And if he quotes from the Q'uran to justify killing Infidels or other Muslims then what, hmmm? Thankfully this trial will bring the lying nature of Muslims waging jihad against the West to the forefront.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at January 11, 2006 2:15 PM

There are parallels here with the trial nearly three years ago of Abdullah el-Faisal who was found guilty of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred. I believe he got nine years, then he will be deported back to Jamaica.

I remember at the time he said that the Koran was on trial. The prosecution was quick to distance itself from this, and said that it was the words of the defendant, not those of the Koran, that mattered.

Posted by: Interested at January 11, 2006 2:19 PM

They do us all a big disservice by saying that the Koran isn’t on trial. If the Koran and its religion, Islam, is inciting hatred and causing people to attack others, should it be? It may not be the most popular view, but the truth is what matters, not political correctness.

Charles Manson never actually lifted a finger and killed anyone, for what I know, but he made others do it and was sent to prison for his deeds. In comparison, Islam and its ‘holy book’ have caused numerous deaths over centuries –Islam and the Koran is exactly what should be on trial.

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at January 11, 2006 2:30 PM

There was a british intelligence office who supposedly worked with an american woman Mrs Galt. Mrs Galt posed as mulima and got many sensitive video out of Captain hook. I saw all those videos. In one of the video this hook guy says "Allah is happy when kafir gets killed."
In another video son of sheikh bakri said "Train for martial arts. If you cant kill then with gun lurk in the dark and if you see a kafir then kill him with your bare hands"
I just couldnt believe my ears. On top of that these guys are living on british welfare and since they have dozens of kids they get a very good house.
I really pity my brother who lives in england and works his ass off for british economy. he has just two kids and his standard of living is much below than these parasites. I think if britain has gone to dogs its all because of british govenment and their policies

Posted by: Kaafir at January 11, 2006 2:42 PM

My comment when I posted this OT below was that I can understand (although not necessarily agree)with prosecting counsel not making it a trial of the Koran. Barristers are practical cats who value the bird in the hand over those in the bush. Their practical task is to get Hamza convicted and out of the way. Disseminating the wider truth is something the likes of us can, are doing, will do. And Hamza may well do that job for us within his defence. Daffersd also posted it OT and commented on the lack of criticism of the Koran.
Getting the truth of the Koran out and debated in a court setting is would be better done in a civil court, but funding would be the obstacle there.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at January 11, 2006 2:54 PM

Does Cap'n Hook have an active prison ministry? Is he spreading the faith (cult?) by the sword or by the hook? Inquiring minds want to know. Perhaps a British poster can fill us in

Posted by: dennisw at January 11, 2006 2:56 PM

he spreading the faith (cult?) by the sword or by the hook?

By hook or by crook.

There are too many Imams conducting Da'wa in prisons, though.

Posted by: Interested at January 11, 2006 2:58 PM

It would be nice to put the koran on trial but regretably there is no law on the statute books that would allow a public prosecutor in England, or a Procurator Fiscal in Scotland, to do this. This very clever prosecutor is cunningly backing away from any suggestion that he is putting that perfidious book on trial in order to make sure that any conviction that is won will still hold up on appeal - that is to say, he is trying to ensure that there will be no legal loophole at the end of the trial for Abu Hamza al-Masri to slide through and get away scott free with his crimes against the British people and the rest of humanity.

Much as we would all like to see the koran become a proscribed book that is not the way that the Western Democracies work. We have the rule of law and we have good prosecutors. Let him do his work. We all know that the evidence against Hooky will be damning but a prosecutor has got to make it stick withing the framework of the law.

Mr. Perry is an expert prosecutor who has enjoyed a distinguished career so far. I have every confidence that the verdict he is seeking will be delivered. Now let the man do his work - in public with the press looking, which is something that couldn't happen in any of the islamofascist states.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 3:02 PM

In the trial of el-Faisal, disgracefully, the defence counsel demanded that no Jews or Hindus be allowed on the jury. With typical dhimmitude, the judge agreed.

"The ground-breaking trial was the first prosecution of a Muslim cleric in Britain. It was also the first time potential jurors were banned from sitting on the jury because of their religion. The judge agreed to a defence plea not to allow Jewish and Hindu jurors - but in the end none came forward."

Posted by: Celsius at January 11, 2006 3:03 PM

I think if britain has gone to dogs its all because of british govenment and their policies

Posted by: Kaafir at January 11, 2006 02:42 PM

I agree with you 100% on this, the socialist multiculturalists that have their hands on the legislative process have sold the British public down the river.

The other day I saw that the City where I have family back in the UK now proclaims proudly that the the number one boys name for new borns is now Mohammed.

http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-5437

In my mind this is just more Borg for the Jihad war machine to establish domminance in Europe. And the sickening thing is the British social security is paying for it.

Another point check the way they dodge the demographic issue with the deflection that only 4.5% of the population is Pakistani. What about all the other Islamo shock troops from other locals from with in the Umma. They dont mention all the Afghanis, Iranians, Indians, Saudis etc, etc.

