Institutionalising Islam in our schools

The other day, Bernard left a comment with a link to an editorial in the Church of England Newspaper, warning of the encroachments of Islam into our national life. The editorial has now been replaced with a more recent editorial, although you can still read it at a couple of blogs, such as Jihad Watch. One of the interesting points that the editorial made was this:

At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local...we hear of municipal swimming baths encouraging ‘Muslim women only’ sessions and in Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day — a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true. Prisons are replete with imams who are keen to inculcate conservative Islam in any inmates who are deemed to be culturally ‘Muslim’: the Prison service in effect treats such prisoners as a cultural block to be preached to by imams at will. Would the Prison service send all those with ‘C of E’ on their papers to confirmation classes with the chaplain?! We could go on.

The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates.

Today, we see yet more evidence of this phenomenon of Islamic institutionalisation:

Imams will teach in state schools under Government plans for tackling extremism to be announced next week.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, admitted today that a minority of children could be “at risk” from extremists and said that schools must be able to deal with radicalisation.

British-born imams will be drafted in to schools to instruct children about Islam and the Koran as part of the Government’s “Prevent” strategy, which aims to weed out extremism before it takes root.

Lessons will include teachings from the Koran and discussions about equality between the sexes, the sanctity of life and the rights of the individual. Mr Balls said the citizenship lessons would help young people to feel “part of their society, and resilient to those who seek to divide rather than unite”.

The battle against radicalisation in schools is a major plank of the Home Office’s wider policy on extremism but the National Union of Teachers (NUT) met fierce opposition when it suggested a similar scheme in March. The NUT proposed that Muslim clerics and other faith leaders should go into every state school as an alternative to faith schools. Critics warned this could allow extremists to target pupils.

But the Government believes that if the imams are British-born they will imbue children with the multicultural values.

Because, of course, no British-born Muslim has ever turned to extremism, have they? And "multicultural values" (whatever they may be)? They're just what we haven't had enough of lately!

So proud, so very proud

Addressing the Pakistan National Council of the Arts, on a visit to the country, our beloved Home Secretary Jacqui Smith favoured her auditors with the following remarks:

After Christianity, Islam is the largest faith community in the UK. 1.6million declared themselves Muslims in the 2001 census, and that figure may now be as high as 2million. Islam is one of many faiths which are practised in UK communities. We are proud to live in such a diverse country.

Three points:

1. It's interesting to note that Jacqui Smith does not refer to the 'community', but to "UK communities". An inadvertent admission, perhaps, of the extent to which mass immigration and multiculturalism are turning the UK into little more than a patchwork of disparate groups, having nothing in common beyond the fact that they inhabit the same patch of land.

2. The fact that the Muslim population of Britain has increased by 25% in just seven years demonstrates quite how rapidly Islam is spreading within our country. True, their numbers may still be comparatively insignificant, at just 3.3% of the total population, but, on the basis of present trends, they will not remain so for long. Considering how much influence they already wield, and the extent to which they are already in receipt of preferential treatment, one wonders how far the craven politicians and media will go in their efforts to appease the Muslims in the future.

3. Who, I wonder, is this "we", who "are proud to live in such a diverse country"? Is it the public at large? Well, since 53% of us say that Islam poses a threat to the West, I rather think not. The British public have never been consulted on whether they wanted to live in "such a diverse country"; they have simply had it imposed upon them, together with the mantra that failure to show sufficient appreciation for "diversity" is to mark oneself out as an evil bigot of the worst kind.

I'm certainly not proud to live in a country with an ever-increasing Islamic population. I am, however, deeply worried. After all, the increase in the size of the Islamic population probably means that the number of people in the UK who want to impose Sharia law has, since the start of the millennium, risen from 640,000 to at least 800,000, not to mention a parallel increase in the numbers who want to engage in such wholesome activities as killing apostates. Hardly an occasion for pride, I would have thought.

Jacqui Smith's comments demonstrate, once again, quite how out of touch she, and the rest of the buffoons running the country, are. At a time when the public is increasingly concerned about the impact that Islam is having upon our society, Smith proclaims, on behalf of all of us, her pride in the presence of millions of Muslims in Britain. The only hope for this country is to kick these cretins out at the next election; thankfully, as Jacqui Smith has a majority of less than 3,000 in her Redditch constituency, she at least should be gone pretty soon.

