Tony Blair has been a disaster for Great Britain! If he gets his way, Dhimmitude indeed it will be! We are living in very dangerous times, and Tony Blair seems not to have the foresight even to forestall the catastrophe that awaits us. On the contrary, he is bringing the catastrophe forward!

We need a strong leader: A figure of Churchillian proportions.

Posted by: Mark at October 29, 2005 10:10 AM

What will it take to shake Britains ruling elite from their Islamocoma?

The manner in which this legislation is now being railroaded through is yet another massive victory in a long line of Government surrender & appeasement for the murderous Islamofascist bastards of 7/7.

The Muslim community in Britain could not have achieved this much in 50 years of playing by the rules of democracy.

This isn't Dhimmitude or self imposed censorship - this is abject surrender.

Posted by: albion at October 29, 2005 10:26 AM

Excellent article. This paragraph speaks volumes about the blindness of multiculturalists to the obvious:

With stern illiberalism that belies their self-professed respect for other cultures and belief systems, they will continue to deny respect to the bombers who sacrifice their lives for the sake of their faith by denying them the right to define themselves. Khan and his three associates died for Islam, but Blair, Blair & Co. insist that they could do no such thing.

Similarly, when Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be 'wiped off the map', Western apologists were quick to say that he didn't really mean it. Real respect for Muslims would mean taking them at their word. If they say they want to kill us, and in the name of Allah, we should believe them and act accordingly.

Regarding the proposed legislation, which has had a major setback in the House of Lords, the danger is not so much of successful prosecutions, comedians being thrown in jail, and so forth, but of gradual stifling of the human spirit as people are reluctant to take risks in what they say or write. Self-censorship is perhaps the worst kind of censorship; certain things become unsayable and then unthinkable.

Daniel Finkelstein in The Times earlier in the week:

Of course it will. It will have an impact every time the local arts centre decides that perhaps it had better not book a certain act, or a cinema chain decides not to show a certain film, or a school decides not to hire out its hall to certain speakers. It will have an impact every time the wording of a council leaflet is changed or the local church changes its mind about the topic of its study evening.

In myriad ways, little by little, our freedom will be eroded. And most of the time we won’t even notice.

Pretty soon we’ll come to think that it was our idea, that we like it this way.

Posted by: Interested at October 29, 2005 10:41 AM

“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”

Of course, those who utilize these against Roman Catholicism will never be prosecuted...

Posted by: Dad29 at October 29, 2005 10:51 AM

An excellent essay that demonstrates how craftily Muslims employ our own institutions against us. Anything that thwarts the goals of Islam is labeled "threatening, abusive, or insulting," and those that speak or act are labeled "racist" or "Islamophobes."

Why do people tolerate this stupidity?

Posted by: epg at October 29, 2005 11:01 AM

Excellent article by Serge Trifkovic, very succinctly put; the pitfalls of this piece of legislation.
Muslims who are raised on submission to theocracy could never entertain a democratic, individualistic thought, could never respect individual human life, could never countenance the existence (let alone "right to exist") of any other creed than their seventh-century evil ideology (demonology).

Western based Muslims are becoming very adept at manipulating democratic codes and sensitivities in order to extort concessions as this bill rightly shows. They have divined our vulnerabilities and understand that carefully focused intimidation pays off.

Britains Citizens why are you dismantling your country piece by piece to appease these vermin Muslims? who are totally alien? These vermin DON'T BELONG in your land - they are ALIEN to Britain mentally, culturally, religiously. They will never change, never become British. Their ideology prohibits that. They will ALWAYS be insidious, deceiving, barbaric, seditious,corrupt Islamists. What they want, is entombed in their ideology ISLAM,which is to tear you down piece by piece and build their Islamic sharia-governed hellhole on your land. They follow a leader who was a terrorist and a pedophile

These people should not be tolerated at all in Britain. They should be driven out to the hell holes they came from .
Britain should remain British, anyone who doesn't like it or wants to assimilate, should go back to wherever they came from.

Posted by: faqi at October 29, 2005 11:56 AM

This isn't dhimmitude so much as cheapskatery. Prison sentences are a lot less expensive than round-the-clock security arrangements, and Van Gogh-style decapitations in the streets of London could be bad for business.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at October 29, 2005 1:02 PM

British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who warned over a century ago that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam:
(How true his words are in todays context).