This is just more evidence that the demographic invasion is marching ahead and that we need to stop the DaWa tide and take out its commanders. Treason is still a capital offence in the UK I believe, so they should crucify (literally) that low life Bakri.

Posted by: km at January 11, 2006 3:04 PM

By the way, and a bit off thread for which I apologise, could somebody give me a neat and really concise definition of Da'wa that I could use in conversation. You might have noticed that I can be pretty verbose, for which I apologise, and I just can't get a good snappy definition together.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 3:08 PM

Whoops I meant to say Hamza.

Posted by: km at January 11, 2006 3:12 PM

Da'wa(h?) means calling someone to Islam by preaching and example. Effectively it means propaganda.

Verbose? Not at all. You seem a very sensible person to me.

Posted by: Interested at January 11, 2006 3:12 PM

Treason, piracy on the High Seas and arson in her Majesties dockyards ceased to be capital offences in 1998.

Certiorari - I agree with you. And you can spell prosecuting, well I can normally but not when I am cooking and can smell burning.

I believe that Da'wa translates as outreach. We use that term at lot at my church. I usually emphasise that what is being reached out from in Islam bears no resemblance to what we stand for. As outreach is such a friendly term I too would appreciate a better word.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at January 11, 2006 3:23 PM

Propaganda is good.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at January 11, 2006 3:25 PM

Certiorari:

It's a bit involved, but worth the time and effort to read the "Calcutta Quran Petition"

It's a law suit brought against Islam in India. The effort failed on technical grounds, but it is instructive and revealing to read.

Link: http://voi.org/books/tcqp/

Posted by: a10billr at January 11, 2006 3:27 PM

I wonder if at one time "da'wa" meant "inviting" someone to Islam, in the sense that if they refused, or, if Jewish or Christian, did not accept Dhimmi status, they would be killed. If so, there is no Christian equivalent, though the Mafia may have a word for it. "Protection racket" is about the size of it.

Posted by: Interested at January 11, 2006 3:28 PM

In response to km and his worries about Peterborough and the percentage of Mohammedans in the UK it might be appropriate to introduce some statistics at this point (and perhaps one of our American colleagues could give us the same statistics for the USA.

As of April 2001 (the latest date for which we have processed data) the UK population stood at 57,103,927 people -
Of those 41,014,811 acknowledged themselves to be Christian (71.8%);
Some 8,596,488 said they had no religion (15.1%);
A further 4,433,520 did not state their religion (7.8%);
Mohammedans numbered 1,588,890 people (2.8%);
Hindu people accounted for a further 558,342 (1.0%); The Sikh headcount was 336,179 ((0.6%);
The Jewish faith accounted for 267,373 people (0.5%);
Buddhist believers numbered 159,167 (0.3%);
All the other minor religions had 159,167 adherents (0.3%).

These figures are drawn from the UK Office of National Statistics and are trustworthy. Again, I say as I have said in other threads, numbers of Mohammedans are not the problem - the problem is our politicians and our press.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 3:42 PM

a10billr - thank-you for the link. I will read it.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 3:46 PM

Pity the British no longer permit being drawn and quartered.......

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at January 11, 2006 4:25 PM

Certiorari,

As a legal matter, convicting this one defendant, you are correct. As for the greater war of ideas, this sort of obfuscation is death by a thousand cuts. Perhaps the prosecuter was using heavy sarcasm and rolling his eyes during parts of his opening, but it didn't come through in newspapers.

Posted by: Beagle at January 11, 2006 4:54 PM

Beagle - I agree with you: obfuscation of the the real issue(s) could be death by a thousand cuts. However, until we can convince our politicians and persuade them to make changes to our laws there is nothing we can do except pick off the jihadist maniacs one by one.

Please remember that exactly what is reported by the press about a court case in this country is governed by a set of laws and these laws also cover exactly how it is reported. Once the case is over the recapitulation and the Court Record will let you know exactly what the prosecutor said and how he said it. I reiterate, it is Mr. Perry's job to get this one maniac off the streets; he has not been given any other brief nor can he be so given with the way The Law stands at the moment. Further, the last thing he needs to do is alienate any member of the jury by employng what some might see as absurd theatrics.

What marks us off from, and makes us superior to, the devil-possessed beasts that govern the islamofascist countries is our carefully constructed, fair, independent and occassionally cumbersome legal system. We respect democracy and the rule of law. It is what made us free people (starting with the Magna Carta) and it is what keeps us free people. It is one of the things that makes us superior in every respect to them; junking the rule of law, or subverting it to our ends without the due processess needed for a change simply reduces us to their level. Change we will ultimately get and this site makes a big contribution to the agitation for change, but we will get that change using due process for then we can truly occupy the moral high ground.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 5:17 PM

Abu Hamza in some of the tapes describes the Jews as 'blasphemous' and 'dirty'. Dirty. Take a look at this guy. Has he ever looked in a mirror? I am praying that he will dismiss his legal team and decide to represent himself, take to the dock and cite exactly which passages from the koran condone killing of non-believers. Even the BBC would be forced to report on that, it's already too big a story to bury.