"It never occurred to us"

Did anyone else watch "Rivers of Blood", the BBC2 documentary on Enoch Powell's famous speech, on Saturday night? I did, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. Although I didn't agree with all of its conclusions, it was far from being the hatchet-job that I was expecting, and it certainly seemed strongly sympathetic towards Powell's critique of multiculturalism, even if it did, rather bewilderingly, imply that his speech was responsible for bringing state-sponsored multiculturalism about. It was also a pretty well put-together programme, with plenty of interesting talking-heads, balancing out the predictable ("he was a wicked racist!") contributions of a couple of race hustlers, and the execrable Roy "Tub of Lard" Hattersley. Plus, the Socialist Worker and the New Statesman both hated it, which can only count in its favour! As a regular critic of the BBC, I must say that on this occasion they've actually done rather well. Now, if only they could get it right the other 99% of the time...

If you didn't catch it, then it's been uploaded to Youtube, and the first segment can be seen here. It's all interesting, but I was particularly intrigued by some comments from Lord Lester, the left-wing barrister, and former advisor to Roy Jenkins, who as Home Secretary in the mid-1960s first articulated the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism. Speaking at the very end of the film, he said:

The model we had was, everyone would share the broad values of being British; what we did not expect, was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Sharia law should be applied in this country, or that the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at...It never occurred to us that there would be those kinds of unwise challenges to the broad values of a liberal democratic society.

It really is astonishing that the liberals who launched the multiculturalist agenda that has dominated (and disrupted) society for over forty years never even considered the possibility that not everyone was going to accept the "broad values of a liberal democratic society", however they might be interpreted. They never thought it possible, that encouraging people to continue living their lives as though they were still in some backwater village in Pakistan, would also have the effect of encouraging them to continue to adhere to the moral, social, and political codes prevalent in those backwater villages. Their naivety was simply astounding!
Of course, while Lord Lester, and, apparently, Roy Jenkins by the end of his life, may have realised that something is not quite right, there are still a Hell of a lot of liberals who have not achieved this realisation. They still believe, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that the increasing size and influence of the Islamic population in Britain is nothing to fear, and that, indeed, it is those of us who oppose Islamification who are the real threat to this country. I have had plenty of liberals tell me that even should Muslims eventually become a majority in Britain, it will be no problem, because they will have accepted all our values. Well, they haven't done so in the last forty years, but have rather become more extreme with each passing generation. The fact is, these liberals who decry any attack on Islam as part of some "racist" conspiracy may well find, that in thirty or forty years' time, they, like Lord Lester today, will be complaining that "it never occurred to us" that British-born Muslims would actually start executing apostates, or establishing separate Sharia jurisdictions in cities such as Birmingham or Oldham. But by then, of course, it will be too late for them to do anything about it.

"Christian Ramadan"

Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the "Christian Ramadan" in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.

The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.

"The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent," said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.

This is what happens when you have an education system which seeks to deprive native children of a knowledge of their own heritage, or to teach them that their own heritage is wholly evil, while at the same time continually promoting all immigrant cultures as wholly good and benign. So successfully have the youth of the Netherlands been deracinated, and, to a large extent, socially Islamified, that in order to understand a major part of their own religious and cultural heritage, they must have it explained to them using the culture and religion of the immigrants as a point of reference, as though Dutch culture were merely a derivation from Islamic culture. And I doubt that the situation is much, if any, better in the UK, or in many other Western European nations. This hardly bodes well for the future: if a people lack even the most basic knowledge of their own heritage and culture, how are they going to protect and preserve it?

A continent of thought criminals

AN "overwhelming majority" of Europeans believe immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to their traditional way of life, a survey revealed last night.

The poll, carried out across 21 countries, found "widespread anti-immigration sentiment", but warned Europe's Muslim population will treble in the next 17 years.

It reported "a severe deficit of trust is found between the Western and Muslim communities", with most people wanting less interaction with the Muslim world.

It would be nice to have some percentages here, rather than mere approximations like "most", "widespread", and "overwhelming majority". But the message is nonetheless pretty clear: even though our politicians seem to believe their own claims that Islam is a "religion of peace", which enriches our lives on a daily basis, the majority of people know that it isn't, and that it doesn't. This supports the conclusions reached in a Telegraph poll in 2006, which found that 53% of British people saw Islam as a threat. And they are, of course, right to do so: as numerous posts on this blog (and many others) have aimed to demonstrate, Islamic culture is completely different from and at odds with our own.

The gulf between us and them (and I use that term advisedly, because it is an 'us and them' situation) is widening rapidly. As I have pointed out many times before, 36% of Muslims aged 16-24 support the execution of those who convert away from Islam, as against "only" 19% of Muslims aged over 55. What we are facing is an Islamic population which, even without immigration, is growing very rapidly, with birthrates that dwarf those of other groups, and which is, at the same time, increasingly extreme. The fact that Europe's Muslim population is set to treble in just seventeen years is evidence of the strong possibility that at least some European nations, and quite possibly the whole continent, will become majority-Muslim within the present century. What astonishes me is not that most people are concerned by this, but that some people aren't.

