Islamic Tolerance at work

Despite a series of initiatives aimed at generating foreign tourism, the Saudi Arabian government continues to bar Jews and Christians from bringing items such as Bibles, crucifixes and Stars of David into the country and is threatening to confiscate them on sight, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

"A number of items are not allowed to be brought into the kingdom due to religious reasons and local regulations," declares the Web site of Saudi Arabian Airlines, the country's national carrier.

After informing would-be visitors that items such as narcotics, firearms and pornography may not be transported into the country, the Web site adds: "Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others."

As Neal Boortz said, "where's the outrage"? After all, Muslims are quick enough to throw tantrums when peaceful objections are raised to the building of an enormous mosque in our capital city; they must be absolutely seething with rage over this. I mean, they must be. Because the only other explanation would be that they're a bunch of hypocrites, and that couldn't possibly be true, could it?

Hat-tip: LGF

Ban the Koran?

Earlier in the week David wrote about the debate currently taking place in Germany as to whether Mein Kampf should continue to be banned. Now, I read that the Dutch politician Geert Wilders has precipitated a similar debate in his own country, after calling for a ban on the Koran, which he directly compared to Hitler's 'magnum opus'. Writing in the left-wing De Volkskrant newspaper, he said:

This book encourages murder and hatred, and therefore does not fit within our society. If Muslims want to participate in our society, they have to distance themselves from this Koran. I can see that would be too much to ask for, but we have to stop making concessions.

Predictably, the call for a ban has outraged Muslims, and their friends on the left. A lawyer and minor politician named Els Lucas has called for Wilders to be prosecuted for the ludicrous-sounding but apparently real crime of "insulting a section of the community", while De Volkskrant itself appeared to question Wilders' sanity. As the Dutch blogger Klein Verzet points out, the rhetoric now being employed by the left is similar to that which they formerly directed against Pim Fortuyn. And we all know what happened there...

So, should the Koran be banned? Personally, I think not. While I believe that a ban on the Koran would be more easily justified than a ban on Mein Kampf - after all, Mein Kampf is now only believed by a handful of sartorially-challenged lunatics, whereas the Koran is revered by a billion sartorially-challenged lunatics, many of whom are actively trying to destroy Western civilisation, rendering a ban on the Koran equivalent, not to banning Mein Kampf today, when it poses no threat, but to banning Mein Kampf at the height of World War Two - I think that the Koran is one of the great weapons against the Islamic threat, and banning it would prove counterproductive. After all, why would we want to deny people the chance to see the full, ugly reality of Islam, abundantly demonstrated in its holy book?

But Wilders is raising an important point, when he says that "we have to stop making concessions". As documented repeatedly on this blog and on others, Western governments seem to acquiesce to every demand that is made by a Muslim. Often, this results in the stifling of free speech. Threatening them with the banning of their holy book is rather a nice way of warning them that the ability to push others around with over-the-top demands cuts both ways. Maybe someone should try it here...

Originally posted at ATW.

The Cameron Tories

Definitely not obsessed with spin.

Criminal "justice": from strength to greater strength

In the early hours of Monday morning, 56 year-old Patrick Walsh, of Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Greater Manchester, awoke to find a burglar in his flat. Now, as we all know, the correct, police-sanctioned, method of dealing with burglars is to offer them a cup of tea, and point them in the direction of your more valuable possessions. You should then call the police, who will arrive late, if at all, take down the details of the offence, and then do nothing whatsoever. Thus, society and the rule of law endure.

Unfortunately, Mr Walsh, who is clearly a very wicked man, had the nerve to do something that the police specifically tell homeowners not to do: he confronted the criminal. There was a struggle, and the criminal fell from the window of Mr Walsh's third floor flat, suffering severe head injuries. I imagine that readers can guess what happened next...

Yes, that's right: after calling the police, Mr Walsh found himself arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The police, who are supposed to protect the law-abiding public against criminal lowlife, chose to treat as the villain of the piece a man whose only "crime" was to wish to defend his property, a right of paramount importance in a free society.

There are very few people who are prepared to openly deny the principle of a right to self-defence. Even though liberals may well want it completely taken away, they will not admit it. However, what we heard a lot of in the case of Tony Martin, was that, while one has a right to defend oneself and one's property, Mr Martin, in shooting a burglar, had gone over-the-top in exercising this right. Perhaps the same will be said of Mr Walsh.

