Courtroom Jihad from Sheikh Abdullah El-Faisal. This case should be thrown out of court immediately. The idea of a man who "urged followers to kill Jews, Hindus and Americans" bringing a human rights case ought to be shown up for the absurdity that it is, and Sheikh Abdullah El-Faisal deported immediately to Iran or another such place where such preaching is not only tolerated, but invited by government officials, who indulge in such rhetoric themselves.
From the Evening Standard, with thanks to Davida:
A hate preacher blamed for indoctrinating one of the July 7 bombers is using human rights law to fight deportation from Britain, it emerged today.Sheikh Abdullah El-Faisal - a Jamaican-born Muslim convert who urged followers to kill Jews, Hindus and Americans - is due to be freed from prison within weeks after serving two thirds of a seven-year sentence for inciting murder.
The Home Office has begun legal moves to deport the fanatic, who Ministers say is a continuing threat to national security.
Its official report of the July 7 attacks described El Faisal as a "strong influence" on Jermaine Lindsay, who detonated the Russell Square tube bomb that killed 26 people.
But El Faisal, a twice-married father of four, has lodged an appeal on the grounds that deportation would be a breach of his human right to a family life.
He has already lost one hearing, but is now dragging the case to the High Court in the latest setback to Tony Blair's promise to boot out preachers of hate.
"But El Faisal, a twice-married father of four, has lodged an appeal on the grounds that deportation would be a breach of his human right to a family life"
....of course, the Death of Jews, Hindus, and Americans would not be a breach of their human right to a family life....
....Typical Muslim beliefs...Muslims Rule and others have no right to exist....
Ban Muslim Immigration Now...
It is time this nonsense was indeed stopped, but somehow I dont see it stopping for some time. Since the UK's acceptance into law of the EU convention on human rights, judges have delivered one barking mad decision after another. Remember the Afghani hijackers who couldn't be sent back to Afghanistan (after the fall of the Taleban) because it would breach their 'human rights'.
I can't figure out whether they're doing it because they want to show the convention up for the tomfoolery it is, or whether they genuinely see themselves as the upholders of some absurd supra-national 'moral' high ground. I'd like it to be the former, but who knows?
Ban Muslim Immigration Now...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 13, 2007 08:24 AM
Ban Islam
Deport, deport, deport
To all radical Imams:
Get out of my house!!!
we're all being very silly in the UK.
we have on one side a political party in the UK which can end this islamic mess, within a year.
or we can continue down this dangerous path of appeasement, setting draconian laws, more islamic immigration and allowing the saudi regime to continue the cultural imperialism of mosque building and islamic "education" centers in the UK.
so go ahead, vote in the labour,conservative and liberals, thats your choice, but when we have mass riots by muslims, bombs and calls for islam to seceed from the UK, then you only have yourselves to blame.
"but when we have mass riots by muslims, bombs and calls for islam to seceed from the UK, then you only have yourselves to blame.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer"
...it has aready started...Muslims have set off bombs in UK, "students" rioting, plots uncovered, the military sent reeling, the government conceeding, Muslims demands for everything under the sun being accepted...
...while some are trembling at their own shadow, others are arming.....
...be armed, be prepared...
"deportation would be a breach of his human right to a family life."
They don't have family life in islamic countries? Did anyone say that his wife(ves) and schildren couldn't/shouldn't go with him.
I'm sure there are plenty of pakistanis in London that have relatives that would be happy to help get him settled in kabul or some other fine city in Pakistan. Maybe find him a madrassa that recently "lost" an imam and is looking for a moderate replacement.
Why does a country has densely populated has the UK allow any immigration? It doesn't make any sense.
Not a single Western country seems to have any control over it's immigration, and there is no rational reason for it.
"Not a single Western country seems to have any control over it's immigration, and there is no rational reason for it.
Posted by: GuitarBob"
...no one is moving to Mexico....and Mexico does not all much immigration...
not all much immigration----should be....not allow much immigration..
"Why does a country has densely populated has the UK allow any immigration? It doesn't make any sense."
