Saturday, April 06, 2013

Islam, equality and inclusivity


Islamic shari’a councils are recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. There are now around 90 such councils operating as recognised tribunals, and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

Under shari’a, men and women are not treated equally. In matters of inheritance, property division, divorce and the custody of children, shari’a law disadvantages women and they are considered inferior as witnesses: a man may easily divorce his wife whereas a woman must argue her case and undergo a lengthy legal process.

A Muslim woman seeking a divorce is subjected to an interview process aimed at keeping her married and she risks financial ruin by the obligation to return her dower.

Shari’a rules on child custody can be rigid and were described by judges in the House of Lords as ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’. In general, child custody reverts to the father at a preset age (seven for boys) no matter the circumstances or the behaviour of the father, and if a woman remarries she loses custody of her children.

If a wife refuses to agree to give the husband access to their children, even in cases of possible child abuse, the divorce is stalled until that issue is resolved.

A Family Court judge may find himself presented with an ‘agreement’ produced at a shari’a tribunal that gives custody of the children to the father which in normal circumstances the court would register and enforce. But how is he to tell if this is a truly mediated agreement or simply the woman’s resigned acquiescence in shari’a law which does not explicitly consider the interests of children?

Women inherit half what a man inherits. And, of course, a Muslim man can have up to four wives.

Under shari’a, a Muslim woman will get a decision from a tribunal far less favourable than she would get from a British court under the Crown.

Shari’a councils are entirely male: there are no female shari’a judges. Nearly a quarter of judges in UK courts are female and in magistrate courts it is half. The Islamic Shari’a Council is listed as a charity and people who seek a divorce pay a fee. For a man, it is £100; for women, it is £250 because (they say) it is more work to process a woman's application as her word has to be corroborated.

His Grace is loath to blow a hole in the happy ship of stereotype which tends to dominate the comment threads of the Blogosphere, but there are quite a few Muslims who oppose shari'a tribunals - and they're not all women. It will come as no surprise to many, of course: Islam is as diverse in cultural expression as any socio-religious construct. And the vast majority of the younger generation will not be coercing their daughters into marriage or guiding them to a career in medicine. The 'Muslim community' is not homogenous, and the more the media present it as being so, the more likely are we to foster anti-Muslim sentiment and witness attacks upon the perfectly law-abiding and patriotic.

So, instead of taking the Muslim Council of Britain as being the representative authoritative voice of Islam in the UK; instead of focusing on the separated and segregated mosques which perpetuate gender inequality (not to mention advocate the stoning of homosexuals or the flogging and beheading of adulterers), why not consider those groups of Muslims who campaign tirelessly for justice, mercy, equality and inclusivity in their local mosques? If you can be bothered to have your prejudices challenged and stereotypes disturbed, you might start with consideration of the Inclusive Mosque Initiative.

Funny how we haven't heard much about them in the mainstream media, isn't it?

66 Comments:

Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's annoying that Muslim women are nominally free in the UK yet inside their heads some of them may not feel free or feel able to act on their freedom. We can't force people to be free though I think we have a duty to promote freedom and invite people to consider it. In reality, pursuing freedom in this instance may mean segregation, willing or forced, from friends, family, and familar environment which may be a step too far for some women, especially for some women who have been raised with limited education and work skills who may therefore struggle on their own.

6 April 2013 at 09:59  
Blogger David B said...

Your Grace, you are right in saying that Islam is not homogeneous, and that there are more liberal individuals and groups within Islam. It is certainly wrong to tar all those born into Islamic families with the same brush.

Let us have a word, though, for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, and the freedom of religion that it supports.

It is appalling that some Islamists use terror to prevent people born into Islamic families from changing their religion, whether to some branch or other of Christianity, some other religion, or, and regular readers will know that it is the one I would recommend, to no religion.

David B

6 April 2013 at 09:59  
Blogger Dr Robert Warde said...

your Grace. what would happen if I went to a country were the people wonting this lived, and said, having been caught drinking alcohol, I'm British and I wont to be judged by British Law. ??

