UK Muslim protests new anti-terror laws: would limit "speaking about jihad"

So they damn well should. Jihad is highly specific in intent and in direction and about time they knew that we know it.

As for cooperating with Muslims: how much has that ever helped us?

Islamophobia = a constant state of nausea,suspicion and diarrhoea invoked by the actions of the bacterium: pasteurella islamicis

Posted by: Zathras at May 29, 2006 6:13 AM

Didn't the UK have sedition laws long ago? If so, why really were new laws needed? All they had to do was to enforce the existing anti-sedition laws. On the other hand, maybe a lot of fools over there were incapable of defining jihad as sedition.

Posted by: Eliyahu at May 29, 2006 6:20 AM

So, for once, we have a pretty frank admission: the Secretary General of the Union of Muslim Organisations in effect says, Yes, Islam does glorify terrorism.

Collapse of stout Esmay.

BTW, here's an old but interesting piece on the origins of the Koran that someone posted over at LGF yesterday:

What Is The Koran?

The author of the column does the usual dissembling: "Centuries ago, when Europe was mired in its feudal Dark Ages ..." (Oh, please, save the ahistorical lies: translating Aristotle - or getting him translated for you - and maybe even commenting a little, does not a civilization make, and certainly does not make one equal to Byzantium.) However, he is not too PC not to quote a textual expert on the Koran:

... the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 29, 2006 6:21 AM

... why really were new laws needed?

They weren't. IIRC, "the Hook" was charged with laws dating back to the 18th or 19th century. The laws are there, but the various Police forces chose not to make arrests - or were tipped the wink not to by the government. New law here is window-dressing to assure the public that Tony Balir is on their side. But, of course, he isn't - or he've have done something about the primary problem (immigration from Muslim-majority countries) by now.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 29, 2006 6:27 AM

Sorry, for "Balir" read "B--- liar".

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 29, 2006 6:29 AM

S#*t!

Can't have that now, can we?

'That would be too horrible to contemplate'- would Jack-ass 'Chamberlain' Straw say, and I can just about picture Red Ken and Gallow-swine run after their Mohammedan dollars & cents.....

Will it really happen?

I don't believe it till I see it!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 29, 2006 7:11 AM

Pasha said "anti terror legislation was targeted at the Muslims". Your point BEING...?

Posted by: islamophobic pride at May 29, 2006 7:19 AM

I think British Muslims realise that we are wise to what they are up to and what Islam really means.
I think Rageh Omaar the scud stud (If you are not familiar with him, he is so called because he is a nice looking young chap, who attracted a lot of attention when reporting from the Middle East) doth protest too much here.
It's classic stuff, about how Muslims are here to stay, Muslims as victim, if only we were nicer to them, and their allegiance to the Ummah (which he doesn't even seem to realise is the problem)etc etc.

The one thing he is right about is when he says "There is no point in pretending that only when British Muslims sort themselves and their religion out will the violence and division in our midst be brought to an end." but not for the reasons he thinks.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 29, 2006 7:26 AM

But what happened to "Islam is a religion of peace that has been misinterpreted and hijacked by the Jihadis".?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at May 29, 2006 7:31 AM

Another professional victim Syed Aziz Pasha. His whining - par for the course. Blah! blah! blah!

This legislation should not be necessary. People who wish to talk about Jihad in private cannot be stopped. However the public extolling of sedition in the name of a religion, which I understand in this case to be an act of Jihad is already recognised as an offence under the law.

Syed Aziz Pasha is claiming victim hood (yawn...zzzz...) because it is only Muslim's and particularly Muslim's intent on Jihad who would be restricted by this new legislation. No members of any other religious group are so widely, consistently and aggressively spouting hate. So yes within scope of this prospective legislation his fellow Muslim Jihadist's are the only ones under the spotlight. And, as he has stated his case for objection he has identified himself as 'potentially' pro Jihad.

What course of action is open to take against Syed Aziz Pasha and his hurt feelings?