"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. The effects are apparent in many countries. 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 paralyzes 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 proselytizing 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 civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Posted by: faqi at October 29, 2005 1:33 PM

We concern ourselves here most often with wishes of defensive measures concerning Islam and dhimmitude. We suggest writing letters to editors and politicians. We call for Muslims to leave our lands. We urge conditions that would make them leave us alone and that they would fight with each other. We seek containment, assimilation, integration, some distant hope that if only we close our eyes tight enough and wish hard enough and tap our toes together often enough that all this will go away and we'll live in the old farmhouse back in Kansas after all.

There's no place like home without Muslims.
There's no place like home without Muslims.
There's no place like home without Muslims.

Meanwhile, back at the reality ranch.

Girls can't walk to school without risk of beheading; children can't study without risk of being blown to pieces; people can't go to church; can't sit on a tube train; can't sit in an office tower; can't dance at a nightclub; can't sit in a cafe; can't walk, talk; or live at all without the gnawing feeling that the guy over there might blow up and kill us all.

When our own governments take the side of our enemies, those who literally murder us, (no kidding,) those who kill people in London-- transit users in the morning; when our governments shried hysterically in defense of killers, then it's time to rearrange our thinking caps.

Posted by: sonofwalker at October 29, 2005 1:43 PM

I oppose this bill for all of the reason articulated in the article and here on the board. But while Tony Blair may appear to be a dhimmi at times, he is also no dummy. Notwithstanding his wife's allegiance to the dark forces of Islam due to her solicitous role in the human rights racket in the UK, I do believe that the PM recognizes the imminent danger to British society of unreformed Islam. I wonder if Tony is not using a bit of misdirection here to facilitate the prosecution of those who would use the Qur'an to disseminate Mohammed's rabid hatred of infidels and the call to violence that must necessarily follow. In practice, all a Muslim would have to do is read aloud or sanctify sura 9 to justify a swift prosecution under this law. Wouldn't it be entertaining to see British police swoop down on prayer services in process at mosques and madrassas, making mass arrests of the faithful.

Posted by: Charles Martel at October 29, 2005 1:49 PM

Wouldn't it be entertaining to see British police swoop down on prayer services in process at mosques and madrassas, making mass arrests of the faithful.

But would that actually happen? In theory, the UN could support Israel and condemn Syria and Iran. But do they?

Only the Muslims wanted this law. The Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans and the Druids haven't petitioned for it. Even the Satanists don't seem to mind the fact that everyone disses their unholy prophet.

Posted by: 1630r at October 29, 2005 2:21 PM

I wonder if Tony is not using a bit of misdirection here to facilitate the prosecution of those who would use the Qur'an to disseminate Mohammed's rabid hatred of infidels and the call to violence that must necessarily follow.

Charles, I have had occasion in the past to appreciate your knowledgeable summing up of a situation. I dearly hope you are right again about this one.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 29, 2005 3:41 PM

1630 r

I agree that the most likely raison d'etre for the bill and its most likely outcome is to protect Islam in the UK from the undressing it deserves. Blair and his political cronies have made this apparent in their other appeasement efforts to secure the Muslim vote. But there may be more here than meets the eye. There is nothing to say that at some point -- perhaps under a future government or in more desperate times -- the bill will not provide legal fodder to mute and neuter aggressive Muslims living in the UK and thus create space for reformers to come forward without the fear of reprisal.

Given what we know about Da'wa, jihad, dhimmitude, and the demographic realities, the West has only two options for dealing with its growing Muslim populations:

1) mass deportations, or

2) create conditions under which Muslims are increasingly under economic, political, social, and legal pressure to reject militancy, reform their religious beliefs -- which necessarily includes allegorizing the Qur'an -- and ideally, assimilate.

The first option is untenable at the moment so responsible politicians should be working toward bringing to bear as much pressure as possible to force the alternative. One way to accomplish this is to clean out the hornet's nest of every imam, every intellectual, every writer who obstructs reformation via a fundamental (literal) reading of the Qur'an and/or uses incitement or intimidation to sustain the 1,350 year-old status quo. I'm not predicting it will happen but the incitement bill could be -- should be -- used to accomplish this.

Posted by: Charles Martel at October 29, 2005 4:08 PM

Granny Weatherwax

Fortunately, since we still live in dar al-harb, we can still do thought experiments. :-D

Posted by: Charles Martel at October 29, 2005 4:22 PM

Just another step on the way to Eurabia, a Europe at peace with itself.