Hat-tip: David Vance (ATW)

"Enjoy community diversity", says Bishop of Oxford

The Bishop of Oxford has supported plans to broadcast the Islamic call to prayer over part of the historic city.

Welcoming proposals from Oxford's Central Mosque to sound the call three times a day over East Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard said those opposed to the plan should "relax" and "enjoy community diversity".

The bishop also rejected claims by the Anglican Church's only Asian bishop that sounding the call in Britain represented an attempt to "impose an Islamic character" on some areas.

Hmm. Whether or not Muslims are attempting to impose an Islamic character on certain areas (and I for one think that they are), it is difficult to see how the sound of the Adhan blaring over an area three times a day, summoning forth multitudes of long-bearded men in Islamic garb, could fail to give such a character to any area unfortunate enough to have to put up with it.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester sparked fierce debate when he criticised the amplified prayer call and suggested that some parts of the country were now too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter. Bishop Pritchard said: "I want to distance myself from what the Bishop of Rochester has said.

"There are no no-go areas in this country that we are aware of and in all parts of the country there are good interfaith relationships developing."

Dozens of East Oxford residents have urged the council to reject the plan by mosque leaders to issue the two-minute call to prayer up to three times a day.

They fear that it will turn the area into a "Muslim ghetto". However, Bishop Pritchard said he was "very happy" with the move.

You do have to wonder about these Christian clergy, such as Pritchard, or the Rev Canon Chris Chivers (who, as some readers may recall, wrote about the gratitude he felt to his "Muslim sisters and brothers for Ramadan"), who seem to regard the growing presence and strength of the Islamic religion as something to be celebrated as an improvement rather than feared and resisted as the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Do they honestly believe that, because once or twice a year they attend an inter-faith meeting, where they smile at an imam and utter platitudes, and he smiles back and utters platitudes, that life in a putative future Islamic Britain would be just fine for Christians (or for any other non-Muslims, for that matter)? Apparently so. And, presumably, they also believe that Christians in existing Islamic states are treated fairly, and that the sound of church bells ringing out over Riyadh or Mecca would be welcomed by delighted Saudi imams as "enjoyable community diversity"?

Arrest this man!

The claim that immigrants are necessary to do the jobs that Britons can't or won't do is a favourite of the liberal-left, and like most of their favoured claims, is untrue. However, there is one job where this particular assertion is indeed accurate: the post of Archbishop of Canterbury. Because while the present incumbent, Rowan Williams, is an indescribable idiot, whose buffooneries are too numerous and too well-known to be worth listing, the Ugandan Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, sometimes talks sense, and Michael Nazir-Ali, the Pakistani Bishop of Rochester and son of an Islamic apostate, has often done so. Today, Mr Nazir-Ali has once again come out and said the (to the likes of Rowan Williams) unsayable:

Islamic extremists have created "no-go" areas across Britain where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter, one of the Church of England's most senior bishops warns today.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester and the Church's only Asian bishop, says that people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology.

The Muslim Council of Britain today described his comments as "frantic scaremongering", while William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the bishop had "probably put it too strongly".

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said the idea of no-go areas was "a gross caricature of reality".

Really? We already know that in places like Oldham, Pakistani thugs are creating no-go areas for whites. We know (although Messrs Clegg and Hague may not, since the MSM utterly failed to report the story) that John Payne was almost killed for being white in a Pakistani area. I also recall an incident in which a British home secretary was told that he should not "dare" to set foot in a "Muslim area" - the area in question being Leytonstone, East London. Obviously race was the dominant factor in the first two incidents, but it is quite possible that Kuffarphobia was also a motivation for these attacks, and it is clear that this was the basis for the third incident. Certainly, the existence of cases such as these indicates that Clegg and Hague are utterly wrong to dismiss Michael Nazir-Ali's comments out of hand, without giving even the slightest consideration to what he says. The fact that Clegg, in particular, did so in such strong, almost vituperative, terms, tells you rather a lot about the liberal-left, and their desperation not to face up to any of the negative facts attendant upon the multicultural Eden that they have created in parts of this country.

Mr Nazir-Ali, whose full article may be read here, also makes sensible points about the negative effect that the decline of Christianity has had on Britain, the increasing Islamification of British public life, in at least some areas, and the failings of multiculturalism. But it is his remarks about the creation of no-go areas that have attracted the most attention. As I recall, similar points about the takeover of certain areas by Muslims have been made by Lionheart. I wonder whether Mr Nazir-Ali will soon be getting his dog collar felt by the Kent filth...?

