Boris Johnson was today forced to defend his stance on Islam, insisting he believed it was a "religion of peace".What an original way of looking at it!
The Conservatives candidate for London mayor, Mr Johnson, has been criticised for an article he wrote in the wake of the 7/7 London terror attacks in 2005 claiming "Islam is the problem".No trite platitudes from independent-minded Boris! He really does offer a fresh perspective. And isn't it impressive that he knows so much more about the correct context for Koranic verses than, you know, actual Muslims?
But in a televised debate today, Mr Johnson said the problem was extremists taking the words of the Koran out of context.
In fairness, Johnson did then follow up by suggesting that "there has certainly been too much uncounted and unfunded immigration into London". Which is correct. However, one might be inclined to take him rather more seriously on immigration, had he not repeatedly called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Note to Johnson: you do not reduce immigration by rewarding people for entering the country illegally.
But Johnson's genius was more than matched by the wisdom of the incumbent:
The current Mayor, Labour's Ken Livingstone, said London could be a "model for the world" in terms of its ethnic diversity.But he was forced to justify his decision to share a platform with the controversial preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
The cleric has described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating as "a possibility" in certain circumstances.
He's also expressed support for suicide bombers.
Mr Livingstone said: "He is a man who is prepared to say al Qaida is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation."
Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said: "What I said in the immediate aftermath of July 7 was that the term Islamic terrorism, as far as I was concerned, is a contradiction in terms.
"In that there is nothing in the Koran to justify the murder of 52 innocent men, women and children."
First, that's patently untrue. There are plenty of verses in the Koran which could be, and are, used by practising Muslims (a category which does not include Brian Paddick), to justify the use of violence against non-Muslims. There are also plenty of Islamic scholars who are prepared to endorse such violence. On what basis, I wonder, does Paddick assert that his knowledge and understanding of Islam is greater than theirs?
Secondly, it it deeply disingenuous to suggest that when devout Muslims commit acts of terrorism, in the name of Islam, it should be called anything other than "Islamic terrorism". But presumably Paddick prefers Jacqui Smith's Newspeak definition of such atrocities as "anti-Islamic activity".
At a time when the majority of British people see Islam - not a "tiny minority of extremists", but the religion as a whole - as a threat to our country, the three leading contenders for the mayoralty of our capital city are bending over backwards, and performing all sorts of linguistic contortions, to avoid saying anything that might conceivably upset any Muslim. On the fortieth anniversary of Enoch Powell's great speech, when the nation is crying out for someone to take a similar stand against Islam, craven politicians of all parties are merely spouting meaningless platitudes about "religions of peace". This applies not only to the mayoral candidates, but to the overwhelming majority of politicians, and certainly to the senior figures in all three main parties. I have no idea whether Livingstone or Johnson will emerge victorious on polling day (at least it won't be Paddick, thank Heavens). But I can be sure of one thing: whoever wins, London and Britain will lose.
6 comments:
I got to speak to BO JO on the immigration concordat that had been reached by the 3 main players on radio London last week.
I pointed out that saying he was going to listen to Londoners and then going against there wishes was just the political elite carrying on as usual.
I received the same old worn out lies .
I can no longer tell any difference between the parties and
in fact in the Mayoral election we have a 3 horse race between people who want a amnesty and who all fell over themselves to proclaim love of Islam.
It is with a very heavy heart that i will now be voting BNP , the only party that has constantly told the truth about what has been happening.
And before I get accused of Racism etc .
I will do this not on the basis of race, colour or religion but to try and shock the main parties into some sense of reality and responsibility to a country and people who's name must never be mentioned .....
ENGLAND and the ENGLISH.:-(
muzzylogic said...
So you're frightened of accusations from people you condemn. And rush to assure them that you're not actually racist, thereby proving to them that their lies are effective.
Actually I am not frightened of them but I am well versed with the tired old mantra of RACIST , Islamaphobic etc and just thought I would pre-emit those accusations.
Criticism or fear of Islam isn't "racist" - it's rational to fear and to criticise people who say they have religious mandate to murder "infidels".
Racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
@ Muzzy:
You might just as well say that criticism of the Church of England is racist because most members of it are white. I maintain that fear and criticism of Islam are justified because it incites Muslims to murder "infidels" on religious and/or political grounds. What race a murderer belongs to is an irrelevant consideration in his criminality.
The definition I gave of racism is one that I believe is correct. That races differ, on average, in physical, psychological, and intellectual abilities is implicit in my definition. But I would go further and introduce a comparison that signifies in what respects it could be argued that one race is inferior or superior to another.
You might just as well say that criticism of the Church of England is racist because most members of it are white.
Not if the criticism is by other whites. Islam is more of a problem because its adherents are overwhelmingly non-white.
I maintain that fear and criticism of Islam are justified because it incites Muslims to murder "infidels" on religious and/or political grounds. What race a murderer belongs to is an irrelevant consideration in his criminality.
Race is highly relevant to criminality, because some races commit crime at far higher rates. Blacks and certain groups with Muslim backgrouns, for example.
The definition I gave of racism is one that I believe is correct. That races differ, on average, in physical, psychological, and intellectual abilities is implicit in my definition.
No, you explicitly rule it out by saying "all members of each race". An average is not true of all members of a group.
But I would go further and introduce a comparison that signifies in what respects it could be argued that one race is inferior or superior to another.
It's swings and roundabouts, but one thing is clear: different races should live in different areas. If they live together, trouble inevitably follows.
I said that "all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race". That variation in the possession of those abilities will occur within a population scarcely needs emphasizing.
I'm not denying that there is excellent statistical evidence that shows that blacks commit more crimes (in proportion to their numbers) than whites. However, that does not mean that race is or should be a consideration in convicting someone.
Post a Comment