From al-Reuters

Youths riot for second night in Paris suburb

Hundreds of French youths fought with police and set cars ablaze in a Paris suburb on Saturday in a second night of rioting which media said was triggered when two teenagers were electrocuted while fleeing police.

The teenagers were killed and a third seriously injured on Thursday night when they were electrocuted in an electricity sub station as they ran away from police investigating a break-in, media reported.

Firefighters intervened around 40 times on Friday night in the northeastern suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois where many of the 28,000 residents are immigrants, mainly from Africa, [ al-Reuters code for Muslim -Ed.]police and fire officers said.

Unidentified youths fired a shot at police but no one was hurt, police said.

"It's not normal that these two die like that," one teenage boy wearing a hooded sweatshirt told French television, referring to the two dead boys, which media identified as 15-year-old Banou and 17-year-old Ziad.

Posted by: Lisa at October 29, 2005 4:58 PM

Trifkovic's article links to thiis.

A Churchillian Perspective on September 11

http://www.ashbrook.org/articles/hayward-churchill.html

An absolute must read.

Posted by: DP111 at October 29, 2005 6:12 PM

And ofcourse I hope everyone has read The River War. It can be downloaded from the Gutenberg library free of charge.

Posted by: DP111 at October 29, 2005 6:14 PM

Charles
I have never stared at a goat, but my evil eye has freaked numerous men, at least two cats and a civil service training camcorder.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 29, 2005 6:48 PM

Granny Weatherwax - here you are at my local Pub Theatre. Click on 'Now Showing'.

Quite scary, aren't you?

Like the hat, though. The play very funny, by the way, so I may read some Terry Pratchett now.

Posted by: Interested at October 29, 2005 7:09 PM

The battle at Omdurman is a good example of what I mean when I write that victory doesn't come from claiming it, as our own have done in Iraq, nor even from the enemy claiming we have won, surrendering, begging for mercy: victory comes when the enemy claims they are us. In other words, the enemy no longer see themselves as the enemy at all but as part of the victorious group who beat the bad side.

The Madhi's warriors lost roughly 60,000 men in the battle, and many of the survivors died shortly thereafter. Too bad war is too bad. The fact is that war is very hard, and there's no way of making it less than bad. The foolishness of trying to fight a sensitive New Age war is madness, killing and maiming people for no purpose rather than for the strict purpose of utterly defeating them to the point they are us. To simply swat them down in the hope that eventually they'll realize they can't win is to prolong the agony on all sides, and then to be faced with the inevitable massive destruction that would have been sufficient in the first place, saving lives in the process.

To drop bombs on villages with excellent pinpoint accuracy, killing exactly the man wanted and leaving his tea cup undamaged, that is madness and goes against the whole point of destroying ones enemy: They who cannot see the enemy face-to-face do not go down in defeat to the victor but to forces from Heaven, mysteries, ghosts, and technology-- not to men. Any nation we defeat militarily by force of superior technology is a nation that lost not to us but to our fancy gadgets, a thing any fool could win a war with. So what is lost? Nothing at all but lives and property. Not the war against the enemy because the enemy did not win, his machines did.

We lose our wars because we do not overwhelm our enemies and drag them into the town squares and hang them and burn their bodies in front of the villagers. If the enemy does not see our face and know our strength from his own horrible experience of our wrath, he has learned nothing other than that our machines are strong and that if he can get his hands on some he can defeat us.

If you beat a man to the ground and cut off his arm and parade it around the town while you scream for others to test you in battle you won't find any takers. You will be for generations the talk of the village, a hero who won, a man never to be fought again. But if you drop a bomb on a house and knock a man down and blow off his arm he and the rest of his own will hate you forever.

The Sudanese didn't make a move on the West for nearly 100 years after the last battle we had with them, and now we can't make them stop no matter how many UN resolutions we pass on them.

That's life. We either take it as it is or we die.

Posted by: sonofwalker at October 29, 2005 7:17 PM

Interested
Definitely try some Pratchet; Lancre is inspired by your neck of the woods.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 29, 2005 7:35 PM

Sonofwalker

I posted this on LGF over three years ago.