6 April 2013 at 10:27  
Blogger len said...

I think the thing with Islam is when Muslims are in a minority they conform to the customs of the host nation but when they are in a majority they press for more extreme forms of Islam.

Let us look for examples of Islam in Islamic dominated Countries for good examples of how this political/religious system operates?.

6 April 2013 at 10:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Best stay well clear of these people, and don’t upset them. If they think a woman is worth four dogs, or whatever value they do place on their womenfolk, that’s their business...

6 April 2013 at 10:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The ‘authoritative voice of Islam in the UK’ and everywhere else is the Qur’an, supported by the biographies of the Prophet. In those works, it is made clear that men are superior to women so I presume that Muslims marching for women’s rights and pursuing gender equality are doing so within the constraints of their religion. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam performs much the same conjuring trick: its ringing proclamations gladden the heart of the human rights fraternity, and have been known to reduce its more sentimental members to tears, but the small print craftily sneaks in the proviso that the whole caboodle is subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

6 April 2013 at 11:56  
Blogger MFH said...

They are here to take over.
part of Gods plan to purify His church in this country.
Boy will that furnace be hot - but the dross will be consumed and the redeemed silver will shine forth.

6 April 2013 at 12:17  
Blogger Billy Budge said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 April 2013 at 12:40  
Blogger Billy Budge said...

It's nice to be nice, especially when dealing with other faiths, and obviously wrong to generalize; but my own impression is that the Muslim proponents of women's rights are concerned more with with selling Islam than with substance, and are almost comically patronizing to women in the process (I am thinking of some of the things I have seen on the MPACUK website). There is also the depressing statistic that support for sharia is significantly stronger among young Muslims than their parents

6 April 2013 at 12:53  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

As the placard in the picture says, I've no doubt that muslims agree with womens rights. But, the question to ask; and have answered truthfully; is what do they mean by womens rights. Again, I've no doubt that muslims don't view individual rights in the same way that we, in the civilised West (or what remains of it) view them. And that's a significant reason why muslims can never integrate into Western civilisation; because we are always talking at cross purposes with them.

6 April 2013 at 12:58  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

People need to read the Koran and also look up words like hudnah and takkiya. But its probably too late already. MFH is probably right.


6 April 2013 at 15:32  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

At the heart of this debate is how, if at all, Christianity - or any faith group, for that matter - can coexist alongside Liberalism?

Liberalism rests on a theory of human nature that is contradictory with a belief in God. At its center is one core assertion: all human beings, qua human beings, are essentially rational.

There are two important implications of this. The first is the "universalist" assumption: all human beings are rational — all of us. In this central, defining respect, we are all the same: we all share this universal, natural, human trait.

The second implication, is the "individualist" assumption: because each one of us is rational, each one of us is not only competent to, but best-equipped to decide and act on our conception of the good life. We are each capable of deciding for ourselves what to think, believe, and do within the sphere of self-regarding behavior.

Accordingly, equality law holds that we must be treated the same, unless a case can be made for the rationality of various distinctions between us. In this sense, equality law and the rights it entails are all about what follows from our universality.

Second, the rationalist conception of human nature is at the heart of a particular interpretation of liberty: we are all rational and equally capable of ascertaining what for us would be a good life, unimpeded by the State. We have a bundle of rights that are entailed by our universally shared but radically differentiating rationality.

Liberalism holds that we are all in some essential way the same - rational and individual and, left to our devices, we will all live happily ever after.

Liberal law thus focuses on negative liberty to be and do what we want. It is about the right "to be left alone", to "be treted the same", and not to be "harmed" or "disadvantaged" by State interference or the actions of others.

6 April 2013 at 15:35  
Blogger michael north said...


I had hoped that by now the mounting chaos following the "Arab Spring" would have disabused everyone of the delusion that Islam is compatible with anything we would recognise as democratic order and freedom. There is not one majority Muslim state which anyone reading this would want to live in, without a passport out.

The two key ingredients of Islam are obscurantism and theocracy.

The obscurantism is rooted in the Koran, which is taken to be the word of God. How does one know it's the word of God? Because the Koran says so.

Democracy is supposed to be the worst form of government apart from all the rest; theocracy is the worst INCLUDING all the rest.