Two words. . .European Union aka Eurabia.
exsgtbrown
Some people won't like this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
Is there any white-majority country that has control over it's immigration?
Do any asian countrys have this problem? Japan controls it's immigration.
Whats the cause of the problem? It's not just the EU because Canada and the United States has the same problem. It's not Western civ because Mexico controls it's immigration. It's not wealth because Japan controls it's immigration.
So what's the difference between countrys that control their immigration, and countrys that don't?
This case could be a perfect example of the superiority of English Law, at least as it used to exist. The United States inherited much of English law, and still retains what is known as the Principles of Equity. I hope the British still retain these principles, as they would dispose of this case in a manner that every right-thinking Englishman could admire.
The concepts of equity were invented to cover those areas of life and conflict which were as yet unaddressed by written law. They were based on fairness, and were heard in a court presided over, originally, by the King's exchequer.
One of the most important tenets is that a person asking for equity "must do equity," that is, he "must come to court with clean hands." If the plaintiff has committed a wrong, in relation to his claim, his claim cannot stand and he will be barred from achieving satisfaction.
There are various rules under which the principles of equity can be invoked. One of the most common is actually invoked accidentally by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff asks for anything other than money damages, then he is asking for the exercise of the equitable powers of the court, and the defendant can then avail himself of ALL equitable principles. I do not know whether the principle is now, or can be, invoked currently in Britain, but this seems to be a clear-cut case. If the situation has changed, then people need to reinstitute it NOW.
exsgtbrown
yes i suppose you are right, but i was trying to say that it will get worse but you have already pointed out that it is very bad at the moment!
the only weapons that your average joe bloggs can own in the UK is an air rifle! and even firing an unloaded air rifle into the ground to scare away chavs can get you a jail sentence.
the UK islamists are arming and so are your foreign criminals poor joe bloggs will get slaughtered in the blood bath.
aaahhh, let him stay in Britain - 6 feet under that is!!
I believe that the British can still own a crossbow. These are silent and deadly. Don't leave fingerprints on the bolt (arrow). Beware of the background, as a crossbow bolt can go completely through a man, and maybe the wall behind him, too.
"So what's the difference between countrys that control their immigration, and countrys that don't?
Posted by: GuitarBob "
....the ones that do not control their immigration will have more problems sooner than later....
....the ones that do control their immigration will live longer...
Unfortunately, whatever decision the court makes, it'll be a victory for El-Faisal. Even if he is deported, it still means that thousands of pounds of tax-payers' money has been drained, and hence the UK weakened further.
"
leonthepigfarmer"
......in the UK, can you still have a .22 (it is small, but if skillfully used, it can be deadly...actually a number of skilled Mafia hitmen prefer the smaller calibre weapon as it makes less noise and the killing is usually done up close and personal....(then you take the bad guys weapons)...Can you still get hunting shotguns....(definitely preferrable)....
....the sword, battle ax, mace,and survival knives are excellant in battle...these were used for a long time...(in Britian today, with their failed policy of gun control, the bad guys will probably have the guns...you would have to kill the bad guys and take his weapons..)
....I read the following, does any of this still apply?
Autoloading weapons of any kind and pump action weapons other than .22 caliber are not permitted. Shotguns, long the favorite of the British sportsman, are viewed in a slightly different light. Although shotguns have always been subject to the requirements of the law, the Yard estimated that a significant percentage of the shotguns owned by the public may never have been “legalized.” “Sawn off” shotguns are not allowed, although a short barrel, smooth bore, hand gun is permitted provided it is chambered for the 9mm rim fire cartridge. Shotguns with barrels under 24 inches in length: not being pump action or semi-automatic, are classified as firearms (i.e., in a similar way to rifles) for which the appropriate certificate is required
.....if I were in UK, I would probably be seeking to acquire adequate firearms, even if done so Illegally....The time is approaching where you will need more protection than unarmed bobbies can give you....
Is El-Faisal's solicitor, Khalid Sofi the same Khalid Sofi who is or at least was last year the Chair/Vice Chair of Legal Affairs Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain?
I think it would be too much of a coincidence to be otherwise.
