George Galloway curries favour with Muslim Electorate through invoking the prophet Motive

It is perhaps somewhat paradoxical that the parliamentary constituency of Bradford West is very much of the East in terms of both its outlook and demographic complexion. Its MP – George Galloway, of the peculiarly named ‘Respect’ Party – knows his electorate well, and is no shrinking violet when it comes to setting out his political stall, the wares of which habitually pertain to something going on far, far away from these shores, almost always in a land with a majority Muslim population. This is, of course, no coincidence, for the lands to which he refers possess a greater emotional resonance for the bulk of his electorate than other parts of the Bradford Metropolitan District, such as Ilkley. You won’t often hear a resident of Manningham singing ‘On Ilkla Moor Baht ‘at’, for the preferred ‘song’ that wafts through the air in the vicinity of the minaret-like mighty chimney of Manningham Mills is the somewhat less lyrical, and rather more solemnly intoned, “Allahu-akbar”! Such a welcoming sound! Then again, perhaps, not.

Galloway is a canny operator, and unlike many of his opponents, is a competent orator who fine-tunes what he says for his audience to provide an appearance of ‘authenticity’. His stance is emotive, and his speeches invested with a degree of physicality, both contrasting with the listless and dull styles of the likes of Miliband, Cameron and Clegg (Miliband’s speeches possess all of the gravitas displayed by a twelve-year old presenting to the class on what he did over the summer holidays). So much for the style, but what about the substance? Alas, little positive can be said regarding the content of Galloway’s speeches upon which his talents are wasted. The latest of these he delivered on the steps of Bradford City Hall on the evening of Sunday 18 January, to a crowd several hundred strong, which had gathered to condemn the principles of freedom speech and expression, or more specifically, Charlie Hebdo.

Gathered in the dark chill of a winter’s night, his fiery oratory revisited familiar territory to fan the glowing embers of his audience’s resentment: ‘double standards’ in which ‘free speech’ was only ‘free’ if you were not a Muslim. He used the case of the recent murders perpetrated by Islamists in Paris as an opportunity to talk of a supposed anti-Muslim ‘backlash’ in this country and elsewhere in Europe, repeatedly invoking the cliché of the Muslim as ‘powerless victim’, forever set upon by an innately ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic’ (sic.) society. His audience found his rhetoric emotionally sustaining; its tenor may have been predictable, but this is what his listeners yearned for. Of the images published by Charlie Hebdo he intoned:

“These are not cartoons. These are not depictions of the prophet. These are pornographic, obscene insults to the prophet, and by extension 1.7 billion human beings on this Earth.”

If Galloway deems the image below to be ‘pornographic’, all that can be said is that he must possess some pretty ‘specialist’ tastes when it comes to arousal. Admittedly, he did make a fair point when posing the question as to why the Saudis should have had a prominent representative at the front of the Paris ‘Je suis Charlie’ march, for quite obviously there is no free speech in Saudi Arabia, and certainly no leeway for anyone to produce depictions, let alone cartoons of, Muhammed.

Offering a cursory condemnation of the murder of 17 people in Paris, Galloway quickly moved on to the main theme of his speech:

“Charlie Hebdo’s entire purpose, and for years, has been to further marginalise, further alienate, and further endanger exactly those parts of the community who are already alienated, already endangered. It is a racist, Islamophobic, hypocritical rag. Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo! We say that the honour of religious people, their prophets, their beliefs, is not fair game for such people because there are already limits to freedom of speech.”

The crowd, predominantly Muslim, warmed to his words. George Galloway, the MP for a post-English Muslim enclave in the heart of urban Yorkshire, was forwarding himself as the defender of the Islamic faith; the champion of a new de facto blasphemy law in defence of dark age obscurantism. In his peroration, he stated: 

“So, for the sake of social peace, for the sake of unity in our society we have to demand from our Government the protection of the prophet from obscene and pornographic provocation, and in Parliament I intend to fight for that. Asalaam alaykum!”

To this, he might have added “and remember to vote for me at the forthcoming General Election, as I even went so far as to convert to Islam to win this constituency.” Perhaps it is being a little unfair to impute his conversion to tactical political cynicism, but then again, why would anyone with an ounce of intelligence who was not compelled to adopt this religion choose to embrace such a ragbag of incoherent religious twaddle? Furthermore, what sort of prophet and what sort of deity require the protection of the law? If this ‘Allah’ of theirs gets so offended by a few rather crudely drawn cartoons, he’s neither very balanced, nor omnipotent. Why should this be? Clearly because Allah only exists inside the heads of believers, for he is a work of fiction, and bad fiction at that. There really isn’t anything ‘akbar’ about him at all, and to have people demand respect for this nonsense is the greatest obscenity of all, particularly when considering that his beloved ‘prophet’ appears to have possessed anger issues on a level with those of Genghis Khan. This demand for ‘respect’ from Respect’s only MP, is offensive. 

Europe’s Cuckoos all a-twitter: ‘Je suis Kouachi’

Last night, the Belgian website sudinfo.be ran an article claiming that the top-trending twitter hashtags for Friday 9 January were #JeSuisCoulibaly and #JeSuisKouachi, which, as it notes, presents a rather ‘less positive message’ than the original #JeSuisCharlie that they were modelled upon. That these hashtags proved to be more popular raises the concern that support for their aims, if perhaps not necessarily their methods, amongst large swathes of the Muslim population in Europe is widespread.  

