Interesting piece on incitement to religious hatred

Incitement to religious hatred bill?

  • Both of the above

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
#1
It is Muslims who have most to fear from Islamists
By Charles Moore
(Filed: 18/12/2004)

On Wednesday, I wrote a letter to David Blunkett. As he resigned 15 minutes after my fax arrived (I cannot claim the two events were related), I do not complain that I have not yet received an answer, either from him, or from his successor, Charles Clarke. But an early response, as they say on bills, would be appreciated.



What I asked the Home Secretary concerned his department's proposed law against "religious hatred". Readers may remember that, last week in this column, I defended the right of people to say - though it is not a proposition with which I agree - that the Prophet Mohammed was a paedophile.

So my question to whoever happens to be Home Secretary is whether it would be an offence under the new law to assert this proposition. Muslims are also very offended by any pictorial depiction of the Prophet; so I asked whether such depictions would also be an offence under the law.

Fiona Mactaggart, who is minister for race equality, has accused critics of the new law of a misunderstanding. It is not a blasphemy law, she says. You can say anything you like about the beliefs: what you will not be allowed to do is to insult the believers because of what they believe. I do not see how this distinction will be possible to maintain: it is certainly not one which Muslims accept.

On this page on Tuesday , Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, clearly saw the law as a way of preventing "the vilification of dearly cherished beliefs". He sees attacks on the Prophet as attacks on all Muslims - therefore, in his view, they should be banned. That is what Muslims think Labour has promised them.

The reaction to my own article shows the problem. The Muslim Association of Britain (not to be confused with the MCB) said that what I had written was "repulsive", composed out of an "arrogance borne by only the most zealous of racists". Because of my "filth and drivel", I should be dismissed from The Daily Telegraph, and the paper should apologise. Just in case the point was missed, the MAB reminded the paper of the lessons of the Salman Rushdie affair.

It also referred readers to a website, IslamOnline.net which globalises the denunciation of my column with a Cairo dateline and offers a link to a discussion of what should happen to non-Muslims who insult the Prophet ("In Islam, it is well known that the punishment for the one who insults the Prophet is to be killed… However, we Muslims are advised to be forgiving and pardoning.")

Who are the Muslim Association of Britain? I've been looking them up. They have close links to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, one of whose leaders, Qutb, advocated takfir, the branding of all Muslims as infidels unless they conform to sharia. Some MAB activists support Hamas and its policy of suicide bombing.

One of its senior chaps, Azzam Tamimi, has boasted of this "human bomb" against the Israelis: "We love death, they love life." The IslamOnline website is the mouthpiece of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. It debates, among other things, whether the best treatment for homosexuals is 100 lashes or chucking them over a cliff, and Qaradawi rejects interfaith dialogue in favour of "the language of the sword and force". The Taqwa Bank, of which he is a shareholder, has had its assets seized by the US Treasury because of its suspected terrorist links.

On the same programme on which Miss Mactaggart appeared (Radio 4's Today), a spokesman for the MAB popped up to support the religious hatred law and said that people should not be allowed to shout things like "Bin Laden" at Muslims in the street. (By the way, why does he see that, from his point of view, as an insult?)

So here we have a body with activists who support the killing of Israeli Jews, telling people in Britain that they must stop displaying religious intolerance - all of this listened to respectfully by the BBC. I am trying to avoid the word "Orwellian", but I can't.

It will be said, and it is true, that the MAB does not represent moderate Muslims. But one has to wonder, different though their tone undoubtedly is and personally decent though most of them clearly are, whether moderate Muslims really disagree with the extremist doctrines. I have not been able, for example, to get the MCB (the main moderate organisation) unequivocally to condemn the killing or kidnapping of British soldiers in Iraq.

And it is clear from Iqbal Sacranie's piece that he thinks that what he calls "taking liberties with the Prophet" should be against the law. In a country where taking and exercising liberties is a profoundly important part of our way of life, that is not a moderate position.

And even when moderate views are held, are they acted on? Elsewhere in this paper today, we report the secret meeting that recently took place at Clarence House in the presence of the Prince of Wales. The idea, prompted by the Christian contingent, was to try to shift Muslim attitudes to "apostasy". All the main Islamic schools of law state that apostasy - the abandonment of one's Muslim faith - is punishable by death.

That is the law in several Muslim states - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan - and it is imposed, informally, in many more. In Holland, the politician accused of apostasy, Ayyan Hirsi Ali, has had to go into hiding to avoid being murdered. You might think that such a penalty for such a "crime" was a more dramatic example of religious hatred than anything offered here in Britain by paltry yobs such as the BNP, yet this is the prevalent, mainstream teaching of the religion whose critics the Government now proposes to criminalise.