Except that their first response would be to organise a studio discussion programme with a heavily loaded muslim audience, and give them the platform from which to reiterate that islam is the religion of piss - er, sorry - peace.

Posted by: religion_of_peas at January 11, 2006 5:25 PM

Slightly off topic again but back to the Peterborough comment:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1168&Pos=1&ColRank=1&Rank=326

the header says it all

Posted by: muckyundercarriage at January 11, 2006 5:43 PM

muckyundercarriage - Yes, very revealing, but they are starting from a very low base (2.8% of the population). The most recent (2004/05) surveys seem to show, however, that this breeding pattern is being gradually abandoned with the dawning realisation that the all the children are going to survive into adulthood. The breeding pattern seems to be more associated with the inferior medical services they experienced in their homelands than with any particular desire to have large families.

Further, the compulsory exposure of Mohammedan juvenile females to the wider society through the education system also awakens them to the facts about contraception and the lack of need for large families. It could be that we are merely witnessing the same phenomenon as we witnessed with other immigrant groups in the past - their birth-rates also fell sharply after exposure to better health care and education.

However, I bet it says somewhere in that filthy book that women have to have babies all the time, or some such rot. Perhaps Messrs. Spencer or Fitzgerald could help me out here and enlighten my ignorance.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 5:58 PM

GOOD LUCK CONSTANTINOPLE.

I hope you win a seat in your State's House of Representatives.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 6:02 PM

Constantinople, It will spark debate, which can only be good.

Certiorari, its in the book of the Koran called The Cow (or as Chairman Alf would say the silly moo)2.223 and says something like "Wives are 'a tilth for you (to cultivate), so go into your tilth when you like" Tilth meaning field. Puts a whole new meaning on We plough the fields and scatter.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at January 11, 2006 6:08 PM

Is this a surprise?

Posted by: Taylor at January 11, 2006 6:08 PM

The following table is from adherents.com

The USA government does not collect religious identification information with the census, so this is based on a survey of 50,000 adults.

Top Twenty Religions in the United States, 2001
(self-identification, ARIS)

Religion; est. % of U.S. Pop.,2000; % Change 1990 - 2000
Christianity 76.5% +5%
Nonreligious/Secular 13.2% +110%
Judaism 1.3% -10%
Islam 0.5% +109%
Buddhism 0.5% +170%
Agnostic 0.5% -16%
Atheist 0.4% NA
Hinduism 0.4% +237%
Unitarian Universalist 0.3% +25%
Wiccan/Pagan/Druid 0.1% NA

Note that in the '90s Buddhism and Hinduism were growing faster than Islam.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at January 11, 2006 6:08 PM

occassionally cumbersome legal system

Reading the prosecuter lying about Islam for presumably a greater good isn't my greater good. This is not about one or ten thousand terror cases, but an ongoing invasion lasting over 1,300 years. The Magna Carta, Treaty of Westphalia, natural rights, equal justice, you name it, are all at risk.

Posted by: Beagle at January 11, 2006 6:31 PM

Hamza is honest about his Koranic psychopathia.

The prosecuting govenment is trying to pretend he isn't, while also trying to convict him of it -at the same time.

Political schizophrenia versus homicidal megalomania.

The tap-dancing is always entertaining.

And I wish they cut the "inciting racism" nonsense.

Hamza wants all infidels of all races killed.

An equal opportunity destroyer.

Just like his boss, pedophile Mo.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 11, 2006 6:34 PM

If it takes four years and millions of dollars/pounds to prosecute every Muslim nogoodnik, the legal system will be swamped and bankrupted.

There are other huge juridical difficulties when Muslims are involved. We see here how Jews and Hindus were kept off a jury. How could a fair trial ever happen if even one Muslim were on the jury? Kitman and taquiyya are a religious duty tied to jihad. What pious Muslim juror could ever be objective?

Then there is the demand of Muslims to be allowed swear on the Koran instead of the Bible. A Muslim swearing on the Koran as a witness means one and only one thing--he will lie to protect the fellow Muslim on trial, as the Koran directs.

The legal system of the West has to develop some means to deal with Muslims and the Koran. A person who is a pious Muslim, or who follows the teachings of the Koran, is by definition outside the secular U.S. and British legal system, since Sharia is the only valid legal system as far as he is concerned. Should such a person, who does not accept the authority of the court or of the laws that court is enforcing, receive the same protections of due process as a genuine law abiding citizen/subject? Can any jury verdict be fair, when the jurors and judges are under death threat from Islamic fatwahs?

The U.S. military was confronted with this problem right after 9/11, when it realized that all the U.S. laws and treaties pertaining to warfare, evolved over the centuries primarily in the West (including, for example, the Geneva Conventions), did not cover the immediate situation of an enemy that does not wear a uniform, respect established governments or borders, or conform in the slightest degree to any of those same laws of warfare. The U.S. government immediately launched a legal review to figure out how to cope, as it was about to launch an international campaign to hunt the terrorists, kill or capture them, and keep them from further attacking our citizens. And for even daring to conduct this review (and later taking practical steps in accordance), they were mercilessly skewered and condemned by the Europeans, leftists in the U.S. and elsewhere, and of course by the saints at the U.N.