It should be abundantly clear by now, that doctrinaire Islam neither permits nor recognises the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of speech, and that the more people that there are in our countries who hold these views, the less secure our freedoms become. It should now also be equally clear, that this is not some esoteric intellectual debate less relevant to our everyday lives than the economic crisis through which we are living, for it is not only cartoonists, writers and thinkers who are threatened by Islamism, but everyone who does not submit to Islam. All Islamists, irrespective of whether they employ violence or strictly ideological and political methods, desire our submission. It is time that we made clear that we will not submit, and that there should be no place for such people in France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, or anywhere else in Europe. A minority of Europeans are bravely protesting and speaking out against the increasing Islamisation of their countries, in the face of unfounded accusations of racism, and the contempt of the leaderships of those political parties who have long advocated and encouraged large-scale immigration from overseas, irrespective of the values of the incoming population.  

Our message against Islamisation must be heard, taken seriously and acted upon. The Islamic cuckoo is growing restive in its European nest, and these tweets should awaken us to the fact that it must no longer be fed and nurtured with ever more emollient words and concessions, but instead ejected.

 

 

Gates of Vienna Blog blocked

Earlier this month the Gates of Vienna blog was inaccessible for a time, and yesterday readers were once again denied access. At the time of writing a visit to Gates of Vienna (GOV) was met with the following notice: ‘This blog is under review due to possible Blogger Terms of Service violations and is open to authors only.’

The message is a little cryptic, but the fact that public access to it has been blocked, temporarily or possibly permanently, indicates that Blogger’s owners – Google – are susceptible to pressure to censor opinions that are deemed to upset some people around the globe. Given the content of the blog in question, it does not take a great deal to guess which particular ideological constituency will have demanded that access be blocked: an Islamic lobby group of one sort or another.

Some of the articles published on the GOV I have agreed with, and others I have not, but agreeing or disagreeing with a set of opinions set out on a platform such as a blog is no reason to have them either extolled by all as ‘virtuous’ or condemned and censored for whatever spurious reasons happen to be called forth by way of justification on the part of an ‘offended’ party. After all, to offend someone nothing more is necessary – at least in the case of those who will not brook any dissent from their perspective – than to disagree with their opinion.

Whether or not you happen to agree with the general thrust and tenor of articles published on the GOV is immaterial: the decision to deny public access to the blog strikes me as a violation of freedom of expression, and that in itself is a sinister move on the part of the internet giant. Although those who dislike GOV have attempted to smear it by association with Breivik, who happened to cite it in his largely unread rambling ‘manifesto’, GOV has not called for violence and in no uncertain terms condemned the actions of the psychopath Breivik as soon as his identity became known. The blog appears to be the latest high-profile element of the transnational ‘counterjihad’ movement to have been taken out. In the UK over the past 18 months we have seen Alan Lake/Alan Ayling dismissed from his job at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Chris Knowles sacked from his job with Leeds City Council for holding views deemed to be at variance with its ‘diversity policy’. More recently, EDL founder and leader Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson received a prison sentence for gaining entry to the US on someone else’s passport, and a little over a week ago his relative and fellow leading EDL member Kevin Carroll was arrested for what was alleged to be‘inciting racial hatred’.

As perhaps the best known of the ‘Counterjihad’ blogs, taking out GOV strikes a blow against the loose network and movement that it represents. It is a worrying development, for though it may be unpalatable to what is deemed to be acceptable opinion, the concerns that it articulates with respect to the various facets of Islamisation – particularly to the demographic Islamisation of many European societies – are legitimate. Much of what has been written on its platform differs little in its essential thrust from the argument and evidence presented by respected journalist Christopher Caldwell in his book ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West’ published in 2009. Thankfully, unlike ‘Baron Bodissey’, Caldwell has yet to experience the chill winds of censorship, but Google’s latest exercise in apparent censorship poses the question as to how much longer such dissident opinions will be tolerated. In and of itself, the decision to block access to the Gates of Vienna would appear to bear ugly testimony to the blog’s protestation that Islamisation constitutes a genuine danger to the freedom of both speech and expression. We can only hope that Google relents, and allows the blog to once again reach a general readership as it has done over a number of years.

Note: thanks to Ivan Winters for drawing this to my attention.

UPDATE
Immediately after posting this piece I discovered via the Infidel Bloggers Alliance blog that the Gates of Vienna has moved to a new site that can be accessed here.

Gates of Vienna blog banner

Party Progress: Part One

Introduction

It seems that the internet is abuzz with news and rumours pertaining to new political parties these days, although quite how new their content may be, is another matter altogether. Some of them are focused on single issues, whereas others see themselves as successors to a small ethnonationalist party in terminal decline. Not unnaturally, some readers of this blog may have concluded, given the statement made here earlier this year, that one or two of these rumoured new parties may in some way be linked with this announcement, or backed by this blog; they are not. Why this should be the case will become clear in the paragraphs below. However, before outlining precisely what it is that we propose, and characterising in broad ideological terms what we are and the values that we stand for in the next article, it will first be necessary to provide a digressive introduction, for it is an unfortunate fact that from the outset it is likely that we will be attacked and deliberately misrepresented by our political foes. It is in recognition of this coming campaign of disinformation that this outline is given, so that unprejudiced readers may adjudge for themselves what we truly are and wish to achieve, rather than running the risk of having them misled by the defamatory lies and distortions of those who oppose the emergence of a genuine non-globalist political alternative in our country today.

Earlier this year, I wrote a series of articles that outlined the need for the creation of a moderate political party that placed the national interest first; that had amongst its primary goals the advancement of the material well-being of the people of this country and the recognition that sovereignty inheres within the people and flows from them, not from any supranational agency or body. Part of the recent crisis of confidence in democracy has arisen from a lack of accountability and responsiveness on the part of political elites and, although it has not been articulated quite so frequently, of a nascent transnational economic stratum to which they are linked, and with which they overlap in terms both of outlook and membership. The intent of what was written therefore was to turn attention to this democratic deficit, and to propose a remedy in the form of the creation of a credible and moderate political party, which unlike the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green parties would not advance the principle of globalism, but that of popular national participatory democracy. Whereas our current party political system militates against choice and in favour of technocratic managerial authoritarianism of one flavour or another, our proposed party advocates a thoroughgoing democratisation.

