Below is a useful introduction to what's wrong with that. "The government caves in to the Muslim Council of Britain," by James Forsyth for The Spectator, January 15:
The government has caved in its dispute with the Muslim Council of Britain. The government broke off relations with the group over its deputy director-general Daud Abdullah signing the Istanbul Declaration. Indeed, Daud Abdullah even instigated legal action against the then Communities Secretary Hazel Blears over her statements about what the declaration called for.
But now Stephen Pollard is reporting that the government is bringing the MCB back in. A DCLG spokesperson tells Pollard that an MCB commitment to examine "their internal processes and ensure that the personal actions of all members, including senior leaders, remain true to the organisation's agreed policies, avoiding a repeat of the issues which arose after one member signed the Istanbul Declaration...has led to the Government lifting the suspension of its formal relationship with that organisation." Crucially, though, Daud Abdullah's signature does not appear to have been taken off the document.
Pollard is reporting that the return of the MCB is part of a deal over changes to the law on universal jurisdiction aimed at preventing a repeat of the situation which occurred late last year where an arrest warrant was issued for the former Israeli foreign minister and leader of Kadima Tzipi Livni ahead of a planned visit to the UK.
There is as yet no word from the Tories on this decision. But Paul Goodman, who was until the end of this year the Tory spokesman on these issues, has slammed the decision as "appeasement of extremists by a bunch of politicians scared witless of losing their seats."
One thing to watch for is whether the MCB attends Holocaust Memorial Day this year. If it doesn't, it will highlight just how wrong-headed the government's decision is.
"Seasonal Messages - MCB style"
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/02/25814/
Of course, the UK General Election is only a few months away, and the dhimmi UK Labour government will do all it can to appease the Muslim vote.
Feeding the Crocodile has never been a good idea...even if it does eat you last.
Surely they have studied the words of their own great leaders. Oh... wait. We have our own words of wisdom spoken by the men that founded the US...and they go unheeded as well.
Still...we must all stop feeding the damned Crocodile! Let it starve to death.
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
"Crucially, though, Daud Abdullah's signature does not appear to have been taken off the document."
I think that tells you what the MCB'S real position is in this manner. New Labour has crawled back into the arms of its latest lover. New Labour is now in a position that forces it to seek Muslim votes if it wishes to stay in power, or at least make a respectable showing. In order to achieve this end, it must pander often and punish rarely the Islamists whose support they seek. This is a shortsighted policy that will destroy the U.K. in its current form.
The UK Independence Party is to call for a ban on the burka and the niqab — the Islamic cloak that covers women from head to toe and the mask that conceals most of the face — claiming they affront British values.A policy, which a number of European countries are also debating,UKIP would be the first national party to call for a total ban on burkas, though the far-Right BNP believes they should be banned from schools.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the leader of UKIP, said yesterday: “We are taking expert advice on how we could do it. It makes sense to ban the burka — or anything which conceals a woman’s face — in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”
He explained that UKIP wanted to bring to the fore the issue of the increasing influence of Sharia in Britain: “We are not Muslim bashing, but this is totally incompatible with Britain’s values of freedom and democracy.”
Nigel Farage, the former UKIP party leader, will announce tomorrow that the party believes the fabric of the country is under threat from Sharia and that forcing women to conceal their identity in public is not consistent with traditional Britishness.
UKIP believes that the burka and the niqab have no basis in Islam, are a threat to gender equality, marginalise women and endanger the public safety because terrorists could use them to hide their identity.
Mr Farage, who stood down last year to fight the Buckingham seat held by John Bercow, Speaker of the Commons, told The Times yesterday: “UKIP has always been good at showing what it is against, but we are now trying to demonstrate to voters how an independent Britain would be governed. I am going to be talking about Britishness, about the national identity and the genuine threat that Sharia law poses. Alarm bells should have sounded when the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the adoption of Sharia law in the UK was unavoidable.”
In France, President Sarkozy is trying to outlaw the wearing of full veils on state premises such as university campuses and hospitals, and on public transport. All the main French parties and most of the public are opposed to women wearing full veils but, after six months of parliamentary hearings, it is apparent that a blanket ban would be unworkable and likely to backfire.
Mr Sarkozy wants an all-party consensus to make clear that full veils contradict French principles while avoiding measures that would stigmatise Muslims.
In Denmark, Conservatives in the coalition government have demanded a ban on the burka and the niqab in public. In October 2009 the Muslim Canadian Congress called for a ban on the burka and the niqab, arguing again that they have “no basis in Islam”.
But, Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council for Britain, told The Times: “UKIP is supposed to be proud of Britain’s traditions and values, which include freedom or speech, association and religion.
“The overwhelming majority of women who wear the burka do so out of a firm sense of religious duty. It is their interpretation of their religion.
UKIP have no right to overrule that. It is nobody else’s business.”
a small, almost insignificant belated start, but a start none the less.
The battle over the mind must be won first, before anything else could be accomplished.
When Hitler came to power, he was applaud by most Germans; Nazism then was not (perceived as) a bad thing. And until that state of mind changed, there was no (significant) opposition to it!
Until the Islamic ideology join its predecessors, Communism, Nazism etc., all efforts will gain short-term achievements at best, and backfire other times.
A case for outlawing Islamism, as a dangerous ideology must be build. All elements are there, numbers and facts.
Wilders's trial should turn into exposing islam, rather then Wilders. I really can't see what case they have. They should charge all news agencies as well, for broadcasting the same violent images.
