Archive for the ‘Britain’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

UK: Judge allows two Muslim teachers who fed students “diet of Islam” at state school back in classrooms

October 14, 2016

UK: Judge allows two Muslim teachers who fed students “diet of Islam” at state school back in classrooms, Jihad Watch, , October 14, 2016

Please see also On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts. The decision referenced in the current article was rendered, not by a Sharia court, but by one of Her Majesty’s courts. –DM)

The judge, in making this decision, are signaling that they accept the teaching of Islam as truth in state schools. They are paving the way for the total capitulation of free Britain, and its complete Islamization.

Britain is finished.

inamulhaq-anwar

“Two teachers in ‘Trojan horse’ school who fed pupils a ‘diet of Islam’, segregated assemblies and ignored sex education are allowed BACK into classrooms by a High Court judge,” by Jenny Awford, MailOnline, October 13, 2016:

Two teachers who were struck off for feeding pupils a ‘diet of Islam’ at a school linked to the ‘Trojan horse’ scandal are being allowed back into the classroom.

Inam Anwar and Akeel Ahmed, who taught at Park View in Birmingham and were part of WhatsApp group ‘Park View Brotherhood’, were banned in February.

But a High Court judge found the teachers were treated ‘unfairly’ and he overturned the ban today.

They claimed they were targeted after the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter was published in 2013 – which detailed a plot to introduce hardline Muslim teaching into schools.

Both men were struck off this year after a National College of Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) panel found they exercised ‘undue religious influence’ on pupils.

The panel heard the pupils at the 600-strong secondary school were never taught about safe sex, relationships or contraception.

Anwar, the head of modern languages, and Ahmed, in charge of religious studies, were accused of changing the curriculum so sex education was not taught.

NCTL officials also said Ahmed organised religious assemblies where boys were segregated from girls.

He was also said to have encouraged prayer during the school day through posters and a call to prayer on the school’s loudspeaker system.

Both men were also accused of taking part in a WhatsApp chat that discussed the murder of soldier Lee Rigby and the Boston Marathon bombings.

They were cleared of distributing or using leaflets, promoting the view that a married man has an ‘entitlement’ to have sex with his wife.

The NCTL said their misconduct was serious and Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, agreed that they should be banned from teaching in England indefinitely.

But Mr Justice Phillips today ruled at London’s High Court that the men’s treatment had been ‘unjust’.

He accepted that important evidence had not been disclosed to the pair and there had been ‘serious procedural impropriety’ in the NCTL’s fact-finding process.

Upholding the pair’s judicial review challenge, he ruled their treatment had been ‘unfair’ and they were reinstated back into the profession….

Categories: Britain, Islam and females, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK Catholic school gets message: “By Allah we will kill every single infidel student at this school”

October 14, 2016

UK Catholic school gets message: “By Allah we will kill every single infidel student at this school” Jihad Watch, , October 14, 2016

(Perhaps they were just reacting to a Clinton aide’s “truth talk” about the Roman Catholic Church. Please see also, Carlson: Imagine If Anyone Said About Muslims What Clinton Aides Said About Catholics. — DM)

“As soon as I got off the phone with her I contacted the school, who said that police were there and that it was ‘nothing to worry about.’”

Of course. Why would it be anything to worry about? Who ever heard of Muslims killing Infidels? Pope Francis should simply contact those who issued this threat and initiate some “dialogue” with them, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well. After all, it’s a religion of peace — these poor dears who issued this threat no doubt just need jobs.

catholichighschool

“TERROR WARNING: Horror as British school threatened with massacre of all non-Muslim pupils,” by Zoe Efstathiou, Express, October 11, 2016:

A BRITISH school is facing a terrorist threat after a message was posted online promising to massacre non-Muslim pupils in the name of Allah.

The chilling post, which targeted McAuley Catholic High School, Doncaster, appeared on Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat.

The message read: “We have our sights set on you, and by Allah we will kill every single infidel student at this school #McAuleySchoolMassacre”.

Counter terrorism authorities are now investigating the terrifying threat.

Parents have been informed and pupils at the school have been urged not to respond to the message.

The school, which will remain open, has released a statement which read: “The matter that has been reported is currently being investigated by the police.

“At this time pupils and parents are advised to not reply to any unsolicited emails or social media and to report anything of concern to the school/police.”

Police have been drafted in to patrol the school and a specialist officer will be present to give advice to parents, teachers and pupils.

Horrified parent Shanie Varley took her 15-year-old daughter out of school because of the threat.

She said: “The post had been seen and then sent on through Snapchat and then Facebook so all the kids knew but the parents weren’t told.

“As soon as I got off the phone with her I contacted the school, who said that police were there and that it was ‘nothing to worry about’….

Categories: Britain, Islam and Christianity
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts

October 14, 2016

On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts, Creeping Sharia, October 14, 2016

uksharia

Source: Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned” – Vlad Tepes

Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.

The interview is relevant for several reasons:

  • Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
  • The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
  • She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.

The translated interview:

“Islamization is Planned”

Investigating Sharia

The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her bookHoly Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’

Investigating sharia courts

Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.

She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.

‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’

Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.

You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.

‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.

You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’

You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.

‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’

In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’

How do you see the future?

‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’

Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.

‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’

Categories: Britain, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic law, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

British Home Office Trying to Censor Report Accusing Government of Allowing “Muslim-Only Zones”

October 11, 2016

British Home Office Trying to Censor Report Accusing Government of Allowing “Muslim-Only Zones”, Investigative Project on Terrorism, October 11, 2016

According to the Sunday Times of London, the British Home Office is attempting to censor a new report that accuses the government of failing to integrate immigrants and tackle counter extremism, “by allowing some areas to operate as if they were Muslim-only zones.”

Authored by Dame Louise Casey, the government’s integration tsar appointed by David Cameron, the report’s release has been delayed for months after Home Office officials intervened because of its findings.

In an October 9 article, the Sunday Times states the report blames the government for its failure to mitigate the rapid pace of immigration and to implement a coherent strategy to enhance the integration of various communities. The report also describes how the government allows certain Muslim-dominated regions to operate independently, where state schools shut down for Islamic prayers on Friday.

Heavy criticism is also levied at the government for failing to defend the UK’s counter extremism program (Prevent) with the consequence of allowing Islamists to freely label the program as an attack targeting all Muslims.

A senior Home Office official, Charlie Edwards, revealed that the report will be drastically rewritten to minimize the findings, according to several professional sources speaking to the Sunday Times.

“He (Edwards) told us the Home Office didn’t like it and was trying to find a way to water it down,” one source said. A Home Office spokesperson refused to deny these allegations. Another source told the Sunday Times that Edwards believes the “report focused too narrowly on Muslim extremism and integration.”

Moreover, the report allegedly counters Islamists’ assertions that right wing extremism is as much of an issue in Britain as radical Islamism. In the past 15 years, Islamists were responsible for almost all terrorist plots in the country.

Last year, Dame Casey, the report’s author, launched an anti-extremism strategy that featured investigations into the possibility that Islamists were infiltrating public institutions and seeking to promote Shari’a law. She has asserted that some officials just ‘mak[e] excuses’…’looking at [their] shoes and hoping it will go away’ in the face of extremist and separatist pressure in institutions such as schools and universities.”

IPT has previously reported on Islamist infiltrations in various UK institutions, including the state school system.

Categories: "Muslim only zones", Britain, Islamic integration, Islamic refugees
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

London Chronicle: Brexit & Free Speech

October 2, 2016

London Chronicle: Brexit & Free Speech, PJ Media, Roger Kimball, October 2, 2016

The last time I was in London, in June, I was witness to the amazing populist recovery of sovereignty the world now knows as Brexit. I reported on it several times in this space (here, for example, and here, here, here, and here). It was amusing, back then, to observe the evolution of respectable sentiment about Brexit.  On the run-up to the vote on June 23 almost everyone who was anyone agreed on two things: 1) those supporting Brexit were ignorant, xenophobic yobs and 2) Brexit would never pass.

The smug certainty that, of course, Brexit could never happen yielded first to incredulity, then to rage when it was clear that not only had the referendum passed, but also that it had passed handily, 52% to 48%. It was partly amusing, partly alarming to watch the flailings of the politically correct mandarins attempting to explain to each other what happened. Some called for a new referendum, since the one that delivered Brexit was impossible, while others warned of imminent financial collapse and British isolation from the light-giving fish of EU dispensation.

In the event, nothing happened. Or, to be more precise, the British stock market stabilized and then shot up, the pound lost a small percentage of its value, making British exports more attractive, and life went on as usual.

The immediate question was, would Theresa May, the new prime minister, really pursue Brexit?  She was known to be a mild “Remainer” but otherwise was something of a cipher.

In the event, her declaration that “Brexit means Brexit” turns out to have been in earnest. At the Tory Leadership Conference in Birmingham, which is ongoing as I write, Mrs. May just announced that she would trigger Article 50, which would formally initiate Britain’s exit from the tentacles of the EU, “before March next year.” That alone should console supporters of Brexit, as should her otherwise straightforward, no-nonsense tone. Negotiations would be complex, she acknowledged, but her administration would work tirelessly to get “the best deal” for Britain.

A preliminary step, she explained, is replaying the 1972 European Communities Act, which “enshrined” Britain’s new relationship with Europe. “It’s an important step we are taking,” Mrs. May said, “because first of all it makes clear to those who voted to leave the EU, that is exactly what we will be doing.”

That’s the news, and it is good news, as of a few minutes ago.

[Freedom of speech]

I came to England a few days ago in order to participate in a conference in Winchester on the fate of free speech in the academy, U.S. as well as British editions. We’ll be publishing the papers for that conference in The New Criterion come January, but I can reveal now one thing that struck me about our deliberations.  Two years before, we had held a conference on a similar topic (which you can read about here): “Free Speech Under Threat.” To some extent, what transpired in Winchester a few days ago comes under the rubric of what the philosopher Yogi Berra called “déjà-vu all over again.”

But there are differences. In the couple of years since we last considered the issue of free speech, blatant assaults on free speech have grown much more common to the point where they are less scandalous than simply business as usual. People are harassed, shunned, sacked, fined, even jailed in some Western countries for expressing an unpopular opinion.

It is difficult to maintain a perpetual sense of emergency, however, and it’s my sense that many incursions upon free speech are now met more with a weary shrug than the outrage they would have occasioned even a few years back. Novelty is the handmaiden of outrage, and there is, alas, nothing novel about the assaults against free speech on campus today.