Marx and Hayek: In Globalism we trust 

For those on the Far Left, the principle of national sovereignty is anathema upon doctrinaire grounds, for it is believed to hamper the coming of the desired-for socialist millennium, whereas for the capitalist advocates of globalism, national sovereignty is seen as an unwelcome hindrance to the transnational movement of capital, goods and labour. The two therefore, have become vigorous advocates of an interrelated set of ideologies: transnationalism; globalism; cosmopolitanism and ‘diversity’. The disciples of Marx and Hayek have paradoxically united in their opposition to such inconveniences as national self-determination and democracy, with both promoting a politico-economic fatalism that portrays globalisation as an unstoppable, inevitable and desirable process. There is no conspiracy as such at play here, but rather the complex interaction of different material interests and ideologies embodied within and articulated by a plethora of non-state, sub-state and transnational actors, whether they be commercial, political or cultural. The revolutionary Marxist Left has since its inception sought not to ameliorate what it terms ‘the contradictions of capitalism’, but to exacerbate them, so as to try and bring about an intensification of human suffering, and thereby precipitate a revolutionary situation through mass radicalisation. It is their hope that the current global financial crisis can be exploited in their favour; globalisation, they believe, is their friend.

Elements of the Far Left have thus welcomed the coming of globalisation and the promotion of its attendant ideology of globalism, and a number of ‘radical’ theories and stances developed by the New Left and US Civil Rights Movement since the 1960s, have been eagerly appropriated by transnational corporations (TNCs) and agencies (TNAs), to lend a veneer of ‘progressivism’ and ‘morality’ to their narrow self-interested operations. Thus it is that the discourse of ‘diversity’ and ‘anti-racism’, largely developed within the context of the politics of the United States, a racially cleft society of immigrants, has been taken up by TNCs and TNAs and employed as a means of challenging the legitimacy of nation-states, promoting the dismantling of border controls to facilitate mass immigration which drives down labour costs, assists in the stripping away of European workers’ rights, and thereby enables an assault to be made upon European welfare states that they portray as being ‘too costly’. The latter is untrue, but TNCs possess sufficient financial clout to be able to promote this message through a compliant mass media that they effectively own. Our party opposes this attack upon the material conditions of working people in the UK, whilst at the same time not placing blame upon the immigrants who have come here genuinely to work, for they have merely taken advantage of a near de facto open borders policy.

The concept of popular sovereignty, of political authority being anchored in and flowing from the people – from the nation – has been subjected to an ongoing and sustained ideological and material assault, undermining the very basis, and hollowing out the substance of democracy itself. Part of this attack upon national self-determination in the UK has consisted of the relatively recently propagated myth that ‘we are a nation of immigrants’, whereas prior to the post-war waves of mass immigration which this narrative has been devised to accommodate and legitimise, the situation was rather different. The Far Left scorns popular national democracy as ‘bourgeois democracy’, whereas the TNCs and TNAs do not find it conducive to their smooth operation, so these various actors have found it convenient to recast defenders of popular democracy as ‘xenophobes’, ‘bigots’ and ‘racists’, fabricating a discourse about their constituting a new ‘Far Right threat’, lumping them in with the small number of people who genuinely merit such appellations.

This seeming digression has been provided for one straightforward yet highly salient reason: the proponents of globalism are willing to do whatever they deem necessary to discredit and destroy any opposition to their globalist objectives, and in order to do this, they employ the most potent weapons available in the political arsenal: accusing their opponents of being ‘Far Right’, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’. In doing so, they not only manage to target those who do deserve such labels – a vanishingly small number of people in any country including our own – but those of us who do not. These smear tactics are calculated and deliberate, and once thrown, the mud tends to stick no matter how undeserving the target. How then should we popular democrats rebut such allegations? It is in fact, quite straightforward.

The first thing to consider when rebutting the above accusations is that those who employ these smears fail to define their terms. So, we must define them, and once they are defined, it is but a straightforward matter to prove that their allegations are baseless. Let us start by turning to the term ‘fascism’.

What is Fascism?

Fascism is an anti-democratic authoritarian movement that takes many forms, but at its core lie the following features: a cult of anti-rational violence, militarism, authoritarianism and national or racial supremacism, often combined with territorial expansionism. The role of law is disregarded, being replaced by the arbitrary exercise of power undertaken by the governing party and its authoritarian leadership. Moreover, many definitions refer to a fusion of corporate and state interests, with private interest being portrayed as embodying the public good. A single ideology is promulgated and enforced, with dissident views being suppressed, and those who articulate them persecuted.

It is traditionally characterised as being of the ‘Right’, but combines features from various elements of the political spectrum (‘Left’ and ‘Right’, particularly in practical terms, are now largely antiquated labels and should to all intents and purposes be discarded, although they still possess a certain emotive appeal for those who believe that they belong to one or the other).

What we are not:

Fascists

We are not fascists, for we believe in intellectual pluralism, freedom of speech and expression and the principle of holding politicians to account; we favour thoroughgoing democratisation, not authoritarianism.

We are resolutely opposed to political violence and to the ready recourse to military adventurism in foreign affairs. Militarily, we stand for a policy of neutrality and non-interventionism overseas, holding to the principle that our armed forces should act in a purely defensive capacity.

