Thursday, October 05, 2006

Institutional anti-semitism?

PC Alexander Omar Basha is a police officer in Scotland Yard’s Diplomatic Protection Group. It is his job to uphold the law of the land, and he has taken an oath to maintain law and order in the United Kingdom. It transpires, however, that this does not extend to the protection of British Jews.

Having been assigned to guard the Israeli Embassy, Mr Basha objected on ‘moral grounds’, citing Israel’s actions in Lebanon. His request for reassignment was considered, and (since his wife is Lebanese), granted. It appears that if you are a Muslim police officer and don’t want to protect Jews, you can object on ‘moral grounds’ and be excused. It seems that such moral grounds may include having a spouse that happens to object because of ethnic affinity. The Association of Muslim Police Officers are supporting him in this, insisting that it is a ‘welfare issue’.

But whose welfare?

If police officers may pick and choose to which assignments they are posted, based solely on their individual consciences rather than any sense of corporate responsibility, where will this lead? Should Jewish officers be excused working at an Islamic national embassy? Will Catholic officers be excused assignments to Protestant churches? Should Christian officers be permitted to decline an order to police a Gay Pride march? Should Muslim officers be excused entering mosques to search them for guns or fake passports, on the grounds that it demeans their place of worship? Should Christians be permitted to object to entering mosques because they consider them to be dedicated to an evil cult worship? Should the Hindus and Sikhs be permitted to object because of the actions of Pakistani Muslims in Kashmir against their co-religionists? Who will this leave to search Britain’s mosques? The atheists? Must we now urgently recruit a disproportionate number of atheists into HM Police Force to ensure that there are always a sufficient number of officers who may not object on ‘moral grounds’? And what if the atheists object because they happen to think they can’t be bothered to protect the worshippers of any god, because they all deserve whatever bombs and bullets come their way?

Lord Mackenzie has stated: ‘If officers have political, religious, ideological or moral views about things then they've got to put their duties above that because their service is to the public.’ Yet Cranmer suggests that no Christian would have been granted such preferential treatment. Indeed, they are likely to have been suspended and ordered to attend a ‘minority support’ course or ‘diversity’ training.


Anonymous Ulster Man said...

A sad day for British policing, and I look forward to Blair's inquiry into this affair. It is clear as day to anybody with sense that different faiths/ethnic groups receive different treatment by such bodies, and yet nobody seems to have the authority to force a change.

Thus is the PC agenda supreme - it is the way YOU WILL live your lives, and to try to counter it will leave you charged with racism, or some other social 'evil'. God help us.

5 October 2006 at 13:06  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ulster man,

It's all correct what you said. But why not trying to help God a little bit by protesting about the lack of logic and about the disastrous consequences, as for example Cranmer does with his blog?

Does it help to protest?

An example: An opera of Mozart was cancelled in Berlin by the director of the opera house for fear of terrorist attacks. A storm of protests followed her decision. Now, the opera will be shown again and the director of the opera house will get fired. Berlin will show "Idomeneo again .

It certainly helps when the silent majority no longer remains silent.

5 October 2006 at 13:57  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Colin, I do protest. We all protest in Ulster. We've been protesting for centuries, and do the English listen? Not much.

I vent my spleen on this blog because I can. Does it make a difference? Probably not, but at least I'm no longer talking to myself.

I have never come across a blogging soulmate like Cranmer. He has a message worth spreading, and I guess he died for it.

5 October 2006 at 14:03  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Just spotted this quote on the BBC site:

"The association said Pc Basha had asked to be excused from his duties because he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe".

So, is this to imply that the constable thought he might be attacked by the embassy staff, or that he might be attacked by protesters? The former idea is wholly beneath contempt, and if the latter - why should he be allowed out of harm's way at the expense of some other officer? Or still worse, that he felt mentally unstable and, as an armed officer, might have been tempted to repeat the assassination attempt on Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov in 1982? Whichever way one looks at it, I cannot see how this man is a fit person to be a police officer.

