Tired and Emotional

It can only get worse

Twitter

The Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition’s (1989) first definitions for twitter as a noun or verb are:

  • Noun: A condition of twittering or tremulous excitement (from eager desire, fear, etc.); a state of agitation; a flutter, a tremble. Now chiefly dialect.
  • Verb: Of a bird: To utter a succession of light tremulous notes; to chirp continuously with a tremulous effect.

Although I’m sure the social networking and micro-blogging website Twitter will soon come to supplant these avian-linked definitions.

What is it about Twitter that I despise? I think it’s the sheer banality of the vast majority of its output — who cares what someone else is doing ‘right now’. I don’t and anyone with a modicum of sense wouldn’t either.

If you are one of the faceless majority, neither rich or famous, then I hate to break it to you but you really don’t matter that much. If you are rich or famous then the less publicity for you the better.

The best thing to do is avoid it — and Facebook — like the plague. I have and feel so much better for it: I know my true worth.

Advertisements

A Return To Blogging?

Whilst reading through my routine daily blogs that I subscribe to, I remembered this blog and wondered if it still existed — obviously it did. What was more amazing was that I remembered my login so hence this test post. The bile has accumulated over the last few years spent away from blogging so I might give it another try.

One things for sure — the NHS hasn’t got any better. Read the rest of this entry »

The Islamisation of Britain

dairy_damage203.jpg

The recent ‘disturbances’ in Windsor have been reported by the mainstream media as unprovoked attacks on a local Dairy owned and run by Muslims. This makes little sense and some searching of the news sources on Google leads one to a better appreciation of the reasons for the recent violence. The national newspapers give little space to the underlying problems in this area, the most egregious example being this report from the Guardian:

A Muslim-owned dairy has been targeted by youths over three nights in a campaign of harassment culminating in a petrol bombing, a worker said.

The Medina in Windsor, Berkshire, has suffered at the hands of local youths who have been targeting staff for the past three nights, the unnamed worker claimed.

He said the youths would gather in gangs of up to 30 and throw stones and hurl abuse at staff working at the dairy late at night.

Police have been patrolling the area since Monday when the attacks started, he said.

But on Wednesday night an attacker riding a motorbike threw a home-made petrol bomb at the dairy’s perimeter wall.

So that’s it then, the unwritten theme being one of nasty, racist locals inflicting violence on hard-working Muslims just going about their daily business. Except, of course, it isn’t.

From icBerkshire, however, we can gain a somewhat fuller understanding of the situation. From Pitchforks and a bomb — Windsor’s week of violence the violence started five days ago as follows:

The woman, a secretary from Dedworth who did not want to be named, had gone to check on her 15-year-old son after he had been involved in a previous altercation with men at the dairy.

She said: “Before I had chance to think, there were 20 men coming from the Islamic centre, charging at me and my daughter with pitchforks, baseball bats, lead pipes and blow-torches. One of them hit me on the back of the legs with a lead pipe.

“I told my daughter ‘we have to get out of here otherwise we are going to die’.”

Then the gang allegedly turned on a car now known to belong to the daughter and used pitchforks and other weapons, including a grease gun she later handed to the Express, to smash the car window and body-work.

From this original incident the violence escalated. However, this is not the end of the story as tensions have been present for some time, as clear from the article:

There are accusations that members of staff from Medina Dairy have been intimidating people as they cut through Shirley Avenue from the recreation ground next to St Edward’s Royal Free Ecumenical Middle School.

Lorna Habgood, a mother of two, from Dedworth said: “The security guards from the dairy are aggressive and abusive to mums collecting their kids from school. They won’t let anyone down Shirley avenue because they say it’s their land.”

But why would a Muslim consider public roads — Shirley Avenue and Vale Road — ‘their land’? This passage from the article gives us a clue:

Further anger has erupted over Medina Dairy’s application for an ‘Islamic education and community centre’ in one of their buildings in Shirley Avenue.

Now it seems outrage has hit boiling point with the property already being used as a prayer room without hearing the outcome of the application to use it as one.

One of the principles if Islam is that Islamic law stipulates that Muslims possess by right any land that forms part of the House of Islam and thus we can see the probable motive: the growing Islamisation of the local area leading to increasing confidence in the ‘security guards’ to impose their local version of Islamic control. While I condemn all the violence unreservedly this is what happens when Muslims who, in all liklihood, respect sharia law more than the Law of this land and are allowed to usurp planning laws and local customs.