We are not xenophobes or supremacists, and recognise and appreciate the genuine expression of human cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity around the globe, as well as the right to assert our cultural primacy in our own country through ensuring that all official communication is in our native languages, that there is one common law for all, and that children are taught our history and traditions in our schools. All peoples should be accorded the inalienable right of cultural self-determination in their own home territories. We respect and value cultural pluralism, but we reject state-imposed ‘multiculturalism’, which is a different affair altogether.

We oppose the fusion of corporate and state power, and seek instead to ensure that our citizens are protected both from unwarranted state intrusion into their domestic lives, and corporate attempts to drive down wages and depress the general standard of living.

Conspiracy Theorists

We do not believe that there is any cohesive global elite or one in the making that possesses any ‘plan’ bent upon global domination. Instead, we recognise that international relations are governed by a complex interplay of competing and overlapping material and ideological interests embodied within states, transnational corporations, supranational institutions, NGOs, social movements and the media, that at times converge to produce statements and policies deemed to be mutually beneficial and expedient by a number of these actors, whilst at others generating conflict between them. The idea of there being a single aspirant hegemonic force at play in global politics is utterly misguided and unfounded. We therefore do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories centred upon the following: Bilderbergers; UN New World Order; the Illuminati; Jews; interdimensional lizards or any other fantastical force capable of being dreamt up within the mind of a conspiracy theorist. 

Racists

We are not racists, for we believe that individuals each possess their own merits and aptitudes irrespective of their racial background. To treat someone in a negative manner because they happen to be of a different race is simply wrong. The selection of candidates in the workplace should be based upon merit alone: the right candidate for the job in question. No favouritism should be displayed in the form of ethnic and racial quotas, or associated ancillary measures promoting the creation of ethnic and racial pressure groups, as is the case today.  

Concluding Remarks

It should now be clear from what has been written that we are not proposing some thuggish, authoritarian, anti-rational politics and system of governance as elements of the Far Left will doubtless claim, but something altogether different: a broadening and deepening of democratic practice intended to promote the well-being of the nation.

Having spelt out what our party is not, the next instalment will outline our broad policy platform and objectives. If after reading this you should find it to your liking, we invite you to become involved in making this party a success. We need a fresh, viable political alternative to the globalist options currently set before us, and the time for the launch of a party embodying such principles is ripe. We cannot bring this about alone, and need to draw in dedicated people with a diverse range of talents. It is up to you.

Reform Section 5: why is the BBC silent?

The Reform Section 5 Campaign with its slogan ‘Feel free to insult me!’ was formally launched by Rowan Atkinson last week, but for some reason did not appear to receive any coverage from the BBC, or not at least from its website. Why did it choose not to cover this story? After all, since its introduction Section 5 has placed considerable limitations upon freedom of speech and expression and has led to the prosecution of a number of people for no good reason at all. Being a public service broadcaster which, one would think, ought to be interested in championing free expression, why was it silent?

It was therefore left to other media to cover the launch. The Week quoted Atkinson as stating:

"The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such," said Atkinson. "Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult."

Section 5 is part of the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws the use of words, behaviour or signs that are "threatening, abusive or insulting" near a person likely to be offended by them.

Indeed, the Reform Section 5 website details a number of cases illustrating the absurdity of the law. Three of these case summaries are reproduced below detailing respectively: a man convicted for growling at two Labradors; Christian hoteliers who talked to a guest about Mohammed and Islamic dress codes, and animal rights protesters who were moved on by police because their cuddly toy seals were deemed to be ‘distressing.

Kyle Little was arrested under Section 5 for what was described as a “daft little growl” and a “woof” aimed at two Labrador dogs. Although the dog owner did not want a prosecution, Mr Little was detained for five hours and prosecuted. He was convicted and fined. On appeal Newcastle Crown Court quashed his conviction. The case cost the taxpayer £8,000.

Christian hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were charged with breaching Section 5 for engaging in a conversation with a Muslim guest about Mohammed and Islamic dress for women. After lengthy questioning by police they were charged and later tried at Liverpool magistrates’ court. They were found innocent after a judge said their accuser’s evidence was not reliable.

Animal rights protesters were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under Section 5 for objecting to seal culling by displaying toy seals coloured with red food dye. They were told by the police that the toys were deemed distressing by two members of the public. The police then ordered the protesters to move on.

Are we then to take it that the BBC’s silence on Reform Section 5 indicates its opposition to the campaign? This would not, given the tightly controlled and stiflingly politically correct broadcasting of the corporation come as any surprise, for genuine freedom of speech and expression is not something that the BBC favours; it prefers, to borrow an ugly term from the New Labour era, for its presenters and editors to be consistently ‘on-message’, which means not upsetting its pet minority groups such as, most notably, Muslims.

Nonetheless, Reform Section 5 does seem to enjoy a broad spectrum of support, with a number of pressure groups, think tanks and politicians lending their backing to the campaign, as well as a number of celebrities, including Stephen Fry. Organisations as different in their orientation as the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society have united in their wholehearted backing of the project, but despite their vociferousness and willingness to demonstrate over a number of issues relating to freedom of speech and expression (or, more accurately, in favour of their curtailment), no Muslim organisations have declared their backing for the campaign.

The breadth of likely support in the House of Commons is illustrated by an amendment to Section 5 of the Public Order Act tabled by MP Edward Leigh in May 2011, which proposed that the word “insulting” be deleted. Although he managed to garner the support of 65 MPs (31 Conservative, 14 Labour, 11 Liberal Democrat, 6 DUP, 1 Alliance, 1 Green and 1 SDLP), it was not successful. Evidently, a little more pressure needs to be applied to MPs for this campaign to achieve its goals, but there do appear to be grounds for optimism that Section 5 will be dropped, but without of course, any help from the BBC.

The video below shows Rowan Atkinson giving his speech at the parliamentary reception launching the Reform Section 5 Campaign. 