One of the most conspicuous strategies to limit free speech on campuses in the United States these last few years has been via the weaponization of victimhood. This is where the demand for “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” and the anxiety over “micro aggressions” makes common cause with political correctness to curtail free speech and establish the reign of politically correct orthodoxy.

It’s my impression that this latest gift of American academia has yet to be fully transplanted to England. The toxic rhetoric of “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and “micro aggressions” is beginning to catch on here and there but has not, so far as I can see, really taken root here.

I’m sure that will change before long.  It’s just too potent a weapon to ignore.

What’s interesting about this efflorescence of infantilization is how sinuously it colludes with the imperatives of political correctness to stamp down on free speech and, beyond that, on the very processes of adult thought. Female students at Columbia University object to having to read Ovid’s Metamorphoses because the great Latin poet describes scenes of rape between the gods and human women. They find these classic tales “traumatizing.” Similarly, at Brown University, a public debate about whether there really is an endemic “rape culture” on American college campuses— by the way, there isn’t—traumatized some female students. In response, the university provided a “safe space” equipped with “cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma.”

That may seem merely risible. But it is a sterling illustration of the oft-neglected fact that the preposterous can cohabit seamlessly with the malevolent.  Politics is full of examples. But the spread of political correctness offers its own sorts of examples. The ridiculous or preposterous nature of the demand for “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and all the rest should not distract us from its sinister quality. It is profoundly anti-intellectual. Its fundamental demand might be expressed thus: “I am paying $65,000 per year to go to college. Please be sure I do not encounter any idea that challenges my settled prejudices or disturbs the delicate bloom of my ahistorical ignorance.”  College administrators are only too happy to cater to these unethical demands. Consider Morton Schapiro, the president of Northwestern University, who recently said that anyone who decries the idea of “safe spaces” on colleges or opposes “trigger warnings” or ridicules the pain of those “microaggressed” is an “idiot” and a “lunatic.”

As I say, the bottom line in the metabolism between infantilization and political correctness is that it weaponizes victimhood. The target of the resulting barrage is the entire tradition of intellectual independence and spirit of free inquiry: hard-won achievements that are everywhere under assault.  The ultimate aim, as in all totalitarian initiatives, is the subversion of truth by its subjection to political codes.

There are some signs of pushback. The University of Chicago, for example, recently advised students that its commitment to academic freedom means that “we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

All well and good. But such examples of dissent are vanishingly rare. Much more common is what happened to Glenn Reynolds, the University of Tennessee law professor and doyen of the Instapundit weblog.

The other day, in a typical example of the racial healing that Barack Obama has brought to America, black protestors in Charlotte, Virginia, took to the streets to riot after police shot and killed a black man who was brandishing a loaded gun (which, as it turns out, he had stolen). When news reports came in that the protestors had swarmed on to a highway and were surrounding vehicles, Reynolds tweeted “Run them down.”

Twitter, which has displayed a growing appetite for censoring its users, suspended Reynolds’s account until he deleted the tweet. USA Today, for which Reynolds writes a regular and much-read column, suspended him for a month.  And his university, through the mouthpiece of a dean, announced that it was “investigating” the tweet.

Exactly what it means to “investigate a tweet” might seem to pose a sort of minimalist hermeneutical puzzle. But the minatory atmosphere of the entire episode is patent. The world of Twitter is full of Black Lives Matter partisans calling for the murder and rape of whites, killing police, and sundry other goads to violence.

Does “Run them down” in this context constitute something similar? I say No. For one thing, as Reynolds points out on his blog, the behavior of the protestors was inherently threatening. Your best bet if angry protestors surround your car on the highway is to drive on. Reynolds acknowledged that his tweet lacked nuance, but that comes with the territory of a genre that imposes a limit of 140 characters on one’s compositions.

There was a period in which Evelyn Waugh habitually ended his letters with the injunction “Death to Picasso.”  What if he had included this in a tweet? But of course, a character like Evelyn Waugh would be impossible in today’s Lilliputian regime of political correctness.

I should note that as I was winging my way to London Tuesday night, I got the news that Reynolds’s dean ended the investigation. Glenn Reynolds, she said, was exercising his First Amendment rights. No disciplinary action would be taken. But the dean did go on to bemoan the “hurt and frustration” felt by those who had been “offended” by the tweet. Brave soul that she is, however, the dean declared that she would “move forward to rebuild our law school community.”

What in heaven’s name can that possibly mean? What was there to “rebuild”? Reynolds had written an eleven-character tweet expressing a sentiment with which many observers would concur. What species of sensitive plant would be “offended” or overwhelmed by “hurt and frustration” at such a communication?

Really, the dean’s letter ought to have come with an air sickness bag. There was rejoicing in the blogosphere when it was announced that the University of Tennessee was ending its “investigation” into Reynolds’s tweet and that there would be no disciplinary action taken against him. But joy in that decision ought to be qualified by the fact that any “investigation” was initiated to begin with.  The process might easily have taken a different tack and Reynolds could have found himself meshed in surreal, quasi-legal proceedings for months or years. In a way, what matters is not the outcome of the process but the fact that such mechanisms of intimidation have become common recourse for institutions bent on stifling free speech and enforcing conformity.