Update: Hazel Blears has also weighed in on the issue, declaring that she "does not recognise" the existence of no-go areas. Which sounds to me rather like the numerous Islamic countries that refuse to recognise Israel, and which certainly invites the same reply: just because you don't recognise them, doesn't mean that they're not there. She also asserted that Islamic extremists were a "tiny minority". Isn't it about time that someone thought up a new cliché?

Meanwhile, two Muslim organisations have demanded that Mr Nazir-Ali resign, on the grounds that he "is promoting hatred towards Muslims". One wonders what their views are on imams, such as those featured in Undercover Mosque, who actually do incite, not only hatred, but murder as well?

"Islam is on the rise and cannot be stopped"

Liberals may dismiss talk of the Islamification of Britain as "Islamophobic", but it seems that the Muslims themselves know rather better:

Statistical information released yesterday showing Muhammad is the second most popular boys name in Britain "proves Islam is becoming the majority in the UK and will one day enter every house in Europe," a senior terror leader told WND in an interview.

"We see from this study of Muhammad's name that Islam is on the rise and cannot be stopped no matter what your crusader governments do," said Muhammad Abdel-Al, spokesman and a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror group.

[...]

Abdel-Al is known for his fiery threats against Western targets, but he said statistical trends indicating Muslims are gaining a major foothold in the UK show there is no need for violence to spread Islam.

"In Europe there is no need for war because if people keep on joining Islam in these countries then Islam will become the majority, which I think is the process that is taking place now, so there will not be any necessity to have war with [non-Muslims]," he said.

Also reflecting on recent trends, Sheik Yasser Hamad, a cleric and a Hamas leader in the northern West Bank, said in a recent WND interview he too sees Islam quickly spreading in the West.

"Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him, said that the sun will shine from the West. This will physically happen as part of the signs of Judgment Day, and it will practically happen as part of a big revival of Islam," said Hamad. "Islam ... may start its new campaign from the West."

Similar sentiments have in the past been uttered by such Islamophobes as Colonel Gaddafi and Mullah Krekar.

Hat-tip: Jihad Watch

Birth rate update

A baby boom among immigrant families is driving the population to a record high, government figures will show this week.

The figures, from the Office for National Statistics, will reveal that Britain's highest birth rates are in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, both predominantly Muslim.

The birth rate among women born in Pakistan but living in the UK is three times higher than that among British-born women, the figures will show.

Separate figures due this month will reveal whether Mohammed has overtaken Jack as Britain's most popular name for baby boys.

As Mullah Krekar put it, "we are the ones who will change you". Or should he perhaps have said "replace you"?

The changing face of the growing population

Britain's population could soar to 90million over the next 50 years.

The dramatic increase, fuelled by immigration and a rising birth rate, would add more than 50 per cent to today's population and put enormous pressure on housing, transport and public services.

Statisticians said the rise would be the equivalent of adding a city the size of Sheffield to the country each year.

The figures are expected to be announced tomorrow by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) and were seized on by the Tories yesterday as evidence that a cap is needed on immigration from countries outside the European Union.

Labour ministers claim that measures are already in the pipeline to deal with an expected population surge over the coming decades, including a new points-based system for screening migrant workers.

GAD statisticians have made a series of predictions based on estimates of three key factors - net migration, birthrates and lifespan.

Earlier this month, they published their central forecast, known as the 'principal projection', which predicted the number of UK residents would rise to 71.1 million by 2031 and 78.6 million by 2056.

Tomorrow, GAD will release 'variant projections' which describe how the population will grow if the three key factors turn out higher or lower than anticipated.

Independent statisticians, using calculations based on data already disclosed by the GAD, have been able to determine in advance the figures likely to be released on Tuesday through The Office for National Statistics.

Their estimates put the population at between 66million and 75million by 2031 and between 66million and 90million in 2056.

[...]

GAD's population forecasts, which are used to plan public spending, have proved to be too low in the past. Its previous estimates two years ago suggested the population in 2056 would be only 69.6million, with a 'high projection' of 82.6million.

The estimate has been increased due to the surge in immigration in the past two years, particularly from the new EU states in eastern Europe.

In order to emphasise the point that the rising birth rate is going to be among the causes of this, potentially massive, increase in the total population, the Daily Mail illustrates its article with a picture of twelve happy babies. However, if you click on the link, then you will find that the picture is somewhat misleading, since all the babies are white. Whereas in reality:

The overall UK average [birth rate] is 1.84 babies. The average for British-born women is 1.6 and for foreign-born women 2.2.