I believe the US war terror is at the moment going nowhere. In fact Islamic groups are beginning to get the message that violent mass terrorism actually pays dividends. They may get a few bombs in return, but the West will more then make up for it in financial and other aid. All in all, they are winning. Despite the toppling of the Taleban and Al-Qaeda, the Islamic world sees that it is winning. The evidence for this is that it is not the Islamic world that is moderating its stance, but the West. We are almost suing for peace. Why should this be so? The obvious answer is that we are in a state of asymmetric war, which the Islamic world has inflicted on us. Al-Qaeda and other groups both informal and organised should be seen as the shock troops of Islam. For that is how the Islamic world sees them, and quite naturally applauds their acts and hides them in their fold from our wrath. One issue that has not been analysed in any depth is asymmetric warfare. It has been commented on that in an asymmetric war the enemy exploits its opponents own technology (planes, trains, trucks, automobiles and computers) and uses it against us. Maybe. But the main reason that allows asymmetric warfare against to succeed is that we ourselves have tied our own hands. One, if not the main principles of the Islamic war against is that, infidels should be converted or killed, but it must not lead to significant harm of the Islamic Umma. And we in the West have made it abundantly clear that we will go to absurd lengths to avoid any harm to the Umma. Thus the way is clear for the continued prosecution of this war. We will continue to sustain massive civilian casualties, with no reciprocal harm to the Islamic world. Worse, we will have to sacrifice our open society. Meanwhile the Jihadis though will gain access to a licentious paradise in the sky. Its win-win all the way.

The civilised world needs to come up with response better then the current one. If Winston Churchill, the greatest of wartime leaders in modern times, was alive and in power today, I’m fairly certain what his response would have been. We could do a lot worse.

Posted by: DP111 at October 29, 2005 8:29 PM

The problem in Europe and the US is that we continue to believe that all cultures are equivalent, and all prescribe to a tolerant outlook on others. We (our political elites), seem to adamantly reject the idea that certain cultures cannot be assimilated, or even want to assimilate, as a kind of rejection of our values, which we believe to be Universal in their scope. These Western values of individual freedom may well be universal from most perspectives, but muslims also fervently believe that their values are universal, while being divine as well, and as such, having greater force then our own. So we continue to tolerate the intolerant in the hope they will become like us, when all around, islamists are shouting as loud as they can, that they reject democracy, liberalism and all Western principles, as against allah's law.

As long as we continue to reject reality, Islamic penetration of Europe and America will continue with increasing pace as muslim populations increase. It seems we cannot and will not accept that any "other" could or would refuse our "universal values". And by the time we realise it, it may well be too late. We seem unable to recognise that other people have a different set of values which they hold dear just as we do ours.

It is far better to let different cultures live separately, then to force them to live together. If we continue on this road, I fear a civil war of the most unimaginable horror in the West, far worse then WWII (which was a civil war initially), fanning to a global civil war. I cannot bear the thought of such a war in the 21st century.

It is said, "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad ". I dont think the gods have to go as far as that these days. All they have to do is to make our elites willfully blind and deaf.

Posted by: DP111 at October 29, 2005 8:38 PM

I just pray this Bill does not get passed. They have already got some weird law in Victoria ,Australia like this. In the other Australian states you call Islam for what it is, but not in Victoria.

I hope and pray that Britain does not become Britanistan.

Posted by: Pom Pom at October 30, 2005 1:17 AM

Only now, reluctantly, is the British press starting to write that the Birmingham riots last weekend were race riots and that the principle hate mongers were Asians/Muslims against the Afro-Caribbean community.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1604591.00.html

Now that these people have started to harass other ethnic minorities as well as the native community for which they have always expressed open disdain, perhaps our leaders might wake up and smell the coffee about the virulent and vicious nature of this religion. The kind of hate being spewed about Afro-Caribbean people would have resulted in prosecutions for white people.

Posted by: londongirl at October 30, 2005 4:09 AM

sorry, the link doesn't work but it's on the front page of today's Observer.

Posted by: londongirl at October 30, 2005 4:10 AM

Astute commentary walker, we are failing to put the absolute fear into our enemies, the kind of fear that makes a man quail at the thought of testing us.

A strong policy of 'get along with us and we will get along with you' is in order here, and make the consequences for failing to do so severe. Let these savages know that its time to join the 21st century, if not then we will treat them like the 10th century barbarians they currently are.