Categories: Academia, BREXIT, Britain, Britain and freedom of speech, Freedom of speech in Obama's America
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Video: UK Islamic School Teaches Muslims to Kill Those Who Reject Islam

October 1, 2016

Video: UK Islamic School Teaches Muslims to Kill Those Who Reject Islam, Creeping Sharia, October 1, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMwwvDcR-VE

This shocking video shows Islamic scholars teaching young British children in a Muslim faith school in the UK.

The woman first illustrates what happens when a person decides to leave Islam.“What are we going to do?” asks the woman in broken English. “We kill him. Kill.”

“The ones who reject Islam?” a British student asks.

“Yeah,” the teacher says. “Kill him. You have to kill him. Do you understand? We’re talking about Islam.”

The video jumps to the woman outlining the punishment for adultery.

“The judgment for adultery,” she asks. “What is the law?”
“Stone him,” a student replies.

“Until he dies,” the woman elaborates. “And the one who is not married?”

“Lash him, lash him,” says a chorus of students.

“Yes,” the woman says. “With 100 lashes.”

She then describes with disturbing coldness what the intended punishment is for gays.

“Throw them from the highest place,” she says. “We’re not going to live like animals.”

A student replies with a passage from her Islamic textbook. “’The punishment for homosexuals is throw them from the highest point and then stone them. Then you reduced him to the lowest of the low. So if you throw someone off a mountain you are reducing them to the lowest of the low because they are falling off the highest place’.”

The Islamic teacher further explains the nature of Allah to her students.

“It is not enough that you worship Allah,” she says. “We have to also in our heart hate what displeases Allah and love what Allah loves. You have to hate what displeases Allah, especially when living in this country, with that non-Muslim.”

Another British student reads a passage from her textbook:

“’Verily are free from you and whatever you worship beside Allah. We have rejected you and there has appeared between us and you hostility and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone.”

“Islam is keeping you away from disbelief and from the disbelievers,” says the teacher. “Any questions?”

A student then asks if being friends with non-believers is allowed.

“No. You understand?” says the teacher. “You don’t have to be friends with them. That is not allowed. Because loyalty is only to the Muslim, not to the kafir.”

The word ‘kafir’ is a derogatory term used in the Muslim world to describe unbelievers.

Categories: Britain, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic radicalization, Islamisation
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

France: ‘The Jungle’ Migrant Camp

September 30, 2016

France: ‘The Jungle’ Migrant Camp, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, September 30, 2016

In 2001 alone, 54,000 people “attacked” the Channel Tunnel terminal in Calais and 5,000 had gotten through.

Migrants evicted from Calais moved to Paris and established a massive squatter camp at the Jardins d’Eole, a public park near the Gare du Nord station, from where high-speed Eurostar trains travel to and arrive from London. The area has become a magnet for human traffickers who charge migrants thousands of euros for fake travel documents, for passage to London.

The President of the Alpes-Maritimes region, Eric Ciotti, criticized the government’s “irresponsible” plan to relocate migrants in Calais to other parts of France. He said the plan would “proliferate a multitude of small Calais, genuine areas of lawlessness that exacerbate lasting tensions throughout the country.”

A whistleblower reported that volunteer aid workers at “The Jungle” were forging sexual relationships with migrants, including children. “Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (that many have) that volunteers are here for sex,” he said.

French President François Hollande has vowed “definitively, entirely and rapidly” to dismantle “The Jungle,” a squalid migrant camp in the northern port town of Calais, by the end of this year.

Hollande made the announcement during a September 26 visit to Calais — but not to the camp itself — amid growing unease over France’s escalating migrant crisis, which has become a central issue in the country’s presidential campaign.

The French government plans to relocate the migrants at the camp to so-called reception centers in other parts of the country. But it remains unclear how the government will prevent migrants from returning to Calais.

Sceptics say the plan to demolish “The Jungle” is a publicity stunt that will temporarily displace the migrants but will not resolve the underlying problem — that French officials refuse either to deport illegal migrants or else to secure the country’s borders to prevent illegal migrants from entering France in the first place.

The decision to demolish the camp came just days after construction work began on a wall in Calais, a major transport hub on the edge of the English Channel, to prevent migrants at the camp from stowing away on cars, trucks, ferries and trains bound for Britain.

In recent months, people–smugglers armed with knives, bats and tire irons have forced truck drivers to stop so that migrants can board their vehicles. The Deputy Mayor of Calais, Philippe Mignonet, has described the main route to the port as a “no-go area” between midnight and 6am.

“The Jungle” — the name “jungle” comes from “dzhangal,” the Pashto word for forest — now houses around 10,000 migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East who are trying to reach Britain. Migrants at the camp are from Sudan (45%), Afghanistan (30%), Pakistan (7%), Eritrea (6%) and Syria (1%), according to aid agencies. The migrants at the camp are mostly young men and boys, including some 800 unaccompanied minors, who are seeking jobs in Britain’s underground economy.

Migrants have been gathering in Calais in large numbers ever since the Channel Tunnel linking France and Britain opened in May 1994, and the Schengen Agreement, which abolished border controls between France and most of its neighbors (but not the UK), entered into force in March 1995.