We will not defeat the Mohammedans until our respective legal systems face this problem honestly, with unexpurgated knowlege of the Koran as appears here in JW/DW. I don't know what the solution is, but business as usual is not going to work in the long run. Great philosophical minds and legal scholars should be working this problem day and night. But instead, I suspect they are too busy playing "gotcha" against the U.S. (and British) administration on every step of every little court case and legal procedding that comes up.

If the legal system does not straighten up and fly right, the problem will be solved for us when the Islamic barbarians start setting off nukes in the West (A violation of the laws of war, but a clear and stated goal of countless Muslim lunatics). The legal code will get changed really quickly then, as the collective mind finally becomes focused. The public mood will be for blood letting and mayhem, and legal niceties will fall by the wayside.

Which way is better? Work the problem now, directly, calmly, and rationally, or wait for armageddon to wake us out of our sanctimonious legal daydreaming?

Posted by: Stendec at January 11, 2006 6:36 PM

Sick~

http://www.coranix.com/pro_islam/tuez.htm

I need a translator.

Posted by: Borg at January 11, 2006 6:36 PM

Is there anything in the Koran that tells Muslims to deny the Holocaust?

http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/uk/5121

Muslim council to ‘boycott’ Holocaust Memorial Day

Posted by: scribe10 at January 11, 2006 7:09 PM

Da'wa could be called "soft persuasion", that is, soft until they decide to make a hard threat.

My main question, what really concerns me, is how the UK govt could have allowed this Nazi to go on preaching murder as long as he did? How did they let him go on for years doing his inciting?

Posted by: Eliyahu at January 11, 2006 7:11 PM

Thank-you Granny Weatherwax.

Thank-you Malta 1565.

Profitsbeard - "inciting rascism" is a legal charge with a very specific meaning in UK Jurisprudence. You should understand that it is legal jargon which could be useful in obtaining a conviction. Incidentally, the Government is not prosecuting - the law enforcement and legal systems are, and woe betide any UK Government that is caught trying to interfere in that system.

Stendec - you have made my point perfectly. Now, how do we set about geting laws changed in ways that won't cost us OUR freedom, but will manage to neuter, or hopefully rid us of, the Mohammedan belief system. Constantinople's aspiration to sit in his State House of Representatives could be one way if more of us tried it.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 7:15 PM

More interesting news from Europe:

"French author sketches grim future

www.ejpress.org/article/5117

By Rebecca Assoun Updated: 10/Jan/2006 16:23

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his new book “Cosmos Incorporated”, French polemicist and thinker Maurice Dantec warns of coming chaos and conflict in Europe.

A prolific author of thrillers and science-fiction novels, Dantec is mainly known for his provocative pro-Israeli and pro-American stance and his strong condemnation of Islamism.

His staunch position sets him apart in France’s literary world where he is perceived as going against the grain.

Speaking in an interview to the monthly “Tribune Juive”, Dantec said he left France in 1998 Canada to “protect his family from a Europe that has gone to the dogs”, adding that he was a proponent of the counter-revolution that had “already started in America”."

Read the whole article:

future

www.ejpress.org/article/5117

Posted by: scribe10 at January 11, 2006 7:21 PM

Try this link:

http://www.ejpress.org/article/5117

Posted by: scribe10 at January 11, 2006 7:23 PM

Thank-you everybody who has given me some succinct definitions of Da'wa. My next conversations in London will be all the easier for these.

Eliyahu - I wish I knew. Most of us were aware of his sick, mindless, devil-posseessed ranting for many years and wondered why on earth the authorities didn't act. The best explanation I can come up with is that legal authorities better versed in The Law than I, genuinely thought that they would not be able to secure a conviction from a jury in a British Court. Sad to say, it took the events of 11th. Sept. 2001 and 7th. July, 2005 to ensure that ordinary people selected for jury service might be more willing to convict rather than see his rantings as an issue of free speech. This, I understand, can also be a problem in many other free countries - the temptation to see what are dangerous rants as simply a person exercising his/her right to freedom of speech. Juries, in my experience, can often be caught up in this argument and swayed by it.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 7:30 PM

GoodKarma - See a10billr's posting (above) and the link he gave.( http://voi.org/books/tcqp/ ).

It is possible that we would face the same difficulties almost anywhere in the EU that they faced in West Bengal (India) - at the moment. Certainly in Britain one would need to convince a Jury that it was an issue of hate and not, as I said previously, an issue of free speech. I suspect that that would be the case in many countries in the west - at the moment.

This site, and others like it, together with world events will convince many ordinary people (in my experience, as I said on another thread, have already convinced many people) of the pernicious evil of Mohammedanism. We must now make our lawmakers catch up with public opinion.