I have no doubt that liberal western apologists for Islam are merely displaying their own intellectual and moral confusion. I don't know what goes on in the minds of "moderate" and "progressive" Muslims.


6 April 2013 at 16:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What would you have us do with our Muslim citizens, Michael North?

6 April 2013 at 16:37  
Blogger JW said...

"under sharia, men and women are not treated equally...in matters of inheritance, property division, divorce and custody of children"

Sounds like the polar opposite of the UK Courts where it is the father who has by default lost everything before the case starts & turns up to fight for scraps

6 April 2013 at 16:52  
Blogger LibertyPhile said...

Your Grace is right, the media should give more space to Muslims who want to bring their religion into the modern age. But , as far as I can tell the Inclusive Mosque Initiative doesn't do that.

A (quickish) browse of their website showed plenty of "sweetness and light" (and even some Physics) but nothing on Sharia courts, or why it is wrong that "A Muslim woman seeking a divorce is subjected to an interview process aimed at keeping her married and she risks financial ruin by the obligation to return her dower" to name just one issue they fail to mention.

6 April 2013 at 18:59  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

Muslim citizens are not a discrete and seperate group of citizens with greater or lesser rights than everyone else. They should be subject to the same legal processes as the rest of us - unless both the man and woman freely and willingly agree otherwise. The later is, of course, for the most part, a moot point within Islam where 'other cultural pressures' might be applied.

Would Catholics subject themselves to seperate civil legal processes on contraception, marriage, divorce, remarriage, child custody or abortion? No. Instead, they can, and some do, choose to ignore moral teaching, go secular and in so doing freely place themselves out of communion with the Church.

6 April 2013 at 19:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Surely, whether you are muslim, christian, jewish, black, white or whatever, you are first and foremost citizens and therefore should ALL be equal before the law...no special accommodations, no special courts... if you create exceptions, or clients, or pets or whatever, you are sowing the seeds for society's ultimate fragmentation and a feeling of resentment...come to think of it we are already there

6 April 2013 at 20:31  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

These muslim men should be encouraged and supported in their quest for women's equality and rights within their communities in this country, but within our country's boundaries too of course. No sharia law here, it should be one law for all.


Reading this fascinating article from Julie Levesque about women's rights increasingly heralded as a propaganda device to further imperial designs, is an eye opener.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/from-afghanistan-to-syria-womens-rights-war-propaganda-and-the-cia/5329665

Scroll down to the photo's of Afghan women in the 70's and compare that to how they are now, unbelievable.

6 April 2013 at 21:03  
Blogger St Bruno said...

If I remember correctly there is a quote from an important preeminent leader of Indian nationalism in 1946 saying that 'the British have been guests in our house for long enough and should go' and sure enough we went.

Just a clip, well about one hour twenty, but worth a view whether you agree with it
or not is up to you.
What Every Christian Needs to Know About Islam (Full) by a 'hard line' Christian.
http://youtu.be/uKKNJ9tjo4Q

And one more if you are interested in the subject and willing to actually find things out for yourself, the OIC is in fact an very important group of people.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law
This brief was written and delivered by Maj. Stephen Coughlin
http://youtu.be/Ey-TRpkUiPI

Mrs Proudie of Barchester
You must have seen the demonstrations in Egypt last year with the elections and the like. One of the so called parties was named 'the freedom and justice party'
otherwise known as the 'freedom from the laws of man and justice under Islam' plain and simple sharia law.
Our legal system is man-made and not free to all.

6 April 2013 at 21:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mrs Proudie, the Sikhs won't be happy with you about exemptions. Also, This is about arbitration within the law rather than about a separate legal system. The law makes special space for people to agree to settle civil disputes in a structured way outside of court, subject to statutory rights being recognised.

6 April 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


One wonders if a blood sacrifice would help.

DanJ0, the Inspector wishes to send you a travel warrant, to wit, rail passage one way to Bradford (2nd class). You postal address required, dear fellow.

When you go, bring that book by JS Mill with you...