One Million Muslims to march in London?

Since an Egyptian Salafist television station took the decision to screen excerpts from the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ last month a series of protests has been mounted against the film by doctrinaire Muslims around the globe. Whereas many of the overseas demonstrations have proven to be violent, here in England they have in the main been peaceful, albeit unwelcome and by definition irrational. The film itself would have gone largely unnoticed if it were not for the fact that the Salafist agitators in Egypt deliberately chose to broadcast it with the intent of inflaming the mob element within the Muslim population, fanning its sense of righteous indignation in an effort to win political capital for their cause. Indeed, they have enjoyed considerable success in this respect, and the whole affair brings to mind how in December 2005 Islamist agitators – imams from Denmark touring the Middle East – deliberately chose to publicise cartoons of Muhammed published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, as well as appending some additional images themselves for extra measure. Then, as now, they were successful in mobilising Islamist sentiment.

One of the first protests in England against ‘Innocence of Muslims’ took place in the Birmingham Bullring on Friday 21 September and brought around 100 young Muslims onto the streets, some of whom became involved in scuffles with the police. On Friday 28 September it was Bradford’s turn to host a larger protest, although it failed to draw the numbers anticipated. In Oldham however, the Oldham Mosques Council initially took a different view and urged local Muslims to make their opposition known not through the medium of public protest, but via writing to their MPs and MEPs.

More protests were to follow, one of which almost went unreported despite taking place beneath the walls of Westminster Abbey on Saturday 6 October. On the same day, protests took place in West Yorkshire and Lancashire: in Huddersfield the demonstrators gathered in St George’s Square, drawing an estimated 2,000 Muslims (see picture below), whilst across the Pennines in Bolton 300 marched to the local council offices to hand in a petition bearing 5,000 signatures expressing disgust at the film. The following Friday, 12 October, it was Halifax’s turn to host a Muslim protest about the same issue, with hundreds – mostly men – marching through its streets.

This week saw the biggest and most sinister protest yet by Muslims in England, with anywhere in the region of 3,500 to 10,000 people (figures quoted by The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph respectively) turning up outside of Google’s London offices demanding that ‘Innocence of Muslims’ be removed from the internet. More such protests are planned for the weeks ahead, with an intended million-Muslim protest to be held in Hyde Park soon. This is not the voice of so-called ‘extremist’ Islam speaking here, but mainstream Islam (but who, other than a Muslim or the wilfully ignorant, could possibly perceive Islamic doctrine to be anything other than ‘extreme’, domineering and intolerant?), for it is said that up to 800 imams in mosques across Britain had backed the anti-Google protest. Trouble is brewing as they attempt to snuff out freedom of speech and expression – in our country – through bullying and intimidation. This is the nature of the ideology that our mainstream politicians have pandered to and facilitated and facilitated the spread of through a combination of political expediency, cowardice and the desire for Arab petrodollars. 

It is thus deeply worrying, although not surprising, that plans are afoot for a multi-faith demonstration in Oldham in support of censorship, with Muslims drafting in a handful of Christians, Hindus and Sikhs – useful idiots – to legitimise their attempt to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in our country. Just whose country is this? Why is it that the sensibilities of Muslims are seemingly permitted to trump those of all other and non-faith groups? Why should the ‘offence’ perceived by a Muslim matter more than the ‘offence’ perceived by you or I? What gives an aggrieved Muslim the right to be the arbiter of what we may say, write, think or do? Allah? Allah is a fiction, and a brutish one at that; and as for his ‘messenger’ Muhammed, if he existed, he was a deranged yet politically astute thug, and if he did not, he was a repellent fictional creation that has provided an appalling example to his followers down the centuries. There is no place for Muhammed’s example in this country, this continent, or, indeed, this era, other than as an exemplar of some of the worst traits in humanity; Muhammed bears a far closer resemblance to figures such as Caligula and Genghis Khan than to Confucius, Buddha or Christ. Muhammed's character and deeds were, by definition, offensive.

If the mass Muslim march takes place in London, will it finally awaken our complacent compatriots, far removed from our centres of Islamic population, to the fact that Islamic doctrine is not cuddly, benign and tolerant, the message forever being trumpeted by the BBC, the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green parties? Islam is no friend of freedom; it is one of its foes. These protests therefore must not be pandered to, and it must be made clear to those with familial roots overseas who participate in these demonstrations, that they should reconsider their place of residence. Their presence here is not to the public good. They are generating fear; fear which, sadly, is well founded.

Muslims demonstrate in Huddersfield

 Video of Muslim Anti-Google Protest in London

 

Pineapple Rage in Reading

The humble pineapple: once a delicacy eaten only by the aristocracy in the seventeenth century, gradually democratised to the point of being a Sunday dessert staple in the 1970s, served up from a tin in sickly syrup, is not an item that I can ever previously recall raising anyone’s hackles. Some children may dislike it and pull faces when proffered a piece, and personally I am not overly keen on it in its tinned form, but for someone to become enraged about this tropical fruit does seem a little, without wishing to sound too harsh, irrational. How could an innocuous pineapple move anybody to rage? Strange as it may seem, a pineapple has caused outrage and protest amongst a group of people in Reading, yet it had not even been poisoned, at least not in the literal sense of the word; metaphorically however, perhaps it had been.

Can you fathom what may have happened to the said piece of fruit to generate such ire? Come now, surely it is obvious even to a child of the most tender years that a piece of fruit bearing an inappropriate appellation may lead to an incident that threatens riot and affray? To borrow a phrase from Rolf Harris: “Can you guess what it is yet?” Obviously, it is because the pineapple in question was called Mohammed! At this point, I hand over to a report from the National Secular Society that details the lunacy that ensued at the Freshers’ Fayre in the Reading University Student Union, where one student society had displayed a pineapple labelled ‘Mohammed’. Tim Rouse stated:

Among the material displayed on our stall was a pineapple. We labelled this pineapple "Mohammed", to encourage discussion about blasphemy, religion, and liberty, as well as to celebrate the fact that we live in a country in which free speech is protected, and where it is lawful to call a pineapple by whatever name one chooses.