Regrettably, some countries have hamstrung themselves with some very badly worded laws about hatred and intolerance which, deliberately or otherwise, confuse race and belief. It is not, however, impossible to work within the existing legal framework if one knows the jargon and phrases things correctly. It is my considered opinion that at the moment we would not get very far if we tried to proscribe the filthy koran. I think it will take another five years before we can make an attempt that will get serious publicity and stand some sort of chance of succeeding.

I hate to have to say it, but what will probably sway opinion towards a move like that would be several more terrorist jihadist outrages like 9/11 and 7/7. These will happen - regrettably - so all we have to do is be patient a little while longer. Basically, give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves, or at least we can make it appear that way.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 8:39 PM

GoodKarma,

The entire Koran is a manual on Jihad, Jihad, Jihad.
It's the Jihad, stupid!

Posted by: a10billr at January 11, 2006 8:56 PM

Good Karma-

K. ill
O. r
R. ape
A. ll
N. on-Muslims.

Clearer?

Try reading the "Holy" Islamic plagiarism murder manual.

(But keep an air-sickness bag handy.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 11, 2006 9:11 PM

Naked Lovegames Not Allowed

In Egypt, there has been a 'fatwa' announced, that forbids couples to be naked during love making. "Completely naked during the sexual deed makes the marriage invalid", according to Rashar Hassan Khalil, the former headmaster of the 'sharia' faculty at the university of al-Ahzar, the most well known from the soennitische islam.
read the rest at http://dutchnewz.com

Posted by: Dutchnewz at January 11, 2006 9:21 PM

I don't think GoodKarma was in any doubt about what the koran is. I think he was just asking if we can take it out of circulation legally, at this moment in time, using existing laws.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 9:22 PM

My main question, what really concerns me, is how the UK govt could have allowed this Nazi to go on preaching murder as long as he did? How did they let him go on for years doing his inciting?

-Eliyahu

Same goes for Omar Bakri mohammed - He used to live near me in Crawley, Sussex. I'd regularly see his muhajadeen recruitment posters stuck to lampposts and bus shelters. He used Tilgate Scout hut as a terrorist training centre and it was no secret to anyone. This was over a decade ago. Some years later a British broadcaster made a documentary about this, I forget his name, but the title was "Ooh what a lovely Jihad!". The picture was; Scouts on a Monday, Cubs on Tuesday, Girl Guides and Brownies Wednesday and Thursday, and Genocidal Global Apocalypse Training on Fridays. It's not like the problem has suddenly crept up on us.

So one could further refine the question as: Why has Britain been so wholly complicit for so long? I'm no analyst, but I can't shake the impression that it's been tolerated precisely because of judeophobia - islam is institutionally antisemitic, and so all the anti-establishment waffle is fine so long as they're using their religion to say legitimately what everyone else is thinking.

Posted by: Animus Fox at January 11, 2006 9:42 PM

"So one could further refine the question as: Why has Britain been so wholly complicit for so long? I'm no analyst, but I can't shake the impression that it's been tolerated precisely because of judeophobia - islam is institutionally antisemitic, and so all the anti-establishment waffle is fine so long as they're using their religion to say legitimately what everyone else is thinking."

Animus Fox - My answer to Eliyahu (above)probably applies here as well, but the more I think about it the more several strands begin to emerge.

I don't think it's anti-semitism but I do think that the establishment, and we ordinary folk, can be very arrogant. From the establishment point of view these were just a bunch of Mohammedan loonies playing at being soldiers and I think that's pretty much the way most of us saw it for long enough. We never dreamed that they would one day threaten us - this was all about their silly little tribal battles in silly foreign places far away that didn't matter.

There is a huge inertia in British society and most people just can't get their heads around the idea that we could lose this war - "What, Britain, lose. Don't be silly, old boy; we're British so that's impossible. Why, everyone knows that God's an Englishman" - sort of attitude (well, of course He is, but that's another story). In other words, not complicity, just laziness. Not toleration, just can't be bothered and not worried.

I've watched and been involved with Government for more years than I care to remember and if you were to ask me what guiding principles lay behind any moves made, or not made, by any government I'd be honour-bound to tell you that there are no guiding principles - just cock-up allied to vast inertia and huge laziness.

Don't look for logic or consistency in Government or the Civil Service - it's not there.
If a report on Omar Bakri ever made it to the Home Office in the early years it would have taken years to make it to the Home Secretary's desk because most Civil Servants would just have laughed and put such behaviour down to the silly ways of an ethnic minority - indeed, in the early years so would many ordinary folk like me.

It's all born from having had an Empire - we just can't take a bunch of towel-heads seriously. (Still would have an Empire if it wasn't for the USA who thought it was wrong - bet their kicking themselves now that they have to police what we kept quiet with just a few District Officers).