This seems like a local, unfortunate incident except when viewed in the wider context provided by Patrick Sookhdeo in the Sunday Telegraph article, The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state:

‘Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically non-religious laws. They believe it must be the dominant religion – and it is their aim to achieve this.

“That is why they do not believe in integration. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future – and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate.

“Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on.”

That plan, says Dr Sookhdeo, is being followed in Britain. “That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities – which will be backed up by the claim that it is “racist” or “Islamophobic” or “violating the rights of Muslims” to deny them sharia law.

The Windsor riots, along with the Pc Basha affair ealier this week and the call for sharia law to Ruth Kelly earlier this year, are part of a very disturbing but stealthy campaign.

A Disgrace To The Uniform

uniform.jpg

By now I’m sure you have heard about the case of Pc Alexander Omar Basha who was given special dispensation to be excused guarding the Israeli Embassy after having expressed concerns about the safety of his relatives in Lebanon.

Do you think the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary behaved in the same way during the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland? Of course not, Basha’s real reason was that he was a Muslim who did not want to carry out his orders. He’s a disgrace to the uniform.

The Islamic Revolution

riots-francegif.jpg

The Telegraph reports on the problems that the French police are having with Islamic militants in the ghettos:

Radical Muslims in France’s housing estates are waging an undeclared “intifada” against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day. As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were “in a state of civil war” with Muslims in the most depressed “banlieue” estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.

It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.

Britain tomorrow will not be spared what is occurring in France today.

The CRE’s Commissioners

My prior post on Ruth Kelly and the newly created Commission on Integration and Cohesion led me to wonder about the composition of both this commission’s and the Commission For Racial Equality’s governing body. While the CIC is a fixed-term, advisory body the CRE has legal powers to enforce the 1976 Race Relations Act by investigating, enforcing and taking legal action; with such a statutory organisation on matters pertaining to race, the CRE commissioners’ ethnic composition is of legitimate interest.

The ethnic composition of the UK as of 2001 is available from National Statistics Online:

  • White 92.1%
  • Mixed 1.2%
  • All Asian or Asian British 4.0%
  • All Black or Black British 2.0%
  • Chinese 0.4%
  • Other 0.4%

With 12 commissioners, including the chairman, listed on the CRE‘s website we can make a start; the commissioners’ photos are available here. According to the photos there are six white, three asian and three black commisioners — appointed by the Home Secretary. Of note, both the Chairman and Deputy Chairwoman are black. If one was to appoint commissioners according to the ethnic composition in the general population, for 12 commissioners we get:

  • White — 11 Commissioners
  • Mixed — None
  • All Asian or Asian British — 1 Commissioner (I’m being generous)
  • All Black or Black British — None
  • Chinese — None
  • Other — None

Even if one appoints a commissioner for the ‘mixed’, black and chinese categories, white commissioners would still be in the majority. As it stands, the CRE panders to minorities in the very make-up of its board of commissioners and most senior appointments — as the Home Secretary intended.

Professionalism & Political Correctness

For those of us who work in the public sector — teachers, doctors, policemen etc — expressing any views that are not politically correct can be career threatening. My view of professionalism is that whatever one’s personal views, these are not expressed or allowed to influence the conduct of one’s duties. This view has been the model for the expression of professionalism within the UK, usually augmented by a regulating body, drawn from the profession concerned, to ensure and enforce standards.

The main assumption is that the majority of a profession are trustworthy and will aim to uphold professional standards without intervention, any involvement by a governing body is mainly to guide and inform with enforcement being the last resort. There is also an assumption that personal political views are just that — personal — and have no bearing on professional matters. This, however, is fast not becoming the case. Regulatory bodies, such as the GMC, are being filled with non-professional Government appointees with no knowledge of the profession concerned but with an agenda to introduce political correctness, suppress dissent and eventually destroy the professionalism thay are supposed to uphold.

Health and safety has become the catch-all process under which politically correct practices can be enforced as can be seen from this report:

A Court of Appeal ruling backing the decision of a private company to sack a British National Party activist will help schools keep racist staff out of the classroom, unions and employers believe.

The “watershed” ruling permits the sacking of staff for political beliefs if they pose a risk to health and safety. It suggests that schools and local authorities will in future be free to dismiss BNP activists if their presence directly contradicts the organisation’s ethos.