The law does indeed require that any force used in self-defence be reasonable. However, as far as I am concerned, all force used against an active aggressor is reasonable. Only when the aggressor has actually stopped moving, does the use of force even potentially become unreasonable. And, in any event, I fail to see how Mr Walsh's action can be ajudged as anything less than reasonable. Was he supposed to stop grappling with the burglar when they got to within a few feet of the window, lest someone got hurt? Sadly, it's not that easy to just stop in the middle of a fight. Had he done so, it is probable that he would be the one lying in intensive care tonight. Perhaps the police would prefer that. Certainly, it seems that they would prefer to see Mr Walsh deprived of his property, and the burglar off scot free, than to see the burglar suffer for his criminality, and the law-abiding Mr Walsh keep his property.

Whatever the police may think, I applaud Mr Walsh, and hope that any charges that the police may threaten him with collapse quicker than David Cameron's poll ratings. Personally, if I caught a burglar in my house, then I hope I would do the decent thing and confront him, and I hope that I'd kill him. Whether I'd subsequently inform the police, would be quite another matter. It seems to me that homeowners who do kill or seriously injure burglars might be rather better off if they just quietly disposed of the body without telling anyone...

Update: It seems that the burglar has died of his injuries since this post was written. Could we now be looking at another Tony Martin-style murder trial, perhaps?

Update (2): It has now been revealed that the dead burglar, Terence Sandiford, was a habitual criminal who was actually on bail awaiting trial for going equipped to commit a burglary when he broke into Mr Walsh's flat.

Just lock him up!

Can I be the only one who is absolutely fed up with watching the ongoing antics of the contemptible Pete Doherty? Over the past couple of years, it seems that barely a month has gone by without Doherty being arrested for something or other, and he has been in and out of court more times than some lawyers. Aside from amassing numerous convictions for drug offences, he has also been fined £750 for assaulting a BBC reporter, and has pleaded guilty to driving without either insurance or a licence. Now, after admitting to two further driving offences, as well as possession of cannabis, heroin, crack cocaine, and ketamine (how many habits does the guy have?) he has been warned that he may face prison, unless he attends a drug rehabilitation course.

Personally, I think that there should be no "may" about it. Doherty has shown himself to have a complete disregard for the law, time and time again. Indeed, on one occasion he distinguished himself by being sentenced for drug possession in the morning, and arrested for drug possession in the early afternoon of the same day. Really, the only way of dealing with people like this is to lock them up. And, preferably, to throw away the key...

Please refrain from eating the swans

Anglers are starting a campaign to stop swans being dragged from their local canal and butchered by hungry immigrants.

Members of Luton Angling Club have come up with a sign that spells out the law on the birds - that they are not to be eaten.

They want it posted along the side of the Grand Union Canal near Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire.

Groups of Eastern European men have reportedly been poaching the birds and pleading ignorance when confronted.

Club committee member Jo Edwards said her partner, Brett Herdman, had come up with the idea for the sign.

He realised something had to be done after a group of men was seen grappling with a swan on the towpath.

Bizarre as this case is, it is not without recent precedent.

Muslim Schools teach Caliphatism

In the Sunday Times, I came across the rather worrying revelation, that the Islamic Shaksiyahan Foundation, an organisation run by members of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, is itself running two schools in Britain - one in Haringey, North London, and the other in Slough. Hizb ut-Tahrir has as its primary aim the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, run according to the principles of Sharia law, and this is reflected in the curriculum at the two schools:

According to the Islamic Shaksiyah Foundation’s curriculum document, children aged 7-8 are taught “our rules and laws come from Allah” and asked to contrast Islam with “other belief systems where human beings make rules”. At age 9-10 children should be taught: “There must be one khali-fah [ruler of the caliphate].”

I'd also be interested to hear what their history syllabus is like, given that it's written by a woman named Themina Ahmed, whose previous writings include the following:

The world will, insha-Allah, witness the death of the criminal capitalist nation of America and all other [infidel] states when the army of jihad is unleashed upon them.

It really is quite worrying that we are allowing, not merely the formation within our country of Islamic schools, but the formation within our country of Islamic schools which teach support for two things, the caliphate and Sharia law, which stand in direct opposition to our traditional way of life. That a woman who apparently supports the violent destruction of Britain and other western nations is involved in a prominent role in formulating the school curriculum is also what some might just possibly regard as cause for concern. There is a debate, which has been ongoing for some time, about whether Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned, and I would say that, regardless of whether or not Hizb is closed down, these schools (or, to phrase it more accurately, 'brainwashing centres') definitely should be.

Latest ATW post

I've just written a new post at ATW, on the subject of the recent witch hunt launched against Nicholas Soames for criticising mass immigration. Click here to read it.

The Environment Agency: not anti-white, just anti-English

Abigail Howarth is a white, English, eighteen year-old, living in Bedfordshire, a county which is both very much in England, and predominantly white. She applied for a job working for the Environment Agency on its flood management programme. But she was subsequently informed that there was no point in pursuing her application, since she was not from a minority group, and the position in question was specifically intended to be filled by a member of such a group.