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 10:18 PM

Granny, certiorari

You're right. That's how law in our lands works--for better or worse.
It can drive you nuts, as it's done to me many times. It often works thru tiny parcels of law regulating every single step in the process, from the initial complaint to the end, thru conflicting statutes, one common law item against another, depending on jurisdiction, precedent, time and "culture, at every step of the way the parties subject to often arbitrary rules of the paricular court where the suit is being brought.
Still, English common law is still the best there is. Does it need aggiornamento? Sure it does, and it's happening, in many tiny steps.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at January 11, 2006 10:28 PM

ovidius_naso -

Was it Pope John XXIII who coined the term aggiornamento? I think he meant renewal of the spiritual life through renewing and changing Canon Law - no, that's probably not accurate, but wasn't it something like that? (Too many years away from my textbooks). This must have been in the late fifties, was it? It was in some sense to do with Canon Law, I'm sure. Anyway, I agree with you. It is happening - but too slowly. We need to speed the pace of change up, just a bit.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 11, 2006 10:54 PM

To Certiorari

I think you are also correct in pointing the finger at the politicians; however your use of statistics to play down extent of the Muslim invasion shows a little naivety.

Looking at the statistical figures from the census it would be easy to come away thinking that the population is small and of a manageable level (also remember that the question regarding religious back ground is voluntary). However these figures do little to explain the distribution i.e. where they are concentrated. 2000,000 (which I believe to be a little on the low side) Muslims packed into a few major urban centers changes the argument completely. To illustrate this I will use the recent Intifada in France as an example.

The reason the Jihadists were able to so effectively cripple the country was their concentration into densely populated urban areas where the traditional culture was displaced by the incoming Islamic wave. This change in the demographic meant that normal law and order and the influence of the natives had been displaced by the laws and customs of the migrant’s culture of origin.

This coalescing of Islamists means that they are then able to apply more leverage to governmental institutions than would normally be available should their numbers be evenly distributed across the whole of the country, hence the rampant dhimmitude you see amongst today’s politicians. I also do not buy the argument that after several generations they will be having fewer children and will become assimilated into the host culture. This ignores the established facts that those that appear to be waging the violent side of the Jihad in Europe are of the 2nd and 3rd generation that have been born in the host country. Also be careful about ignoring the statistics showing Muslim families have more than the average number of children, this coupled with rampant migration from the umma makes the whole situation much more volatile.

Of course the argument can still be made that even with the current numbers and the skewed demographic in urban areas that should it come down to a shooting match they would be no match to the host countries military capabilities. However one should take into account on top of the Islamists is the numerous Islamoappologists and multicultist, western culture hating patsies who would be there defending their right to worship Mohammed and undermine the host culture. Anyway my point is don’t be so quick to shrug of the demographic threat.

In regards to your statement that it is the politicians I certainly think that the political establishment needs a massive wake up call, however as I no longer live in the UK and haven’t for many years now I no longer have a feel for who is saying what regarding the Islamic invasion issue. What in your opinion is the best party to give my vote to as I now have registered to give a postal vote and I want it to go where I think it is going to do the most good. Currently I am contemplating the Nationalist party as this is the only party that I have seen even mention the Islamification of Britain. However this always seems to draw a lot of heat as they obviously have the reputation for being some kind of Nazi party. My opinion though is that they don’t need to be voted into power just enough people need to protest vote in this way to make the more mainstream parties sit up take notice and do something.

Posted by: km at January 11, 2006 11:01 PM

Certiori: "Now, how do we set about geting laws changed in ways that won't cost us OUR freedom, but will manage to neuter, or hopefully rid us of, the Mohammedan belief system."

Well, that is the trick, isn't it?

I think banning the Koran is a bad idea, and counterproductive. Lots of people would just be attracted to the "forbidden fruit." Islam is an idea that can only be destroyed by a counter idea.

In contrast, the juridical challenge is a defensive one. How do we stop Islam from using our humane legal system against us?

Ideally, some kind of formal declaration having unequivocal legal force is necessary to the effect that,in western jurisprudence, the immutable belief system called Islam 1) is not recognized as a "race" in any legal sense, 2) is not recognized as a "religion" in any legal sense (even though alien cultures might consider it so), 3) barring a reformation, is considered incompatible with liberal democracy as embodied in the U.S. Constitution and other western foundation documents, and 4) is understood, by its own Koranic definition, to be in a perpetual state of war with the U.S. constitution and other western foundation documents.

By such a declaration, or some other formal legal constructs, we have to find a way to be permitted to discuss Islam openly without fear of prosecution under "hate speech" or "race baiting" laws (as a blogger above suggested). This has to mean that the law is so clear and explicit, that any judge would know, without equivocation, that the inevitable CAIR lawsuits against free speakers would be thrown out summarily, on pain of impeachment of the judge, and on pain to CAIR or whoever of paying substantial monetary penalties for launching frivolous lawsuits.

Second, the law must be clear that Islamic affiliation is a legitimate and necessary factor when making immigration decisions, for the sake of protecting our people and their rights under the Constitution and other western foundation documents.

Third, the law must be clear that Islamic affiliation is a legitimate and necessary factor when arguing the credibility of witnesses in a court of law, just as affiliation with the Mafia or the Gestapo would be such a factor.