The BNP is not a proscribed party but its views run counter to the mainstream, politically correct views on immigration and nationalism; this ruling allows BNP ‘activists’ and, eventually, anyone who holds critical views on such subjects to be suppressed on the threat to their careers. Such is the state of free speech in the UK, Left-wing views are acceptable but all else are suspect.

The latest means for enforcing politically correct views is reported by the Scotsman:

Screening tests might be used to bar corrupt and bigoted police officers from promotion.

Senior officers yesterday said they will look to extend psychometric tests, which will be introduced to identify racist applicants from the spring, to other ethical concerns, in particular sectarianism, sexism and dishonesty.

At first glance this all seems so reasonable, yet what is really being proposed is that police officers whose personal views may not be acceptable to their senior officers are to be penalised, even if those views have never been expressed or acted upon. Corrupt or dishonest officers can be easily dealt with by applying the Law as corruption and dishonesty are illegal, it is not illegal to hold personal views against immigration or various religions etc. However, it seems that the Government and its appointees want to peer into our souls: many of us will be found wanting.

What is proposed for the police today will be applied to the rest of the public services tomorrow. We have been warned.

Ruth Kelly & The Commission on Integration and Cohesion

Ruth Kelly

On 24 August, 2006, Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly launched the new Commission on Integration and Cohesion, her speech follows, along with some of my thoughts.

Welcome — and thanks to all of you who have come here today to launch the Commission on Integration and Cohesion.

I want to start by saying that I believe that Britain’s diversity is a huge asset to our country — economically, culturally and socially.

The familiar Left-wing mantra that, if stated often enough, we are expected to believe? After five decades of mass immigration is there not proof of the magnitude of the benefit to our country, or is conclusive proof still lacking? Just by saying it often enough doesn’t mean it’s true.

Immigration has helped transform our economy, supporting growth and boosting productivity. London’s strength as a financial centre — as I am keenly aware from my time at the Treasury — was driven by the acknowledgement across the developed world that Britain was open to new people, to new ideas and to new products.

The oft-repeated justification for mass immigration: the economic benefits. Where’s the proof? According to Professor Rowthorn of Cambridge University the benefits of lage-scale immigration are ‘either close to zero, or negative’. In 2004, along with Professor Coleman of Oxford University, he wrote a paper published in Population and Development Review entitled The Economic Effects of Immigration into the United Kingdom, the conclusion being, ‘the economic consequences of large-scale immigration are mostly minor, negative, or transient, that the interests of more vulnerable sections of the domestic population may well be damaged, and that any economic benefits are unlikely to bear comparison with immigration’s probable substantial and permanent demographic and environmental impact’.

London’s strength as a financial centre is not due to mass immigration, the free-flow of capital through trading and financial services is responsible. Any immigration related to this is not of the nature or magnitude that this country has experienced. The vast majority of immigrants to Britain have not been educated bankers, accountants, commercial or corporate lawyers, or financial dealers. What may be true for London’s financial centre is not true for our country overall.

Immigration has helped enrich our cultural life, with the capital’s diversity now commonly acknowledged to be one of its key attractions. A weekend spent at the Notting Hill Carnival or exploring Brick Lane are attracting tourists and residents alike.

I’m not sure about Brick Lane attracting tourists. Ms Kelly is presumably talking about the same Brick Lane where, earlier this year, local businessmen led by Abdus Salique — a shop owner, restaurateur and member of the local Labour Party — warned that a film company was not welcome to shoot scenes for the film Brick Lane. The younger generation of the community were described as ‘hostile and very militant’, a state of affairs that Britain is having to get used to. Brick Lane seems to be welcoming only to residents of a certain religious and ethnic disposition and I doubt it is an attractive tourist destination.

As for the Notting Hill Carnival, — described as ‘hell for residents’ — one only has to remember the riot of 1976 due to police enforcing the Law, along with problems with street crime in subsequent carnivals, noise, rubbish, and public urination in dustbins. Not, I think, the best advert for cultural enrichment. The cost of policing the 2005 Notting Hill Carnival was estimated at £4,726,485.

And migrant workers have been vital to supporting our public services, providing critical staff to our hospitals and schools, as well as other essential services. As the Prime Minister has said: “far from always or even mainly being a drain on our health and education systems, they are often the very people delivering them”.