BTW, Ulster Man - some of us on this side of the Irish Sea know who the good guys are.

5 October 2006 at 14:37  
Blogger The Ghost Of Peter said...

I don't recall ever having heard of a protestant RUC officer ever having refused to protect Catholic "nationalist" areas or vice versa, but then again that fine body of men and women were head shoulders above the armed social workers that mendaciously claim to serve and protect the people of London.

5 October 2006 at 14:46  
Blogger beethoven writes said...


5 October 2006 at 15:06  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5 October 2006 at 15:08  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

Does the family of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky think that Sharon should not have been on duty that day because it was too dangerous? Or that any other police officer who is injured or killed in the line of duty should have the option of evading duties?

But of course, Muslims are a special case aren't they? And we must fall over ourselves to make sure that not one hair on their very precious little heads is harmed.

In the meantime, they must also be allowed to undermine the freedoms that we hold dear and call publicly for murder and mayhem without let or hindrance.

And so we are left with some irksome little Muslim, who probably got into the police force on some kind of non-white shortlist (since it is now clear that whites are actively discriminated against), who doesn't feel like doing his job.

I wonder how many people are as angry as me?

3:08 PM

5 October 2006 at 15:11  
Anonymous Northumbrian said...

There are some odd parallels here with the "Curragh Mutiny" of July 1914 when army officers who were either from or had relations in Ulster were tacitly allowed to "disappear" should the British military be ordered to put down the UVF in Northern Ireland.

What seemed a practical step by some at the time caused massive outrage - even among Ulster sympathisers - that the loyalty of HM's forces was so conditional.

I wonder if your grace has considered the similarities?

5 October 2006 at 15:12  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

Here's a chilling article on how the Metropolitan Police has been subverted by Muslims and their subservient dhimmis:

5 October 2006 at 16:36  
Anonymous The jabberwock said...

fruning graplecard 3:11 PM

You express my sentiments exactly.

Would the good PC feel safe should he be charged with protecting the Libyan People's Bureau, by whose staff a former colleague, WPC Yvonne Fletcher, was murdered on 27 April 1984?

But then, her life would not matter to the good Muslim, because she was an 'unbeliever' and, worse, a woman.

5 October 2006 at 16:38  
Anonymous The jabberwock said...

See also:

London Police Surrender To The Islamists

5 October 2006 at 16:49  
Anonymous The jabberwock said...

Apoogies for wasting comment space. I didn't spot that religion of pieces had already given a link to the site.

5 October 2006 at 16:51  
Blogger The Ghost Of Peter said...

We forget, maybe officer Basha was scared of the reaction his fellow Mohammedans if and when they found out who he was guarding?

5 October 2006 at 18:47  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ulster Man,

Croydonian wrote: "BTW, Ulster Man - some of us on this side of the Irish Sea know who the good guys are." Let me add, and not only those living around the Irish sea. See e.g. reports in German newspapers such as IRA - the Mafia of Northern Ireland or News - Ireland: Secretary of Justice says IRA is similar to the Mafia and the SA.

5 October 2006 at 19:05  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

When I see the BBC national news covering not one but two stories about Muslims I begin to wonder what the motivation of the editors is. Somebody chooses this stuff and this choice is not objective by any stretch of the imagination. If the national media wished to incite anger against Muslims they are going the right way about it. I am puzzled. The BBC has hitherto been true to its liberal PC agenda and yet it appears that events have somehow taken over. Perhaps the number of negative Islamic stories is so overwhelming they felt that their public brodcasting remit was in danger of being exposed to ridicule by their avoidance of such stories.

Now Jack Straw has weighed in with what appears to be a political suicide note, given his constituency. Why did he suddenly and spontaneously make a stand against the Islamic veil?

I wonder... has the establishment..that group of people who really run the country.. finally decided that enough is enough and declared this to be a battle for out way of life? I certainly hope so.