In 1999, the French government asked the Red Cross to build a migrant “reception center” in Sangatte to accommodate a growing number of migrants on the streets of Calais and surrounding areas. The Sangatte camp, which was housed in a giant warehouse situated about a half mile from the entrance to the Channel Tunnel, had a capacity of 600 people.

Far from resolving the migrant problem in Calais, the Sangatte facility served as a magnet, quickly drawing thousands more people to the area. Within months, some 2,000 migrants were living in the camp in increasingly cramped conditions. Many of those staying at Sangatte tried to jump onto slow-moving trains at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel, or hide inside trucks crossing to Britain on ferries.

At the time, French authorities reported a massive increase in the number of arrests in or around the Channel Tunnel. In 1999, 8,000 people were arrested in Calais for immigration offenses. By 2001, that number had jumped ten-fold to 80,000 arrests. Eurotunnel, the company that manages and operates the Channel Tunnel, said that in 2001 alone, 54,000 people had “attacked” the terminal in Calais and 5,000 had gotten through. Many of those were living in Sangatte.

The Sangatte camp was closed in late 2002, after a series of riots between Afghan and Kurdish migrants. In all, some 67,000 migrants stayed at the facility during its three years in operation.

In February 2003, France and Britain signed the Treaty of Le Touquet, which allows for so-called juxtaposed controls, meaning that travelers between the two countries now clear immigration in the country of departure rather than upon arrival. In effect, the treaty pushed parts of the British border to France. By doing so, it exacerbated the migration bottleneck in Calais.

As part of the agreement to close Sangatte, Britain took in 1,200 migrants. Those who remained in France sheltered in at least a dozen different squats both inside and on the outskirts of Calais. These camps — Africa House, Fort Galloo, Leader Price/Sudanese Jungle or Tioxide Jungle — have been repeatedly raided or bulldozed by French police, only for other squats to crop up elsewhere.

Many of the migrants housed at Sangatte moved a few kilometers east to a disused industrial zone called The Dunes. Situated just steps from the Port of Calais, the area would become known as “The Jungle.” Over the years, French authorities have repeatedly tried to demolish all or parts of the camp, only for it to reemerge time and time again, and always with more migrants.

On September 22, 2009, French police bulldozed “The Jungle” and rounded up hundreds of migrants hoping to stow away on trucks headed for Britain. A day later, Calais Mayor Natacha Bouchart said she had “spotted between fifteen and twenty new squats” nearby. She also reported that Afghan migrants were establishing makeshift camps at the Hoverport, a disused collection of buildings which closed in 2005 after the last hovercraft sailed from Dover to Calais.

September 12, 2014. Police in Calais warned that migrants were becoming increasingly violent in their quest to reach Britain. Gilles Debove, the Calais area delegate for the French police union, said tear gas was being used to stop “mass onslaughts” on vehicles about to cross the Channel:

“The other day, two to three hundred migrants tried to get into a lorry park and we fired tear gas to scatter them because there are too few of us to control situations like this any other way. We’re also facing an increase in crimes by migrants who mug people, steal mobile phones and carry out sexual assaults.”

September 10, 2015. French media reported that police were searching for an Islamic State jihadi who was hiding in “The Jungle” in the hope of reaching Britain to launch an attack there.

November 11, 2015. More than 250 French riot police were deployed to “The Jungle” after weeks of unrest. Local government official Fabienne Buccio said the rise in violence was due to the migrants’ frustration at being prevented from reaching Britain.

January 19, 2016. French authorities leveled one-third of “The Jungle” to create a 100-meter “buffer zone” between the camp and an adjacent highway that leads to the ferry port.

February 7, 2016. The migrant crisis spread to other parts of France due to an increased police presence in Calais. Migrant camps sprouted up in the nearby ports of Dunkirk, Le Havre, Dieppe and Belgium’s Zeebrugge, as migrants seek new ways to cross the English Channel to Britain.

February 29, 2016. After a court in Lille approved a plan by the French government to evict 1,000 migrants from “The Jungle,” demolition teams began dismantling the southern part of the camp. The government tried to relocate the migrants to official accommodation inside converted shipping containers in the northern part of the camp. But most refused the offer, fearing they would be forced to claim asylum in France. “Going to Britain is what people here want,” Afghan migrant Hayat Sirat said. “So destroying part of the jungle is not the solution.”

1915French riot police attempt to control a crowd of migrants in “The Jungle” squatter camp near Calais, on February 29, 2016, as demolition teams begin dismantling the southern part of the camp. After being pelted with stones and other objects, police responded with tear gas and water cannon. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

March 7, 2016. Migrants evicted from “The Jungle” moved to a new camp in Grande-Synthe near the northern port of Dunkirk, just up the coast from Calais. Critics said the new camp risks becoming a “new Sangatte,” referring to the Red Cross center in Calais that was closed in 2002.

May 31, 2016. Migrants evicted from Calais moved to Paris and established a massive squatter camp at the Jardins d’Eole, a public park near the Gare du Nord station, from where high-speed Eurostar trains travel to and arrive from London. The area, which is so dangerous that the government has classified it as a no-go zone (Zone de sécurité prioritaires, ZSP), has become a magnet for human traffickers who charge migrants thousands of euros for fake travel documents, for passage to London.