And following on from the mythical economic benefits we have the ‘vital jobs’ argument. The question that needs asking is why are indigenous workers not taking up such jobs? The answer is obvious, pay and conditions are not attractive enough so low-wage immigrants are brought in. This keeps down costs but marginalises the low-skilled working class who have to compete with immigrants, their choice being unemployment and surviving on welfare or low pay. The very communities within society that the Labour Party are supposed to represent are being damaged by Labour’s policies of mass immigration. If mass immigration was not allowed, then pay and conditions would have to improve until sufficient numbers of indigenous workers found them sufficiently attractive to fill the vacant posts.

And I believe that we should celebrate and clearly articulate the benefits that migration and diversity have brought — but while celebrating that diversity we should also recognise that the landscape is changing, changing rapidly. And we should not shy away from asking — and trying to respond to — some of the more difficult questions that arise.

I have not seen any reason to celebrate so far, the benefits are illusory and diversity is leading to the fracturing of society into enclosed communities with their own values antithetical to the majority and resisting any integration. According to Trevor Phillips, chair of the Commission For Racial Equality, the ‘anything goes‘ multiculturism’ so beloved of the Left ‘leads to deeper division and inequality’ and that this country is sleepwalking to segregation. Who is to blame? The very politicians who allow mass immigration and lecture us on tolerance, diversity and the benefits of multi-culturism.

I believe it is time now to engage in a new and honest debate about integration and cohesion in the UK. If we are to have an effective, progressive response to these issues, then we must be honest about the challenges we face and be prepared to meet these head on with renewed energy and impetus.

Does that mean that the debates of the past were dishonest? Why have we not had ‘a new and honest debate’ in the past? Until now, discussion of immigration and its consequences has been suppressed by the Left with anyone trying to discuss the issues automatically being labelled racist. How kind of our politicians to now allow us a debate, especially when things are going bad. The correct time for such a debate would have been at the start, before significant immigration had occurred.

Thirty years on from the Race Relations Act and the Commission for Racial Equality, the context of today’s society arguably poses some of the most complex questions we have ever faced as a nation.

The reality is that not one but three race relation acts have been passed since 1965 with an amending act in 2000. Along with the multiple legislation has come quangos, commissions and the whole panoply of monitoring and outreach, diversity and equality workers — a veritable industry — but we still have ‘complex questions’ to solve. Countries that have not allowed such mass immigration that Britian has had to endure does not require such legislation, support non-productive public bodies, associated workers and have ‘complex problems’ to solve.

Patterns of immigration to Britain are becoming more complex. Our new residents are not the Windrush generation. They are more diverse, coming from countries ranging from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from South Africa to Somalia.

The only reason immigration is ‘complex’ is because successive governments have allowed it to become so. A country that has control over its borders and a clear policy on immigration is able to face the challenges of increasing pressure from immigration.

And one of the outcomes of that complexity — and increased global interconnectedness — is that global tensions are being reflected on the streets of local communities. New migrants protect the fierce loyalties developed in war-torn parts of Europe. Muslims feel the reverberations from the Middle East. Wider global trends have an impact. Some new migrants will put down roots. Some will move on, and find other work or return to their families.

As time passes, the challenges of integration become more apparent to those who have settled here. Second and third generation immigrants can face a struggle. Not to adapt to life in the UK — but to reconcile their own values and beliefs with those of their parents and grandparents. Young people may be seen as Pakistani on the streets of Burnley, but many feel out of place and “British” when they visit Pakistan.

The reality of the ‘complexity’ is that Britain has enclaves of unintegrated immigrants that identify more with their countries of origin than with Britain, the results of which we are currently suffering.

And for some communities in particular, we need to acknowledge that life in Britain has started to feel markedly different since the attacks on 9/11 in New York and on 7/7 in London — even more so since the events of two weeks ago.

And as this complex picture evolves, there are white Britons who do not feel comfortable with change. They see the shops and restaurants in their town centres changing. They see their neighbourhoods becoming more diverse. Detached from the benefits of those changes, they begin to believe the stories about ethnic minorities getting special treatment, and to develop a resentment, a sense of grievance.

‘White Britons’? Ms Kelly makes the indigenous majority sound like a band of immigrants imported from some goat-herding province of Pakistan! According to the Office for National Statistics the white population accounts for 92·1% of the total population of the United Kingdom.