As for Christians, we have been known to stand up for the weak at times of looming tyranny. We owe it to ourselves to humbly seek to know who the weak are and what our individual stand must be.

5 October 2006 at 19:07  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Do not for one minute think that the elite are trying stir up racial hatred for our benefit , they are doing it as part of the next stage of their plan, divide and conquer.

5 October 2006 at 19:42  
Anonymous Colin said...


I am worried because I constantly appear to agree with you.
We aren't identical twins by any chance, are we?

5 October 2006 at 20:05  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

Dear Hitchens, you write hinting at some sort of grand plan. Who has this plan and what might it be?

I notice that neither Guido nor Iain has caught onto the Straw story. I would not have expected them to involve themselves in this one of course.

Our venerable host has rightly posted this as it is not only the political hot-potato of the moment, but also indicative of a multi-pronged assault on our culture (which is still Christian, I would say.)

5 October 2006 at 20:18  
Anonymous Colin said...

The police officer has clearly acted against the anti-discrimination law of the EU and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. See Website of the European Commission: Respecting fundamental rights while ensuring security and justice in the European Union.

"The EU Treaty now covers the four internal market freedoms, namely free movement of goods, services, people and capital. It also bans all discrimination based on nationality, gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation."

"The Court has ruled that all EU institutions must respect fundamental rights, as must national authorities when they are implementing EU law."

I am sorry but the police officer will have to be punished for discrimination based on nationality, ethnic origin, and religion, if the law is properly applied.

5 October 2006 at 20:36  
Blogger Cranmer said...

I notice that neither Guido nor Iain has caught onto the Straw story. I would not have expected them to involve themselves in this one of course.

His Grace occasionally treads where other political commentators fear to tread. Mssrs Fawkes and Dale tend to steer clear of politico-religiosity, preferring the secular realms (despite Mr Fawkes' prior religious allegiance).

5 October 2006 at 20:52  
Blogger Man in a shed said...

Your Grace,

I can see another reason this man would ask to be relieved from duty. That is he may be concerned about being black mailed by threats to his family. He could then be used in an attack he is sworn to prevent. He would of course not want to say this outright as it would reflect badly on muslims in Lebanon and Syria - and possibly give them the idea.

Somebody who can easily have pressure brought onto them is not suitable for diplomatic protection work, for reasons that must be obvious.

5 October 2006 at 23:19  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

Any officer is at risk of threats to his family or indeed some form of blackmail. I am afraid that man-in-a-shed's example is a red herring. If he is saying, however, that this particular officer is susceptible to undue influence then that officer should not be in the police force at all. We need to be protected by officers who carry out their duties according to law. At present, and on the specific issue of Muslim/Christian affairs the police are very clearly bias in favour of Muslims. Until this scandalous and illegal state of affairs is addressed, confidence in the law and the rule of law is weakened.

The recent issue of two police authorities (Avon and Someerset and Gloucestershire) deliberately refusing to consider white male officers over ethnic minorities, in direct contravention of the law, should have been the warning sign to our politicians that the police need to be reeled in.

6 October 2006 at 00:39  
Blogger Man in a shed said...

Fruning Graokecard,

I'm saying he's not suitable to do Diplomatic protection if he is easily pressurised due to his circumstances.

The same way someone whose family was in the former Soviet Union should not be given security clearance.

Perhaps the problem is the police putting PC individual rights over their duty to the public. This has shades of that disgraceful incident with Thames Valley Police when officers wouldn't risk themsleves to save two mortally wounded women at a family BBQ.

6 October 2006 at 09:53  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

It wil take blood in the street (lots of it) before this country wakes up , I for one cannot wait.
How are your drains?

6 October 2006 at 12:33  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...


It is as if Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech is at at last going to prove accurate, only in a way that he could never have imagined.

Depressingly I think you are right.

6 October 2006 at 14:10  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

well, as long as we have places such as Scotton pinkey to retreat to and regroup , then maybe we have a chance.