Islamism must be legaly outlawed.
"Labour restores official ties with Muslim Council of Britain despite their refusal to remove deputy accused of supporting Hamas"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243588/Labour-restores-official-ties-Muslim-Council-Britain-despite-refusal-remove-deputy-accused-supporting-Hamas.html#ixzz0clw7GGqa
The west's love fest for "progressive" liberal politics is destroying and decaying the west.
The four steps backwards toward 7th century and one step forward toward civilization dance will be a disastrous failure when the Islamic population is "significant" and sooner than prostituting politicians realize.
If the people of UK, Europe and USA do not act now to permanently protect their culture, way of life and certain freedoms and etch them in steel, it will be too late later to fight again for independence and freedom from the Islamic republics of Britanistan, Eurabia and Amerikistan.
Remember their motto?
BEHEAD THOSE WHO DISRESPECT ISLAM !!
ISLAM WILL DOMINATE BRITAIN,EUROPE,AMERICA !!
And we all know too well what Islam stands for.
just outlaw islam and take down mosques~ those who want islam can leave the West!
They don't call it the Dead Isle for nothing...
It is good news that the Conservative Party will cut its ties with the Muslim Council of Britain if it is elected.
Well, that’s one good reason to vote Conservative.
Let’s not forget here that New Labour actually helped create this Islamist organisation. Not even Muslims are happy with it because it is a synthetic organisation specifically Government-created to be the conduit between Muslims and the state. But most of the MCB’s leaders didn’t really represent anyone except the Muslim Brotherhood, of which it is a part.
However, New Labour did once cut (close?) links with the MCB before. Only to retie those links. Why? There is a mountain of evidence that tells us that the MCB is not a ‘moderate’ organisation. Sure, it is not as Islamist as the Muslim Association of Britain, who’s leader, Azzam Tammini, simply adores the killer-group and death-cult Hamas. That is because we now have this:
MCB = good Muslim cop
MAB = bad Muslim cop
Yes, you guessed it; the MAB is part of the Muslim Brotherhood as well. So how can the MCB have genuine and real doctrinal and political differences with the Islamist MAB?
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, has said that his party ‘won’t do formal things’ with the MCB. This is largely a reaction to the Deputy Secretary of the MCB, Daud Abdullah, who supports Hamas’ terror campaign. (The Hamas campaign is designed to taunt the Israelis into doing something outrageous in front of Western anti-Zionist journalists and cameramen. A dead Palestinian child always does the world of good for Hamas’s cause – which is the annihilation of Israel.)
Abdullah’s position on Palestine is a strange reason to cut links over. Cameron will have to understand that the very many Muslims here in Britain support the killing machine Hamas. There is one particular distinction politicians need to understand. That is, many Muslims believe in terrorism against the Israelis but not terrorism at home. They couldn’t believe in that; could they? Muslims would hardly get away with saying that they think that terrorism on their own soil is legitimate. That would result in political suicide. And many Muslims are far too clever for that. Let the official loonies, the Bad Muslim Cops, like Islam4UK and Hizb ut-Tahrir, hint at the legitimacy of home-grown terrorism. Many of the Good Muslim Cops believe that too. Of course they do not say it. Well, they don’t say it to the Birmingham Mail or on Question Time. Whether they say it in private or not, I will leave it to the reader to decide.
In any case, what exactly is it that Cameron means by the phrase ‘we won’t do formal things’ with the MCB? Not formal things? Private things instead? Like those secret meetings with the IRA in the 1970s and 80s? These non-formal things may well be just as dangerous and anti-British as any direct formal links with the MCB. My advice is:
Don’t give the Islamists, or any offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood like the MCB and the MAB, the oxygen of legitimacy.
Tell that group to get it house in order. And not just for kafir consumption; but in reality. Until that day, which won’t come, keep away from the MCB. After all, having formal, and even informal, links with the MCB is little better than having links with Class War or Permanent Revolution.
Cameron spoke about ‘other representative bodies’ other than the MCB. Which other ‘representative bodies’? We’ve already seen that the MAB is, if anything, more extreme and Islamist than the MCB. What about the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK)? That group has a history of anti-Semitism and encouraging Muslim block voting. Its logic is simple: vote only for Muslims MPs. This explains why many Muslims vote Labour – because Labour has Muslim and Asian MPs. Thus the Conservative’s ‘first Muslim MP’, according to Cameron, can only be a positive thing in the tribal politics of Islam.
What are ‘community leaders’ anyway? Do Christians, Hindus, golfers, etc. have community leaders? Were these Muslim ‘community leaders’ voted in by Muslims (or anyone else)? Of course they weren’t. They are soi-disant community leaders. In a sense, they vote themselves in, as South American dictators used to do. And isn’t having a self-contained ‘community’ itself a divisive thing? Don’t they encourage the atomisation, not the pluralism, of society? Don’t they emphasise the sense of separateness which Muslims already feel? Indeed don’t these community leaders encourage this sense of distance from the kafir precisely because this is what Islam demands? True pluralism, true interaction with other non-Muslims cultures and communities, would either water down the faith of Muslims or contaminate it. Every Western style or idea is a direct or indirect threat to Islam itself – and thus a threat to each and every Muslim in the UK. The biggest threat to pluralism are these Muslim community leaders themselves because they help build the self-imposed Muslim ghettoes that every non-Muslim (except the Trots and Respect) is against. Even if they dare not say so.