As for not feeling comfortable with the change occurring within Britain, it’s nothing new. What’s new is that politicians have finally deigned to recognise the reality. Consider, for instance, white flight; that unspoken but very real response of the British to significant settlement of immigrants in local communities. Although Lipton and Power (2001) have recently identified white flight in a report entitled Minority Ethnic Groups in Britain, this response of the British to immigration was reported to the Home Office as early as 1957 but it was just ignored for as long as possible, just like the opinions and concerns of the majority British population. Now, due to certain religious and ethnic groups destroying multi-culturism from within, politicians are finally recognising the real concerns and problems.

The issues become a catalyst for a debate about who we are and what we are as a country. About what it means to live in a town where the faces you see on the way to the supermarket have changed and may be constantly changing.

A debate that politicians such as Ms Kelly has tried to suppress for too long.

I believe this is why we have moved from a period of uniform consensus on the value of multiculturalism, to one where we can encourage that debate by questioning whether it is encouraging separateness.

There has never been a uniform consensus on immigration or multi-culturism within this country, just that the dissenting voices have been derided or ignored.

Trevor Phillips and others have put forward these points of view. These are difficult questions and it is important that we don’t shy away from them.

And until recently Trevor Phillips et al. have been expressing opinions completely opposed to those they now promote: the modern-day Vicars of Bray.

In our attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture, have we ended up with some communities living in isolation of each other, with no common bonds between them?

Why the question mark for what is fact?

I think we face the clear possibility that we are experiencing diversity no longer as a country, but as a set of local communities. Each experiencing changes in a different way, with some being affected more than others.

What a surprise! We are no longer experiencing diversity as a country because it is so divisive.

It is on this ground that this Commission can add most value. It is not, and must not be, a talking shop. It is a practical exercise which will look at what actually works for communities on the ground. It will act as a catalyst for change, by ensuring that, not only do we know what works, but that we are able to share this information and “scale up” those things that really make a difference.

Perish the thought that a Commission set up by this government could ever just become a talking shop, it’s not like that’s happened before.

The Commission has a new and more complex set of challenges to address. It will need to think about both people, and place. About established communities, and those that have yet to develop a resilience to change.

It is our responsibility to make sure that the Commission can engage with the latest and most innovative policy interventions. And that it can build on the best examples of local areas where community cohesion is working.

It will also look at how we can encourage local authorities and community organization to play a greater role in ensuring new migrants better integrate into our communities and fill labour market shortages. For example, increasing the availability of English teaching, mapping where local jobs exist, ensuring that migrants are able to develop a sense of belonging, with shared values and local understanding, as we underline their responsibility to integrate and contribute to the local community.

There are already communities rising up to tackle these issues and equipping themselves for the changes they face.

There are school twinning programmes, and sporting events across the country that focus on children mixing at an early age. Local communities are developing Charters of Values, or local Citizens’ Days, that aim to develop a sense of belonging in multicultural towns and cities. And there are community-led projects springing up in communities facing cohesion challenges that focus on mediation and conflict resolution — learning from the best international practice.

And there are more specialised projects such as the work in Bradford aimed at developing a citizenship curriculum for Madrassas. Or examples of private sector organisations getting involved in cohesion by running mentoring schemes for people of all ethnic and faith backgrounds.

What we need to do is to consolidate these pockets of good practice and spread the lessons learnt much further. Then we can begin to develop a more consistent national picture.

Bingo! Sorry, I got so bored with the New Labour management spiel I was playing Bullshit Bingo and got a full card.

Finally, there are questions about the debate itself. It will have considerably more value if we can be open and honest about the challenges we face. We must not be censored by political correctness, and we must not tiptoe around important issues.

For example, it is clear that we need a controlled, well managed system of immigration that has clear rules and integrity to counter exploitation from the far right. I agree with the Home Secretary: it is not racist to discuss immigration and asylum. There are challenging, legitimate issues we need to talk about and debate. That debate, however, must be based on fact, not myth. How do we establish the necessary trust and maturity to allow this?

It is also clear that our ideas and policies should not be based on special treatment for minority ethnic or faith communities. That would only exacerbate division rather than help build cohesion. And as a society we have to have the confidence to say no to certain suggestions from particular ethnic groups.

Fine words, but actions will speak louder; I won’t be holding my breath.

But at the same time, to make sure everyone can be treated equally, there are some programmes that will need to treat groups differently. We must, again, be unafraid to say this plainly when it is plainly the pragmatic truth. Which is why the cross-Government race and cohesion strategy ‘Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society’ is so critical.

It was too good to last.

And I also want to see a clear understanding that although fundamental rights must be equal for everyone, with rights come responsibilities. Even within a framework of mutual tolerance, I believe that there are non-negotiable rules, understood by all groups, both new and established. We must be clear and unafraid to say that we expect these will be shared and followed by all who live here.

Is this the rare case of a politician developing some common sense?

Like it or not, these are all questions that will shape our society and our public debates more and more in the coming years.

As they should have been allowed to do so from the 1950s onwards.

And we start with some positive signs. Not only the readiness of Commissioners to engage with this body — for which I am grateful. And not only the ideas that are already flowing in from local communities who want their projects to be considered as part of its work.

But evidence at a national level, via the regular Government Citizenship Survey, which consistently shows that people who live in the most ethnically diverse areas are the ones that have the most positive perceptions of ethnic minorities. It seems that those who are the most frightened about change are those that have been least exposed to it.

Integration and cohesion are not states but processes. They need to be worked at, built up and nurtured. We need to ensure that we are encouraging interaction between communities, and enabling people off all backgrounds to participate in wider society and institutions.

Back to Bullshit Bingo.

So, integration and cohesion are not issues just for people from ethnic minorities. Those who seek to cause conflict and tension in our communities must be marginalised by the responsible majority. That means everyone is involved. We need to recognise that there remains more that binds us together than pulls us apart.

What if the ‘responsible majority’ want no more mass immigration? It looks like Ms Kelly is going to introduce the Chairman of this new Commission, with all she’s said above I’m sure it will be someone from the majority population of this country.

I’m now going to hand over to Darra [Singh], who has important local experience to bring to the Commission. I look forward to reading his recommendations.

Predictable.

The British Muslim ‘Problem’

Abu Hamza Leading Prayers Outside Finsbury Park Mosque

Stephen Schwartz, Executive Director of The Center for Islamic Pluralism and himself a Muslim, wrote an article published in the Spectator last week:

Simply put, a million or more Sunnis of Pakistani background, who comprise the main element among British Asian Muslims, also include the largest contingent of radical Muslims in Europe. Their jihadist sympathies embody an imported ideology, organised through mosques and other religious institutions, rather than a ‘homegrown’ phenomenon, as the cliché would have it.

On the role of Islamic clerics, he writes:

Imported Muslim clerics are the basis of the threat. Islam in the UK is overwhelmingly influenced by imams and other religious officials born in Pakistan and trained in that country or in Saudi Arabia. Pakistani Sunni mosques in Britain are major centres for jihadist preaching, finance, incitement and recruitment.

He describes the British Government’s response to this threat as follows:

Unfortunately, the Blair government, notwithstanding its support for the US administration of George W. Bush, seems to be completely paralysed when dealing with this matter.

The article is informative and worth a read and, whilst reading, remember this problem is self-inflicted through the policy of allowing mass immigration and exacerbated by multi-culturism.

Islamophobia or Common Sense?

Twin Towers

Earlier this month, the ConservativeHome website published a Leftie Lexicon written by Inigo Wilson that lampooned the favourite ‘buzzwords’ of the Left in Britain. Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, certain Muslims took exception to this entry:

Islamophobic — anyone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work.

Palestinians — archetype ‘victims’ no matter how many teenagers they murder in bars and fast food outlets. Never responsible for anything they do — or done in their name — because of ‘root causes’ or ‘legitimate grievances’.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee — a rather nasty Muslim pressure group — complained to his employer Orange and Mr Wilson was subsequently suspended pending an ‘investigation’. The hypocrisy of Orange can be seen when one realises that Orange sponsors the free-speech group Index on Censorship. Mr Wilson made two mistakes, the first was to blog under his own name and the second was to express what most are thinking in Britain — Lefties and multi-culturists excepted — but are too afraid to say.

Earlier this week, passengers refused to board, and some who had boarded walked off, a flight from Malaga to Manchester because of two ‘suspicious-looking’ men. These two men were described ‘to be of Asian or Middle Eastern appearance’, in plain English the passengers were worried that they were Muslim and thus more likely to be terrorists. The flight departed without the two men, undoubtedly to the great relief of the passengers and crew.

Muslims and Leftie multi-culturists will claim both these examples demonstrate Islamophobia, in reality they are just common sense.