6 April 2013 at 22:04  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

Is it 'liberal' making us wear crash helmets in the first place? Same issue with seat belts? The only "harm" to others is the cost to the public purse that injuries might cause.

Is it 'liberal' supporting Sharia processes where one group are disadvantaged, possibly against their will? Fair enough if they agree, being rational and free individuals, as liberalism presupposes.

The duty of the Family Court judge is to scrutinise all agreements to ensure they have been legitimately arrived at, freely and with full understanding, and the interests of the children are foremost, according to British standards.

So, what's the point of them?

6 April 2013 at 22:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I'm only stating the facts regarding the law there, at least as far as I understand it.

6 April 2013 at 22:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0, here’s a recent Sharia case you might be interested in...

The Libyan people V. The American ambassador to Libya.

Won’t spoil it for you, but fascinating and unexpected outcome..

6 April 2013 at 22:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What would you have us do with our Muslim citizens, Inspector?

6 April 2013 at 22:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Send them tickets to your gay club, dear boy...

6 April 2013 at 22:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just the second from the left will do. You're being surprising reticent over the issue, Inspector. Are you expecting a trap by any chance? ;)

6 April 2013 at 22:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The answer then is absolutely nothing. You do nothing to them, and most importantly in regards to todays post, you do nothing FOR them.

6 April 2013 at 22:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Fox reports that a US Army training brief on religious extremism included Christian denominations along with the usual suspects. There’s a photo of the document.

7 April 2013 at 00:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One suspects this is the work of those damned pillow biters who want to turn the whole world gay and their liberal cultural Marxist allies, Mr Rottenborough

Poor show, what !


7 April 2013 at 00:44  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

How can anyone take this seriously when there are no Muslim women protesting for women's rights in this photo?

7 April 2013 at 02:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida. To be fair, the muslim women did ask if they could be part of their equality rights campaign, but the muslim lads said no.

7 April 2013 at 02:22  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Yes that is probably correct...it feels very strange being in accord with you over any issue. I hope with Doddles banished that this is not some sort of entente cordiale ploy on your part to clasp me to your Catholic bosom!

7 April 2013 at 04:06  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Given Saul of Tarsus' restrictions on women & their non-existent rights, I don't think christianity is an any position to lecture!

7 April 2013 at 09:17  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (00:44)—Multicultural societies, being unnatural and unstable, do get themselves into a pickle as the authorities try to hold them together. Labelling all religions as extremist in order to avoid singling out Islam makes sense if you’re a hapless civil servant or government minister whose only thought is to avoid trouble by keeping the Muslims quiet. Unfortunately, such relativist shenanigans play straight into the hands of the Frankfurt School. Marxism’s useful idiots are just as dangerous as Marxists.

@ Cressida de Nova (02:12)—The women, if they’re there at all, will be at the back in their head-to-foot bin liners. They know their place.

7 April 2013 at 11:41  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

DanJO

Ah yes, the law. Plato defined a good law as something devised by the powers that be to serve their own interest - people who accept it are deemed 'good citizens' and those who oppose it 'bad citizens' or criminals... Not all laws are just. If people are treated differently, even within the framework of the law, then surely a basic principle is compromised.

7 April 2013 at 12:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mrs Proudie, the point here is one of jurisdiction I think. People can contract with each other in civil matters of arbitration but there are certain areas where the agreement cannot be enforced because it falls with the jurisdiction of the courts. The article touches on this in the paragraph " Family Court judge may find himself presented [..]" but doesn't really bring it out other than to say that in practice the court may be unable to ascertain whether there was consent and equal bargaining power between the parties to the agreement. The whole thing is interesting because in principle a liberal might be inclined to agree that there are areas where individuals may exercise autonomy from the State in sorting disputes out between themselves. However, there is also the issue of protecting the rights of individuals, such as some Muslim women, where there may be significant social coercion.

7 April 2013 at 13:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 April 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As it happens, I'm inclined to worry more about the second one in that last point of mune rather than favour the first one for libertarian reasons.

7 April 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

DanJ0

Thank you - I appreciate your thoughts on this...the invitation to tea at The Palace is an open one and yours whenever you are Barchester way...I shall ask that legal eagle Sir Abraham Haphazard along too - should be fun!

