in 2 ways – our national income is depleted in paying for these people who make every effort NOT to work, and our national security is jeopardised as they bring up children whose sole aims are to replace our Western democracy with a hateful Sharia Islamic theocracy. This is what terrorists want, and this is why they do not work – to have more time to plot terror and simultaneously drain our public purse.

This is why our government is letting us down. Rather than dealing with this clear abuse of our tolerance and generosity, it merely pretends there is a risk to Muslims from US, decent upstanding citizens! It claims there is rampant ‘Islamophobia’ when rather there is rampant hatred of non-Muslims BY Muslims alone – the ongoing revelations of the extent of ‘rape jihad’ (rape of young white girls by Muslim men) is proof if proof were needed – whilst there are clearly some Muslims who contribute and love this nation – there are far, far TOO MANY who hate us and abuse our tolerance to further their intolerance.

To the shame of the Crown Prosecution Service, who decided NOT to prosecute him when they could have, another would-be terrorist has just been sentenced to a long prison stay in New York state for plotting to blow up Manchester’s Arndale Centre. Incredibly, the police had seized this Pakistani on a fake student visa, found that he had been in regular contact with Al-Quaeda back in Pakistan and that he and his gang were plotting a Mumbai-style attack on the UK. Despite all the evidence the CPS decided not to prosecute him and let him back onto the UK streets where, had the US not demanded his extradition and successfully prosecuted him, he would no doubt by now have savagely taken the lives from a number of innocents.

There are daily examples of Muslims who were born and brought up in the UK and Europe who ‘out of the blue’ decide to become Jihadis, leave for Syria or kill people on home soil. At least this is how it is presented in the media and by our politicians. As if, without Islam, without having been brought up in a Muslim home or ‘radicalised’ by ‘hate preachers’ (preaching Islam) this would still have happened? Well, sure – there are nutters who ‘go postal’ and engage in mass killings without Islam. But the glaringly obvious fact is that these were unavoidable – with Jihad however, it is avoidable. How? Well simply by banning Islam, banning these vile ‘hate preachers’, banning all Jihadi intoned media (satellite and online) and engaging in a concerted campaign of civil education to remove Islam as an option for people.

Isn’t this too extreme a reaction? Well, it would be if it were based on a single solitary event. But Islam has been the cause of so much violence and death since 1980 (full list of atrocities here), and this is simply growing since the eruption of Isis and their claiming to have set up an Islamic caliphate (religious state) last year. It is now becoming insane not to address the core reasons for Islam’s seeming inexorable need for death and destruction.

The prophet said, “I have been awarded victory by terror; so the treasures of the earth are mine.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari/ Vol 9:127)

“….The prophet had their men killed, their children and women taken captive. The captives divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari/ Vol 5:512)

These quotes from Muhammad’s biography the Hadith are accepted as truth in the Sunni Muslim world (large majority of Muslims worldwide are Sunni) and Muslims are told to emulate and love this prophet despite this love of murder and looting. Yet I say ‘despite’ inadvertently – for in Islam there is absolutely no moral basis against murder or looting so long as it is done to infidels. Anything is allowed so long as Islam is spread globally until Islamic sharia law is the only law and Islam the only religion.

“Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’ That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah.” (Koran – Sura 8.12-13)

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Koran 009.029)

The quotes above from Koran are merely two of at least 160 verses of hate towards non-believers. It has to be accepted – unless one is a Muslim (and the right kind of Muslim at that for Sunni hate Shia and vice versa) – one is the enemy of Islam and thus Muslims (those who can be bothered to) have the right, given to them by their ‘god’, to destroy us. It doesn’t matter whether Muslims are living in the West or anywhere else – it is their religious duty to spread Islam until we infidel are subdued. That is what is meant by ‘Islam is a religion of Peace’ – it means that in Muslim eyes there will be peace on earth ONLY once Islam is spread to every corner of the globe and Sharia law is the only law. This is what ALL jihadis believe – and we in the West had better start believing this too – before we end up like Indonesia, which was once a Hindu/Buddhist nation, which has been turned into a Muslim state first by immigration then violent take-over. The same can be said for India and Afghanistan which were Hindu/Buddhist until Muslims came and took over by force – hence Pakistan. It is estimated at least 80 million Hindus were killed during the Muslim rule of parts of India. M.A. Khan who wrote about Islam in India in ‘Islamic Jihad’ says this about Islam:

“After 9/11, Khan began reading the scriptures of Islam and realized that Islam is actually a manifesto of open-ended war against non-Muslims for converting them or for subjugating them into horribly degraded dhimmi subjects.”