August 11, 2016. In an interview with Le Figaro, a French counter-terrorism officer warned that Islamic State jihadis were hiding in “The Jungle.” He said: “What is happening in The Jungle is truly mind boggling. Our officers are rarely able to penetrate the heart of the camp. It is impossible to know if a jihadi from Belgium, for example, is hiding in the camp. This camp is a blind spot for national security.”

September 5, 2016. Hundreds of French truck drivers, businessmen and farmers blocked off the main route in and out of Calais, in an attempt to pressure the French government to close The Jungle. The blockage brought to a standstill the route used by trucks from all over Europe to reach Calais and Britain.

September 12. A document leaked to Le Figaro revealed the government’s plan, dated September 1, to relocate 12,000 migrants from Calais to other parts of France. The migrants would be relocated to around 60 so-called Reception and Orientation Centers (centres d’accueil et d’orientation, CAO), each with a capacity of between 100 and 300 migrants.

September 13, 2016. The President of the Alpes-Maritimes region, Eric Ciotti, criticized the government’s “irresponsible” plan to relocate migrants in Calais to other parts of France. He said the plan would “proliferate a multitude of small Calais, genuine areas of lawlessness that exacerbate lasting tensions throughout the country.” He added:

“This plan reflects the resignation of the government in the face of massive illegal immigration. It weakens national cohesion under a false pretext of humanity which hides a dangerous ideology that denies any distinction between foreigners who seek asylum, who France should decently receive, and those who are economic migrants, whom we can no longer tolerate, and who should be returned to their countries of origin.

“The only solution is to deport, without delay, all illegal immigrants who do not intend to remain on our territory, and to place asylum seekers in centers dedicated to the study of their cases.”

September 14, 2016. The President of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, Laurent Wauquiez, expressed anger at the government’s “diktat” to relocate 1,800 migrants from Calais to his region. He said: “This is madness and it is not a matter of solidarity. The problem of Calais is not solved by multiplying Calais throughout France. We expect the government to solve the problem of Calais, not move it to other parts of the country.”

September 16, 2016. Steeve Briois, the Mayor of Hénin-Beaumont and Vice President of the National Front criticized the government’s plan to relocate migrants from “The Jungle” to the rest of the country. He said:

“This crazy policy would consequently multiply mini-Calais on the entire national territory, without consulting the people and local elected officials. This forced policy of the Socialist government is simply unacceptable; it seriously threatens public order and the safety of our citizens.”

September 20, 2016. Construction work began on a wall to prevent migrants at the camp from stowing away on cars, trucks, ferries and trains bound for Britain. Dubbed “The Great Wall of Calais,” the concrete barrier — one kilometer (half a mile) long and four meters (13 feet) high on both sides of the two-lane highway approaching the harbor — will pass within a few hundred meters of “The Jungle.”

September 21, 2016. A whistleblower reported that volunteer aid workers at “The Jungle” were forging sexual relationships with migrants, including children. “I have heard of volunteers having sex with multiple partners in one day, only to carry on in the same vein the following day,” he wrote. “And I know also, that I’m only hearing a small part of a wider scale of abuse.” He added that the majority of cases in question involved female volunteers and male migrants. “Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (that many have) that volunteers are here for sex,” he wrote.

September 28. Calais Mayor Natacha Bouchart expressed skepticism about President Hollande’s pledge to close “The Jungle.” In an interview with Europe 1, she said: “This dismantling will be very complicated. I am skeptical about the commitment of François Hollande that there will be no migrant camp in the territory of Calais. I do not know how he will do it.”

Categories: Britain, Calais jungle camp, France, Islamic immigration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation of France, Islamist deportations
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

London’s police ignore Muslim officers’ ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic’

September 12, 2016

London’s police ignore Muslim officers’ ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic’ Jihad Watch, , September 12, 2016

In a generation or two, when Britain is engulfed in chaos and civil war, and the island’s remaining non-Muslims are subjugated as dhimmis under the rule of Islamic law, some young British non-Muslim may ask his or her parents or grandparents: “What did you do to resist our subjugation and the Islamization of Britain?” And the answer will come: “Why, I didn’t do anything. I was afraid of being called ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic.’”

It took a Muslim police officer to blow the whistle on this. None of the non-Muslim police officers had the courage. “Javaria Saeed, who worked for the Metropolitan police’s counterterrorism department, took exception to comments made by a Muslim constable who said that female genital mutilation was a ‘clean an [sic] honorable practice’ that ‘shouldn’t be criminalized.’…She also alleged that the same officer said that Muslims who had been victims of domestic violence should not go to the police, but, instead, seek resolution through sharia courts.”

But no significant action was taken. And that means that in the future, it will be even more difficult for police in Britain to do anything about female genital mutilation or wife-beating among Muslims. To make any move would be “Islamophobic.” That will be the epitaph of Britain.

uk-police2

“London’s police ignore Muslim officers ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic,’”RT, September 11, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):

A former female Muslim police officer has accused London’s Metropolitan police of being more worried about “political correctness” than tackling the extremist views of some Muslim officers because they fear being branded “Islamophobic.”

Speaking to the Sunday Times, Javaria Saeed, who worked for the Metropolitan police’s counterterrorism department, took exception to comments made by a Muslim constable who said that female genital mutilation was a “clean an [sic] honorable practice” that “shouldn’t be criminalized.”