A significant discrepancy. And that's not all:

The highest birthrate in the UK is among Pakistani-born women, who have an average of 4.7 children each.

Well, well, well. And what might the implications of the extremely high birth rate of this particular group be? Personally, I think that the notorious Norwegian-based Islamic extremist Mullah Krekar had it about right:

We're the ones who will change you. Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children...our way of thinking...will prove more powerful than yours.

The strain on resources, which we are already witnessing to such an extent that it has today even been acknowledged by The Observer, would be beyond all reckoning were the population to increase to 90million. But of far greater concern even than the increasing numbers of the population, is the changing face of the population. Because, as the figures above indicate, it is quite possible that, by the time the population of the United Kingdom does reach 90million, that population will not only be majority non-white, but might well also be majority Muslim.

The Religion of Peace and death threats

Opposing Islamification can be a dangerous business. Readers will probably recall the horrific attack on Danish SIOE activists last month, as well as the threats of violence made against British SIOE demonstrators on the MPACUK forums, and the arrest and prosecution of a seventeen year-old Pakistani for plotting to murder BNP members. Now I read that Councillor Alan Craig, who has been leading the campaign against the East London Mega Mosque, has contacted police after discovering a video on Youtube which he believes contains an implicit death threat against him.

The video, which has been up on Youtube since June, and which may be viewed here, is entitled "In memory of Councillor Alan Craig", is just under two minutes long, and consists primarily of a series of photographs of Mr Craig, his wife, and their two young daughters, set to Elvis's song, You Were Always On My Mind. Clearly, the imputation that Alan Craig is dead, when he is in fact very much alive, is somewhat sinister, and could certainly be construed as a statement that "you are a dead man". Given the less-than-total aversion of some followers of the Religion of Peace to the use of violent methods in the pursuit of their goals, I think that it is quite understandable that Mr Craig is concerned.

The video was put up on Youtube by user "abdullah1425" (see his account here), who has also uploaded a number of other videos, some of which relate to the Mega Mosque. Some of his other videos are...interesting, to say the least (this one, for example, compares the relationship of Mohammed and Aisha to the relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, on the grounds that both involve age differences, which rather ignores the fact that Katie Holmes was a responsible adult when she married Cruise, while Aisha was a 6 year-old child when she married Mohammed), but, to be fair, I am not aware that he has made any implicit or explicit threats of violence in any of his other videos. And perhaps that was not his intent with this video, although I struggle to think of any other reason for implying that a political opponent was a "dead man", unless one's intention was to intimidate. Certainly, Mr Craig was, I think, right to take the matter up with the police, and hopefully they will make some efforts to clear up the situation, and possibly to take action against the man who has posted these apparent threats.

Update: YouTube has now taken down the video.

Indoctrination in Schools

A SCHOOL was yesterday accused of MAKING teachers dress up as Asians for a day [traditional Chinese costume, was it?] – to celebrate a Muslim festival [not traditional Chinese costume then].

Kids at the 257-pupil primary have also been told to don ethnic garb even though most are Christians.

The morning assembly will be open to all parents – but dads are BARRED from a women-only party in the afternoon because Muslim husbands object to wives mixing with other men.

[...]

Sally Bloomer, head of Rufford primary school in Lye, West Midlands, insisted: “I have not heard of any complaints.

“It’s all part of a diversity project to promote multi-culturalism.”

Well, that makes everything okay then! I must remember to use that line next time I get stopped for speeding...

Compelling children and teachers to dress up in Islamic garb is bad enough, but replicating the overtly sexist practices of Islamic states (which is what the women-only party was doing) is another thing entirely. Ms Bloomer is not only indoctrinating children into possessing the general opinion that Islam is just as good as Western Civilisation (if not better), but is also expressly endorsing some of Islam's most discriminatory practices. Is this the kind of person you would want in charge of your children?

I also wonder whether, in the interests of the "diversity project to promote multi-culturalism", Ms Bloomer will in future force Muslim children and staff to adopt Western dress, for the purpose of celebrating Christian festivals such as Christmas and Easter? No? Well, of course not: we mustn't upset the Special People, must we?

Hat-tip: Najistani

SIOE in London

Just a brief note to say that my report on Friday's SIOE demonstration in central London is now up at ATW, together with photographs and a video from the protest. Click here to go to the report.

SIOE demo in London

Just a brief note to let readers know that the next demonstration organised by the campaign group Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) will be held in London on Friday, 26th October, with an especial theme of resisting Islamic Kuffarphobia. Those taking part are asked to assemble in Whitehall Place at midday, with a procession to Temple Place beginning at 1pm. Full details and rules of the demonstration are available here.