I like the British approach that was used in Afghanistan; wrapping the bodies of enemy soldiers in pigskins before they were buried. This had a profound effect on the local populations. These islamic fascists need to be hurt in the very heart of their existence, their religion; notice how the islamic world recoiled when two Taliban bodies were burned recently.

The Israelis as well know how to deal with the terrorists by going after the leaders. Whenever Israel targets the terrorist leadership, the attacks stop because the cowards arent willing to blow themselves up to achieve the destruction of Israel. The Syrian and Iranian leadership would do well to see some of their members go up in smoke every now and then, it might just change the tune of the survivors.

Let them know that savagery will be met with savagery and that we have the greater capability of delivering it. You behead one of ours, we burn one of yours. You burn one of ours, we bury one of yours under a pigsty. You send a bus or subway bomber, we level a city block in your capital.

The terrorists and their government supporters only respect strength, they ridicule us for our mercy. Its time to show them that we have plenty of strength, that we are more than willing to use it and that they have no idea how savage we can be when provoked.

Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at October 30, 2005 10:36 AM

Spencer's site is dedicated to the educative, and rightly so. He recoils from writings on violence and retaliation against Islamic atrocities, also rightly so. His site, his books, articles, and public presentations in person all focus on educating the public to the history and the dangers of jihad. He urges us often to think and act strategically.

On that note I'm going to back away from any further comments on the nature of practical action, that kind of commentary leading too often to vague and unpleasant writings that do none of us any good and that upset our host.

Personally, I don't come close to being the man Spencer is. I'm my own kind of man instead, and I respect Spencer and his desire to keep within his guidelines here. I write my own pieces at a blog anyone is welcome to peruse, and there one may write on topics outside the focus of this site.

Sunday evening I'll post a note on a discussion we had here on why there is no citizens' military force among Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews united against jihad. You're welcome to join in once it's up, or you may join in to read about the background of our multi-culti/ hobbie-commie Left governance, apparently not too exciting a topic.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com

Posted by: sonofwalker at October 30, 2005 11:12 AM

Faqi: With all due respect to the memory of Winston Churchill, I think Maoism has outdone even Islam as a retrograde force--and that tells you what I think of the mummified Chairman. May we live to see the day when his corpse gets publicly cut up to make longevity pills.

Posted by: Kepha at October 30, 2005 7:34 PM

The utter stupidity of this bill would be the subject of comedy routines were its contents, and its consequences, not so utterly serious. Here we have an elected government deciding to abolish one of the cornerstones of western civilization. Free speech is one of the most powerful tools that the lowly individual citizens have to keep an imperialist power, with its imperialist ideology, in check. The imperialist ideology on the rise of course is Islam, and if it is allowed to continue to propagate in Britain, the imperialist power of Islam will follow and will make further inroads. This bill, if approved, will be yet another victory for the Islamists whom Blair, out of the other side of his mouth, condemns. It is giving victory not to those threatened by fundamentalist Islam, but to the fundamentalist Islamists themselves. The bill punishes honest critics, and rewards those who make and carry out threats. Out of all the various faiths, only Islam today insists on harsh penalties including execution of its critics. Only fundamentalist Islamists are so insecure about the moral validity of their core doctrines that they wish to try to enlist the powers of the state to repress critics. These fundamentalists
want half-baked legislation to replace their half-baked (and failed) apologetics.

According to this bill, people who wish to honestly criticize hate will be charged with hate. The only thing more foolish than that is the fact that those who criticize the "religion of peace" can still be threatened and indeed attacked by the proponents of the religion of peace.

So while Blair plays the clown with this absurdity, it appears now the job of national security and the preservation of the cornerstone of western civilization is on the shoulders of comedians like Rowan Atkinson. Atkinson eloquently described what western politicians are too cowardly and irresponsible to state. He identified that the true motivation for this censorship bill comes "...from individuals with a more aggressive, fundamentalist agenda, those who have sought, from the very day of the publication in 1989 of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, to immunise religions against criticism and ridicule—or at least to promote legislation that is so sinister and intimidating, it can provide that immunity without even the need to prosecute anyone. In other words, to impose self-censorship."

Blair, get up and defend the rights and freedoms of your citizens, or else resign and let a more courageous and responsible person--like, say, Mr. Bean--take over the helm.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 31, 2005 12:05 AM