6 October 2006 at 14:42  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ellee Seymour is blogging about the same topic:

"On the one hand, he did the right thing in being honest, and he is probably a great cop in other areas. Unfortunately, as a result, he could now find his position severely compromised, his weakness has been widely exposed which could lose him credibility, even taunts and racial abuse."

Link: "Professionals must get on with the job".

6 October 2006 at 18:34  
Anonymous Colin said...

Advantages for the believers of Islam compared to Christians or Jews is an old tradition of the Islamic world and part of the contemporary Islamic Project.

The renowed conservative German Newspaper (similar to The Times) "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" published on 15. September 2006 an entlightning article "Islam wants to conquer the world" by the historian by Egon Flaig. The English translation can be found at Western Resistance.

Here some highlights: The incredible speed, in which in 90 years an Arabian empire spanning from the south of France to India developed, with no single conqueror guiding the expansion, is unique. The world's most succesful imperialism was admired by no less than Hegel: "Never has enthusiasm as such done bigger deeds". If "enthusiasm" could do such a thing - what was its source? The answer is simple: martyrdom. Something happening in 963 in Constantinople may illustrate this: the emperor Nikephoros Phokas had just swept the Muslim invaders from Crete; now, he was planning a big war, to liberate eastern Anatolia and northern Syria from muslim rule. A council should help him: he pleaded with the bishops, to elevate soldiers dying in the war to the status of martyrs. Paradise would then have been assured for those soldiers. The patriarch stood up against the emperor: no church council could be empowered to anticipate God's decision, only God could decide on eternal salvation.

A scene of historical significance. The emperor knew what was at stake. Again and again, the Byzantians had to witness the Muslim troops fighting with a ferocious courage that the Christians could not emulate. Fallen Muslims were considered martyrs of the faith and marched straight to paradise. The concept of a martyr is fundamentally different in the two religions. Christian martyrs imitate the passion of Jesus, passively submit to torture and death; Muslim martyrs are active fighters.

Decisive for the warriors' acceptance of death was the firm promise of eternal salvation for those who die for the faith (surah 4, 74-76). ..

Nikephoros knew about the military consequences of surah 4, 74-76; he was the first who tried to correct the conceptual military disadvantage of the Christian religion. But the bishops of the Eastern Church found themselves incapable of manipulating their theology in a way to create warlike martyrdom. This was it. The Byzantine emperors had to wage their heavy defensive wars against the permanent Saracen and Seljuk aggression without the help of religion, where they needed that help most.

Only the Western Church changed the theological-political situation: when Pope Urban II called the first crusade in 1095, he promised the Christian warriors forgiveness for their sins: fallen crusaders avoided divine judgement and were put on a par with martyrs in that respect, although they were denied that name. The Pope as head of a monarchic church did just that, what the Council of Eastern bishops had not been able to do: he dispensed salvation. The papal church now could have the kind of "holy war" islam had been waging for centuries. What is the difference between Crusade and jihad? A Crusade could only be called by the Pope, and thus remained a rare occurence - compared to the countless, neverending and ubiquitarian jihads of the islamic world.

And the goals of the Crusades remain precisely defined; in November 1095, Urban II defined reason and aim of the crusade: "it is obvious, we must give help to our brothers in the east as soon as possible. The Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have invaded the realm of Romania (Constantinople) and by invading the lands of these Christians ever more deeply, they won seven battles, killed or captured a huge number of the Christians. If you don't oppose them now, the faithful servants of God in the Orient will not withstand this storm much longer". The first Crusades were meant to either help Christians in need, or to liberate the holy places in Palestine or to liberate Christians that had been subjugated by Muslims. On the other hand, the Muslim scholars always kept firm to their final goal, to conquer the "house of war" and subjugate all infidels.

Urban II was right. Had Constantinople fallen in 1100, the enormous military power of the Turk armies would have plagued Europe four hundred years earlier. Then the manifold European culture probably would never have been: no free urban constitutions, no constitutional debates, no cathedrals, no renaissance, no scientific boom, because in the Islamic world, free - Greek! - thinking was dying just at this time. Jacob Burckhardt's evaluation - "A stroke of luck, that Europe as a whole could ward off Islam" - means, we owe about as much to the Crusades, as to the Greeks' victory against the Persians.

