timeimmortal

Predictably, Shaukat Khawja is not pleased about this, and blames it all on “Zionist” media spin.

Like the US — the Zionist-contrlled mass-media in Britain also tells the public that Muslims are becoming a threat to the so-called “Western values”, refuse to integrate with local non-Muslim societies and don’t accept national practices of “liberalism” and “freedom of speech”.

That sounds about right. Shall we review?

First, there’s the issue of no-go areas, communities of predominantly Islamic immigrants into which non-Muslims venture at their own peril (Denmark has them too!). Then there’s the widespread support of things like Sharia law and legal disparity between men and women among younger Muslims in Britain (whose voices will be a part of what shapes what is to come for that country). The incitement to violent murder that is often preached in mosques in the United Kingdom is also concerning, as is the rampant and well-documented misogyny that accompanies Islam — and, in particular, Sharia law — wherever it spreads.

As to freedom of speech? Don’t. Get. Me. Started.

Not to be deterred by anything so inconvenient as the truth, however, Shaukat (a.k.a. Rehmat) continues:

Now, how idiotic these blames are, can be found from a speech given by professor Martin Amis of Manchester University — “Muslims are gaining on us demographically at huge rate. A quarter of humanity now, and by 2025, they will be third. ….Muslim community will has to suffer until it gets its house in order….I don’t hear from moderate Muslims, do you?….Strip searching Muslim people. Discreminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole Muslim community and they start getting tough with their children.”

Now, just imagine someone make the same statement with replacing the world Muslim with “Jews” — and find out how much “freedom of speech” exist in UK or the US or in UE countries. Mind you, it was in Europe that Jewish communities were expelled from almost every country — England being on the top of the list — for 350 years!

This is called shooting yourself in the foot, methinks; to at once demand proof that one can’t say unkind things about Jews and then follow it up with the observation that Europe has a massive, lengthy history of anti-Jewish bigotry is a textbook case of a self-defeating statement.

Not that I would expect any less from my good friend in Pickering, Ontario.

Of course, what’s even more amusing is how the quote from Amis and follow-on “thought experiment” actually do nothing to prove “how idiotic these blames” that Shaukat highlights are. The dispute over whether the media in Britain is or is not reluctant to print unkind things about Jews is irrelevant to whether or not the fears of the British populace are warranted or “idiotic.” It may well be that every media outlet in Britain is controlled by the Zionists…but if Muslims in Britain are something worth fearing, then the rest of the British people are still right to fear them, aren’t they?

British folk see Muslims as a growing threat in their midst. Is this really the fault of the distorted lies propagated by the Zionist-controlled media? Could there possibly be a more tangible reason? Could people possibly have a very real, true-to-life reason to be uncomfortable with their new Muslim neighbours?

Responding to this article, reader Bob Devine sends in his thoughts on my (very low) opinion of Britain’s implementation of Sharia courts.

Short and to the point. Except for Margaret Thatcher and a couple more (only a couple) the rest of those left wing kooks over there deserve exactly what they are doing to themselves.

I’m not so sure I’m ready to write off the United Kingdom just yet, but I will agree whole-heartedly that affording Islamic law any kind of legal recognition, especially binding legal authority can only lead to trouble, and then a lot of it. Britain stands upon the edge of a knife.

As I noted then: the Left has been having a spastic fit over Sarah Palin’s nomination as John McCain’s running mate, and more than a few commentators have said — apparently without irony — that the nomination of Palin will set women back X number of years or downgrade their social status to that of “uterus with feet.”

Meanwhile, over in Britain, the social status of women is now actively being degraded in just that way with the implementation of these sharia courts. And do you think Heather Mallick and her ilk have uttered so much as a peep about this issue?

[cue crickets chirping]

Anyhow, Bob also offers his comments on this article, concerning the cultural emasculation of men that has become so very prominent in many Western societies.

Feminism has affected more than the men in our society. Here is a link to ProWomanProLife that shows how it can affect women also. http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=654

I am glad I grew up in the time period I did (born 1939) I really do not care for the direction society today seems to be heading.

I find I agree. Modern feminism — as evidenced in the very harsh treatment the daughter of feminist icon Alice Walker received from her own mother, after deciding to marry and have a child — has parted ways with the ideals that began the feminist movement, which were genuinely concerned with equality and equitability. What remains is a truly horrifying thing indeed, infused as it is with eugenic and censurious sentiments.

The controversial U.S. Representative proposes to make it illegal for sharia courts to operate in the United States.

Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.

…

Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment — such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant — a near impossible task.

…

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.

Hard not to like the idea, isn’t it? But he’ll probably be condemned as a sexist and a racist for suggesting it. Because that seems to way brains are wired on the Left.

Related (and also old news): I’ll give you a jihad…

Mohamed Elmasry wants you to shut up, O Reader. And he wants me to shut up, too.

Quoted in the National Post, Elmasry stated, “The state should act to empower those who are disadvantaged by hate speech, and that may mean lowering the voices of some in order that others may be heard.” Of course he isn’t talking about lowering voices; what he really wants is to silence them.

It’s a frightening prospect when adherents to any Religion can dictate what is and is not acceptable in public discourse. As a society we have taken strong measures to ensure that government and religion are separated, yet Mr. Elmasry wants to prevent so-called Islamophobes from speaking their mind by classifying anything they may have to say as “hate speech”.

His opposition to the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a section that is so draconian in preventing free speech that even Alan Borovoy one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, thinks it overly intrusive.