Hug a Jihadi

A GOVERNMENT minister believes that the answer to furthering the integration of the Muslim community into wider British society could be for them to share more coffee and biscuits with their white neighbours.

John Denham, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills was addressing a meeting in Bournemouth organised by the Fabian Society on citizenship and integration.

Zareen Roohi Ahmed of the British Muslim Forum told the meeting that the problems often stemmed from a "massive Eurocentric" view and said she hoped that the government would be pushing for a "less Eurocentric culture".

Note to Ms Ahmed: Britain is a European country. Our culture is, and always has been, European. If you don't like that, then Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world, Gatwick is also pretty big, and I'm sure that at one of those you can find a nice cheap flight to the Islamic hellhole of your choice. But please have the courtesy to refrain from demanding the cultural deracination and Islamification of this country.

She explained: "Asians would say that the main barrier is a lack of trust, mistrust among young Asians and past supporters of the Labour Party who are feeling let down. In the recent past Labour has been more Islamaphobic than most of the other political parties.

"Indeed in Dudley, in the West Midlands where I was born Labour seems uncomfortable with Muslims and it recently abandoned its support to support the BNP instead. It has left that community feeling dejected. However, Gordon Brown's tone at the Labour Conference is encouraging and we hope to develop it."

Another issue she said was the life chances for young people and crime was a big issue.

She added: "We are not saying focus all your attention on the Muslim communities we are saying let's have targeted provision where there is a need. Do not Islamise everything as most issues are not related to the faith."

The government, she said, could show it wanted to help the community by improving access to services and letting Muslims know they should not feel isolated.

So, to sum up Ms Ahmed's argument: Muslims have lots of problems integrating, but they are to blame for absolutely none of these. Rather, these problems are caused by evil Islamophobes who make Muslims "feel isolated". The solution is to improve access to services. But only for Muslims, who are, of course, always the innocent victims of everyone else's wickedness. More fawning over Muslims by the government is also much-needed.

"We have to reassure Muslims they are not the problem. The issue of radical elements is as much a problem for them as it is for the wider society."

But, of course, Muslims are the problem. And the issue of "radical elements" is not "as much a problem for them as it is for the wider society". Rather, it is a far greater problem for them than for every other group in society. Because no one can seriously dispute that extremist views are far more common among Muslims than they are among the general population. 40% of Muslims in Britain want to see the widespread introduction of Sharia law, for example. 36% of UK-based Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslims who convert away from Islam should face the death penalty. Do you think that a comparable number of young Christians feel the same way? Equally, the majority of non-Muslims do not subscribe to unevidenced conspiracy theories: most Muslims do. And of course, the publication of a cartoon of most religious figures - no matter how offensive - does not commonly earn either the artist or the publishers death threats, nor does it incite rioting in the streets. The publication of a cartoon of Mohammed does. And then there are the terrorists - Muslims account for just 3% of the UK population, but, funnily enough, they seem to account for a rather higher proportion of terrorist offences.

I would suggest that it is precisely these things, together with the apparent refusal of many Muslims to make any real effort to integrate into the society into which they have come as immigrants, that cause problems for Muslims (and, indeed, for everyone else). If John Denham is serious about trying to get Muslims to integrate into British society, then it is going to require more than just telling everyone to have coffee and biscuits, and play nice. It is going to require Muslims to ditch their support for Sharia law, to stop being perpetually outraged and offended, to refrain from constantly demanding preferential treatment, to accept and abide by the native culture of this country, and to take action against the small but nonetheless far from negligible number of their coreligionists who are willing to use or support violence in order to further their politico-religious ends. Doing all of these things should make long-term peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims possible. Whether all of this can be done is, however, far from certain.

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Some employees are more equal than others

MUSLIM supermarket checkout staff who refuse to sell alcohol are being allowed to opt out of handling customers’ bottles and cans of drink.

Islamic workers at Sainsbury’s who object to alcohol on religious grounds are told to raise their hands when encountering any drink at their till so that a colleague can temporarily take their place or scan items for them.

Other staff have refused to work stacking shelves with wine, beer and spirits and have been found alternative roles in the company.

[...]

Mustapha, a Muslim checkout worker at the company’s store in Swiss Cottage, northwest London, interrupts his work to ensure that he does not have to sell or handle alcohol.

Each time a bottle or can of alcohol comes along the conveyor belt in front of him, Mustapha either swaps places discreetly with a neighbouring attendant or raises his hand so that another member of staff can come over and pass the offending items in front of the scanner before he resumes work.