The 35-year-old resigned from the capital’s police force in March after she became disillusioned by “political correctness,” which resulted in a culture of “us and them” to emerge among some Muslim officers who believed themselves to be above the law.

“My experiences were that it was Muslim officers being racist towards my individual views; also in private, holding racist views against white officers, and sexist views against females,” she said, speaking to the Sunday Times. “If such views were held and expressed by white officers, they would be fired.”

Saeed was a constable in the SO15 counterterrorism division, which was set up to improve relations with the Muslim community. She also alleged that the same officer said that Muslims who had been victims of domestic violence should not go to the police, but, instead, seek resolution through sharia courts.

No action was taken against the police sergeant when she raised both cases with senior officers. The 35-year-old, who had been part of the Metropolitan police for a decade, told the Sunday Times that she had been called a “bad Muslim” by other Muslim officers for not wearing a hijab and that some colleagues told her she was “better off at home looking after your husband.”

“Racism in the Met is not from white officers, in my case, but from Muslim officers who the service refused to properly investigate because they were afraid of being called Islamophobic and racist,” she added.

“You give management action to minor offences, so it’s pretty outrageous that the Met did not take proper action against him,” Saeed said. “If he was a white officer, he would have been fired.”

The former police officer mentioned that she had been told by other senior members of the force that complaining about Muslim policeman would “hinder” her hopes for promotion in the future….

Categories: Britain, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain, Islamophobia, London, Political correctness, Racism
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers”

September 7, 2016

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers” Counter Jihad, September 7, 2016

The office of the Mayor of London has issued a grant for an online “hub” designed to identify so-called ‘hate speakers’ for police.  The grant promises to “improve the police response” as well as develop the “intelligence to facilitate counter measures that can reduce and prevent further criminal activity.”  British and European law do not contain the robust protections for freedom of speech that America’s First Amendment provides.

Saying anything that falls under the poorly-defined rubric of ‘hate speech’ is already criminal in London:  they just want to improve their capacity to send the police to your house.  The penalty can be six months in prison per offense.

Well, actually, they want to do a little more than that.  The grant also promises to “build community capacity to respond collectively to online hate.”  So it isn’t just a rule-of-law response that they are looking for here.  They want to organize online mobs to go after you for expressing disapproved thoughts.

Breitbart news points out that this is the brainchild of London’s first Muslim mayor.

The office of London’s first Muslim mayor has secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.” … In May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Naturally, the law will also be used to criminalize political opposition to the establishment — one of the first uses was to target what the UK Standard refers to as “Brexit hate crime.”  But it seems from the grant application that speech critical of Islam is the real target.  The announcement of the grant states that a recent report “identified 45% of anti-Muslim hate crime took place online, and the organisation is seeing up to 80% of its resources used in monitoring online hate and supporting the victims.”

The claim is that seeing online ‘hate crime’ results in “higher levels of depression, stress and anger,” and can cause changes in “which streets they walk down, how they answer the phone, reactions to strangers, and suspicion of co-workers.”  That last element sounds particularly ominous given Islamist workplace attacks such as the San Bernardino shooting.  The London police appear to be suggesting that seeing criticism of Islam on-line leads to murders of this sort.  Indeed, the criminalization of critical speech even seems to suggest that these psychological effects to some degree justifyIslamist violence against society.

Breitbart points out that convictions under the law banning speech of this kind have increased ten-fold in the last decade.  They quote Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent.  [T]he police [are] becoming more and more involved in controlling our morality,” he told the BBC.  “[They are] almost playing the role of a moral police. And instead of dealing with real crime in the offline world, [the police] find its very convenient to ‘send the message’ in the online world because it’s a relatively easy thing to do.”

Doubtless it is a lot safer than targeting Islamist militants.  The only cost is a little liberty.  Well, maybe more than a little.

Categories: Britain, Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, London
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK: Clerics Who Threaten Reformers and Praise Murderers

August 22, 2016

UK: Clerics Who Threaten Reformers and Praise Murderers, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, August 22, 2016

♦ Anjem Choudary has gone to jail. He was the most visible part of the problem. But he was not the greatest or deepest problem in this area. That problem is shown when two extremist clerics with pre-medieval views come to Britain they are welcomed by an ignorant British establishment.

♦ “These people teach murder and hate. For me personally I find it sad that a country like England would allow cowards like these men in. Why are they allowing people [in] that give fuel to the fire they are fighting against?” — Shahbaz Taseer, the son of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who was murdered for opposing Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

♦ “They have got hundreds of thousands of followers in the UK,” the imam of the Madina Mosque and Islamic Centre in Oldham, Zahoor Chishti, said of the two clerics.

The conviction of radical Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary — the most prominent extremist in Britain — has been widely welcomed in the UK. For years his followers and he have infuriated the vast majority of the British public (including most British Muslims) with their inflammatory and hate-filled rhetoric. They have also provided a constant stream of people willing to follow through the words with actions. More people around Choudary have been convicted of terrorism offences in the UK than any other Islamist group — including al-Qaeda.

But Choudary’s conviction for encouraging people to join ISIS should not be greeted as though that is the end of a matter.

1203The conviction of radical Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary (centre) — the most prominent extremist in Britain — has been widely welcomed in the UK.