He should be invited to leave the country and take his support for hate and murderous intent to somewhere more accommodating to his feelings. If he doesn't like that then he could be taken forcibly via military transport courtesy of the Armed Forces and dropped off just outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad.

Posted by: Turbinehead at May 29, 2006 8:24 AM

Granny, I read that stuff!

Thanks for that, we have these Mohammedan agit-props EVERYWHERE nowadays, and that cannot be an accident!

The mind boggles how they all push & pull the same s*#t uphill, come hell or high water!

Goodness me, it is high time for internment and deportations, but will it ever happen?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 29, 2006 8:33 AM

I'm not sure we should ever be so sanguine about speech being outlawed.

Perhaps this is a step in the right direction -- but, so far, I have witnessed with alarm the way Muslims show great preparedness to abusing our legislation and our rights, as well as the self-imposed limits placed on our organs of enforcement to game the system.

Here's something I think few have figured out in the West: Our pluralistic society is actually far more delicate than we ever dreamed. It requires a certain willingness by its constituents to play by the rules. It is poorly conceived to deal with persons who don't believe in its core tenets -- and even less equipped to deal with persons who are determined to flout and undermine the delicate balance of core rules and freedoms to further their inimical agenda. We saw how a few individuals could bring us to our knees in a manner we never dreamt.

How much more precarious are we then when millions upon millions of such active eager dedicated non-participants have been allowed to enter our system of rules and privileges to spread their numbers and thereby their intent to subvert and destroy our system with absolutely no impedence? This is what we're facing, my friends.

When those planes hit, if you didn't grasp exactly how vulnerable our system is to treachery, then you failed to learn a seminal lesson. We are not equipped to deal with persons who are thoroughly indoctrinated NOT to play by our rules or respect the privileges our system confers on the individual. That is, except to the extent those rules and privileges can further their cause, and harm ours. WORSE STILL: When such individuals are actually seen to be part of a much larger community of like minded individuals numbering in the millions in our domain -- Well, those warning lights should be flashing, and alarms should be ringing EVERYWHERE...

Posted by: jsla at May 29, 2006 11:46 AM

sheik yer'mami-

More shi'ite with have to hit the Western fan before enough infidels are repelled by this putative "religion of peace" to think about such hard solutions as deportation ("repatriation" is the better term, since it sounds nicer) to this infestation of Islamic infil-traitors.

Let it come.

Whether a WMD in D.C./ a co-ordinated nerve gas attack throughout the Paris Metro system/ or cyanide in the British water supply, let it hit us and wake us with sufficient suffering before more "Islamic Bombs" spread throughout the Ummah and make the imperialistic enemy that much harder to overpower, globally.

Nothing can be done, seriously and effectively, without this "excuse to act".

Come on, jihadis, wake us up completely!

"Un ennemi ne dort pas." -French proverb.

("An enemy does not sleep.")

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 29, 2006 11:49 AM

This legislation should not be necessary. People who wish to talk about Jihad in private cannot be stopped. However the public extolling of sedition in the name of a religion, which I understand in this case to be an act of Jihad is already recognised as an offence under the law.

I think sedition is a crime whether public or private. At least in the US. People who would engage in sedition and treason might often meet in private.Their meeting in private doesn't change their criminal act.

Posted by: Roxane at May 29, 2006 12:46 PM

Then they should gather up their robes, hijabs, and kufis, and go back to where they came from.

Posted by: Prickzilla at May 29, 2006 3:35 PM

The atrocities in Madrid and London were a wake up call but apparently not quite sufficient for our leaders and "betters" to stop talking down in patronising tones to the electorate about the "religion of peace" and the kind of hatred being sown against us. Just the other day, I saw some leaflets being distributed by a bunch of young Muslims which contained the most vile anti semitic and other diatribes against the UK. How many of the foreign insurgents behind this kind of thing have been deported? Zero. It is precisely this kind of thing that causes widespread revulsion and even drives voters into the arms of the fascist BNP.

Posted by: londongirl at May 30, 2006 1:19 AM