Some of the staff delegated to handle the drink for Mustapha are themselves obviously Muslim, including women in hijab head coverings. However, a staff member at the store told a reporter that two other employees had asked to be given alternative duties after objecting to stacking drinks shelves.

So, let's see: these people, knowing that Sainsbury's sells alcohol-based products, agree to work for Sainsbury's, presumably under a standard contract of employment. No one has forced them to work for Sainsbury's, and they could always have chosen not to, if the prospect of having to sell alcohol is really so repugnant to them. They then refuse to fulfil the duties imposed on them by their contract. In response to this, Sainsbury's backs down, and allows them to pick and choose the work they do. I wonder whether this remarkably lenient treatment would be extended to non-Muslim employees? Or is it perhaps the case that if anyone else started raising moral objections to doing the job Sainsbury's paid them for, then Sainsbury's would - quite rightly - sack them quicker than you can say "Muslims get preferential treatment"?

I am quite a regular visitor to Sainsbury's stores. Sometimes I even buy alcohol there (not to mention pork-based products - will Muslim staff soon refuse to sell those as well?). And when I do so, I expect the people behind the counter to serve me quickly, politely, and without complaint. To refuse to serve a customer is the height of rudeness and unprofessionalism (as, indeed, is publicly making an unwanted and unrequested moral judgement on a customer's purchases), and should any damn Mohammedan low-life treat me with such rudeness, then you can be sure that I shall respond with equal discourtesy. Indeed, I would be sorely tempted to open the offending beverage, and pour it over the offending Mohammedan...

More footage from Brussels

Here are two more videos from yesterday's protest. Readers will notice that among the "bigots" of SIOE, there are plenty of skinhead thugs and associated low-life. They can be identified by their blue police uniforms. The protesters, on the other hand, appear to me to be well-dressed, respectable-looking people:





Hat-tip: Abandon Skip

Free Speech? That's only for Muslims, isn't it?

Unsurprisingly, it seems that the thugs of the Belgian police force got pretty heavy-handed with those who turned out for the Brussels protest against the Islamification of Europe. Al-Beeb reports that dozens of people were arrested, including two leaders of the Belgian Vlaams Belang party, and it appears that the demo was over before it had begun. Once again, we see that free speech is only for those the left likes.

Mr Smith was there, managed to avoid arrest, and has written an eyewitness report of events, which is well worth reading. Meanwhile, the SIOE site is silent: perhaps the organisers of the demo are among those experiencing the hospitality of the local filth.

Update: Via Laban Tall and the Brussels Journal, I find this video of the Belgian police arresting a couple of demonstrators, including the Vlaams Belang's leaders, Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter:



The piece at the Brussels Journal also has an eyewitness account of the demo, and of the police thuggery which shut it down. Read it, watch the video, and then ask yourself, "are the police on our side, do they protect us, or are they an enemy and an obstacle to freedom that needs to be removed?"

Update (2): There were 154 arrests in total, according to Australia's ABC News. Meanwhile, the secretary general of the Council of Europe described the protesters as "bigots" who posed a threat to European values (unlike, say, Sharia law), and added:

It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Actually, though, I'm not aware that any of the protesters did pose a threat to anyone else's freedoms of thought, conscience, or religion. What they were doing was criticising other people's beliefs. Now, I suppose that this might have upset those poeple, but if the rights to freedom of assembly and expression can be taken away simply because someone might get their feelings hurt, then they really are worthless.

Mega Mosque Update: Public Debate Planned

For the first time supporters and opponents of the proposed Olympics mega-mosque in East London will meet to debate the key issues surrounding the proposals, at a public meeting 7 September in Stratford.

Following the recent petition against the mosque which attracted over 250,000 signatures on the 10 Downing Street website, a tense atmosphere will be expected as both sides put forward their arguments head-to-head in front of an open audience.

Support for the mosque will be led by Abdul Khaliq Mian, a former mega-mosque project manager and spokesman, and also a former parliamentary candidate (East Ham 2005) and local council candidate (Newham 2006) for George Galloway’s Respect party.

Leading those opposing the mega mosque plans will be Councillor Alan Craig, leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance group on Newham Council.

The debate has been organised by Newham Muslim voluntary sector group ‘Islamic Circles’ and is open to the public.

“I’m delighted we are to debate the mega-mosque issue face-to-face at last,” said Cllr Craig, who has been the leading East London opponent of the project. “I first asked for discussions with mosque promoters Tablighi Jamaat over a year ago but they have always refused to meet. This is the first real opportunity to do democracy, and I expect the debate to be hard-hitting but civilised.”

