Thursday 7 February 2008

More Newspeak

A new counter-terrorism phrasebook has been drawn up within Whitehall to advise civil servants on how to talk to Muslim communities about the nature of the terror threat without implying they are specifically to blame.

Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.

Whoever could imagine that such a link might exist?

In any event, describing people like the July 7th bombers (for example) as "Islamic terrorists" does not necessarily imply anything. It is simply fair labelling: these people were Muslims, and they committed terrorist attacks, which they justified on the basis of their interpretation of Islamic theology. The fact that most Muslims don't blow people up, and that there may be other interpretations of Islamic theology, does not change any of this.

It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a "confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures". Instead it suggests that talking about the idea of shared values works much more effectively.

40% of Muslims in Britain want to impose Sharia law upon the country. 36% of young Muslims favour executing those who convert away from Islam. Apologies if my frequent reiteration of those figures is getting boring, but they really do demonstrate the breadth of the ideological gulf between Islamic and British cultural values. Talk of widespread "shared values" is just myth-making.

The Guardian goes on to tell us that this newspeak represents "a new sophistication", on the part of the government. Which is, I suppose, one way of expressing it, although I prefer the more concise 'dishonesty'. It is dishonest, rather than "sophisticated", to pretend that terrorism carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam. Still, what else do you expect from a government which characterises terrorist attacks by Muslims against non-Muslims as "anti-Islamic activity"?


Homophobic Horse said...

I had this conversation the other day with some one. She said rhetorically "Are you saying all Muslims are bad people?."

That's very interesting. It seems the enemy believe the Islamic violence we have been seeing over the last few years is not Islamic at all, it is in fact a kind of generic moral failing i.e. Bad.

From which I can draw the conclusion that the enemy believe that:

A. Muslims can practice the religion of Islam, it is their right and they should not be criticised,


B. Expecting Muslims to not behave in an Islamic manner.

In conclusion, this is exactly what Edward Said means, some of the West has never truly encountered this religion, they see their own assumptions instead. They view with their own preconceptions of right and wrong.

Make no mistake, the liberals are close minded and insular. They are backwards and old fashioned. They need to expand their minds to diversity.

Unknown said...

Excellent comment hh, certainly food for thought anyway.

Anonymous said...

"40% of Muslims in Britain want to impose Sharia law upon the country."

Ably assisted by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

See blog

Anonymous said...


Netherlands to ban the burqa (could you imagine Gordon Brownlips doing that here?)

"Earlier, the cabinet agreed that burqas would be banned for government workers and at schools. On Friday, the government is expected to announce that burqas will also be banned from public transport. And for those of you cynical enough to believe that all of this has anything to do with Islamophobia, the ban, if introduced, will also apply to balaclavas and crash helmets.

De Volkskrant writes that a ban on burqas was first proposed by Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders in 2005, but the previous cabinet never got round to it as a result of internal divisions.

The current government coalition has decided against a general ban on burqas, arguing that a ban is only justified when the garment in question ‘seriously hampers integration and communication’.

However, when this is the case, societal interests outweigh religious freedoms such as the wearing of burqas."

Meanwhile, unbelievable dhimmitude from the tree-hugging Archdruid of Canterbury

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

Anonymous said...

"Polls show that 40 percent of British Muslims want Sharia, Islamic Law implemented in the UK and the government has moved to accommodate them. Tony Blair's government passed a law that would essentially criminalize blaspheming Islam. The law was weakened in the House of Lords but it will return again stronger than ever especially as the electoral and terror power of Muslims grow along with the desire of Western governments to appease them.

Norway and Sweden have already begun the process of implementing similar laws. In parts of Australia criticizing Islam can get you jail time. In Israel a woman was sentenced to prison for drawing and distributing a cartoon of Mohamed as a pig. In Russia and Belarus newspaper editors have faced jail time for reprinting the Danish cartoons.

For all intents and purposes, from our government to our media to our public entertainment and educational system; the first law of Islam has been implemented.

The laws beyond that will follow. Since this special status of Islam leaves all other religions unprotected, Islam already has a superior status to other religions while other religions have an inferior status to Islam. With the first law in place, WE ARE ALL ALREADY DHIMMIS.

Islam may be propagandized in schools while Judaism or Christianity may not. Muslims may pray in schools, members of other religions may not. Muslim holy books are treated as holy, while the holy books of other religions are treated as myth. The violence of other religions is condemned, while the violence of Islam is covered up. This leads us to Islam's second law, Islam Is Superior To All Other Beliefs. By giving exclusive status to Islam, we have already implemented this as well.

By giving in to Islamic rage, we have already set the pattern of functioning as Dhimmis, of responding to Muslim tantrums with appeasement. The pattern continues from there with Muslims in public life enforcing their religious laws on everyone else. Muslim taxi drivers are already doing this by refusing to carry passengers who carry alcohol, seeing eye dogs for the blind and Muslim cashiers are refusing to handle pork.

There are Islamic laws that place restrictions on women. These won't require government authority to legislate. Muslims simply implement them by making clear what happens to women who don't. In parts of the world that has meant throwing acid into the faces of schoolgirls who don't wear the Hijab as in Indonesia, preventing women from entering public areas if they are not dressed 'modestly' as is widespread in African countries where Islam is on the rise, treating any woman not dressed in the Islamic manner as a legitimate rape target as in Europe.

Sharia Law doesn't need to function officially as long as Muslims have the leverage to implement it by force on an individual level. Through sensitivity training and religious protection laws, Muslims are forcing schools to allow Hijabs and Sex Separation as their requirements for women and through violence and harassment will force women to follow those requirements. ... The same feminists who hold Take Back The Night Rallies along with solidarity rallies for Palestine will discover themselves the targets soon enough, as women increasingly face harassment from Muslim bosses, clients and customers for not complying while the various offices of civil and human rights naturally look the other way.

The only major step Muslims have yet to achieve is to force disputes between Muslims and Non-Muslims to be mediated in Muslim courts.

The hour is much later than we think.