[Mohamed Elmasry] wants to use this law to silence all critics of Islamic fundamentalism, which will impose a chilling effect on freedom of speech in this country. There are no guarantees in our democracy that anyone has the right not to be offended. Indeed, much of what Elmasry says is offensive, especially to those of the Jewish faith. Yet no one is attempting to gag his vitriol, even when he asserts on national television that killing all Jews over the age of 18 in Israel is desirable.

Now, is that a double standard or a hidden agenda on Elmasry’s part?

On the surface it seems odd that a controversial figure like Elmasry would be so eager to empower the state to censor offensive views. Elmasry himself has had issues with hateful words spilling out of his mouth. The CIC has also supported the free speech rights of Sheikh Younus Kathrada…Sheikh Yunus al-Qaradawi…Zafar Bangash…al-Jazeera…

Now, on the surface, it would seem odd that Elmasry would be so pro-censorship given that such a strategy could be self-defeating in that Elmasry and his friends could be caught in such a wide net.

Is this simply a double-standard — free speech for me but not for thee?

Maybe not.

Elmasry has been on record supporting what would be tantamount to blasphemy laws:

On February 23, Muhammad Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress and Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada told the Toronto Star they want to see changes in Canada’s Hate Laws that would make it possible to jail writers who, in their opinion, insult or mock religious beliefs.

Both Mohamed Elmasry and Syed Soharwardy are asking for changes in Canada’s hate laws “so that offensive remarks or depictions of any religious figure are considered a crime.”

Their demand has its origins in Egypt, where Islamists led by Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi of al-Azhar University have been lobbying Muslim leaders to ask the United Nations to write a law that “condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets.”

Obviously, Elmasry would face much more of an uphill battle if he were pushing for Egyptian-style blasphemy laws.

Maybe it’s not Elmasry who has the double-standard, but that he is merely taking advantage of the double-standard of human rights commissions to sneak in such a law through the back door.

It’s scary to think that such a thing as this — which is tantamount to advocacy for the implementation of at least some aspects of Sharia law — could happen in Canada, but there it is. And the HRCs have been co-opted into the tool of choice for this Islamic agenda.

Of course, the HRCs were already serving to undermine the human rights — free speech is a human right, and then an important one — of Canadian citizens. But at least, when it was just secular leftists and homosexual activists having their way in front of the commission tribunals, nobody was talking about implementing Egyptian legal policy on Canadian soil.

Update: Welcome, Kathy Shaidle readers!

…it would appear that some daft twits in the British government have given the go-ahead to the implementation of Sharia courts.

And yes, it would appear to be as bad as it sounds.

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

…

In the six cases of domestic violence…the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Well, isn’t that just not a surprise at all? Given that a surprising number of Muslim scholars and teachers world-wide support and endorse wife-beating, I can only imagine that there’s a fifty/fifty chance that the “anger management classes” and “mentoring” will be discussions about the radius and length of stick with which it is permissible to administer a beating.

You know, the Left has been having a spastic fit over Sarah Palin’s nomination as John McCain’s running mate, and more than a few commentators have said — apparently without irony — that the nomination of Palin will set women back X number of years or downgrade their social status to that of “uterus with feet.”

Meanwhile, over in Britain, the social status of women is now actively being degraded in just that way with the implementation of these sharia courts. And do you think Heather Mallick and her ilk have uttered so much as a peep about this issue?

Don’t laugh too hard, dear Reader.

Let’s hope this sticks. Stockwell Day += cool.

Canadian border guards have been told to bar a fanatic church group that was planning to protest the funeral of a man beheaded on a Greyhound bus, reports say.

NDP MP Pat Martin told the Winnipeg Free Press that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day sent the alert to border guards Thursday.

The church group, described in a British documentary as “the most hated family in America,” told CTV.ca earlier Thursday that it planned to protest at the funeral of 22-year-old Tim Mclean on Saturday.

The Westboro Baptist Church nutters are all kinds of crazy. Heck, their crazy went crazy long ago, and they’re still dealing with the fallout.

To wit:

The daughter of the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, [Kansas], told CTV.ca she and several other church members will go to Winnipeg on Saturday to demonstrate against what she described as McLean’s “filthy way of life.” Shirley Phelps-Roper said his life was emblematic of Canada’s moral decay.

“God handed us a gift,” Phelps-Roper said in a phone interview on Thursday.

She said McLean deserved his death by beheading on a Greyhound Bus last week.

“(His death was) supremely unemotional. You got God shaking in rage. There is no emotional component…He was a rebel against God. He was taught to be a rebel by his parents. He came from a rebel country…They brought this wrath upon his head. And it sucks to be him and it sucks to be them,” Phelps-Roper said.

She said his brutal murder was a sign from God.

“You gotta connect the dots, people…from your idols to your filthy way of life,” she said.

“Here’s what I know. He is dead and God does not do that to people that serve in his truth.”

I think I speak for pretty much every Christian when I say: get out and stay out! There is little else I can say about the Westboro crowd without devolving into rage, and so will not comment on their odious practices further.

I’m glad Stockwell Day has taken steps to ensure these malicious people are not allowed into Canada. Now, if we could just do the same for Sharia enthusiasts and Hezbollah/Taliban supporters, we’d be off to a great start.

Update: Damn. Apparently some of ‘em got through That’s okay…we can arrest them for that, can’t we? Ah, well, no harm, no foul — it would appear that even those who got through didn’t have the guts to actually show up and protest.