Cllr Craig also criticised the stance taken by Ken Livingstone over the mega-mosque. “This debate will also serve to publicly discredit the Mayor’s offensive and unfounded slur that opposition to the mosque is by nature Islamophobic and BNP-inspired,” said Alan Craig. “It isn’t. Many Muslims oppose the Tablighi Jamaat mega-mosque, and non-Islamic local opposition is rational, reasoned and based on respect for our Muslim fellow citizens. We stand against BNP hate-mongering.”

The Christian People Alliance leaders concluded: “Of course the Mayor’s unreasoned biased backing for the mega-mosque simply strengthens the cause of all opponents.

“Fortunately he has no planning powers over the Olympic zone, so he cannot directly impact the final planning decision about the mosque.”

The debate is to be held at 6.15pm on Friday 7 September at Ithaca House in Stratford, East London.

Leaving aside Mr Craig's somewhat ill-informed anti-BNP diatribe, I wholeheartedly support his efforts to prevent the construction of this monstrous symbol of the Islamic takeover of our country. Because that is what this mosque is: a triumphalist symbol of the coming Islamic dominance of British society. The proponents of the mosque claim that calling it a "mega mosque" is deceitful, since it will "only" have space for 12,000 worshippers. Yet Britain's largest Anglican cathedral - Liverpool - has space for only 3,000 worshippers. I think that a mosque four times the size of any cathedral can fairly be called a mega-mosque, don't you?

And the Muslims of East London do not need a mosque of such enormous capacity. According to the mosque's own website, Tablighi Jamaat "currently attract about 3500 to our gatherings every Thursday and about 2000 on Friday". So it's unlikely that the mosque will get even halfway to being full to capacity.

No, this mosque is far more than just a place for Muslims to go, and pray, and learn that Jews are apes and Christians pigs. It is a symbol: it will dominate the East London skyline, rising high above all the churches, the synagogues, the gurdwaras, even above St Paul's Cathedral, and it will say, more powerfully than words ever could, "we are Muslims, we are here to stay, and we are here to rule over you".

Regarding the debate about the mosque, as opposed to the mosque itself: I have to say that I am deeply suspicious of the motives of the Islamic group organising this public meeting. I note that the event will be on a Friday - the Islamic holy day, and simultaneously the day on which the native British are least inclined to attend a political debate. I wouldn't mind betting that we will see Muslims pouring out of the mosques straight into Ithaca House, and that Mr Craig will find himself arguing the point with an audience packed full of his opponents.

Having said that, I would of course, urge those living in East London, those who will be personally affected by having this thing deposited on their doorsteps, to make it down to the debate, if at all possible. And maybe, in a good neighbourly spirit, anyone going could take along some sausage rolls to share round...

Who pulls the strings?

In a comment, Najistani points me towards the following somewhat worrying story:

Labour is involved in a new "sleaze" probe it has emerged.

It followed allegations that a Muslim businessman used a "front" organisation for secret donations.

The Electoral Commission confirmed it is investigating a group called the Muslim Friends of Labour, which gave the party £100,000 a month between April and June.

It is the first such inquiry since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June.

Glasgow-based Imran Khand is alleged to have injected large sums into the organisation. But as his cash did not go direct to Labour, his identity remained secret.

Until recently the organisation donated only small amounts, but it is now the party's second biggest non-union donor.

The probe comes hot on the heels of the ending of the "cash for peerages" inquiry, which saw Tony Blair questioned three times over claims that major donors were promised knighthoods.

The Muslim Friends of Labour - registered to a PO box in South London - is an "unincorporated" association, which it means it does not have to identify people who give it money. But the commission is investigating its status amid allegations that it is actually a members' association, made up "wholly or mainly" of members of a political party.

There are two aspects to this that worry me. First, there is the simple fact that our government appears, once again, to be involved in some financial dodgy dealing. However, while this is saddening - it would be nice to have a government which wasn't corrupt - it is not surprising. After all, we can't say that we haven't been prepared for the fact that the Labour Party may not always be scrupulously honest when it comes to receiving donations.

The second cause for concern lies in the fact that a Muslim organisation is now the second largest private donor to this country's ruling party. We already know that in many parts of Britain Labour relies on the Muslim bloc vote - the vast bulk of which (about 85% in 1997, for example) goes Labour's way - to keep it in power. This alone gives Muslims considerable influence over Labour - after all, the government doesn't want to lose the votes of this large and growing group, does it? Now we hear that Labour is in hock, not only to Muslim votes, but also to Muslim money. This is bound to further increase the influence that Muslims wield over the government; the only question being, by how much will it increase that influence? And how great is that influence already? One thing's for sure, though: the Muslim influence over our government, whatever its degree, will be malign.