Towards the end of the afternoon, we were informed by a member of RUSU staff that there had been complaints about the pineapple, despite the fact that no complaints had been made at any point to anybody on the stall. Our commitment to freedom of expression meant that we refused to remove the pineapple from our stall. After a few minutes, we were told by another member of RUSU staff that "Either the pineapple goes, or you do", whereupon they seized the pineapple and tried to leave. However, the pineapple was swiftly returned, and shortly was displayed again, with the name Mohammed changed to that of Jesus.

Shortly afterwards, the second RUSU staff member returned and ordered RAHS to leave the Freshers' Fayre. At this point, a group of around five students, some of whom self-identified as Muslim, approached the stall and began to criticise us, asking and telling us to remove the pineapple. Though these students mainly engaged in discussion, one removed the label from the pineapple without our permission.

As the RUSU staff member merely raised his voice and shouted at the RAHS president when he attempted to explain our position, we were ultimately forced to leave the venue. However, several other societies at the Fayre offered to continue distributing our leaflets, and we continued to hand out leaflets outside the venue until we were again asked to leave by RUSU staff members, this time accompanied by RUSU security staff.

The RAHS believes in freedom of expression. Our intent in displaying a pineapple labelled "Mohammed" was to draw attention to cases where religion has been used to limit this and other fundamental rights, such as the imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons. We did not expect to be forced out of the Freshers' Fayre because of a pineapple, and we are disappointed that RUSU took this action.

If anything, an apology should be issued to the pineapple for naming it after such an unpleasant character.

"My name is Muhammed and I want you to eat me."

Anti-Free Speech Meeting at Labour Party Fringe

It has been announced that elements of the anti-free speech Far Left will be holding a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester on Tuesday evening. Gathering beneath what it terms “the antifascist flag”, UAF will be bringing together a range of individuals who will be discussing how to make political capital out of manufacturing a phantasmogorical “fascist” threat in Luton specifically, England more widely, and Europe generally. To date, they have been highly successful in raising funds from innocent trades unionists through invoking the spectre of a non-existent recrudescent fascism, and in order to legitimise their ongoing existence and continued funding it is necessary for this bogey to be kept alive in the public's, or at least the Labour Party’s, imagination.

Kelvin Hopkins, MP for Luton North, will be making the most brazen bid for Muslim votes by inveighing against the evils of “the racists and fascists of the English Defence League in his Luton constituency”, whilst other veterans of the cause will include the previously convicted Weyman Bennett, as well as a number of current and former Labour MEPs. Although there are certainly minority elements within the EDL that have caused violence at some of their demonstrations, violence and threat are inherent within UAF’s modus operandi, as most recently demonstrated by the decision to cancel a debate between Stephen Lennon of the EDL and representatives of the Muslim Debate Initiative at London’s Conway Hall that was scheduled for 4 October. In a post on their blog, the Muslim Debate Initiative (MDI) made it clear that it had been cancelled not because of any perception of potential violence from the EDL or from Muslim objectors, but because of the threat from so-called “anti-fascists”. The MDI blog reports the decision relating to the cancellation as follows:

Conway Hall, has decided based upon advice from the Police, and under pressure from various anti-fascist organisations and at least one MP, that the event may put the public at risk to public health and safety concerns under the current climate. Despite the security procedures of MDI within the building, the Venue Director was concerned about the safety of attendees outside the hall when going to, and leaving the event. Therefore, Conway Hall has informed Muslim Debate Initiative that for the time being, they will have to cancel the hire of the hall to MDI for this public event.

The MP concerned was Frank Dobson. Contrary to the assertions of UAF and its ideological confederates, it is not some phantom “Far Right” that we should fear with respect to our liberties, but the very real and influential Far Left of which it is a part. Reading the jubilant piece relating to the forcing of the cancellation of this debate on the UAF website, one is met with the following startling passage:

We believe the EDL is a fascist organisation. Fascism stands for: the total annihilation and mass murder of its opponents including trade unionists, liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists, Jewish, Muslim, black, Asian, lesbian, gay communities and other large sections of humanity. It also stands for war, the destruction of all democracy and freedom. History shows this is what happens when fascism gains power.

Is this what the supporters of UAF truly believe? Does the quote above strike you as having been penned by someone with a rational perspective fully apprised of the facts, or by someone suffering from a paranoid set of delusions? The question is superfluous. UAF is a dangerous anti-democratic campaign group that employs PC anti-racism slogans to mask its SWP-driven agenda. Any decent delegates at the Labour Party Conference this week would be wise to give this thuggish fringe a wide berth, and thereby avoid complicity in manufacturing unnecessary social conflict. 

UAF's Weyman Bennett: arrested for conspiracy to commit violent disorder

Channel 4’s Submission: ‘Islam: The Depressingly Familiar Story’

Update
Since the article below was written, it appears that Channel 4 relented and went ahead on Thursday night with the repeat showing of 'Islam: The Untold Story'. Whether or not the broadcaster will now ignore the threats and reinstate the special screening and attendant debate at its headquarters, remains to be seen. 

The decision of Channel 4 to pull a repeat showing of Tom Holland’s Islam: The Untold Story from the schedules is a depressing one, underscoring a growing and worrying trend in our country today expressive of an aggressive religious obscurantism articulated by resident Islamists. The broadcaster received circa 1,200 complaints about the programme, with the decision to cancel its repeat being explained as follows:

Having taken security advice, we have reluctantly cancelled a planned screening of the programme Islam: The Untold Story. We remain extremely proud of the film which is still available to view on 4oD.