The problem we have in the UK is that any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims is immediately decried to be ‘racist’, ‘intolerant’, ‘far-right’ or even ‘fascism’. Yet it is the precise opposite of all these – we who oppose Islam are opposed to the racism, intolerance and fascism of Islam! We would have lived happily with Muslims had they not started to abuse our tolerance and freedom and generosity – had they not started to wage war against us by preaching hatred against us and attacking us. The huge number of ex-Muslims working today to bring the truth about Islam to light is testimony to this – after all, they ought to know. (Read more here, here and here).

How can we have gotten to the state where now Jews have to have armed guards protecting their places of worship? How is it possible that today Soldiers are advised not to wear uniform outside for fear of attack? Anyone is at risk from Islam – we know of the Arndale bomber (above) who was planning a Mumbai style attack on us – the question is simply – Who and Where will the next Islamic attack destroy? Why are our politicians not doing anything about this? Why are they all still pretending that Islam is a peaceful religion when it has shown it cannot coexist anywhere without eventually beginning to demand special treatment, followed by abusing the system and them violent attacks. Why are our leaders not protecting US, the innocent public? Why are they instead spending our money looking after those who would destroy us?

There has been news of new measures being prepared by the government to tackle extremism – but I would argue that these are still far wide of the mark:

“A leaked draft of the Home Office’s new counter-extremism strategy, seen by The Telegraph, targets Sharia courts and calls for a ban on radicals working unsupervised with children over fears the young could be brainwashed.

Other measures include a requirement that staff at job centres identify vulnerable claimants who may become targets for radicalisation, after public outrage at people who hate Britain being able to live off the state.

There will also be an introduction of penalties in the benefits system to make people learn English to improve their integration into British society.

The rules on granting citizenship will also be tightened to ensure new residents embrace “British values”. (From The Telegraph).

Clearly – all of these should have been in place from the first immigration by Muslims into this country. Certainly since 7/7 our state should have been tough on immigrants who live off the state and spread hatred. Sharia should never have been allowed and English should be a basic requirement before immigration – as otherwise we are simply cooking up a mess where hundreds of thousands (millions?) simply move here and never work! When we are facing cuts to all our services, when pensioners who have worked hard all their lives are having to live off charity in their old age, there is simply no excuse to continue ignoring the threat of Islam – not only to our national security but also to our national finances.

We cannot keep funding a growing population of people who won’t work and who raise children who want to kill us. This simple fact is behind the popularity of UKIP – because none of the mainstream parties are honest enough to publicly acknowledge the fact that Muslim immigration has not been working for this country and something must be done about it sooner rather than later. If we do nothing – we are simply waiting for the next terrorist horror to be perpetrated against us by Muslims whom we pay too heavily for the ‘privilege’ of hosting.

This should be a Conservative issue – even a Labour one – the people of this country of whatever colour and creed who work hard and pay their taxes honestly are being robbed of their jobs, services and even their lives by immigrants who do not play by the same rules. The poorest workers are seeing their jobs going to those who will work for little – but ALL of us are paying too heavy a toll for Muslim immigrants who simply feed off the system and give nothing back but terror and hatred. All our political parties SHOULD be doing and saying more about this to make this behaviour publicly derided as unacceptable.

As a friend of mine who is a lawyer has said, anyone engaged in activities that are counter our national interests should quite rightly be prosecuted under existing Treason law –

“Treason… is a suitably flexible term that applies to most of the vast range of activities that UK Jihadis get up to without the necessity to ban everyone else from doing everything else. Moreover it also has the entirely appropriate stigma that is important for crime prevention and draws a clear moral opprobrium against traitors to the country.”

It is the moral opprobirum and social stigma that is missing today – and our politicians and our media are guilty of colluding with Islamists to remove this from Muslim criminals by pretending it has ‘nothing to do with Islam’. There is therefore a huge gap in understanding with the public about the reality of Islam and the false image of Islam portrayed by media and politicians – this is why we are blindly walking into a state of dhimmitude or subserviency to Islam. This is why we MUST demand our leaders stop the lying and start acting in the interests of people who only want peace and tolerance to reign in this land once again.