(BTW, is it possible that Catholicism is not responsible for the killing Archbishop Cranmer but also for saving in earlier times Europe including the UK from its present threat?)

For contemporary times, the "multi-phased, long-term approach to the "CULTURAL INVASION" of the West is described in yesterday's highly instructive article "The Eurabia Code, Part 2: A Planned Sell-Out by the EU" by the Fjordman. Youssef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam, predicted that "Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor."

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa Lappen: "As the parent of all Sunni and many other Islamist terrorist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, to deflect attention, uses its long-term strategy, known as "flexibility" (muruna in Arabic). This chameleon-like adaptation is tactical moderation with the ultimate objective of complete Islamization of society.Indeed, the MB’s 1982 project calls on members "To reconcile international engagement with flexibility at a local level."

The Flexibility strategy "calls for a minority group of Muslims to use all ‘legal’ means to infiltrate majority-dominated, non-Muslim secular and religious institutions, starting with its universities. As a result, ‘Islamized’ Muslim and non-Muslim university graduates enter the nation’s workforce, including its government and civil service sectors, where they are poised to subvert LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, intelligence communities, military branches, foreign services, and financial institutions."

Constable Alexander Omar Basha is part of the LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES in the UK, isn't he.

6 October 2006 at 20:45  
Anonymous Colin said...

More good news on the 5th of October 2006:

"Earlier this week the Queen gave permission to convert a room at Windsor castle into a prayer room"

according to an article by the Evening Standard.

6 October 2006 at 21:38  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Samuel Huntington, much derided by the left and academic elites for "The Clash of Civilizations?" in 1993 now seems to have been unusually prescient. (Edward Said issued a response to Huntington's thesis in his own essay entitled "The Clash of Ignorance." )

Huntingdon argued very simply that the people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. Such differences are the product of centuries and they will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes: the primary axis of conflict in the future would be along cultural and religious lines.
The demographic decline of the West and its perceived decadence means the West will face significant dangers. Huntington also argues that civilizational conflicts are "particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims".

The Clash of Civilizations is now reaching out and touching all of us. As this thread and most of the others preceding it on this blog, particularly PC Alexander Omar Basha, and elsewhere have demonstrated.

7 October 2006 at 18:38  
Anonymous Colin said...

That Samuel Huntington's and GC's view are correct is demonstrated by the latest reports about Abu Izzadeen, a radical cleric who gained entry to a closed meeting in east London and heckled John Reid, the home secretary.

Izzadeen apparently has urged Muslims in an internet video to wage holy war in Britain. In the video he told his audience:

"You prepare yourself now and when the hard time comes you are ready to defend yourself; you are ready to die for the sake of Allah."

"In the UK no fighting takes place yet, but don’t be fooled, the time will come to you brothers . . . fighting is so close at hand."

From the article "Police to brief Muslims before terror raids" in the Sunday Times of 24th of September 2006.

7 October 2006 at 21:57  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

Muslims like to be feared, and don't mind being hated, but they can't stand being ridiculed.

As C S Lewis said "Above all else, the Devil cannot stand to be mocked."

The most effective weapon against Islam is mockery. There's an excellent Infidel Bloggers Alliance article at

Make Islam and Mohammed a laughing stock (with such standing jokes as the 72 virgins questions see )

and eventually Islam will be laughed to scorn.

7 October 2006 at 22:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Nazi German FM Ribbentrop visited New York in the '30's The then Mayor Fiorello Laguardia assigned a squad of Jewish policemen to protect him.
They were dedicated policeman and Ribbentrop returned safely to Berlin. Hend had to wait almost ten years before he was hung after due process @ the Nuremberg Trials.

12 October 2006 at 12:23  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older