Moreover, The Daily Mail reports that a further screening at Channel 4’s London HQ later this month, that was to be accompanied by a debate, has been cancelled owing to security fears. The two decisions, although in some respects understandable, amount to an effective surrender to the Islamists who issued the threats, demonstrating that a small and violently-inclined minority can have a hugely negative impact upon our public and intellectual life, which surely raises the question: why is it that we are constantly being told that all immigration ‘enriches’ us, when quite clearly some of it does not, and instead constitutes a direct threat to our way of life? With Channel 4’s announcement coming on the anniversary of 9/11 and Islamist mobs storming the US embassies in Libya and Egypt on the same day, the reality of the world around us teaches that Islam – in its literalist forms – is not something to be “celebrated” or  “respected”, but something to be wary of and abhorred. We do not share values with these people; rather, our values are diametrically opposed. To its discredit, the BBC has not even reported this story, possibly out of cowardice, but more likely out of its deep-rooted aversion to criticising any facet of Islam or Muslim behaviour.

As is to be expected of The Guardian, a paper that masquerades as ‘progressive’ but in fact provides active protection for, and propaganda on behalf of, the fastest growing anti-rational ideology in Britain today – Islam – its coverage of the story – penned by Ben Quinn – offered no support to Holland, or to the principle of free speech and academic enquiry, whilst simultaneously affording uncritical prominence to a tweet made by Inayat Bunglawala in which he described Holland’s analysis as constituting “bizarre conjecture about Islam’s birthplace”. Seeking to ascertain the facts – so far as they can be ascertained – regarding the origins of Islam and the alleged historicity of its founding figure, does not strike me as “bizarre”, but rather as the correct approach to the subject. Only one of the “faithful” and “devout”, such as Bunglawala, who has swallowed Islamic doctrine and tradition wholesale, could find anything “bizarre” about Holland’s salient observations regarding the absence of contemporaneous sources testifying to the existence of Mohammed, both inside and outside of the Muslim world.

This, of course, is not to say that he did not exist as a historical figure, but that if he did, it is peculiar that he left no trace in the historical record. As such, he may be no more historical a figure than Woden in the Anglo-Saxon historical tradition. However, whereas my doubt with respect to the historical reality of Woden does not cause any existential disquiet to me as an Englishman, the suggestion that Mohammed as a historical personage may not have existed, does not appear to be as phlegmatically received by the greater part of Muslims. Then again, my doubting in the existence of Woden does not entail any threat to my Englishness, whereas if a Muslim were to doubt the existence of Mohammed and his ‘divine’ mission, this would threaten the very basis of their faith and identity itself. It is a matter that could cause some believers to lose their heads, as quite clearly, a number have on this occasion; whipping themselves up into an hysterical state of offence, complaining about Holland’s treatment of their religious tradition, and even going so far as to threaten his physical safety. How peculiar it is that we constantly hear Muslim voices stating that we “should respect Islam”, for respect cannot be demanded, but can only be earned; threats of violence and demands for the silencing of rational critics of dogma and its negative associated cultural practices, deserve not so much our respect, as our contempt. 

Tom Holland

Pussy Riot: Views from Russia

The trial that has led to the sentencing of three members of Russian punk group Pussy Riot to two years imprisonment has generated a great deal of media interest around the globe. Their conviction for “hooliganism” and “religious hatred” in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour has been greeted with widespread indignation, with well-known celebrities such as Madonna, Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono expressing their support for the group members, but how has the trial and subsequent sentence been perceived in Russia? What is the narrative being spun by the mainstream Russian media?

Pussy Riot claim that their stunt – their “punk prayer” to the Virgin Mary for Putin to leave office – was politically motivated, but quite what their manifesto is, other than for Putin to go, is not known. Prior to their impromptu cathedral performance, the group was unheard of outside of Russia and not that well known in their home country. Irrespective of any political motivation, evidently this episode has created one thing: massive publicity. How many Russian punk bands had you heard of before this trial? In fact, how many Russian bands had you heard of?

One of Russia’s most popular papers – Izvestia – draws attention to the fact that two of the women sentenced today have young children which offers them the hope of having their sentences reduced significantly as has happened on a number of occasions in the past for women in a similar situation. However, there remain ten days during which an appeal can be made, and only then, if unsuccessful, will the sentence be carried out. Even if they are unlucky, the paper says that the may be able to apply for early release in spring 2013. Moreover, if all else fails it is likely that an appeal will be made to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that the sentences violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees “freedom of expression”.

The editor of the more critical Novaya Gazeta made the Pussy Riot case the main story, stating: “The sentence demonstrated that our state and Church have finally merged in ecstasy. To criticise the Church means an attack upon the state, and the reverse. This bears no relation whatsoever to the true intimate and secret religious sensibility.”

The government-owned Rossiyskaya Gazeta unsurprisingly took a critical stance towards the foreign media, singling out The Guardian and The Globe and Mail in particular, not being impressed by The Guardian’s comparison of Pussy Riot with Jesus Christ. Moreover, noting that Amnesty International had also joined the foreign press in condemnation of Russia’s handling of the trial the reporter asked “Where does such unity suddenly spring from?” She, Galina Vasina, provided this by why of an answer: they all wanted to hinder the emergence of “a strong Russia”.