What happened at Clarence House was interesting. The distinguished Muslim delegation agreed that the law on apostasy was extremely unsatisfactory and should be changed.

They were adamant, however, that this was something about which Christians should say nothing - even though the Nigerian archbishop present explained that members of his flock are being murdered under the apostasy law - and that it was not a matter that Muslims could pursue in public at this time. What they were saying, really, was: "We're too frightened to do anything."

And that is the worst of it. The word "Islamophobia" is thrown at people who criticise some aspects of current Islamic thought. But "phobia" means fear, and I suspect that it is moderate Muslims who are, in that sense, Islamophobic, frightened of what the Islamists are turning their faith into. They cannot find the courage and the words to get to grips with the huge problem that confronts Islam in the modern world.

This is: how does a belief system founded, in part, on conquest, and preaching a virtual identity between religious and political power, live at ease in plural, free, secular societies? Instead of answering this question, they tend to attack the people who ask it, and ask for special laws to silence them.

I don't want to give offence, but I'd just like to wish all my readers, whatever their faith, a very happy Christmas.
 
#2
Oh yes lets not upset the Muslims, Then wish them a happy CHRIST MASS!!! Blo*dy hell why not just rub there noses in it!!! Nice one buddy did you not read about the MP in Holland who got topped for speaking out against the Muslims!! Sounds like this guy has a death wish!!
D.D.
 
#3
I quote the following article in full, with source reference:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/11/do1101.xml

Is it only Mr Bean who resists this new religious intolerance?
By Charles Moore

(Filed: 11/12/2004)

Was the prophet Mohammed a paedophile? The question is sometimes asked because one of his wives, Aisha, was a child when he married her. As Barnaby Rogerson gingerly puts it in his highly sympathetic recent biography (The Prophet Muhammad, Little, Brown): "…the age disparity was considerable: she was only nine while Muhammad was 53". Aisha was taken from her seesaw on the morning of her marriage to be dressed in her wedding garment. After sharing a bowl of milk with the prophet, she went to bed with him.

To me, it seems anachronistic to describe Mohammed as a child-molester. The marriage rules of his age and society were much more tribal and dynastic than our own, and women were treated more as property and less as autonomous beings. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's right-hand man, and eventual successor (caliph), Abu Bakr. No doubt he and his family were very proud of the match. I raise the question, though, because it seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken though they may be - to say that Mohammed was a paedophile, but if David Blunkett gets his way, they may not be able to.

As I write, I am looking at a Christmas brochure for Channel 4. It contains an interview with Paul Abbott, author of the "current hit show, Shameless". Clever Paul swears a lot, and proudly tells a story about how, when his brothers held him upside down to help him steal a Christmas tree from his Yugoslav next door neighbour, he was so frightened that he started urinating. Ha ha.

There follows a two-page pictorial spread of Paul's characters, the Gallaghers, having their Christmas lunch. The tableau is presented (sub-Buñuel) as a parody of the Last Supper. (Do Paul Abbott and Channel 4 believe, perhaps, that this took place at Christmas?) The first page shows a line of yobs - mimicking the Apostles - beginning their meal in reasonably good order. The second depicts them towards its end, violent and drunk. The "Jesus" figure is lurching forward, halo awry, beer can in one hand and cigarette in the other.

The natural inclination of Christians in the face of such affronts is anger. But would it really be a better society in which silly, urinating Mr Abbott could go to prison for such a thing, and perhaps the bosses of Channel 4 with him? Before lots of respectable readers shriek "Yes!", think what it means.

Why is it that so many people resent religion and turn against it? Surely it is because of its coercive force, its tendency to mistake the worldly power of its priests and mullahs for justified zeal for the truth. It is not God who turns people away, but what people do in the name of God. If a law against religious hatred is passed, even when blessed by St David Blunkett, the natural consequence will be a rise in the hatred of religion.

Particularly hatred of Islam. The BNP website describes Islam in the hands of some of its adherents as "less a religion and more a magnet for psychopaths and a machine for conquest". If a law says they can't say that, the BNP will, in the minds of many, be proved right. On Tuesday, Mr Blunkett said that it would be illegal to claim that "Muslims are a threat to Britain". People already censor themselves through fear of Muslim reaction to mockery - I don't suppose even brave, incontinent, foul-mouthed Paul Abbott would write a comedy for the start of Ramadan showing Mohammed downloading dubious images from the internet. If the law criminalises such activity, the scope for resentment is huge.