Last week we noted here how, after the murder of an Ahmadiyya Muslim in the UK at the hands of another Muslim, some Muslims are “more Muslim than others” and that those outside a particular theological group can be killed is not an idea held only by the murderer. It is an idea with a significant following in the UK Muslim community, as well as among Muslims worldwide. A recent test of this issue was the execution in January this year in Pakistan of Mumtaz Qadri. This was the man who murdered Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab province in Pakistan. Taseer had opposed the strict blasphemy laws which operate in his country. In Qadri’s eyes, Taseer was an apostate for even thinking of watering down the blasphemy laws that jihadists and Islamists such as the Taliban wish to preserve. And so Qadri killed the governor.

Of course one would like to think that everyone could unite in condemning the actions of a man such as Mumtaz Qadri. What is striking is how many people fail to do so, and how many Muslim clerics and religious leaders — even in the West — not only fail to do so but have been open in their praise of Qadri and their condemnation of Pakistan for putting him to death. Prominent among the latter group is the imam of the largest mosque in Scotland — the Glasgow central mosque.

This past month, however, an even more significant event occurred. In July, two Pakistani clerics started a tour of the UK. Their seven-week expedition, called “Sacred Journey,” goes on until September 4, and includes appearances in Oldham, Rochdale, Rotherham and the Prime Minister’s own constituency of Maidenhead. One of the first things that Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman did when they arrived in the UK was to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop welcomed them in Lambeth Palace and claimed that the meeting would strengthen “interfaith relations,” as well as address “the narrative of extremism and terrorism.” One wonders how far the Archbishop got in this task?

If there is a “narrative of extremism and terrorism,” Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman can take some serious credit for the fact. Both men took an enthusiastic stand in Pakistan in support of Mumtaz Qadri. That is, they supported the murderer of a progressive Pakistani official. Listen here, for instance, to Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman delivering a hysterical speech in support of Mumtaz Qadri while his fellow cleric, Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman, looks on approvingly from the platform.

Here is Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman whipping up the vast crowd of mourners after the funeral of Mumtaz Qadri in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. During his speech he repeatedly refers to Qadri as ashaheed [martyr]. Tens of thousands of people attended the funeral, and afterwards rioted, chanting slogans such as “Qadri, your blood will bring the revolution” and “the punishment for a blasphemer is beheading.”

After Qadri’s execution, Haseeb ur Rehman said on social media “Every person who loves Islam and Prophet is in grief for the martyrdom of Mumtaz Qadri.”

So what are two clerics who approve of murdering reformers and mourn the death of fanatics and assassins doing touring the UK? Shahbaz Taseer, the son of the Salman Taseer, is among those who has criticised the UK authorities for allowing the two men into the country. “These people teach murder and hate,” he has said.

“For me personally I find it sad that a country like England would allow cowards like these men in. It’s countries like the UK and the US that claim they are leading the way in the war against terror [and] setting a standard. Why are they allowing people [in] that give fuel to the fire they are fighting against?”

“They have got hundreds of thousands of followers in the UK,” the imam of the Madina Mosque and Islamic Centre in Oldham, Zahoor Chishti, said of the two clerics. Chishti denied that the event was organised by his mosque and said that he was not aware of the views of the speakers. “When I found out I was upset. I think it was really upsetting and wrong. They come to the UK every year and give messages of love, so that’s why they’re booked on that basis.’

Elsewhere, the “Sacred Journey” tour has already thrown up another interesting connection. Mohammed Shafiq runs a one-man outfit called the “Ramadan Foundation” in the UK, and is regularly called upon by the British media. He appears to be viewed as a “moderate” Muslim because he has been outspoken in opposition to the mass rape of children by gangs of Muslim men. Despite this heroism, his own liberal credentials (not least as a member of the Liberal Democrat party) have often come into question. Several years ago, for instance, when the Liberal Democrat candidate and genuine anti-extremism campaigner Maajid Nawaz re-Tweeted an innocuous cartoon from the “Jesus and Mo” series, Shafiq was among those who tried to get up a lynch-mob against Nawaz. Shafiq wrote on social media that Nawaz was a “Ghustaki Rasool,” Urdu for “defamer of the prophet.” He warned that he would “notify Islamic countries.” Shafiq angrily denied that these and other messages constituted incitement against Nawaz.

But now, on the visit of two clerics to the UK who applaud and mourn Mumtaz Qadri, where is Mohammed Shafiq to be found? Why, warmly greeting the cleric who praises the murderers of reformers and glad-handing with the terrorist-apologists and blasphemy lynch-mob, of course.

Almost everyone in Britain is pleased that the loudmouth Anjem Choudary has gone to jail. Like the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza before him, Choudary was — as a case — almost too easy. He was the most visible part of the problem. But he was not the greatest or deepest problem in this area. That problem is shown when two extremist clerics with pre-medieval views come to Britain, they are welcomed by an ignorant British establishment. The problem is shown when they tour mosques, they do so to packed houses because they have “hundreds of thousands” of followers of Pakistani origin in the UK. The problem is shown when you scratch the surface of one of the self-proclaimed “moderates” like Mohammed Shafiq and discover that he is happy to pal around with the people who threaten reformers and praise murderers.

That is the problem for British Islam in a nutshell. And that is a problem we still remain woefully unable to confront.

Categories: Britain, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic invasion, Islamic radicalization, Islamic reformation, Islamisation, Islamist "moderates", Islamist clerics
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »