This is a very misguided bill. The government has tried to get it through twice before but it has met with opposition. Let's hope it's third time not lucky.

Existing laws already cover incitement to violence. You can't for example say 'all the Muslims in Leicester should be killed'. So there is no need for this law. The comparison with Jews and Sikhs is spurious - it is the ethnicity of Jews and Sikhs, something not freely chosen, that is protected, not their beliefs.

The government claims that this law is quite specific and won't cover criticism of beliefs. Even if that's true, people will be more wary of telling the truth about Islam in case they cross the line. Now, more than ever, people need to know the truth about Islam.

In any case, Islam is not a religion, it is a political programme.

Posted by: Interested at June 9, 2005 7:09 AM

This is a message from UK BIG BROTHER.

"From now on criticism of Islam...oops...I meant religion, is a thought crime. You, the mind controlled voters will from now on refrain from writing and speaking relgious criticisms under pain of 7 years in the gulag where your evil ideas about free and critical thought will be errased and replaced with love for BIG BROTHER and his wonderful co-ruler BIG ALLAH.

BIG BROTHER LOVES MUSLIMS VOTES...OOPS...I MEANT "LOVES YOU".

Posted by: obl r us at June 9, 2005 7:20 AM

Think on the upside. There must be hundreds of Muslim preachers who could be recorded and taken to court for preaching hatred against other religions. If any active Muslim-watching group were to start monitoring what is said in Britain's mosques, it might well be a case of "hoist with their own petard".

Posted by: Paolo at June 9, 2005 7:30 AM

I really do hate having to do again work that has been done once already.

However, http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/ITRHC/about_ITRHC.htm

The latest from the Barnabas Fund. The sample letters to MP's and suchlike should still be there on the links from last time. I have a new MP so this should give him something to do.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 9, 2005 7:53 AM

Paolo, I don't believe that muslims would be prosecuted for criticising christianity or other religions.

What I think will happen, is that people will be forced to vote for far right fascist parties like the BNP just so they can have some-one voice their objections about Islam under parliamentary privalege.

Posted by: Voltaire at June 9, 2005 7:55 AM

Of course, the Muslim Council of Britain is supportive of this oppressive bill. Wouldn't CAIR love to see similar legislation here? Their site @ www.cair-net.org proposes similar measures, under the guise of protecting the civil liberties of Muslims. Of course, to hell with anyone ELSE's civil liberties.

Have a look at the Middle East. Islam really advocates civil liberties, right? And look at Sudan, where opposing Muslims are busy enslaving one another. Lots of freedom there as well, correct?

Surely, the UK won't fall for this!

Posted by: WatchfulEye at June 9, 2005 8:00 AM

Fuhgedaboutit, Paolo! We all think that, when it comes to these "religious anti-villification" laws. We had some "sheikh" here in Australia, rail against women who don't dress in the living room drapes as "asking for rape". No hoisting of his petard happened, mate! And our beloved "Mufti of Australia", Hilaly, was caught out advocating suicide bombers and murder. No petard hoisted there either.

These laws will only be used to stifle free speech against Islam.

Posted by: feralee at June 9, 2005 8:04 AM

Singh posted this link to the BBC version of this story over on JW.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm

The comments at the bottom make interesting reading. Virtually no one wants the law, except one lone Moslem. My favourite comment is
"The strange thing is that I don't know of anyone who actually wants this legislation! Still, there can't be many pieces of legislation that unite evangelical Christians, gay rights, secularists, and most mainstream religious bodies!
Peter Shields, Bradford "

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 9, 2005 8:06 AM

Will this affect British citizens who criticise Islam over the internet, like those British citizens here at JW and DW?

Posted by: Voltaire at June 9, 2005 8:10 AM

Voltaire,
A good question and a disturbing possibility. If freedom of speech is suppressed, the 'infidel' world is in big trouble--not that we already aren't.

Posted by: WatchfulEye at June 9, 2005 8:33 AM

This bill is like a vampire. You keep stabbing and shooting it, thinking it's dead, and lo and behold, there it is again. I don't think American politicians will try this here in America, but you never know.

Posted by: reset at June 9, 2005 8:48 AM

I hope Paolo is right and that passage of this law will see numerous charges laid against ranting imams, mullahs and sheiks, followed by convictions that hold up if appealed to a higher court. Doubtless these would vastly outnumber any charges that might be laid against others for "defaming" Islam.

BTW, Interested, Judaism is a religion, with adherents whose ethnicity ranges from the fair-skinned, and occassionally blue-eyed Eastern European Jews known as Ashkenazim to the black-skinned Falasha of Ethiopia, and many variants in between including the ancient Jewish communities of India, Iraq and Iran (aliteration unintended).

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 9, 2005 9:26 AM

Now that Labour has a much smaller majority in Parliament, they'll have an even more difficult time passing this bill. But with a growing muslim population, such legislation (and worse) appears inevitable at some point.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at June 9, 2005 9:44 AM

reset stated: "I don't think American politicians will try this here in America" . . .

Reset, THINK AGAIN!!!

John Conyers Jr. a congressman from Michigan has a bill up now:

Text of My Resolution Regarding Religious Intolerance

I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both...

I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both those supporting and opposing my actions. I continue to believe that given recent events, it is worthwhile for the Congress to actually express its support for the freedom of religion. The resolution was drafted to oppose all religious intolerance. To the extent it mentions the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion.

Anyway, below in the extended entry is the full text of H. Res. 288. I hope you agree that read in its totality, it is a fair and appropriate resolution.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.

Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;

Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;

Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;

Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;

Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;

Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

Posted by: miira at June 9, 2005 9:44 AM

I'm a might confused here. Isn't it the loudmouth Muslim cult that does the spouting about, always doing the bash job on real religions?

This could come back to bite them hard.

Posted by: Unbridled at June 9, 2005 10:04 AM

"Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;"

Cut that number in half, there is not that amount of Muslims in America. 3-4 million at best. This Conyers wanker must be tuning in to the CAIR propaganda network.

Posted by: Unbridled at June 9, 2005 10:08 AM

Representative Conyers has a very large Muslims constituency in Michigan and he has been courting them as well as CAIR. His resolution is just that; a resolution with no legal teeth, however (HRES 288) could end up influencing local law makers in trying to attempt to pass laws prohibiting intolerance or criticizm of religion. This of course comes into conflict with our first amendment rights. The Conyers Resolution as well as this UK bill are setting dangerous precedence as they play into the hands of the most intolerant and oppressive religion on the face of the planet; Islam.

Posted by: Mackie at June 9, 2005 10:27 AM

John Conyers is more concerned about his Arab constituents in Dearborn, whose interests and understandings do not exactly coincide with the interests and understandings of the non-Muslims who founded, built, and almost entirely (99%) still populate this country. He is, furthermore, a stout opponent of gas taxes and of all other measures sensibly designed to limit the use of fossil fuels.

His bill his a transparent attempt to capitalize on the fact of one or two soldiers, stepping on a Qur'an or two, possibly as part of an attempt to demoralize and render more willing to cooperate some Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo. Before anyone goes any farther with this travesty, let someone -- let many in Congress -- insist that the actual contents of the Qur'an, and the Hadith, and the Sira -- be widely distributed. And I don't been distributed by CAIR. Let the material gathered by the defendant pastors in the celebrated Australian case (both of them ex-Muslims who knew perfectly whereof they spoke and wrote about Islam), let the excellent brief that is known as the Calcutta Qur'an be widely distributed all over Washington, let the facts in the Sira -- about the murder of Asma bint Marwan, the decapitation of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, 9-year-old Aisha, and a few dozen other incidents from the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, that "best of men" and "model" for all --let all of that come out. No one should be allowed to utter an opinion about the Qur'an, and its supposed wonderfulness, or the "respect" we must, according to Conyers, a man both silly and sinister, and working against the interests of non-Muslims as he attempts, for his own selfish reasons, to court Arab and Muslim approval -- without learning thoroughly the contents of that Qur'an.

Turn to any number of websites. Turn to that of Ali Sina. Or, if you are near a bookstore or a click away from Amazon, you may order certain books. Perhaps one might start with Robert Spencer's "Onward Muslim Soldiers." And every Congressman should have on his staff someone who has systematically read, digested, assimilated, and thoroughly understood not only Spencer's books, but four by Bat Ye'or -- The Dhimmi, Islam and Dhimmitude, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, and Eurabia. And there are more - including Leaving Islam, and Why I Am Not a Muslim, both by Ibn Warraq.

Conyers wants special protection for the Qur'an. Sure -- but first let's look into what the Qur'an says, not forgetting, for example, to remind him and others of how the doctrine of abrogation (naskh) works to eliminate all the "softer" passages of the so-called Meccan suras, and to leave in their stead the cast-iron hostility, even murderous hostility, toward all Unbelievers.

Every occasion must be taken to educate people about something so many of them are ignorant of, and they are instructed, day by day, by others not only ignorant, but absolutely convinced that there is no need to investigate what Islam actually teaches, or what the history of Islamic conquest reveals about how those teachings have been acted upon, through time and space.

Tolerance for stupidity has its limits. That limit has been met. We are under no obligation to commit civilizational suicide. We are under no obligation not to investigate the nature of Islam, and the real -- as opposed to all the taqiyya-and-kitman nonsense, including misleading phrases about how "Mary" and "Moses" and "Jesus" are respected, or that absurd remark that "Muslims worship the same God" as Christians and Jews. No they don't. The Muslim God is completely different from either the Jewish Jehovah (with the emphasis on justice), or the Christian God (with the emphasis on mercy). The Muslim Allah is whimsical; Allah can do what he wants; Allah wants his people to conquer all other peoples on his behalf, and as far as Allah is concerned, conquest of such peoples, the subjugation of all non-Muslims, is right and proper. This has to be understood. All of the evidence demonstrates that Muslims have, through time and space, acted on those beliefs.

A few, but hardly enough, have learned what Islam is all about. Many more must do so. They are suspicious of Islam, they know that something is not right. But they still cannot quite believe that a "major religion" could, in fact, be a manual of war, far more a geopolitics of conquest than a guide for individual worship. Muslims everywhere, of all kinds, are moving heaven and earth to make sure that non-Muslims do not find out the specifics of Muslim teachings, including of course the doctrine of abrogation, or the significance of the Hadith and the Sira. They are aided by non-Muslim apologists, such as not a few Western academics -- some of them, one suspects, may actually have converted -- who for all sorts of reasons (mental or intellectual desarroi, the desire to be different, identification with a field of study, antisemitism which finds an appropriate vehicle in Islam, hatred of own's own civilization, the receipt of favors and money and preferment from Muslim colleagues, or Muslim patrons, both individual and instiutitonal). Consider, for example, the absurd bowdlerized version of the Qur'an that Michael Sells of Haverford produced ("Approaching the Qur'an") and that was forced down the throats of hapless University of North Carolina freshmen as "required reading." When some rightly objected, they were depicted as mean-mindedly attempting to interfere with academic freedom, even freedom of speech. But "Approaching the Qur'an" is the kind of guide that CAIR would produce, false in every respect in the impression it gives not only of the Qur'an (those "lyrical suras"!) but also, more generally, of Islam. It would be like judging Mussolini by handing people a little illustrated pamphlet on how he had drained the Pontine marshes. That Sells was backed up by Carl Ernst, another Defender of the Faith, who blandly assured us that there was nothing "misleading" about "Approaching the Qur'an," is a testament to Ernst's own apologist-mindset, amply confirmed by his own work, which is fatally vitiated, as scholarship, by this transparent desire to defend, by misstating, Islam in theory, and in practice. Just imagine someone who described the Muslim conquest of India as a splendid achievement, and then promptly focussed on the luxuries and love-intrigues of the Mughal Court, and forgot to mention the little matter of the tens of thousands of Hindu temples and Buddhist temples destroyed, and the 60-70 million Hindus massacred. We would not think much of such a person, would we? But of course there are many such people (see the TLS reviews of the comical William Dalrymple, or the predictable Francis Robinson).

It is extraordinary. Western defenders of Islam have simply managed to seize control of many academic centers, and even of the "Middle-East" and "Islamic" rubrics at such places as the TLS, the BBC, and elsewhere. Extraordinary. No need to dial Radio Berlin for Lord Haw-Haw, or Radio Tokyo for Tokyo Rose. No need to subscribe to Al Jazeera for Arab and Muslim propaganda. It is right here, at home.

Read the Qur'an -- with a guide, so that seemingly innocuous phrases ("Strive in the path of Allah" for example) is understood, and received, the way Muslims understand it. Read Al-Bukhari's recension of the Hadith -- just go to www.usc.edu and search a bit. Read the Sira, and if you can, read Sir William Muir, or Tor Andrae, or Arthur Jeffery, on Muhammad -- rather than the apologetics in which we all swim, from those of Fazlur Rahman to those of Car Ernst to those of W. Montgomery Watt.

What's that old remark?

Know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Well, yes. But let's put a twist on it for the occasion, shall we?

Know the truth, and the truth shall keep you free.

Posted by: Hugh at June 9, 2005 10:34 AM

"an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America.."

Estimated by whom? By CAIR? By the Muslim Students Association? This figure is pulled out of the air, and Conyers must know it. It is similar to that oft-repeated phrase "the fastest-growing religion in the world." It is meant to impress, and to intimidate, and to suggest that Islam, if it is the "fastest-growing" religion in the world, must be doing something right. But no one has offered evidence for this, and there have been articles on Islamic websites deploring, for example, the large numbers of former Muslims in black Africa who have embraced Christianity -- numbers that could greatly increase if Christians in the West would engage much more actively in making Islam an unattractive option for those who wish for a Western connection, Western aid, Western interest, even perhaps entree into that West. There are a thousand ways to persuade people to choose Christianity over Islam -- including, in black Africa, publicizing the Arab slave trade (see "The Hideous Trade" of Hogedoorn), current enslavement of blacks in various Arab countries, the genocide in the southern Sudan and the massacres of fellow -- but black -- Muslims by Arab Muslims in Darfur. There is plenty to work with. And there are also black Africans, including some from such places as Togo and the Ivory Coast, who have had their own personal experience with Arab Muslims -- and that too should be used by a Western world, that has been far too negligent.

Really, if one wishes black Africa well, would one wish black Africa to be islamized? Of course not. So why do we not, as part of our aid, work mightily to prevent this ideology that has, everywhere it has gone, led to political, economic, social, and intellectual stagnation and disarray, from spreading further -- not only for our own (geopolitical) sakes and safety, but for those who should not be taken in, enrolled in the Army of Islam by those who essentially see them as cannon fodder for the Arab Muslim Jihad.

Despite the assertion in Conyers' absurd and transparent little bill, there are at most two, or possibly three, million Muslims in America. More than half of them are Black Muslims, and not regarded by the orthodox in the MIddle Easst, by the seminaries, as fully and completely Muslim. There was, previously, the matter of Elijah Muhammad offering himself as a Prophet. That was unacceptable to orthodox Islam. And there are still practices -- such as the use of music at gatherings of Black Muslims -- that clearly, as "cultural practices," violate the hatred for music that orthodox Islam teaches.

At most about 1% of the American population is Muslim. And 1/2 of those could be described as Muslims in the Middle-Eastern sense, people who fully adhere to the doctrines of orthodox Islam. But even among those, how many are counted by the Muslim spokesmen as Muslim, but in fact have silently dissented, droppped out, become apostates or indifferent, but are prevented from announcing this out of fear of their families and acquaintances? Anyone born into the Army of Islam is regarded as a traitor if he leaves or defects. Thus all, even those who do not any longer believe, are counted by the Muslim groups such as CAIR, for their own obvious purposes, as Muslims. But not all born into Islam wish to remain Muslim -- a good many of the Iranians in exile, for example, the Muslim Iranians, not the Jewish or Bahai Iranians, can hardly be said to have much faith in Islam -- just as in Iran itself, it is not only the Mullahs, but Islam itself, that is being called into question by some. Perhaps one will see a revival, once the current regime is overthrown, of Zoroastrianism -- if not so much out of belief, out of a desire to reassaret a separate Iranian national identity, and to get away from, even to blame, Islam as something harmful that needs, for the sake of Iran's own best interests, as something alien, an "Arab import," a vehicle of Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism. Come to think of it, that is exactly what Islam has been, and remains, and the sooner that realization comes to non-Arab Muslims, the better for them, and also for Infidels.

It would be too tiresome to run through the farrago of nonsense and lies that Conyers' proposed bill offers, but whatever happens to this absurdity, the occasion should be seized -- teach what is really in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Congressional staffs must no longer be limited to uttering pieties about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." Truths can be told without whispering. Islam is not only, or even mainly, a "religion" -- a word that apparently evokes automatic, knee-jerk respect to which not all of us believe it is entitled. And the more you learn about the theory and history of Islam, from the Infidel point of view, the less inclined you will be to genuflect, or even go salaam-salaam.

Meanwhile, on the Internt, find that Calcutta Qur'an Case, and read up. Read up. Read up.

Posted by: Hugh at June 9, 2005 10:56 AM

Hugh

Sincerely, sir, you are one of the best assets that the anti-Jihadi movement has. I wish you could institute a Washington think-tank organisation to disseminate your knowledge amongst the decision making class of America. Is there not an organisation of this type that you could participate in? You are what we need.

Posted by: Zico at June 9, 2005 11:06 AM

Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;

Well there it is , a prime example of word magick or word trickery. Peace and submission are oxymorons. Submission is slavery. Abdallah (slave to Allah). Slavery is an unnatural and oppressive condition. The human spirit always rises against it. Only the the submitted, who have been a slaves so long they think it's normal, can accept it. Because slavery and peace are in opposition to each other, they cant exist in the same time-space at the same time.
Slavery is the elimination of manhood. It is the first duty of the slave owner to remove any manhood from the slave. A man thinks and acts for himself, that means trouble, not an acceptable trait for a slave.
Muslims then are males, but not men.
The "peace", this idea calls for, is a trick.
We will have peace, when all submit to Islam, is
a lie. And all the posters here know it.
Lenins idea of peace, was when all opposition to communism ended. That was a lie also, as we found out. Only freedom retains manhood. There is no freedom in Islam, so there is no peace either, only slavery and a loss of manhood...

Conyers and others want us to repect that...
Give me something WORTHY of respect, and I will respect it...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 9, 2005 11:23 AM

As important and incouraged reading by Hugh in his last comment, this should take you to the Calcutta Quran case website.

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

Posted by: Mackie at June 9, 2005 11:26 AM

Actually, Hugh, I think it was Catherine on another thread who quoted Einstein as saying that stupidity doesn't know any limits.

If Conyers has actually read the version of the Quran distributed by CAIR in a PR campaign (can't recall if that was discussed on this site or frontpagemag.com), he would not be a proponent of the bill he has tabled. Perhaps some Michigan-based JW/DW bloggers should point this out to Mr. Conyers

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 9, 2005 12:30 PM

miira,

I don't worry too much about Conyers' Resolution. It seems to be more window dressing without teeth than anything else. The main thing that is worrying is that a Congressman should be so ignorant.

Even the most worrisome part of Conyers' Resolution, when you look at it closely, has no teeth:

"(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith"

The word "condemns" has no legal teeth. More would have to be enacted besides this Resolution to put teeth into mere "condemnation". This Resolution would just be a formal position that we, as Americans, condemn x, y and z. As such, it is an absurd Resolution.

Posted by: metaxy at June 9, 2005 12:45 PM

Hugh wrote about "the genocide in the southern Sudan and the massacres of fellow -- but black -- Muslims by Arab Muslims in Darfur"

Actually, by most accounts, the slaughterers are just as black as the victims in Darfur. What is interesting is that the slaughterers consider themselves to have more Arab blood and to have physiognomies that prove their Arab descent -- and on this account consider themselves superior -- even though an outside observer would have difficulty telling them apart, color-wise or race-wise. With the Darfur genocide (as elsewhere) we have added to the usual rapacity of Islamic Jihad the extra element of Arabic rapacity (which as we know has been a major feature of Jihad since Mohammed's Ikhwan started expanding by killing).

Posted by: metaxy at June 9, 2005 12:52 PM

These are the comments noted by miira above that are attributed to Representative Conyers in regards to those who made comments on THOMAS as well as Emails to his office. Based on his responce he sitll is not dissuaded from pursuing his resolution (HRES 288) in the House. As last noted it was on the table in the Judiciary Committee, hopefully it dies there. Representative Conyers at the time of this writing has very little support for his resolution. His current supporters on the resolution are: ---
Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. PASCRELL, and Mr. SERRANO) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

"I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both those supporting and opposing my actions. I continue to believe that given recent events, it is worthwhile for the Congress to actually express its support for the freedom of religion. The resolution was drafted to oppose all religious intolerance. To the extent it mentions the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion"

Representative John Conyers.

Posted by: Mackie at June 9, 2005 12:59 PM

The question is: how would Conyers wish the USA to express its intolerance for any "disrespect of that religion or its holy book"?

Would the USA express it merely by expressing it officially, publicly & rhetorically?

Or would the USA express it by CRIMINALIZING it?

That is the question Conyers needs to be asked, and which Conyers needs to answer.

Posted by: metaxy at June 9, 2005 1:36 PM

This piece of legislation is inherently against all that the western world stands for and it would be the gravest of mistakes for the UK to enact anything remotely designed to protect a belief system. Imagine having to lock up Britain’s greatest patriot Winston Churchill for saying:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Never more accurate statements have been written about this belief system and the UK would be well advised to protect the right of present and future Winston Churchills as opposed to protecting adherents of this belief system whose ulterior motive in seeing this law enacted is the protection of Islam from critical examination so that the Mobots have a freer reign to proselytise to the ignorant, undermine the foundations of British culture, and further their goal of the downfall of modern Europe.

I also posted this on the BBC's Have your say section of their article but I have little faith in the PCBBC of publishing my post.

Posted by: William The Crusader at June 9, 2005 1:48 PM

"I wish you could institute a Washington think-tank organisation to disseminate your knowledge amongst the decision making class of America."
- from a posting above

Nothing I would like better. Any practical suggestions? Do you know any intelligent tycoons, or baby tycoons, who sold out of Microsoft and Google, and want to do something other than buy a sports team, such as for example save the whole Western world from a threat to its very existence, to the survival of art, science, and human freedom? Isn't that worth putting some money into?

Surely there are those who might be on the verge of figuring out that their money won't provide quite as much fun in a world where Islam is a constantly-threatening presence. If you want the museums and universities and cities of Europe available not just to you, but to your children, think of what it will be like for them if the streets are full of sullen Muslims, regarding American Infidels with hatred, even murderous hatred? Then what will that European vacation be worth? Think of what could happen to the art works of Europe. Think of what could happen to the pursuit of science, to artistic expression. Think of what could happen here at home. A Eurabia, or an islamized America, will not be much fun. "There is no place for humor in Islam" wrote Ayatollah Khomeini. Boy, was he right. Those dour or sullen hijabbed faces. Those Muhammad-Atta lifeless eyes, of the True Believer. What happens when much of Europe becomes a no-go zone? And what about the United States itself? If John Conyers now dances to a Muslim tune, if with only1% of the population organized Muslim groups have managed to stymie, attack, delay, the most elementary measures undertaken for our physical and civilizational self-defense, and manages to tie the government, and the members of the media up in knots?

Kindly send suggestions to the address above as to how to proceed, or whom to contact, and if enough money can be raised (don't think that any of the mainline foundations would touch such a thing -- they won't) no one would be happier than I, to work on this stuff without constantly worrying about that damned thing called money. Infuriating in the best of times, but especially when you are tying to save the goddamn Western world, don't you agree? And while every plausible fool and charlatan has his own think-tank, or well-endowed position at one? Doubly infuriating.

Posted by: Hugh at June 9, 2005 1:48 PM

More bias from the Bleedin' Biased Corporation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4077754.stm

A head to head with the The Muslim Council of Britain and the National Secular Society. What happened to the other religions then?

All the more reason to redefine Grislam as an facist ideology not a faith.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 9, 2005 2:12 PM

Paolo: "There must be hundreds of Muslim preachers who could be recorded and taken to court for preaching hatred against other religions."

King replies: I agree! If radical Imams are known to be spewing hate under the guies of radical Islam directed at specific groups of people they ought to be covered under this law like anyone else. Hate is hate.

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 9, 2005 2:21 PM

"Duh" Swami: "Give me something WORTHY of respect, and I will respect it..."

King speaks candidly: You were given a brain at birth and that was worthy of respect until you filled your head with hate, fear & distrust.
Now look at ya! You are playing games with words, just like radical fundamentalists do, to make them mean anything you want.

You went from "Islam is from the Arabic root for peace or submission" and then you bent, contorted and interpreted your way to this gem:

"Muslims then are males, but not men.
The "peace", this idea calls for, is a trick.
We will have peace, when all submit to Islam, is
a lie. And all the posters here know it."

I can barely contain my laughter as I type this, you are such a paranoid fool.

As the saying goes: "Give them enough rope and they always hang themselves."

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 9, 2005 2:34 PM

Odd, isn't it, how there's always a steady supply of trolls available to crawl out from under rocks... ...Reza, White Queen, Shukri, Knowalot, ia786... ...and now, the very humble KingTolerance.

After a while, they all go away, whether we feed them or not.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 9, 2005 3:03 PM

If the suckers in the UK pass this ill-conceived 'tolerance' folly -they will then find out that they shall be forced to ban:

Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, The Bible, The Koran, The Torah-Talmud, and the majority of all literature dealing with faith (because all creeds are critical of one another... BY THEIR NATURE!),

And will need to require members of parliament to either go to jail -or start walking around with those S & M rubber-ball-in-mouth doo-dads... to prevent any 'hatespeech' by accident.

George Orwell must be vomiting in his grave.

In the words of a future forbidden one:

"What is wrong with priests and popes is that instead of being apostles and saints they are nothing but empirics who say "I KNOW" instead of "I AM LEARNING", and pray for credulity and inertia as wise men pray for scepticism and activity." -G.B. Shaw.

Shameless religious intolerance!

Instead, the Brits will be chanting:

Down with intelligence, inquiry and independence! Up with silence, submission and stupidity!

O yez O yes O yez!

Posted by: BigSleep at June 9, 2005 3:43 PM

Waterdragon52 huffed: "After a while, they [trolls] all go away, whether we feed them or not."

King replies: You have nothing to offer as food, that is the irony here. Your dismissal of opposing viewpoints as "trolls", as tired and used as that term may be, is testimony to your hermetically sealed mind and extreme thinking. You respond to articulate opposition like a vampire to light, hence the word "troll" is substituted for "Other side of story."

Do carry on, it displays the insecurity, paranoia and hate on which you base your position.

Lastly, if "trolls" go away and you remain, what does that have to say about your ability to "move along?"

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 9, 2005 4:07 PM

KT:

What brand of coffee-filter are you wearing? Is it Gucci or Dior?

http://www.terrorists-suck.org/fight/the_shoe_bomber.mp3

Posted by: Terminator at June 9, 2005 4:23 PM

I had posted this over on JW earlier, but since someone mentioned Conyers here I thought I'd go ahead and post it here, too.

href="http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000132.htm

Of particular interest is the second paragraph which states, “First, we have the perennial flag desecration constitutional amendment. This time, the GOP didn't even bother having a hearing, not showing much respect for the first ever amendment which would limit the first amendment.”

A man who wishes to take away our first amendment rights with HRES 288, is defending these same rights when he claims that the flag desecration amendment is a bad amendment. I just don't get it.

Posted by: Giggle-Puss the Brave at June 9, 2005 4:39 PM

Sorry I screwed up the link.

Let's try this again:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000132.htm

Posted by: Giggle-Puss the Brave at June 9, 2005 4:41 PM

KT:

"If radical Imams are known to be spewing hate under the guies of radical Islam directed at specific groups of people..."

So there should be no law against spewing hate against Islam in general, since it's not a "specific" group of people eh?

Posted by: metaxy at June 9, 2005 6:07 PM

Duh" Swami: "Give me something WORTHY of respect, and I will respect it..."

King lies candidly: You were given a brain at birth and that was worthy of respect until you filled your head with hate, fear & distrust.
Now look at ya! You are playing games with words, just like radical fundamentalists do, to make them mean anything you want.

Games with words??? What a hypocrite.
Also you have nothing of substance to say...only insults from the pit.
Why dont you pick that post apart and explain just exactly where I have gone wrong.

King falls down and hurts himself...too bad...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 9, 2005 8:55 PM

In the UK, is there any way for MP's to be impeached for violation of long-standing rights or liberties of the citizens? If so, measures should be taken against the dishonorable MP's responbsible for stuff like this. Tell them that they seem to wish to bring back the days of branding faces and cropping ears.

Bring back William Prynne!

A further strategy would be for people to use such a law against the left's clients as often as possible. They'll then start yawping about what an oppressive law it is, and call for it's removal. Maybe people could go to mosques pretending to be inquirers, listen for and tape inflammatory comments, and then present them as evidence.

