Video: Muslims Pray at Westminster Abbey

As mentioned in a brief post yesterday, whilst an anti-Muslim grooming demonstration was being held near Downing Street, another demonstration was being held by Muslims in Westminster. In the first of the short videos below, a group of Muslims can be seen praying beneath the walls of Westminster Abbey. Edward the Confessor would not be happy. The second video shows yesterday's Muslim demonstration against the 'Innocence of Muslims' film opposite the Houses of Parliament in the Abbey grounds. Who gave them permission to demonstrate there? Was it the Church? If so, why? Does this imply that some elements within the Church of England support the introduction of a blasphemy law protecting Islam?

Whereas previous Muslim protests in the capital that have caught the media's attention tended to be organised by one of Anjem Choudary's radical Islamist groups, this protest seems to have consisted of 'mainstream' Muslims, and was much larger. As in the recent demonstration about this matter in Bradford, the speakers address the crowd not in English, but in some sort of 'community' language from the subcontinent, thereby doubly demonstrating that they do not belong in England. For some reason, the BBC website did not cover this. Could it have been that the editors did not wish to alarm people?

Central London was evidently buzzing with demonstrations yesterday connected with Islam in one way or another, for the third video shows a group of Pakistani Christians protesting against the persecution of their co-religionists in Pakistan. Given the appalling treatment of Christians in Pakistan, their disquiet is fully understandable.

Bradford: 2,000 in Pakistan Protest

BBC's Look North reports that this evening some 2,000 demonstrators have gathered in Bradford's Centenary Square to protest against US drone strikes in Pakistan. Speeches have been given by, amongst others, George Galloway, Muslim convert Yvonne Ridley, and a representative of CND. The Telegraph and Argus states that the organisers justified the demonstration on the grounds that British intelligence had assisted in the planning of the drone attacks; they anticipated a turnout in the region of 5,000. Imran Khan also sent a video message to the protesters.

Galloway will presumably be hoping that his appearance this evening will divert attention away from his recent comments relating to what he termed "bad sexual etiquette" and "window lickers". Amongst the general public these have done his somewhat dubious image no favours whatsoever, but will they bother many of his "devout" male constituents? The latter, at a guess, will probably be more concerned with whatever he said tonight about a country far away that has no links with native Bradfordians. At least we can be thankful that thus far this evening, they have not resorted to the violence displayed by their co-religionists in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon and Tunisia using the pretext of an American film about the life of Mohammed. I have seen some bad films in my time, but the experience has never moved me to attempt to storm embassies and murder ambassadors; a few shakes of the head and critical exclamations have sufficed.

UPDATE: The following morning, the estimated number of protesters was stated as being "hundreds" by The Telegraph and Argus rather than the 2,000 reported by the BBC. On Friday 28 September, Centenary Square will host a protest against the film 'Innocence of Muslims'.

Imran Khan addresses the Pakistani masses from his Bradford telescreen

Protesters milling around

 

Sayeeda Warsi plays the Race Card

Why was Sayeeda Warsi created a life peer at the age of 36 in 2007? What has she done to merit the title of ‘Baroness’? A failed Conservative candidate, who specialised in immigration law who is said to have opportunistically selected the Conservative Party because it seemed to offer her the best chance of career progression, and who has spent time working for Pakistan’s ‘Ministry of Law’. How does that experience and background translate into the right to hold such an honour, or to take on the role of Chairman of our governing political party? The number of better-qualified candidates is legion, so why was she selected? What does she have to offer, that others could not? In what manner does she purport to defend and advance our national interests? How can she speak, with any authority, on behalf of the nation, or of the English?

I ask these questions today, as Warsi once again takes up the baton to fight on behalf of maintaining the right of chain-migration from outside of the EU, using the spurious pretext of familial reunion, which of course is only invoked when those in question wish to be reunited in our country rather than in their familial country of origin (remember the case of Rashida Chapti?). Warsi has knowingly chosen to play the race card, claiming that Theresa May’s proposed immigration reforms ‘could be considered racist’ because of the stated intent of preventing ‘UK citizens earning under £40,000 to bring in a foreign wife or husband,’ although this has subsequently been reduced to £18,600 with a £2,200 allowance for each child. Warsi claims that this will effectively be a ‘whites only’ policy.

Now, might this outburst from Warsi have something to do with the fact that she is currently under scrutiny for ‘possible breaches of the ministerial code’ and thus may be considering a forced return to her old field of legal practice, immigration law? What would she do if she couldn’t return to the profitable business of expediting Pakistani chain migration? Quite clearly, Warsi is not fit to hold a position of political influence in this country because she actively undermines the first principle of democracy – the right of a people to political self-determination – by seeking to change the human fabric of the body politic itself, thereby denying our right to national self-determination. It should be up to us, and to us alone, to determine who may live here and who may be granted the rights of citizenship. We should not be in a position, where decisions upon the allocation of such a status are within the gift of an individual possessed of a cleft identity, who in ethnic and religious terms clearly identifies more with her ancestral familial homeland and culture, than with the native people of her country of residence. Her stance and actions pave the way for national dissolution through mass immigration, as advocated recently by European-nation despising Peter Sutherland. 

How many conservatives with a small ‘c’ genuinely support what the Conservative Party has become? Do they really think that it seeks to represent them today, being as it is pro-EU, pro-mass immigration and pro-multiculturalism? Isn’t it time that they started looking around for other political options to support? 

Suspected Bomber aboard Toronto to Karachi Flight

The Associated Press has reported that a Boeing 777 flight has made an unscheduled landing in Stockholm owing to a tip off that one of the passengers was in possession of explosives. It has been announced that the suspect is an ethnic Pakistani Canadian citizen. Bomb technicians and police are heading to the plane, but as yet there is no intention of closing the airport. Kansas City News reports that the 273 passengers are now being evacuated. Astonishingly, the BBC coverage of this story does not even mention the fact that the suspect is a Canadian citizen of Pakistani origin (this was the case as of 09:22 UK time; the BBC may relent and add this detail later). This is typical of the BBC’s unwillingness to link acts of terrorism or suspected terrorism to Islam, Muslims or even Islamism.

If the suspect turns out to be an Islamist suicide bomber, the question has to be asked: why hasn’t he detonated himself? Did he have a change of heart or a failure of nerve? Did his device fail? Is this man another ‘underpants’ bomber? Is this just a false alarm?

Details at present are scant, but the manner in which the tip off was delivered was unusual: according to CNN it was given by a woman who called Canadian police from a payphone in Canada who then relayed the information to the crew of the plane whilst it was in Swedish airspace. The report quotes Stockholm Police spokesman Kjell Lindgren as saying: "They landed here because they said that someone onboard was carrying something that wasn't allowed, some explosive or something. We don't know exactly what it is yet."

The video report below is taken from Sky News: