More Muslim officers as opposed to regular white people? Isn't this almost exactly what I was joking about in that imaginary future news article of mine?

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 18, 2006 5:55 PM

PD so that Muslims will gain the support of the police... They will then lose the support of everyone else. And think about this. Every terrorist in the UK will be joining up, every "clean skin". You then report a terrorist, the police will have you on record as an informer, the terrorists will also have access to that information and would you want that?

Avoid alienating the Muslim community, alienate everyone else.

positive discrimination is discrimination, if a potential officer is a non Muslim he or she is discriminated against. If a crime victim is a non Muslim he or she will also be discriminated against, that is fact.

Posted by: IceDragon at June 18, 2006 5:57 PM

While most Muslim leaders in canada are claiming the Toronto 17 Jihadists haven't been proven guilty yet, they all agree that the RCMP,CSIS,and Local Police need to hire more Muslims to undo the damage to youth that make them turn to violence and Jihadists doctrine.

So basically, the Toronto 17 are presumed innocent and Islam has no link, BUT we better have hiring quotas for Muslims to stop future
innocent terror cells that haven't been convicted yet.
This is just another scam to get inside the Security Dept.'s to tip of Al-Qaeda and look for holes in Security to aid and abet Jihad in canada.

Posted by: ala-sux at June 18, 2006 6:02 PM

it will get much worse before it gets better..

unhappily, many people will have to fight, in their own neighborhoods

Christendom will not roll over and die

Posted by: charleston at June 18, 2006 6:04 PM

'Or will these favored police applicants be subjected to searching questioning about their views on jihad and Sharia? Don't hold your breath.'

Makes no difference whatsoever...........ask them anything. whatever questions are asked, 'taquiya' can be deployed and explain away any awkward questions..

Posted by: wakeupmorpheus at June 18, 2006 6:21 PM

Mr. Spencer-

An English poster on DW recenttly questioned whether I was a super-subtle Muslim troll -for comments similar to yours leading into this article. E.G.- "..headlong rush to suicide..." etc.

Mistaking my castigation of the self-castrating British press [the topic of the article/thread] for a crude condemnation of the lack of manhood of all Brits.

Must I now assume you are the cleverest Muslim troll in history?

And what have you got against the Brits?

A bit Anglophobic?

As Winston Churchill said:

"There is at least one thing worse than fighting with allies,- and that is to fight without them."

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 18, 2006 6:31 PM

as Britain continues its headlong rush to suicide.

Headlong rush to judgement, perhaps.

Posted by: Interested at June 18, 2006 6:38 PM

"....will also warn that it cannot be taken for granted that Muslim communities will put up with anti-terror searches indefinitely."
-- from the article above

Really? "Muslim communities" may refuse to "put up with anti-terror searches"? How are those communities doing so far in pulling out, root and branch, those who preach or plot or participate in violent acts, or other acts intended to insure that someday Islam dominates in England, and Muslims rule, with all that that implies for the rights, the laws, the customs, the art, the literature, the music, the everything that was created in England, by the English and the Welsh and the Scottish and the Irish and the Norman French and others, including Jews, and black residents of the Caribbean or of West or East or south Africa, or Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists and Confucians and all kinds of others, who have accepted, and participated in, and certainly not been inculcated with the idea that they must do away with, and then replace, the English and England or, rather, Great Britain. Only one group has failed to fit in in such an obvious way. And for some reason, that same group remains the odd man out, in France and Sweden, in Denmark and Germany, in Spain and Italy, in Belgium and Australia, everywhere its adherents have been allowed to settle.

So what is it exactly? It can't be a problem with the English alone, for the same difficulties are seen in France. It can't be a problem with the French alone, because the same problem can be seen in Denmark. It can't be a problem in Denmark alone, because the same problem can be seen in Australia. What oh what could it be?

Posted by: Hugh at June 18, 2006 7:11 PM

"....will also warn that it cannot be taken for granted that Muslim communities will put up with anti-terror searches indefinitely."
-- from the article above

Really? "Muslim communities" may refuse to "put up with anti-terror searches"? How are those communities doing so far in pulling out, root and branch, those who preach or plot or participate in violent acts, or other acts intended to insure that someday Islam dominates in England, and Muslims rule, with all that that implies for the rights, the laws, the customs, the art, the literature, the music, the everything that was created in England, by the English and the Welsh and the Scottish and the Irish and the Norman French and others, including Jews, and black residents of the Caribbean or of West or East or south Africa, or Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists and Confucians and all kinds of others, who have accepted, and participated in, and certainly not been inculcated with the idea that they must do away with, and then replace, the English and England or, rather, Great Britain. Only one group has failed to fit in in such an obvious way. And for some reason, that same group remains the odd man out, in France and Sweden, in Denmark and Germany, in Spain and Italy, in Belgium and Australia, everywhere its adherents have been allowed to settle.

So what is it exactly? It can't be a problem with the English alone, for the same difficulties are seen in France. It can't be a problem with the French alone, because the same problem can be seen in Denmark. It can't be a problem in Denmark alone, because the same problem can be seen in Australia. What oh what could it be?

Posted by: Hugh at June 18, 2006 7:11 PM

Dont worry folks this is Trevor Phillips

and he only has Tony Blairs ear alongside the Muslim council of Britain (wtf is that about and where's my Non muslim council of Britain)plus of course although completely unelected he also has the power of the law on his side

anyway Mr Phillips is the same man responsible for Positive Discrimination for everybody BUT white people and made the news a few years ago for keeping back a few hundred suitable qualified Whiteys in favour of dragging non whites whom he saw fast tracked......then fail dismally through corruption and a high leaving rate

He's also the very same Trevor Phillips that since he made top job at the C.R.E. spent countless years selling multiculturalism to every briton with prison in case we questioned it, only to later have to stand in front of the media and state Multiculturalism doesnt work

in short the guys a failure, but worryingly he has powerful connections mainly to the left of politics (possibly gained through the runnymead trust association years)

only ray of light for this story is the Commission for Race Equality to whom Trevor Phillips is chief is soon to be scrapped

My only other concern is that it at this rate is liable to be replaced by the Commission for Muslim Dominance and chaired by a retired Dhimmi Blair, and enforced by an all shariah mainly muslim police force

oh well, i guess my country has sold out, nothing to do now beyond waiting till the blood spills in the streets

Posted by: Taranus at June 18, 2006 7:12 PM

Mr Phillips, a former head of the National Union of Students, will also warn that it cannot be taken for granted that Muslim communities will put up with anti-terror searches indefinitely.

We saw exactly this happen in Paris months ago, when Muslims started rioting after the cops chased a couple of Muslim suspects and they accidentally got electrocuted.

And we used to see exactly this happen with ghetto blacks in the U.S. in the 1960's: "Those white honky pig cops just beat up one of our brothers! Let's tear up this white honky city! Kill whitey! Burn, baby, burn!"
The reason for all of these riots was the same: An indulgent liberal government, that kept rationalizing away political violence as the product of: poverty, racism, Islamophobia, unemployment, "despair," you name it, rather than cracking down on it as an unacceptable way to solve society's problems. Political violence didn't stop until the government made it clear that political violence would no longer be appeased with any more handouts and favors. It's the same old story. If you appease it, you get more of it.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 18, 2006 7:57 PM

Taranus writes: "oh well, i guess my country has sold out, nothing to do now beyond waiting till the blood spills in the streets."

If, as I believe likely, Britain follows the same course as the U.S. urban riots did in the 1960's, this is what I foresee. I will put in brackets the American equivalents from the 1960's, so you can see the parallel:

Yes, political violence by Muslims, including erupting in riots every time a Muslim is arrested by the police, is liable to continue. Putting Muslims on the force will NOT stop this. [In the U.S. even when black officers arrested a black man, the ghetto blacks rioted anyway. To them, a black cop was just a sellout--an "Uncle Tom."]

Support for a far-right-wing crackdown will grow, and the British National Party [American Independent Party] will become much more popular, to the point that it becomes a viable political force.

Seeing an opportunity, the Tories will nominate a real hard-line government [Richard Nixon] that will crack down on Islamist violence. And eventually, that platform will win. And violence will be suppressed, but civil liberties will be curtailed.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 18, 2006 8:16 PM

Steven L. writes: "Seeing an opportunity, the Tories will nominate a real hard-line government [Richard Nixon] that will crack down on Islamist violence. And eventually, that platform will win. And violence will be suppressed, but civil liberties will be curtailed."

Richard Nixon, of course, was a liberal who imposed wage and price controls, establshed racial preferences (known by the Orwellian tern "affirmative action"), and appointed liberals to the judicial bench. David Cameron is another liberal, just as bad as Tony Blair. The tories are a lost cause, and civil liberties are already serverely curtailed in the quasi-totalitarian regime headed by Blair and his ilk. Britain is a place where one can be arrested for saying something politically incorrect in the course of a private conversation, after all.

Trevor Phillips is a traitor to the British people, as is Blair and the entire British ruling elite. They all deserve to hang - literally. That will never happen, though. With an electorate and a disarmed populace thoroughly indoctrinated in self-hate, passivism and dhimmitude, a future Islamic state in place of the present UK is most likely inevitable absent a huge uprising to topple the treasonous ruling elites. The Queen will eventually be replaced by a caliph. Apart from Griffin and the BNP, there's no one left there who even has a clue about what's going on.

Posted by: Carolus at June 18, 2006 10:29 PM

Positive discrimination? Has that old racist hag Sandra Day O'Connor taken up practice in England?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at June 18, 2006 11:30 PM

Those who favour positive discrimination miss a very important point: if people are employed on their merits, and those merits, as they should, include qualities such as being nonracist, treating everyone equally (in the police's case, that means the people they have to help/suspect/investigate/arrest and so on), and a Muslim has these good qualities, then he/she will be employed. Another point is that having positive discrimination, and the fact that those who are being forced to use it know there is positive discrimination, means that they'll probably resent it, and, even if they don't, any decision they make on recruitment in the light of that positive-discrimination policy will have been taken because of that policy and not because they genuinely believe in being fair to all comers. So no positive discrimination, please. It's a contradiction in terms.

Posted by: AndyA at June 19, 2006 6:09 AM

If Muslims will only deal with Muslim police, that is why they want more Muslim police then non Muslims should thus refuse to deal with Muslim police officers. Everyone has their own police service then.

Posted by: IceDragon at June 19, 2006 12:49 PM

"Everyone has their own police service then."

Exactly. And nothing would make the Muslims happier than this. A boa constrictor analogy is apt. The snake constricts further with every relaxation of the victim's diaphragm. When the UK system yields an inch, the snake adapts, squeezes even harder, and prepares to squeeze even further with each small capitulation of the victim. Since the victim must breath, the snake knows it will eventually exploit that need to its ultimate advantage. The victim can only die and be eaten whole.

Just so, our political system requires accommodation, compromise, flow -- this is the way we politically breath in our society -- but our system was never was designed to contend with an enemy who is content to slowly strangulate it, with the design to ultimately kill it and remove the very process of political breathing. Muslims are only interested in our political process to further their agenda to destroy that same political system. Their sole goal is to eventually supplant our political process with their deadness. In the end, with Islam getting stronger, and we, axiomatically getting weaker, our political breathing process is doomed unless we completely throw off the snake. Accommodating the snake in ANY fashion will inevitably lead to death by the snake.

Through this lens I find some fault with StevenL.'s comparison to 1960's blacks in America:

1. While some blacks were, no doubt, interested in completely subverting or destroying the US system, I believe the vast majority of blacks were interested in gaining access to the mechanisms of that infrastructure. In so doing they hoped to join the system, not to subvert or destroy it. This is hardly the ultimate goal of the Muslims.

2. The Muslim situation is far unlike the plight of blacks in the US. There's no likelihood that Muslims would adopt a true non-violent pathway as proposed by Martin Luther King. Further, we should not wish for this eventuality anyway. Their intentions aren't to join, but to destroy. Muslim terrorism works for Islamic goals only. MLK mainly proposed a non-violent pathway because he recognized the likelihood that blood would flow in the streets and that ultimately blacks would be annihilated if they embarked on a project to destroy America. Further, blacks had no hope of overcoming the USA through demographics, and had no hope of salvation through overwhelming the US with massive inflows of black immigrants to our shores. Their only legitimate option to gain access was through non-violent resistance -- all other pathways would have led to their extinction. MLK's pathway was the only genuine way for them to advance their cause, whereas violence and non-participation only serve to further Muslim goals to ultimately destroy us.

3. Blacks had legitimate claims and grievances, and every right to demand their human dignity and rights be honored in the US. Claims by evil Muslims or whiney illegal Mexicans claim their "civil rights" under the banner of 20th Century black suffrage is odious and false. They have no similar claims, and such conflations should infuriate every white and black American to the point of frenzy. Muslims were never enslaved here. Muslims haven't helped to build our system for 500 years. Muslims are insinuating themselves among us with no intention of joining or strengthening the American fabric, but to destroy and weaken if for the benefit of Islam. They come here free and are given rights and privileges freely, they are free to practice their "religion", free to speak out, to do anything they want within our system. Their complaints are simply ploys to steal from blacks and white and to further Islam in so doing.

I do agree, however, that once again we will witness the non-democratic aristocrats in Europe force their populations towards extremist right wing formulations to finally confront the Muslim hordes. I am only now grasping the anti-democratic nature of Europe which has ALWAYS prevailed there. The Cold War helped to paper over their deficiencies since Europe has never sufficiently purged its non-democratic royalist tendencies. Even after all the decapitations of kings and internecine wars, they still suffer from the same plagues they have always suffered from: sectarian strife, political disconnects between the people and their greedy power mad overlords. Perhaps the European project isn't worth saving after all -- it has consistenly harbored and nurtured the most dangerous social pathogens which haunt the world.

Europe has given us Communism, Nazism, commie-light Socialism, and now the mother of all nightmares: the compendium of those three horrors under the guise of "religion" -- Radical Fascist Islam.

Would we care in the slightest if Muslims were slaughtering each other with wild abandon in their own domains if they weren't present in huge numbers in our own? Would we be under any real existential threat from them if they didn't inhabit our domain?

If there were no Muslims in Canada, the USA, and Europe -- or so few not to matter, then we would be not be under existential threat. But today we see how hosting densities as low as .5% as in the US can pose dangers so grave that our very future may be in question.

Islam's presence in our domain is a seriously toxic poison AND self replicating disease which can spread its necrosing toxins within our system at will. No other enemy could bring all these horrors together in one package -- none except Islam.

The totalitarianism of Communism. The hatred of Nazism and an even more voracious need for scapegoats. Even more economic anti-progressive forces than socialism and communism. Anti-Science. Anti-Humanism. Anti-everything the West has come to stand for. They also add the most virulent malignant religious forces to the mix, as if it wasn't already bad enough.

We've NEVER faced an enemy like this. Analogies and comparisons all eventually fail when trying to explain or model the true dangers Islam poses to our domain.

Posted by: jsla at June 19, 2006 7:42 PM