Finally, the law must be constructed so as to make Islam bear the financial burden of its assaults on our freedoms (including using our laws against us) instead of making us bear these costs ourselves. (The New Yorkers who sued Saudi Arabia after 9/11 had the right idea.) Since Islam is at war with us, Islamic political and economic entities, including the Islamic captive nation states, should pay for the costs of their mortal threat to us; for instance, for increased airport security. Iraq (and Saudi Arabia) should be paying us war reparations. Mosques that sponsor subversion should be heavily fined or closed.

Can we do this without impacting our own freedoms? I think so. The Constitution (for example) does not protect those whose mission is to utterly destroy it.

Posted by: Stendec at January 11, 2006 11:29 PM

km -

I'm not trying to play down the seriousness of the situation by using statistics, merely pointing out that the numbers are, as yet, low and so we have a little, painfully little, time in hand which we should be using - as indeed, of course, WE all are.

Yes, it is dangerous to allow any minority, and especially this one, to pool into ghettos in our urban/industrial centres and I agree that this pooling will skew the way they behave, not only towards the legislators and the institutions of government but also as a mob.

I disagree that the figure of just over one-and-a-half-million is low. If anything it probably rather high as the National Statistical Office tends to err on the side of caution when adjusting the figures of census using surveys - but of course the figures are already almost five years out of date.

With regards to the recent French experience I have to tell you that I was travelling in France at the time of the riots and they most definitely did not cripple the country. Indeed, I and my three travelling companions were scarcely aware that anything at all was happening. Two out of the four of us speak, read and write fluent French and the other two can get by in most social situations so we were not, by any manner of means, out of touch with our host country. We read the newspapers, watched television, listened to radio and continued with our touring holiday, covering some two thousand four hundred kilometres in the four weeks we were there - and we were centred on Paris where we had borrowed a friend's house whilst he was on an overseas posting. The riots were localised and well contained by the French Civil Forces. This, of course, doesn't make good copy and whilst we were in France we became aware that the American media, in particular, were indulging in gross distortion of the facts. There is even a suggestion that some American journalists were paying some of the rioters to act up on camera. I can speculate as to why, as I'm sure we all can, but the truth of the matter is that the riots were really just very localised civil disobedience which only made the news because they were instigated and controlled by jihadists. They could, perhaps, have been better contained but that is a matter for the French Government Enquiry, not for me at this time.

However, your point about the apologists and the multiculturalists is extremely well made. These people worry me as well. Further, you are quite right, in my opinion, about the Western culture hating patsies - I have met many such people on my travels throughout Europe and the real worrying thing is that many are teachers in our schools!

I would not be so presumtuous as to tell you which party to vote for but I would advise you the the British National Party is Neo-Nazi as you suspected, not Neo-Con. However, your point about scaring the mainstream politicians is well made (dash it, I keep using that phrase; I must think up a different one). In the particular constituency that I live in my vote in the last few Elections has been placed in accordance with some very important local issues, but I have considered voting UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) just, like you said, to frighten our political masters.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 12, 2006 12:02 AM

Stendec -

Masterly summation. I'd got about half way there but I have to admit that you have hit the nail on the head. I stand back in admiration and no, I am not being sarcastic - I am offering praise where praise is due. Would you mind if I took your posting and attempted to turn it into a document I could use in Britain?

Posted by: Certiorari at January 12, 2006 12:11 AM

Certiorari,

I don't see it as all that masterly, but if my posting above is of use to you, by all means use it freely, with my compliments and good wishes.

Posted by: Stendec at January 12, 2006 12:26 AM

Stendec -

Thank-you.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 12, 2006 12:28 AM

Certiorari
Hope our next writ (due soon) will be as good and the Court as wise as you are.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at January 12, 2006 12:38 AM

stendec

Superb summation. You're giving us all hope that we can beat this disease.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at January 12, 2006 12:45 AM

"....and when we arrived home late that night, we found, hanging from the car door handle, a bloody hook!" Aaaaiiieeeeeee!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jim at January 12, 2006 1:18 AM

Stendec, that is an approach that I totally agree with, its very similar to my thought process at this point and very clearly written.

Posted by: Daffersd at January 12, 2006 3:22 AM

Stendec
You set that out very clearly. I will copy and keep it for future reference.
You mention the case when survivors of 9/11 (which I always want to call 9/11 in the British way) sued Saudi Arabia. When I said earlier that I thought a civil case would the best legal arena to analyse the Koran itself I had in mind the potential claim that those injured or bereaved through the Aldgate bomb might have against the estate of Shehzad Tanweer the fish and chip heir.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at January 12, 2006 4:04 AM

11/9 is the British way, except that I do seem to have caught up with the rest of the world at last.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at January 12, 2006 4:19 AM

Borg - That link you posted way up top is from the French site Coranix. Its one of the most popular qu'ranocritical sites in the frogosphere.

The page you linked to, is to explain how throatcutting is such a natural impulse amongst muslims because they all regularly watch their fathers and uncles slaughter sheep.