Iqbal Sacranie, of the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, wants the new law because any "defamation of the character of the prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him)" is a "direct insult and abuse of the Muslim community". In effect, he is asking for the law of libel to be extended beyond the grave, giving religious belief a protection extended to no other creed or version of history.

Where does all this come from? Not, I fear, from the right, if misapplied, desire for different faiths to live at peace. Incitement to violence, after all, is already an offence, and so it should be. No, the pressure is chiefly from Muslims. If we want to understand its context, we should look at what happens in Muslim societies.

According to Muslim law, believers who reject or insult Islam have no rights. Apostasy is punishable by death. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, death is the penalty for those who convert from Islam to Christianity. In Pakistan, the blasphemy law prescribes death for anyone who, even accidentally, defiles the name of Mohammed. In a religion which, unlike Christianity, has no idea of a God who himself suffers humiliation, all insult must be avenged if the honour of God is to be upheld.

Under Islam, Christians and Jews, born into their religion, have slightly more rights than apostates. They are dhimmis, second-class citizens who must pay the jiyza, a sort of poll tax, because of their beliefs. Their life is hard. In Saudi, they cannot worship in public at all, or be ministered to by clergy even in private. In Egypt, no Christian university is permitted. In Iran, Christians cannot say their liturgy in the national language. In almost all Muslim countries, they are there on sufferance and, increasingly, because of radical Islamism, not even on that.

The ancient plurality of the region is vanishing. Tens of thousands are fleeing the Muslim world, and in some countries - Sudan, Indonesia, Ivory Coast - large numbers die, on both sides. In Iraq, the intimidation of Christians is enormous. Five churches have suffered bomb attacks this year. Christians in Mosul have received letters saying that one member of each family will be killed to punish women who do not wear the headscarf. According to Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund, a charity working for persecuted Christians, "Christians in Iraq are isolated and vulnerable this Christmas, and feel that they have been let down, even betrayed, by their fellow Christians in the West, especially the Church leadership".

The push for a religious hatred law here is an attempt to advance the legal privilege that Muslims claim for Islam. True, Muslim leaders are happy that the same protection should be extended to other religions in this country. But to a modern liberal society which claims the freedom to attack all beliefs, this should be no comfort. It says a good deal about the quality of churchmen and politicians in Britain that the most prominent opponent of the Bill is Mr Bean. The Archbishop of Canterbury is more or less invisible. The Government is on the side of repression.

Because it is usually called Boxing Day, people forget that December 26 is the feast of St Stephen, the first martyr. Somewhere in the Muslim world on that day, there will be more Christians martyred, as there are every day of the year. Muslims are not martyred in Britain. For once, the mote is in our own eye, and the beam in somebody else's - or will it soon be illegal to say that?
 
#4
Here we go again, simple answer is "If you don't like our ways,culture and religous beliefs hop it" I know that sounds a glib statement and nowhere near as informed as the splendid article above, however there is a reason for that! I don't care about their beliefs and have no interest in their faith or culture, I am an Englishman and proud of it, I have been CHRISTened in this country and have been taught to respect god, I very rarely go to church but however that is not the point. If I was to visit any of the Muslim countries in the world then I will uphold their beliefs and respect them as such, When in Rome etc.
However Great Britain is a CHRISTian land and seen as our Ruler Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of The Church of England , ie CHRISTian. Then our values should be retained and respected by those entering our country.
This sort of discussion is starting to get on my mammaries now, we have all typed till we are blue in the face, we are all very angry about people not listening. However is it not getting to the point when we are just pi55ing in the wind in the face of adversity?
The fact is everyone is sh*t scared that radical islamic groups will quickly shift their operations to our little bit of turf so those that can actually call a stop to it are cowering on their green leather seats in westminster doin fcuk all about it.
Operation Sealion seems to be in full swing though with a different gang at the helm and assistance through government approved bills !
 
#5
i agree with the "if you don't like it shove off" sentiment from rapierman. if i visit a country with different laws then i do what is required to not offend. its no drama because i respect that country's right to decide its own laws and moral standards. it bugs me when people try to bring their country and all its laws to another country. try asserting your right to freely practice your beliefs as a christian, and demand the freedoms under christianity, in a country under sh'a'ria law and see how far you get. private beliefs should stay just that - private. you worship your way and let the rest of us get on with our lives. saying that i don't agree with people who go round attacking law abiding citizens just because they are of a different faith, colour, race etc - get a life you oxygen thieves.

tolerance and acceptance of religious and cultural differences IMHO is the key to being able to live in peace. you want your women to wear a bhurka and speak arabic go for it but don't have a go at me because i wear shorts and speak english. fundamentalists of any religion are despicable and are not a reflection of the moderate majority. it is also a pretty poor reflection on a group if they have to threaten people within the group "if you aren't with us totally you are against us" that's just sad. if you need to do that you can't be much cop.

most normal people don't care and just crack on its just the w@nkers that need to control other people that are a problem. get rid of them the world would possibly be an easier place in which to live.
 
