Lord Ahmed must be prosecuted for treason
As far as Cranmer is concerned, any person, however ennobled, who threatens to bring a horde of 10,000 Muslims upon Parliament in order to stifle debate and bully it into submission is no ‘moderate’. By threatening this, Lord Ahmed has shown himself to be one of the very extremists he purports to eschew, committed to the same ideology as those who seek to impose Shari’a law upon the UK and subjugate the kuffar to the will of Allah. He is of the very mindset of those imams imported from Pakistan who poison the minds of Britain’s Muslim youth and distort the teachings of the Qur’an for their own warped ends. He is an arrogant bully, manifestly used to getting his own way, and he lords it over their Lordships to the extent that his religio-political adherence exhorts him to do so.
Well, Lord Ahmed, this is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we do things differently here.
The rule of law must be maintained. The more Cranmer has considered His Lordship’s threat, the more he has pondered the religio-political implications of Parliament yielding in order not to offend those who worship Allah while becoming increasingly intolerant of those who dare to worship Jesus.
There are reports that the House of Lords is intent on proceeding with a screening of Fitna despite (or because of) Lord Ahmed’s threat, and (although Geert Wilders has produced a truly awful ‘documentary’ with an utterly crude portrayal of Islam) this is a triumph of liberty over oppression.
But this should not be the end of the matter.
As the Justice Secretary considers new legislation to expel members of the House of Lords for various manifestations of ‘inappropriate behaviour’, much has been made of ‘Erminegate’ – the ‘cash for amendments’ cases of Lord Snape, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Lord Truscott of St James and Lord Moonie. Not to mention the incendiary issue of Lord Watson.
But Lord Ahmed is himself awaiting sentence for causing death through dangerous driving, which ought to be sufficient to expel him from the House of Lords under Jack Straw’s new proposals. And it ought to be remembered that the Lord Ahmed who seeks to stifle discussion about Islamism is the same Lord Ahmed who invited the notorious Swedish anti-Semite Jöran Jermas or ‘Israel Shamir’ to the House of Lords back in 2005.
His thesis included observations such as: ‘All the (political) parties are Zionist-infiltrated’; ‘Your newspapers belong to Zionists... Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking’; ‘In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble - and that is Jewish supremacy drive... in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East’; ‘The Jews like an Empire... This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance... Simple minds call it “treacherous behaviour”, but it is actually love of Empire per se’; ‘Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England... they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide’.
There were no threats from their Jewish Lordships to bring a horde of 10,000 Jews to Parliament to prevent his entry.
Imagine Lord Ahmed’s reaction (not to mention that of the media) if the word ‘Jew’ in this tirade were replaced by ‘Muslim’, or ‘Zionist’ by ‘Islamic’. In the case of Geert Wilders’ invitation to Parliament and Lord Ahmed’s consequent threat, the mainstream media have been totally silent on the matter. It has as though it has not happened; there is blackout and silence.
They, too, are perhaps fearful of the consequences of reporting the facts.
But to the purpose of this post.
Lord Ahmed is supposed to be a Peer of the Realm, yet he shows himself to be solely absorbed by and concerned with victories of the Islamic realm.
He is supposed to be concerned with the maintenance of the Queen’s Peace, yet shows himself to be not remotely concerned with the inter-faith relations or issues of community cohesion which may achieve this.
Treason is one of those words largely considered obsolete, archaic, belonging to a bygone era.
For, surely, no-one now plots to overthrow Her Majesty the Queen or to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament or the privileges of its members.
But Lord Ahmed threatened Parliament into submission through the fear induced by the security implications presented by 10,000 angry Muslims marching to its gates. It is known that the British police have recently been forced to run from Muslim demonstrators out of fear for their own safety. Lord Ahmed’s threat of incitement ought itself to be sufficient grounds for a police investigation.
But a stronger case may yet be made for Lord Ahmed’s prosecution and expulsion from the House of Lords.
It has been suggested that this may be achieved through the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1689, which stipulates :‘That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament...’.
But this is not applicable because no court is hindering freedom of speech within Parliament and Lord Ahmed is manifest within, not ‘out of Parlament’.
The Treason Felony Act 1848 is, however, quite a different statutory instrument, and it is still in force (notwithstanding that the death penalty has been abolished).
Treason laws were used against Irish insurgents before Irish independence. But it is noteworthy that members of the IRA and other republican terrorist groups were not prosecuted for treason but for murder and terrorist offences.
Is not threatening to bring a horde of 10,000 protesting Muslims upon Parliament an act of terrorism? Fear would certainly be a consequence – doubtless the sort which would have the police withdrawing in fear for their own safety and security. But if this is not a threat of terrorism, consider:
It is treason felony to compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend:
•to deprive the Queen of her crown,
•to levy war against the Queen, or
•to ‘move or stir’ any foreigner to invade the United Kingdom or any other country belonging to the Queen.
If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom... order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing... or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable...to be transported beyond the seas for the term or his or her natural life.
There appears to be prima facie evidence of an attempt ‘to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament’ by an ‘overt act or deed’.
Lord Ahmed secured ‘a victory for the Muslim community’ by vanquishing ‘freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament’. And he did so after reportedly meeting with the Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords and the Leader of the House of Lords. Representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, British Muslim Forum and others from the British Muslim community were also present at the meeting.
While Cranmer is appalled (though not surprised) that the Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords and the Leader of the House of Lords were complicit in this decision, there is no doubt that the intent to ‘intimidate or overawe’ was expressed by Lord Ahmed.
Cranmer is therefore considering a legal challenge to the threat made by Lord Ahmed, and shall be consulting widely and wisely on the matter.