Posted by: Sebastien at January 12, 2006 4:54 AM

borg

translated page: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coranix.com%2Fpro_islam%2Ftuez.htm

it's a "rough" translation, french to english, from: http://babelfish.altavista.com

for arabic translation, try:
http://www.systranbox.com/systran/box

Posted by: jim at January 12, 2006 5:00 AM

Some interesting points made. On voting, Certiorari is right to say that the BNP is Neo-Nazi, and therefore off limits. A protest vote, if that is all it is, would be better directed at UKIP, which is not racist. It is a pity that they are a lost cause and lack constructive policies, other than withdrawal from the EU, and they are extremely unlikely to get voted in.

David Cameron is an unknown quantity. At the moment he is vague on policy and just tells people what he thinks they want to hear. A Conservtive Party that got to grips with Islam would be onto a winner, as the mood of the British people, as opposed to that of the politicians is definitely against it.

A start would be withdrawing charitable status from mosques - starting with the more radical ones - on the grounds that Islam is a political movement rather than a religious one. This can easily be demonstrated. Banning the niqab and burqa would be another good preliminary step, as it would demonstrate clearly the limits of tolerance: our tolerance stops short of allowing black ghosts to haunt the streets of our country. Both these measures would anger Muslims and make them feel unwelcome, which is the right approach.

Posted by: Interested at January 12, 2006 5:07 AM

Thanx for the responses to my query about why the UK govt has allowed goons like this to incite murder for so long. I feel that there may be some people fairly high up, who are sympathetic to Islam and the Arabs for various reasons, and who may also hate Jews. So I think Judeophobia is part of it but not the whole thing. Maybe some folk way up in policy planning are aware that fanatic Muslims work in general to destroy civilization and for that very reason these folks support increased Muslim --indeed jihadi-- influence in the West. Look at people like the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Norfolk, Christopher Mayhew [now deceased] who was quite pro-Arab and also a psychological warfare expert. On the lower levels, of course, all the habits and motives mentioned above probably are at work, but on high policy planning levels, somebody may understand just what is going on. Britishers might look at Elie Kedourie's books on British-Arab relations, for instance, In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth, etc., at Horace Samuel's writings on the British Palestine Mandate administration, at Samuel Katz' biog of Jabotinsky, "Lone Wolf: Jabo" or some such title, etc.

Now about law. Some of the earliest parts of international law had to do with suppressing piracy. Now, pirates were seldom part of official navies, and did not wear uniforms, as far as I know. But often pirates had licenses from govts to practice piracy against enemies [letters of marque?]. So the Barbary pirates operating out of North Africa [Barbary Coast] had approval from the govts in their home ports, Algiers, Tripoli, Sale, etc. Int'l law allowed govts to be very tough with pirates, and surely they had few recognized civil rights. Why can't these rules and laws be used against terrorists? By the way, the int'l laws against piracy were used by Israel, if I am not mistaken, when seizing Eichmann in Argentina. Here was a criminal who had committed crimes in various countries who had found refuge in a country far away from the crimes. He was not being touched or prosecuted in any way by the state where he had refuge. So it was legitimate for Israel to seize him, especially since his worse crimes were against Jews. Today USE THE LAWS OF PIRACY AGAINST TERRORISTS!!

Posted by: Eliyahu at January 12, 2006 7:23 AM

Other News Stories on this subject which provide additional details:

(UK) Muslim cleric 'told followers to kill Jews and non-believers'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1980501,00.html
Abu Hamza, the Muslim cleric, preached "murder and hatred" to his followers, telling them that it was their "religious duty to kill" Jews and other non-Muslims, a court heard today.

(UK) Hamza jury shown video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1684970,00.html
In the tape he says that democracy is failing and describes how the White House will be run by the re-establishment of the Khilafa, "the authority of Allah on earth".

UK Muslim cleric 'had terrorism manual'
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA26162131136970263A0000?source=PA%20Feed
Islamic preacher's target list included skyscrapers, Big Ben, Christmas crowds

Posted by: jeffreyimm at January 12, 2006 9:15 AM

I don't think it's fair to bring into this discussion what our future King (Charles, Prince of Wales) may, or may not, have said. So often he is advised (pressured would be nearer the truth) by politicians and civil servants to say things that it is impossible to know from looking back over the record what is his opinion and what is a political line that he has had to spout. You can see that occassionally, on unimportant issues such as architecture, he goes off message and gets vilified for it - politicians and the civil service (and indeed some courtiers) deliberately set out to undermine him when he doesn't do as they want. As for the others, I take your point.

Posted by: Certiorari at January 12, 2006 9:42 AM

This is the same Hanza that was advocating WMD's, Women of Mass Destruction...That is muslimahs who give birth to a child spacifically to make a martyr of him when old enough. Strap a bomb on a baby for Allah.
Hamza is a perfect spokesperson for Islam. All his ideas should be made public. He should be quoted in every form of media everywhere. He should be 'the' representative of Islam. Allah wants his word spread around??? Let Hamza do it...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 12, 2006 11:16 AM