Kyrgyz group aims for Caliphate

[url=][b](C) BBC[/b][/url] said:
The London bombings have prompted the UK government to outlaw Hizb ut Tahrir - a radical Islamic group that wants to replace secular governments with an Islamic Caliphate, or super-state run according to Sharia Law.

The group is particularly strong in Central Asia, where it believes it may take the first steps towards establishing its Caliphate.
Aside from the issues of racial and religious intolerance that are stirred up when discussing the possible enforcement of Sharia law upon non-Muslims, taking the results from the 2001 UK census;

Total number of people: 58,789,194
The 2001 Census collected information about ethnicity and religious identity. Combining these results shows that while the population is more culturally diverse than ever before, White Christians remain the largest single group by far. In England and Wales, 36 million people (nearly 7 out of 10) described their ethnicity as White and their religion as Christian. Among other faiths the largest groups were Pakistani Muslims (658 thousand) and Indian Hindus (467 thousand) followed by Indian Sikhs (301 thousand), Bangladeshi Muslims (260 thousand) and White Jews (252 thousand).
does anyone think that the UK is at risk from a legitimate, i.e. ballot box coup on liberal democracy? Further, in spite of the terrorist aims of some extremist Islamic groups, does anyone think that the UK's liberal democratic traditions and institutions are really at risk from an armed attack?

My thoughts are that bloc voting in constituencies and wards certainly can affect the outcome of elections if electoral apathy amongst the majority demographic increases, but at the moment I don't believe that we're seeing any overt coherent attempts to put anti-democrats into positions of power, although rumblings have been heard about a couple of local Neu Arbeit associations being taken over. Regarding the martial option, I don't see that this is a real cause for concern, in the near future at least, as there's a vast difference between bombing a few unaware civilians and staging a successful coup.

I've always seen myself as a realist in these matters, but am I being too naive with my analysis here?
They might possibly get a few local councils, but the 300+ MPs needed to get control of the country? Even with voter apathy the way it is (and turnout was something like 61% at the last General election), you'd need control of something like 10-15 million votes to get the Commons into your pocket - and even then the Lords and the Queen could at least theoretically block anything too outrageous.
Just under 97% of the UK population is white. 78% of the population describe themselves as broadly Christian. Those figures put this into context, I think.

However, in the next ten years I agree that you might see some sort of (ab)use of the electoral system whereby an Islamist party attempts to win a constituency or two and then tries to agitate for a separatist Sharia-run area within it.

My considered opinion is that the current Government's own (sharp)internal contradictions on issues of faith, race, multiculturalism and of course the Human Rights agenda means that it is uniquely unqualified to effectively deal with most of the challenges we currently face on this one.

To quote Thomas Jefferson (again - I seem to use him quite a bit in these forums)

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!"
until the jedi get them :twisted:


Book Reviewer
The overall proportions of Christian/Moslem/Jew/whatever aren't all that relevant in a political context - two things are probably more important.

Firstly, what counts is voters in key wards and constituencies. After all, most votes in elections don't really achieve all that much - most constituencies are pretty firmly one colour (politically) or another. An active group in a marginal constituency can have an effect out of proportion to their numbers.

The second reason to be wary of the 'vast majority are OK' line of reasoning is that, without wishing to put on the bacofoil hat, the country is indeed run by a very small liberal intelligensia; politicians, academics, etc. These people have a wildly disproportionate effect on the way things are run, laws are made, etc. For example, although for many years opinion polls have shown that a majority of people are in favour of capital punishment, it has not been on the political landscape for discussion. Why? - because those who count don't approve of it.
Tactical voting by extremists is not something to be greatly worried about.

The vote would have to be concentrated to elect a MP or councillor. If concentrated, it will be limited to certain geographic areas. The extremists would also be competing against long-established domestic interests amongst ethnic minority communities, and their power-bases.

The fortunes of Sinn Fein started to improve only after movement was made towards renouning violence. Most people are not extremists.
[W]ithout wishing to put on the bacofoil hat, the country is indeed run by a very small liberal intelligensia; politicians, academics, etc. These people have a wildly disproportionate effect on the way things are run, laws are made, etc.
This is interesting especially when you consider that there is already a broad consensus on this issue already in the UK. I frequently speak to people of many races and faiths and from all social backgrounds (save the Idiotarian members of the Political-Media complex you allude to) and they all roughly agree with a "live and let live and if you don't like it then move elsewhere" attitude.

Funny thing is, the talking heads on the BBC never seem to reflect this, rather the "squeakiest wheel" syndrome of people like Shami Chakrabarti who seems to represent herself, a few of her mates from university and couple of people who write letters to The Guardian.

I was always taught that those who shout the loudest achieve the least and that all political deals were made in smoke-filled rooms. Then again, I studied politics during the Conservative era, so I suppose now students are being told that all political deals are made in trendy Islington wine bars! :roll:

To add breadth to that which I wrote at the start of this thread, I appreciate that only in key marginals would a bloc vote have a significant impact. What I was seeking from this thread was validation / destruction of my belief that whilst extremism (of any type) is BAD, our political institutions & way of life are not overly threatened by even an organised 'attack' by way of the ballot box, nor by a military assault (ref the recent thread about tens of thousands of armed Muslim immigrants). My brain then wanders off on a slight tangent and considers the implications of our currently un / laxly checked immigration situation and how that would change the race & religion %s come the 2011 census.
^ Well, when I mentioned the contradictions inherent in New Labour I really, really meant it.

Look at the Northwest and Midlands, where the Asian Muslim block vote is the key to several potentially marginal constituencies (including that of Jack "Not-me-Guv-I'm-only-Foreign-Secretary" Straw). Many are wobbly potential Lib Dem gains in waiting, and on top of that also seem to be prone to the sort of postal voting electoral fraud that (A) was created by Labour and (B) favours....Labour!

OTOH, Blair (who isn't really New Labour at all, more of a one-man Atlanticist/ Social Democrat hybrid) supports the Americans in the Persian Gulf thus completely alienating those important constituencies. Imagine a bizarre "Respect" type phenomenon in Oldham or Bradford or Birmingham. Scary, isn't it? You have a whole legion of New Labour MPs who have to permanently put themself in complete opposition to HMG policy in order to keep their constiuency parties in line. Really strange times indeed, especially in times like these.

No wonder the time is ripe for a palace coup, and as usual when the going get's tough, Broon the Dour is nowhere to be seen...


Similar threads

Latest Threads