Posted by: Kepha at June 9, 2005 10:10 PM

The trouble, Kepha, is that the body that would have to hand out the impeachment... is Parliament. And the MPs responsible belong to the majority party. You can see some organizational problems.

I notice with grave concern that my suggestion has been praised by 'kkin'tolerance. I take it back. There must be something wrong with it.

Posted by: Paolo at June 10, 2005 8:54 AM

"Duh" queried: "Why dont you pick that post apart and explain just exactly where I have gone wrong."

King replies: Request rejected. It would be a tremendous waste of my time and effort. I will say, however, that your hate and misunderstanding of Islam is so great and your effort to make a point so strong that you made a complete ass of yourself.

What you described above in your primitive style is basically how ALL religions have been able to subjugate their followers.

As I've said before - "Duh, Swami."

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 10, 2005 9:49 AM

Duh" queried: "Why dont you pick that post apart and explain just exactly where I have gone wrong.

"King waffles: Request rejected. It would be a tremendous waste of my time and effort. I will say, however, that your hate and misunderstanding of Islam is so great and your effort to make a point so strong that you made a complete ass of yourself.

King ducks and covers: Shows his cowardice. Insults only, nothing of substance. A Kingly cop-out. Ignorance rules supreme in Kingly world, right under that is arrogance...Supreme arrogance with no foundation. Your right, it would be a waste of your time, explaining where I went wrong...cause you cant do it...dullard...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 10, 2005 10:17 AM

My Fellow Brits;

I'm sure many of you who post here already have, but for the ones who haven't yet, I urge you to petition your MP relentlessly on this.

We have to do all we can to stop this gagging order.

Regards,
Kc

Posted by: kc England at June 10, 2005 2:35 PM

Terminator responds to KT: (Kitman & Taqiyya)

Your hysterics give you away.

Your limited ability to debate issues give you away. Your kitman/taqiyya gives you away.

You make no point. You are calling me racist without knowing what race I am.
You are calling me religious bigot without knowing whether I am religious or an atheist.
You are repeating the same lines (and lies) too often not to be a Mohammedan.
You are calling me 'xenophobic' without knowing that my family and my business spans worldwide and includes many nationalities and different races.

Your history is too selective for you not to be a Mohammedan.
Make sure you use UHU to glue your coffee-filter to your head and be sure not to fart when you prey to Mekka!

Posted by: Terminator at June 10, 2005 7:41 PM

The sad fact is that there are millions of King Tolerances in the West who are not Muslims -- they are Leftist idiots who irrationally spasm with reflex reactions whenever Islam is criticized.

Posted by: metaxy at June 11, 2005 2:02 AM

The sad fact is that there are millions of King Tolerances in the West who are not Muslims -- they are Leftist idiots who irrationally spasm with reflex reactions whenever Islam is criticized.

Posted by: metaxy at June 11, 2005 2:04 AM

It's just another nail in the coffin of free speech. The Liberal elite has been beavering away at this for years.

Posted by: londongirl at June 11, 2005 9:00 AM

This law is utterly pernicious and has been brought in by a minority Government which is seriously out of touch with the voters. The wording is such that, if someone says something that may be perceived as "offensive" - they will be prosecuted. If someone say, is carrying a bible under their arm out in the street, a Muslim might decide that's offensive and they could be facing a prosecution. We have already had a play closed down and scenes of rioting in the streets while the police stood idly by because a minority religion, the Sikkhs, decided it was offensive. I passed a stall in a market the other day where Muslims were giving out leaflets with the most extreme hatred of the West - if that is not an incitement to hatred I don't know what is. We are in the ridiculous situation where one group of people can say and do anything they like and the majority of us have to shut up.

Posted by: londongirl at June 11, 2005 9:25 AM

even most of the commenters on the BBC website were against this travesty, except the Muslims and the Galloway traitors.

Posted by: Dumbo at June 11, 2005 11:29 AM

Even some of the liberals are getting worried about this law. It's a case of chickens coming home to roost. They've worked long and hard over thirty years to undermine free speech and respect for British values and traditions. They might see themselves being bitten by the snakes in the grass that we've harboured and given safe haven to.

Posted by: londongirl at June 12, 2005 6:45 AM