September 10, 2009

"I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land" - Blake

The Brussels Journal documents the latest British adventure with the Religion of Peace.

A Protest Attacked; A Blogger Threatened With Execution

Emotions are running high in parts of Britain. Only a couple of weeks ago, rumors that a “Right wing” group was planning to march through the Bury Park region of Luton were spreading through the Muslim communities of the city. This turned out to be false. When no one turned up, the Muslim youths that had congregated attacked the police, throwing missiles and hurling abuse [video]. 50 extra police had to be drafted to contain the situation.

Last week, as it became known that the so-called English Defense League (EDL) was planning to protest in Birmingham, Mohammad Naseem, chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque, told Muslims to “vent their feelings” at the EDL march, though he apparently believed that the police would separate the protestors and counter-protestors.

Dr. Naseem had also told his followers to form alliances with other counter-protestors, including with members of other religions and socialists. Such advice was ill advised, and probably unnecessary. Socialist – and especially Trotskyite – organizations have formed alliances with Islamist groups over the last few years, and have amassed tens of thousands of demonstrators across the country, in support of the terrorist organization Hamas. Even when they face no opposition, socialist leaders stoke the passions, and their protests almost invariably end in chaos. The police are often violently confronted. Retail property is smashed up. And Jews have been threatened and even assaulted.

The main socialist street protesting organization is Unite Against Fascism (UAF). Its supporters include Labour MPs, the head of the Conservative Party David Cameron, but its tactics and alliances (for example with extremist Muslims) have been questioned, even by those on the Left. David Toube lamented in the Leftwing Guardian not so long ago, that, “[…] with its sectarianism, silence on antisemitism and blindness to Islamist Jew-hatred, Unite Against Fascism just isn't up to the job.”

Writing about the UAF’s recent demonstration outside of the “Whites only” British National Party’s annual festival, Lucy James, a research fellow at the Muslim-run Quilliam foundation, criticized the UAF’s tactics, saying that the “protesters soon became violent,” and that “[…] protests become ineffective when they descend into thuggery and hooliganism.”

The English Defence League is composed of working class football fans. They are mostly – or perhaps they are all – White. They are roudy, wave flags and placards, and chant “England, England, England.” By most accounts, however, they are not violent. They also claim to oppose Islamic “extremists,” rather than all Muslims. At their recent Birmingham demonstration – held in the first week of September – one man was photographed holding a sign reading “No More Mosques,” which would seem less discriminating. However, others held signs reading “Say No To London Mega Mosque,” “Islamic Extremists Out: Make Britain Safe,” and “Jihadist Choudry! Leave OUR Children Alone.”

The “Jihadist Choudry” is Anjem Choudary, a prominent extremist Islamist, and head of Islam4UK – a reincarnation of the organization al-Muhajiroun, which was disbanded after British authorities threatened to ban it, following a number of high profile terrorist attacks and attempted attacks by its followers, including the so-called “shoe bomber” Richard Reid (who attempted to blow up an American Airlines jet) and Asif Hani, who blew up a cafĂ© in Tel Aviv.



Opus #6 said...

When people sell their souls to the islamic extremists for short term.political power gain, that is fleeting. Sharia law will crush all don't agree with them.

Hogdayafternoon said...

NickieG, it's a little lazy I know, but all I can add here is a `cut and paste` from my own post of a couple of days ago:

So, yesterday we had the conviction of the `liquid bomb` terrorists - well done indeed and a huge `thank you` to the Metropolitan Police team (which included officers seconded from forces all over the country) and also the 12 good persons and true of the jury. These counter terrorist investigations are the sort of thing that, for obvious reasons, you read about after the event and are often bizarre in the extreme. Many little sub-incidents along the path of the incredibly complex investigation and trial are forgotten, like occasionally reported police activity across the country, with secretive armed raids by police in black coveralls and helmets, on suspect addresses, of some poor innocent sod in the East End being accidentally shot in the shoulder and the following pious press articles of police blunders and cock-ups. Only the investigators know how dangerous the suspects are and only the officers taking down the door to arrest them know real fear and the strength it takes to hold it at bay. But for me, the most chilling thing that came out of the news coverage yesterday, was listening to the `after I am dead` video message from one of the convicted. Shallow and lacking in anything remotely convincing of clarity of thought through idealism, we were treated to what came across as a yob in a shemag who `um'd, err'd and ya-know-what-a' mean'd` his way to his concluding remark, "An' well, er, don't mess wiv da Muslims, right".

USA_Admiral said...

I think it might be too late over there.

Anonymous said...

Ope, sometimes people bend to the will of others for the sake of convenience. Tragic developments follow.

Anonymous said...

HogDay, thanks for the quality repost. It certainly is difficult trying to make progress when you are constantly under fire from an unsympathetic press.

Anonymous said...

Admiral, I share your concern, but one never knows when the stretching point will be reached and the populace will react.

THE FUTURE said...

Since 9/11, the Government has outlawed groups or individuals who use violence to liberate their land from occupation. Many Muslims have been arrested because of their support for such groups under the draconian terror laws. But now this appears to have changed with Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, suggesting that terrorism can be justified in certain circumstances.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Great Lives programme in which he chose to pay tribute to South African anti-apartheid activist, Joe Slovo, Miliband said that there were circumstances when terrorism can be justified and can be effective. He did not dispute the assertion that if Slovo was to be termed a terrorist, then so should the Bush administration for using terror to pursue political ends when invading Iraq. The importance for me is that the South African example proved something remarkable: the apartheid regime looked like a regime that would last forever, and it was blown down, the Foreign Secretary said in discussing the role of the African National Congress's military wing.

Miliband's comments were seized upon by Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, who said they were ill-judged and that ministers must be very careful before advancing any argument that seems to legitimise terrorism in some circumstances. When so much of the efforts of our security services, and the sacrifices of our troops in Afghanistan are devoted to defeating terrorists, this is hardly the time to argue that terrorism is sometimes acceptable, Hague said.

The justification of selective terrorism opens Pandora's box at a time when one of the main beneficiaries has been Israel by its exclusion from official British condemnations and the inclusion of Palestinian group stigmatised for their struggle against occupation. It reopens the ancient axiom that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' More so, it exposes the inherent defects in the Government's counter-terrorism policies.

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. This was the first of 16 conclusions reached by the Government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, after being asked to report on a definition nearly four years ago. The existing definition, which still has yet to be revised, is too wide to satisfy the clarity required for the criminal law, according the University of Essex. In its report on The Rules of the Game, the University says it leaves room for political bias and could be used to prosecute people active in legitimate social or political movements who are exercising their rights.

Miliband's remarks put another spanner in the feasibility of the UK terror laws, which are already based upon a number of false premises. But they must offer hope that strategies are being amended along with the Government's pledge to revise the whole raft of terror laws into a single more equitable legislation.

Current policies are not only wrong but also offensive. This includes the disparaging portrayal of the Palestinians, who are being treated as the perpetrators of terrorism rather than the victims of state terrorism.

Like the Foreign Secretary, Muslims should also be allowed to express their opinions rather than be in fear of arrest under the draconian anti terror legislation and be marginalised by the Government's Prevent strategy.

Opus #6 said...

The Future, if the Palestinians lay down arms there will be peace. If the Israelis lay down arms, they will be slaughtered.

Anonymous said...

Nice one, Ope.

Rhod said...

The Future, if you can't say it in fifty words or less, you don't understand the subject.