7 April 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Small deviation, though still about equality, given that this doesn't look like it's going to be a 300+ thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9977214/Vegans-and-druids-to-gain-workplace-rights-under-new-equality-rules.html

Oh that's fabulous if true. :)

7 April 2013 at 16:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Rottenborough. There is only way forward for our sadly multicultural fractured society, and it is certainly not unification. For unification means compromise, and one finds nothing in Islam that appeals enough to be included into our western Christian heritage.

It has to be separate devolvement of the races. Yes it’s been tried elsewhere before, but never in a situation where both parties would be content with it as a solution. The all important law of the land MUST continue as it is without Islamic or any other adulteration. But for sub law within the differing communities, one has no objection if they police themselves...

7 April 2013 at 16:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

For devolvement read ‘development’ (damn spell checker)

7 April 2013 at 16:57  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

What sort of education does the next generation receive from their schools, as treating women as fellow human beings starts with basic education.
What control do we have over what gets taught in all the madrassas in Britain? What books are they using and where are they getting them from? Who allows their backward practices to continue and flourish in this country?

If these men demonstrators didn't allow women to demonstrate too or pushed them to the back then they are not sincere? Surely that is the whole point!

Danj0
“However, there is also the issue of protecting the rights of individuals, such as some Muslim women, where there may be significant social coercion.”
If the state has to get involved in their disputes wouldn't the laws of this country which they have chosen to live in apply to muslim women as well? If she receives death threats and violence then we have to prosecute those who carry out this social coercion. If they reject her from the family then she can make a life for herself she's free, they'll have done her a favour!

Inspector
That way leads to civil war.

7 April 2013 at 17:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "If the state has to get involved in their disputes wouldn't the laws of this country which they have chosen to live in apply to muslim women as well?"

Marie, arbitration tribunals are not just for Muslims and if agreements need to be enforced when it falls under family law then it must be taken to that court and falls under statutory law. Other than that, they're civil law agreements which can be enforced in the usual way. At least as I understand it. As the parties can choose the civil law under which the agreements are made, as with other contracts as far as I know, then the civil part of Sharia can be chosen if all parties agree.

7 April 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie, dearest. Alternative suggestions always entertained, but keeping out of each others way seems to be the purest way forward in a country where one side does not do compromise...

7 April 2013 at 18:06  
Blogger bluedog said...

Is nothing sacred? His Grace seems to have bought the latest Muslim propaganda line. Remember Kemalist Turkey (RIP), a nation now rapidly heading away from moderate Islam to a more extremist future.

And still Islamic encroachment continues in the West. Why only last week your communicant was pressed by his bitch to accompany her to Bicester Village under the pretext of buying a wedding present for friends. Your communicant was astonished by the fleets of black Range Rover Sports disgorging hijab and burkah clad women to haggle for bargains in this English souk. Equally remarkable was the multi-faith prayer room that was clearly reserved for the adherents of just one faith.

Someone with a sense of humour had at least placed it adjacent to the toilets.

Meanwhile across the Islamic lands churches are destroyed and ancient Christian communities are forced to flee for their lives. Why should we indulge Islam, which only seeks to dominate us?

We cannot afford to be lulled into a false sense of security by a change of tactics on the part of the Islamists.

7 April 2013 at 18:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm no fan of Islam but I'm no fan of thought crime either. If we're to have freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and we value individual freedom and the rule of law then what are we to do whilst retaining our own integrity? All we can do is have a clear understanding of the principles we use to set out the boundaries and have the courage to maintain them.

7 April 2013 at 18:29  
Blogger bluedog said...

'If we're to have freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and we value individual freedom and the rule of law then what are we to do whilst retaining our own integrity?', say DanJO @ 18.29.

The problem for the West is that the above freedoms are being destroyed by skillful use of the rule of law, in particular human rights legislation. As an example, take the case of the Leggo toy that is now withdrawn, having been accused as promoting a racist and demeaning view of Islam. We know Islam is not a race but that did not stop the accusation being made and believed. As long as judges are prepared to accept propositions of complete intellectual dishonesty, so Islam will continue to use the rule of law to censure and defeat its actual and perceived opponents.