Now, what sets this apart from the numerous other cases in which individuals, and sometimes whole towns, have been subjected to inferior treatment on the grounds of being white, is that in this case, Miss Howarth was discriminated against, not because she was white, but because she fell into the category of "White English". Had she been "White Scottish", "White Welsh", "White Irish", or "White Other", then she would have been fine. Apparently, the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish are now, in a very minor way, designated victim groups, at least as far as the Environment Agency is concerned. But because Miss Howarth was guilty of being English, in England, she has been treated as a second-class applicant.

Now, I am opposed to all forms of so-called "positive discrimination" and "affirmative action". If I were a resident of Bedfordshire whose house was at risk of flooding, then I would want the person in charge of managing that flood risk to be the best person for the job, regardless of their ethnicity, rather than someone who may have only got the job because their appointment enabled the Environment Agency to tick some "diversity" boxes. But this case does seem particularly bizarre, because of the distinction drawn between the English, and all other white people, whether of the British Isles or not. For a start, since the job advert to which Miss Howarth responded makes specific reference to those "of the following descents", and then goes on to list the various groups designated for favourable treatment (including the Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish), then I would assume that, even if one was a white person born and bred in England, then the presence of a Welsh, Scottish, or Irish parent or grandparent might qualify one to list oneself as being White Welsh, etc, and therefore qualify for preferential treatment. And there must be millions of people living in England who can find at least one such ancestor. So, if Miss Howarth had had an Irish grandmother, she might well have been able to profess to be "White Irish", and her position would have been substantially improved.

I note that the Commission for Racial Equality, while happy to raise merry hell over a comic book, has no objection to this blatant discrimination. Quelle Surprise!

All the fun of the mayor

I read that the probable Tory candidate for Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has had his bid for election "spurned" by black MPs. Well, that's what the headline at al-Beeb ("Black MPs spurn Boris mayoral bid") says. What they mysteriously omit to mention until the second paragraph of the article is that the two black MPs who have attacked Johnson, Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler, are both from the Labour Party. Indeed, not only that, but they are both from the party's far-left fringe. And I would hardly say that for a Tory to find two Labour MPs to be opposed to his campaign constitutes "spurning". Nor, indeed, can I see that two far-left nutters represent "black MPs" collectively, as the BBC headline implies. Looks like yet another little example of BBC bias to me.

But, if one looks past the BBC's misleading headline, to the claims made by Abbott and Butler, then, well, one rather wishes one had stuck at the headline. Because the whole basis of their objection is the usual song-and-dance about "racism". That's right, Boris Johnson is, in essence, a veritable goose-stepping Nazi, just biding his time before unleashing a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Brixton (I mean, a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Brixton other than the one directed against the borough's white populace, which is ongoing). And what is the basis of this revelation? Well, Johnson once used the word "piccaninnies" in an article in 2002.

Well, so what? Until I saw that Abbott and Butler had kicked up a fuss about it, I had no idea that "piccaninnies" was even deemed offensive. And, frankly, it doesn't upset me that Boris Johnson has used the term, and it wouldn't make me any more or less likely to vote for him. But if anyone is so offended by the word, that they feel that they'd rather keep Ken Livingstone in power, then let them vote for him. That's what we call democracy, something that Abbott and Butler, both supporters of the Venezuelan dictator Chavez, may not know very much about.

I would also point out, that Livingstone's own conduct on racial matters has hardly been exemplary. Aside from accusing a Jewish journalist of being equivalent to a concentration camp guard, he has also literally embraced the terrorist-supporting Islamic cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. If Abbott and Butler were really interested in having a mayor who represented the people of London then they wouldn't be supporting such a man.
But of course, all they're really engaging in when they criticise Boris Johnson is party-political sniping, using their status as designated victims in an attempt to invest their attacks with a moral force that they would otherwise lack.

Personally, I am not great fan of Boris Johnson. I find his politics rather wet, albeit better than those of his friend David Cameron, and the buffoonish character he adopts irritates me, although he was good on Have I Got News For You. But, should I be living in London when the election comes round, then he will certainly have my second preference vote. Even a friend of Cameron's is a significant improvement on Red Ken.

In related mayoral news, I note that Brian Paddick has come out (boom boom) and professed a desire to come a poor third in the election (or, as he put it, to be the Lib Dem candidate). Paddick, it will be recalled, was the most senior homosexual police officer in the country, until he left the Met after falling out with his boss. Now he's working on a book about his experiences as a poor oppressed victim in the institutionally evil police force. Perhaps he could have Ali Dizaei as his running-mate...