#6
Rapierman said:
However Great Britain is a CHRISTian land and seen as our Ruler Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of The Church of England , ie CHRISTian.
Remember she's only the head of a tiny sect within christianity. The Anglican church hardly represents the UK and it's another reason why the monarch of a G8 nation should not also head a religious movement.

Secular wins it every time. Outlaw religion.
 
#7
Ok it was a bit of a sweeping statement,but the point was there, and the point without splitting hairs is more than clear, if you want to come to our country and benefit from our way of life adopt it, if you don't want to please just fcuck off and do not collect £200 when u pass go!
Even more disturbing news this week too, now we seem to have the Sikhs at it too, and against their own as well (ring any bells to our lovely muslim communities??? , can they not all go back to their own playgrounds if they want a fight! It really is getting daft,it gets to a point when you can't be arssed to turn on the news as very little of it is relating to upholding our values anymore, its just a soapbox for others to get their point over.
 
#8
I beleive there is only two ways that this crap is going to end,
1. The rise of the Christian Church again in the UK to a level sufficient enough to have power and hold over the government, (sound familiar)
2. Bloodbath
 
#9
Skjold , it horrifies me to say it but I reckon there is a bigger chance of your second prophecy! Oh well, best get that sharpening stone out, the old Blade sword is lookin a bit blunt!
 
#10
SKJOLD said:
I beleive there is only two ways that this crap is going to end,
2. Bloodbath
In 1968 Enoch Powell, Memmber of Parliament for Wolverhampton SW, said in a speech

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician.
Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after. A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions he reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiances whom they have never seen. Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens ". This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same news papers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American negro. The negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

"Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

"The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two negroes who wanted to use her phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than 2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl,.who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were negroes, the girl said, 'Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country.' So she went home.

"The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. 'Racialist', they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder"

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration". To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last 15 years many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government

"The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should they say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned." All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrator communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
 
#11
Oh! how his words inflammed the nation and caused his downfall!!!!!!! :evil:

I wonder how many who were so upset at his vision are now kicking themselves for not acting on the words of a man who had the courage to tell it like it is and call a spade a spade!!! no pun intended. :evil: :evil:
 
#12
quote]
Remember she's only the head of a tiny sect within christianity. The Anglican church hardly represents the UK and it's another reason why the monarch of a G8 nation should not also head a religious movement.

Secular wins it every time. Outlaw religion.[/quote]

What complete b@ll@cks. The Anglican church is a worldwide congregation with immense influence. Scratch the surface of this country and you will find Christians abound - how many times on operations have I seen cynical jack the lad soldiers (I would not want them any other way) take time out to attend church or seek the padre - there was a famous (ish) spot by an Army Padre on Radio 4 that described just such an event in XMG, and I know of soldiers seeking out the padre for solace and prayer after they have killed their first enemy.

That our church leaders (like others) have lost their way is a sign of the times and I note that our African brethren are the most vociferous in ensuring that the word of the Bible is followed.

The Church, our Head of State and our unwritten constitution are all tied together and cemented by hundreds of years of history. You don't have to go to Church to have Christian values.

Rant over.
 
#13
SKJOLD said:
1. The rise of the Christian Church again in the UK to a level sufficient enough to have power and hold over the government, (sound familiar)
Dream on. None of our country's most prominent figures are die-hard Anglicans. There are quite a few conservative types (with a small c) who want to retain the status quo i.e. monarch as head of state and the whole "twinset and pearls" pattern of upper-crust British life, but their beliefs are always understated in that beautifully quintessential British way.

You just don't get fundamentalist CofE rabid preachers. The nearest we have is that presbyterian nutter Paisley. And then he's always obsessed with catholics. That would be bound to cheer up Tonly Bliar, since he's maried to one and he worships Lord Irvine (also a left-footer).

Furthermore, there are a lot of prominent Jewish figures who have a lot of influence - no I'm not getting all 'conspiracy theory' here. It all goes towards the inalienable fact that our country is a multicultural one - and it won't change without some wierd CofE fundamentalist rebellion. Can you imagine it..."burn the witch at the stake - she isn't wearing a hat in church" or your local vicar - "I'm awfully sorry old bean - but you spelt 'Xmas' instead of 'Christmas' so you're being stoned to death for heresy straight after the village fete on Saturday. Bit of a bind I know but stiff upper lip eh".