Clearly there are many in the West whose instinct is to avoid confrontation and who are therefore ill-equipped to defend the boundaries from jihadist attack.

On current form, bit by bit the West will be forced in to dhimmitude.

7 April 2013 at 19:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, something has gone wrong with the courts, or perhaps with the legislation they interpret. Of course society changes over time, not least because of technology, globalisation, and so on, and laws and practices need to follow suit. However, I'm inclined to think New Labour buggered something very important up 15 years ago despite my being a beneficiary of some of its consequences. This is why I posted that link above and said it was fabulous. At some point, the distortions will become untenable and the direction will change. For sure, some people will think that means same sex marriage will be undone (because it will be available by then I expect) but it will probably mean that religious rights are also readjusted.

7 April 2013 at 19:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (16:56)—France seems to be taking the line you suggest. A report by a French think tank, reviewed here, says that the French suburbs are becoming ‘separate Islamic societies’ and that France is becoming ‘a divided nation’. The report warns that ‘France’s future depends on its ability to re-integrate the suburbs into the national project.’

I see separate development as a means to pass the demographic time bomb on to our children and grandchildren, by which time it will be even more destructive. I think the bomb needs to be defused now, by bidding a fond farewell to our ethnic friends.

7 April 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

MFH – I think you need to see a head-doctor

Peter Damian – you are correct
Christianity cannot exist alongside liberalism, any more than islam can.
Both (as all religions are) are based on lies, blackmail & fear.
Remember that, in Christianity, women are inferior, too – or have you conveniently forgotten your bible?
How sad.

7 April 2013 at 19:25  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Rottenborough @ 19.17 says, 'I think the bomb needs to be defused now, by bidding a fond farewell to our ethnic friends.'

Quite so, on the assumption that ethnic is a euphemism for Islamic. If and when the West accepts the simple proposition that Islamic populations present an existential threat, the rest is easy. The Muslims either leave or they renounce Islam and stay. The political elite will be the last to grasp this reality, being afraid to lose the votes of their Islamic constituents. George Galloway is not alone.

7 April 2013 at 19:54  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector, there are too many muslims here not to care. I don't want Britain to become and Islamic state! Islam and other religions here simply have to take secondary status, we have to protect our hard fought for freedoms that we currently enjoy.

Sharia law in this country shouldn't be a choice of law as it is backward and barbaric. If a couple married in a muslim country before emigrating here, then they should have to marry in this country too as we don't recognise islamic marriages because they can have up to four wives and if they come here with more than one then which one is the true wife? The first or the last? So once married in this country's law they have to divorce in this countries law if they live here. Children and the custody of which would then be dealt with under our family laws like everyone else living here.

I can't help but feel we make life complicated for ourselves by creating unnecessary laws and pander to everyone's outrageous whims. I ROFL at this latest initiative to give paganism and vegetarianism equal status. Talk about anther nail in the coffin for employers and don't even think about setting up a little business it's far too much hassle.

7 April 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One is currently contemplating a solution akin to the former Jewish ghettos. You see, it all depends how vociferous our Islamic population becomes. When the demands start to be made. We need to have various plans formatted and in place to tackle whichever way it goes.

One also wonders whether our muslims understand how much we fear them kicking off, and whether that will do anything to mitigate their eventual demands.

We need to get it right first time as well, if we are to avoid anymore tube-bombs, bus-bombs, car-bombs, rucksack-bombs...

7 April 2013 at 20:45  
Blogger michael north said...


For Muslims, the punishment for apostasy is death. For Christians, the punishment is Islam.

The Generation Identitaire movement in France gives some cause for hope, and the upcoming 400th anniversary of the start of the Reformation may stir up the Germans. Not much hope for Britain and Ireland, though.

7 April 2013 at 20:55  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (20:45)—The Jews of Malmö probably long for the protection of the ghetto:

When she first arrived in Sweden after her rescue from a Nazi concentration camp, Judith Popinski was treated with great kindness. She raised a family in the city of Malmo, and for the next six decades lived happily in her adopted homeland—until last year.