How utterly amusing the fear they have of being pushed out of cushy London living like kings and being dumped back into their sewers they crawled out of and now will eat them as the locals just do not like thugs coming back to the flush.
exsgtbrown says:
".....if I were in UK, I would probably be seeking to acquire adequate firearms, even if done so Illegally....The time is approaching where you will need more protection than unarmed bobbies can give you...."
And this Texas agrees. A pistol is always a good weapon to work toward acquiring, along with enough ammunition to make the risk of disclosure worthwhile. But I would work hard to get my hands on several shotguns, preferably double-barrel ones, all in the same guage, if possible.
During the vietnam war, the army did some studies on the most effective shot size to use as an anti-personnel weapon. They determined that number four buckshot offered the ideal compromise of penetration, pattern spread, and effective range.
For the more enterprising, a single shot shotgun can be crafted from a three-quarter inch inside diameter steel pipe (galvanized water pipe), with a short one-inch pipe (about five or six inches long) with a cap or plug, for a breach block. The cap is drilled and a nail inserted to expose about one-eighth of the tip, for a firing pin. You can work out the rest of the details. I would use reduced loads so as to minimize the risk to the shooter.
A zip gun (pistol) can be constructed from a quarter-inch "nipple" about six inches long, with a firecracker used for propulsion, and a quarter-inch ball bearing used for a bullet. Hold the bullet in with a small wad of tissue or toilet paper. Cap one end, drill a hole for the fuse, light it with a cigarette, or a coil of wire connected to a battery and "trigger". This is powerful enough to drive the ball bearing through a sheet of eighteen gauge steel or a pine board.
We had a lot of fun as teenagers with gunpowder, much of which we made from powdered charcoal (don't use briquettes), sulpher and saltpeter. The pipe bombs were fun, too. We set them off remotely with our toy train transformers left over from childhood.
We made a lot of noise, but never thought about blowing up the school.
Muslims have a totally different attitude about these things, however. Looks like we need to taqke another look at our hobbies.
but guys, at what point in this war do citizens/subjects start using their own homemade/illegal weaponry? surely its better to use the democratic process?
unless you are encouraging an armed insurgency amongst the anglo-saxon UK christian population?
i still have faith in the democratic voting system. we have a political party in the UK that will remove islam from the UK and will legally re-arm the general public.
America has always encouraged immigration and been proud of it. After all we are a nation of immigrants. "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..." - a very lofty and moral ideal indeed.
However, it used to be that people who moved to America became more proud to be American than native born americans themselves. They INTEGRATED and became Americans. They came here for America's promise, not to undermine it. It seems like only in the last 30-40 years or so have people been immigrating with the express purpose to undermine America and its values and to replace American values with their own. A Saudi funded take-over from within. But no one has the balls or wherewithal to do anything about it apparently
"Not a single Western country seems to have any control over it's immigration, and there is no rational reason for it."
Posted by: GuitarBob
Well thanks but we have just fine control of our immigration in Australia since 1996. And getting even better since 1999. Note the reduction in Muslim immigration since then and the likely moratorium in the next year or so.
I love hearing theories go "pop"
“"Why does a country has densely populated has the UK allow any immigration? It doesn't make any sense."
Two words. . .European Union aka Eurabia.”
Two other words:
1. Commitments to Commonwealth countries (i.e. guilt for the old British Empire)
2. We thought in the fifties that immigrants would do all the jobs that the natives didn’t fancy doing.
Now it’s out of control.
"Jihad preacher"....??????????? I don't think so!!
Preacher: someone who preaches the gospel. Gospel: good news.
Jihad: hate and destruction, definitely NOT good news.
I conclude that there's no such thing as a Jihad Preacher. Appears that Islam wants to rob Christians of their clergy titles too. No way.
"Jihad Prisoner" is a more fitting title. Yeah.
JFGR
they also love to do stuff like this, which the british hate doing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/6553015.stm
jfgr
more post war assets to the community.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6553789.stm
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/index.shtml
leonthepigfarmer:
we're all being very silly in the UK.
we have on one side a political party in the UK which can end this islamic mess, within a year.
And which party is that?