Ban religion. It encourages far too many loonies. God told me to do it. Far more likely that "gold"told them to do it.
 
#14
PoisonDwarf said:
SKJOLD said:
1. The rise of the Christian Church again in the UK to a level sufficient enough to have power and hold over the government, (sound familiar)
Dream on. None of our country's most prominent figures are die-hard Anglicans. There are quite a few conservative types (with a small c) who want to retain the status quo i.e. monarch as head of state and the whole "twinset and pearls" pattern of upper-crust British life, but their beliefs are always understated in that beautifully quintessential British way.

You just don't get fundamentalist CofE rabid preachers. The nearest we have is that presbyterian nutter Paisley. And then he's always obsessed with catholics. That would be bound to cheer up Tonly Bliar, since he's maried to one and he worships Lord Irvine (also a left-footer).

Furthermore, there are a lot of prominent Jewish figures who have a lot of influence - no I'm not getting all 'conspiracy theory' here. It all goes towards the inalienable fact that our country is a multicultural one - and it won't change without some wierd CofE fundamentalist rebellion. Can you imagine it..."burn the witch at the stake - she isn't wearing a hat in church" or your local vicar - "I'm awfully sorry old bean - but you spelt 'Xmas' instead of 'Christmas' so you're being stoned to death for heresy straight after the village fete on Saturday. Bit of a bind I know but stiff upper lip eh".

Ban religion. It encourages far too many loonies. God told me to do it. Far more likely that "gold"told them to do it.
Couldn't agree more.there is no "fun" in fundamentalism but plenty of "MENTAL".On this track what about rosy-cheeked,family girl new piece of skirt at the Home Office(Sorry-Ministry of The Interior)Ruth Kelly's membership of sinister papist f*ckwit sect Opus Dei.Will she use the secret police to hunt down heretics,freemasons and Anabaptists while she seeks to destroy the Holy Grail?
 
#15
Percy said:
...and I know of soldiers seeking out the padre for solace and prayer after they have killed their first enemy.
They would go to any available padre, not just because they're Anglican. I bet if there was a presbyterian minister they would goto him - just cos it's the same perceived side - not because they have any link to god.

I note that our African brethren are the most vociferous in ensuring that the word of the Bible is followed.
Yes - but remember that it's the bits that they want to follow. If the bible provided sense and clarity then there wouldn't be so many breakaways.

The Church, our Head of State and our unwritten constitution are all tied together and cemented by hundreds of years of history. You don't have to go to Church to have Christian values.
I agree that our British values have been shaped by religion. Unfortunately all the events have been negative ones. Kings and Queen (in the last couple of hundred years) killing each other for the sake of whether they like Henry VIII's customised version of christianity. After all, Anglicanism was based on....er....Henry's wish to divorce his wife. Wow...a theological giant amongst men huh? Surprised he didn't just claim that he was a God. That issue over affinity to Rome and definition of Biblical teachings will go on for many decades to come (with the traditional ceremony taking place at the Glasgow Old Firm football match :)

I reaffirm my belief. Religion is evil and all Gods are hoaxes...think of them as a kind of Santa for grown ups.

PD
 
#16
The main point to this law is that it is supposed to cover all religions, all people and all nationalities. However, let's look at the stark truths of the lastfew years. I will use one example; the demonstarators, who marched holding signs telling Europe that be warned, Islam is on the way, Kill all non muslims e.t.c. How many of the crowd were actually arrested; not many. Let's now look at Hamsa; he spouted racial hatred for years and we have only just done something about him. What have we done, we have put him in prison, so that tax payers can pay to keep him alive. Regardless of what he thinks will happen to him if he returns to his own country, should we not kick him out. The liberal, wooly brigade would say no, but let's look at the way the world really works. Muslims, Christians and any other faith that can live in a country peacefully are an asset. I say this because nine times out of ten, they are simply good people, who want to provide a better life for their children than they had. Let them be. However, those, like the so called moderate muslims, who were caught on the programme 'despatches,' preaching hatred should be shipped out of our glorious country. Let's make Britain better, not allow the dross of other countries to settle. We should implement policies like other countries, if immagrants can provide for themselves, have a trade or are willing to make a positive contribution to our country, they are allowed in. If not; goodbye. Racial hatred, does not just encompass white verses black, black versus asian, asian against white and so on. I have seen first hand, in a few British cities, the hatred that simmers between asian and asian, blak versus, black etc. Although, the BNP have ideas that are a wee bit extreme, some of their policies actually have an element of sense in them. We need to toughen up, as a country. :frustrated:
 

Latest Threads

New Posts