In 2009, a chapel serving the city’s 700-strong Jewish community was set ablaze. Jewish cemeteries were repeatedly desecrated, worshippers were abused on their way home from prayer, and ‘Hitler’ was mockingly chanted in the streets by masked men.

‘I never thought I would see this hatred again in my lifetime, not in Sweden anyway,’ Mrs Popinski told
The Sunday Telegraph. ‘This new hatred comes from Muslim immigrants. The Jewish people are afraid now.’

Vociferous? Yes. Fearful? No. In a mitigation mood? No. And that’s with a Muslim population of around 20 per cent. Ours is only a fraction of that and they’ve already got us running scared.

7 April 2013 at 21:10  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 20.45 says, 'We need to get it right first time as well, if we are to avoid anymore tube-bombs, bus-bombs, car-bombs, rucksack-bombs...'

One of the great enablers of the jihadi movement is of course the Western welfare system. In less fortunate societies both now and in times past a young man had to work to survive, but no longer. Thanks to the plethora of allowances and benefits a young man can receive a state financed education, in the pernicious ideology of Islam. Indeed, one wonders how many jihadi study tours in Pakistan and Afghanistan are financed by the British state, either directly through government grants to Islamic colleges, or indirectly as a result of foreign aid to the destination country.

If anything the threat of terrorism is increasing as a result of non-assimilated communities within Western nations. State enforced ghetto programmes simply exacerbate that risk. Second and third generation Islamic settlers are becoming a far greater risk factor than external threats such as the late OBL. Under Western codes of conduct, dealing with first generation jihadi terrorists through measures such as deportation is relatively easy. But eliminating the risk posed by second or third generation actors holding British nationality presents serious problems in the context of current Western thinking about nationality and human rights.

7 April 2013 at 22:33  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Why am I obliged to welcome - and accommodate myself to- a religio-political creed which hates me, seeks my ultimate subjugation and destruction? When did the politicians seek my consent to this? Just thought I'd ask...

7 April 2013 at 23:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mrs Proudie, dear heart. It HAS to be you, and millions like you. You see, the politicians who invited this crowd in, well, they live ‘somewhere nice’. A muslim free country estate for example, if they still live in the UK at all, that is.


7 April 2013 at 23:18  
Blogger David B said...

So which are you, Mrs Proudie?

Jewish or atheist?

David

7 April 2013 at 23:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. At least acquaint yourself with the thread before you post – you arse.

7 April 2013 at 23:43  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Mrs Proudie of Barchester (23:03)—Yesterday’s politicians didn’t seek your consent to Muslim immigration because they knew best.

Today’s politicians pretend all is well but occasionally tell the truth when they retire:

‘I’d be so alarmed by the situation that I’d do everything possible to suggest it was under control. It’s up to politicians to play mood music in a crisis, and up to the people to understand that there’s little else governments can do. The last thing they can say is that we face a threat to which we can see no end because it’s based on a fundamental clash of cultures. On the IRA we told the truth; on the Islamic problem, we lie.’—George Walden in Time to Emigrate?

Tomorrow’s politicians will be Muslim.

7 April 2013 at 23:50  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Atheist? Moi...GOODNESS!

Not shouting, just amazed...

8 April 2013 at 00:22  
Blogger John Magee said...

Excuse me but doesn't Britain now recognized Islamic Sharia Law courts as a parallel legal system to settle Muslim family disputes in their mosques and also allow Muslim men to have as many as four wives allowed by the Koran while depriving non Muslim British males the "right" to practice polygamy in the name of equal marriage if they would like to do so? How is allowing a parallel legal system of Sharia Law in Britain a road to freedom and equality for any Muslim let alone Muslim women? It seems to me Britain is kowtowing to the Muslim concept of dhimmitude every time Musilms make demands from the British legal system and society when they are "offended' by anything and everything they see around them in your country which doesn't fit into their Koranic view of the world. Sooner or later as their numbers grow they will impose on your country Islamic Law of Sharia knowing they can easily do this because your weak leaders are eager to give in to their every demand.

14 April 2013 at 21:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older