Please sign and share the petition to examine Islam widely – https://www.change.org/p/president-dean-spielmann-examine-whether-islam-is-antithetical-to-human-rights

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/154

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037172/Baroness-Shreela-Flather-Migrants-having-big-families-claim-benefits.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.islam-watch.org/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Why I Think the West Needs to Examine Islam

A man leaves the Brick Lane Jamme Masjid mosque after Friday prayers in east London(Reuters)

“Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks.The taming and domestication of religious faith is one of the unceasing chores of civilization,” Christopher Hitchens.

I’ve been having rather a delightful conversation with a young secular Muslim these last few days. He’s been asking me why I started the Examine Islam petition.  When I speak to lovely people with a Muslim background, it is difficult for me to square the fact that I think there is a massive problem with Islam, with the fact that so many Muslims are lovely people. I am not alone in seeing huge problems with Islam – many others do – as the growing number of signatories to the Examine Islam petition which I started shows. The reasons people are giving are very moving, and never anything mean or ‘Islamophobic’ – but more to do with wanting to protect the peace and Human Rights which we take for granted in the West yet which were nonetheless hard-won.

Defeat Jihad Summit – 6 Hours of Beautiful Clarity – Please Watch for Reason’s Sake.

This is 6 hours long but has some of the bravest, sharpest counter-jihadists standing up for freedom, human dignity and Human Rights globally. Offering solutions and exposing the problem we are facing today from Islam – one of existential threat to our freedoms as human beings, globally. Muslims are more affected than non-Muslims from Jihadi violence, but the roots start in Islam and the texts, including the Hadith (life of Mohammed). This conference puts an end to the ‘wooly headed’ tradition of calling Islam the ‘Religion of Peace’. This video clarifies that – there is an inherent and powerful core of violence in Islam. Not all Muslims obey this but enough do to create the barbarity of Isis, Boko Haram, Al-Quaeda, etc etc.

Please please watch it (it starts around 30 mins in). Then take action – write to your political representatives – MPs, Senators etc and demand that they confront the ROOT cause of Jihad – Islam.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz among others. Go to securefreedom.org – for related free downloadable books including the Secure Freedom Strategy.

Please sign and share the important petition asking world leaders to examine Islam as being antithetical to Human Rights.

https://www.change.org/p/president-dean-spielmann-examine-whether-islam-is-antithetical-to-human-rights

NOT before time – Nick Cohen in Standpoint exposes the Left’s gross appeasement of Islam

“There are now more British Muslims fighting for Islamic State than serving in the British Army.”

I have just been passed a link to a brilliant article Nick Cohen has written in Standpoint magazine about how the Left will literally protest and block anything but Islam. In the end, The Left panders to and appeases what is clearly a totalitarian ideology. Those on the Left of UK politics will turn out in protest of UKIP, Scientists who wear racy shirts, and especially it will ban the wearing of Muhammad cartoon T-shirts:

Sharia in the UK and No-Go Zones – Nothing to do with Islam

Freedom is under extreme pressure.

The situation in the UK is very worrying right now. There has been much ridicule of the idea of Muslim ‘No-Go Zones’ within the UK, but in fact there do exist areas where non-Muslims rightly feel uncomfortable and unwanted, and where Muslims outnumber others – see below.

Brother – you can believe in stones, as long as you don’t hurl them at me!

“Only the Muslims defend their religion by burning churches and killing people”

“A clash between civilisation and backwardness, between freedom and oppression, between Human Rights, and the violation of these rights”

“Muslims must ask what they can do for the world before they demand the world respects them”

The wonderful Dr Wafaa Sultan, Arab-American psychologist and ex-Muslim on Islam is fascinating and to the point. Please watch this brief clip:

Don’t forget to sign and share this important petition asking our leaders to examine Islam as counter to Human Rights:

https://www.change.org/p/president-dean-spielmann-examine-whether-islam-is-antithetical-to-human-rights

Thought Experiment – Is Islam a Religion?

“In order to be protected under the Equality Act 2010, a religion or belief must be recognised as being cogent, serious, cohesive and compatible with human dignity.” The Equality Act 2010.

OK – so if you have been following this blog you will know my position on this – the belief system of Islam in fact contravenes Human Rights and the Equalities Act in a major and fatal way – IT IS NOT compatible with human dignity.

Islam is antithetical to fundamental Human Rights.

Islam calls for Sharia Law to supersede Civil Laws hence Human Rights Laws are rejected by Islam. The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights ruled in February 2003 that Islamic Sharia law is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” The court said that a legal system based on Sharia law “would diverge from the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the rules on the status of women, and its intervention in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”  Further, the European Court of Human Rights determined on July 31, 2001, that “the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.”