Russian journalist Alexander Nekrassov spoke to Jon Snow in this evening’s edition of Channel 4 News, claiming that Pussy Riot had offended the deep religious sensibilities of many Russian people and therefore had deserved punishment of some sort. It is true that ‘singing’ their punk prayer in the cathedral was discordant, disruptive and inappropriate, but for it to have been adjudged to have been a criminal matter, potentially carrying a sentence of up to seven years, strikes me as bizarre as well as innately unjust. Surely, something along the lines of a banning order prohibiting the members of the group involved from entering certain ecclesiastical buildings for a particular length of time would have been more appropriate? Already, the three women have spent five months in custody, which is a long time for a ‘misjudged’ publicity stunt. Even Putin claimed that he did not wish the women in question to receive a harsh sentence, which begs the question: does Putin consider two years incarceration to be a harsh sentence?

As for the group indulging in “religious hatred”, that charge is an obvious absurdity. In what way can their action be said to have incited hatred of Orthodox Christians or Christianity?

The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was originally built to commemorate the defeat of Napoleon after his burning of Moscow in 1812. In the early 1930s, the Communists dynamited the building, raising it to the ground with the original intention of building a Palace of the Soviets topped by a giant statue of Lenin, but constant waterlogging caused a change of plan, and for decades it was instead the site of the world’s largest open air swimming pool. In 1990 permission was granted to rebuild the Cathedral, so today a replica of the original stands on the site. It is therefore a building imbued with considerable national symbolism, hence, presumably, its choice as the location for Pussy Riot's noisy intervention.

The cause of Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samusevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova has been championed across the western world, but like any event in Russia that can be turned to an anti-national end, globalists, particularly those of a US Neocon bent, will be keen to use this case not only as a means of propagandising against the Putin clique, but against the Russian state's general independent stance in international affairs. Irrespective of the composition of its leadership at any one time, the Russian Federation serves as a steadfast geopolitical opponent of a globalised unipolar world, which is why Neocons such as Mitt Romney possess such hostility towards the country. So, if you should hear Romney declaring his support for Pussy Riot and human rights in Russia, you need to be aware that for him arguments about such freedoms are ancillary to assisting the promotion of globalism and the hobbling of one of its strongest opponents.

Today, Pussy Riot have released what they term a “Single for the Sentence” entitled “Putin lights the bonfires of Revolution” which can be heard below. It, thankfully, is not as discordantly grating as their ecclesiastically themed effort. There is though as you might expect, a considerable amount of screeching.

Rowan Atkinson on Religion

The picture below has been tweeted this morning, so whether this represents a new release on the part of Rowan Atkinson, or someone has chosen to highlight something that he produced a while ago, I am not sure. However, following his high-profile appearance at the Olympic opening ceremony, it is a canny move for this to be released now when his name (or at least that of Mr Bean) should enjoy such widespread public recognition around the globe. Atkinson is a well-known advocate of free speech and has made a number of criticisms of so-called "hate laws", a stance which can only be commended. As for the sentiments voiced below, I am in complete agreement. Now, which religion could be described as the one that we should most dislike based upon Atkinson's quote? Nominations please!

Spiteful attempt to blight the prospects of a young band: Tennysons made to recant

Starting up a band and securing gigs on the circuit can be a tough business, and many obstacles present themselves to aspirant musicians without the interposition of individuals or groups of people who take a perverse delight in stymieing creativity in the name of cant of one form or another. A young indie group from Leicester named The Tennysons appears to have fallen foul of the self-appointed ‘moral’ guardians of our post-national era – UAF – specifically its Leicester branch, for its scowling arbiters of what may and may not be said or thought have pronounced an anathema upon the group, designating it as possessing dubious and implicitly ‘racist’ sympathies. Why? Quite simply because one of the group’s members once attended an EDL event some 16 months ago. For the UAF inquisitors of course, this constitutes grounds enough to damn someone for eternity.

The band has not been accused of employing ‘racist’ lyrics; no members of the band have been accused of making ‘racist’ statements either verbally or in print, and yet members of Leicester UAF have taken it upon themselves to try and humiliate members of this band and force them to make a public recantation of any sympathies with the EDL or the latter’s position. In order to do so, Leicester UAF have not employed reason, but a dirty underhand campaign, alleging that its members are ‘racist’ and spreading rumours around Leicester’s music scene thereby ensuring that venues have cancelled Tennysons gigs and thereby threatening to ruin the band. The Leicester Mercury states that ‘A number of the band's shows have been cancelled in the past few weeks as venues became aware of the allegations against the band.’ Moreover, it quoted Joel Lavender of the Soundhouse as saying "All of the venues are pulling them from their bills because of these allegations.”

Quite clearly, the members of Leicester UAF have some explaining to do and some apologies to issue. By making defamatory allegations about The Tennysons, they have after all inflicted significant damage upon the band, and the latter would be justified in seeking financial redress for the snide and baseless insinuations of Leicester UAF, whose spokesman Tom Mycroft told the Leicester Mercury: 

"Everyone is entitled to make mistakes when they're young and they have made a statement against the EDL. I hope they are sincere about it."

Mycroft’s statement suggests that he is no longer of such tender years, and given this fact, he must know that the tactics that he and his confederates have employed against this young band were dirty and underhand. The manner in which members of Leicester UAF have behaved has proven to be far more revealing about them than the targets of their smear campaign, for the former have displayed a totalitarian mindset that is willing to brook no dissent, and to crush any who seek to display a different perspective or take on social questions. What this story proves beyond any doubt is that Leicester UAF does not support the concept of a free and open society where we may enjoy the right of free speech and artistic expression, whereas it proves nothing about the moral integrity of The Tennysons or any one of their members. Evidently, UAF will not approve of Tennysons song titles such as ‘England belongs to me’ as all members of the band are English. For UAF to give its approval to such a song, those singing it would have to be non-indigenous, preferably of non-European and Muslim stock.