Archive for the ‘British Parliament’ category

Forced to Resign for Calling Out Rape Gangs

August 18, 2017

Forced to Resign for Calling Out Rape Gangs, Clarion ProjectMeira Svirsky, August 17, 2017

Some of the men convicted in the child sex grooming gang in Rotherham

The Rotherham gang as well as other Muslim child sex grooming gangs in the UK that have recently come to light were known to police and social workers. However, for fear of being called racists, authorities took no steps to prevent their horrific abuse of young, white British children.

*************************************

“Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.”

For making this statement of fact, Sarah Champion, a Labour MP and tireless campaigner for the victims of these gangs, has been forced to resign (at least it would appear forced) from her position as shadow secretary for women and equalities (in the opposition).

Frustrated that years after recommendations were made to endless government commissions that measures haven’t been taken to support victims and prevent such abuse in the future, Champion wrote an article in The Sun to further this cause.

Labour MP Sarah Champion

In the article, Champion went on to say, “There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?”

Most pointedly, Champion made the point, “The irony of all of this is that, by not dealing with the ethnicity of the abusers as a fact, political correctness has actually made the situation about race.

“The perpetrators are criminals and we need to deal with them as such, not shy away from doing the right thing by fearing being called a racist.”

The Rotherham gang as well as other Muslim child sex grooming gangs in the UK that have recently come to light were known to police and social workers. However, for fear of being called racists, authorities took no steps to prevent their horrific abuse of young, white British children.

Other politicians and social commentators have rightly made the same point, namely that the problem must be recognized “for what it is, which is profoundly racist crime.

Those words were spoken by Lord McDonald, a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords and former director of public prosecutions, who added, “Not all sex crime belongs in a particular community, but there is a particular issue about some men in some communities who feel that these young girls are trash who are available for sex.”

In a scathing talk in which he excoriated authorities for not protecting these girls, Muslim activist Majid Nawaz said, “They were men like me from my community and in all but three the victims were white teenage girls.

“That is the truth, and what I’m saying is so uncomfortable that we’ve been ignoring it for years. As a result of ignoring it this problem has been growing and growing to a point where it now has led to racial tensions.”

Nawaz continued, “We haven’t been speaking about it, what did you expect? The alternative to speaking about problems is violence.”

It is a sad commentary on life in our world that it has become so “politically correct,” that our moral compass has become so skewed that government authorities – whose job it is to protect the public – judged that the possibility of being tainted with the charge of racism was more important than preventing children from being drugged and raped.

That a segment of the population engaged in such activity — clearly without a thought of regret toward their victims – is the story that needs to be addressed.

Not the tar and feathering of a politician honest enough to call it out.

Nigel Farage Will Not Stand for UKIP’s Leadership

July 6, 2017

Nigel Farage Will Not Stand for UKIP’s Leadership, PJ MediaMichael Van Der Galien, July 6, 2017

General Election 2017. Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage has a pint in a pub in South Thanet while on the general election campaign trail. Picture date: Saturday June 3, 2017. See PA ELECTION stories. Photo credit should read: Victoria Jones/PA Wire URN:31555123

Farage’s main problem is that UKIP is run by an elected National Executive Committee (NEC). This body is, sadly, occupied by rank amateurs. They’re passionate and enthusiastic, but they have no idea how to run campaigns, play the media, or raise money. As the leader, Farage felt that this governing body of the party was holding him back. “Time and again I was outvoted on important decisions and could not take the party in the direction I wanted,” he writes.

********************************

For well over a decade, Nigel Farage was the face of Britain’s eurosceptic movement and, as such, of the entire eurosceptic movement in Europe. Although he failed to win a seat for himself in the British Parliament, he did guide UKIP to great election victories in elections for the European Parliament. And, of course, he was vital in a) bringing about a referendum on Brexit and b) making sure the Leave campaign won.

Last year, Farage stepped down as UKIP’s leader. His absence caused a leadership struggle in the party. In the end, it was UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall who was selected to lead UKIP heading into the British elections. The results were a disaster: the party was wiped out.

As a result, Nuttall resigned. Candidates to succeed him have until the end of July to throw their hat in the ring.

Many people have been lobbying Farage to come back. I know I have. There are few politicians — if any — in Britain with his charisma and leadership abilities. Sure, the man has also failed on numerous occasions, but overall, UKIP couldn’t possibly wish for a better leader. Sadly, Farage has announced that he’s not interested in the job:

While many have been lobbying me and urging me to come back, I have decided that this would not be the right thing to do and I will not be standing. While I remain a strong supporter of the party and think there is a real chance in two years that Ukip may be more relevant than ever, the party itself needs serious reforms.

Farage’s main problem is that UKIP is run by an elected National Executive Committee (NEC). This body is, sadly, occupied by rank amateurs. They’re passionate and enthusiastic, but they have no idea how to run campaigns, play the media, or raise money. As the leader, Farage felt that this governing body of the party was holding him back. “Time and again I was outvoted on important decisions and could not take the party in the direction I wanted,” he writes. He concludes:

The thought of going back to a job I may not be allowed to do, if, again, I’m held back by totally unqualified people is not something I’m prepared to contemplate. I hope the new leader takes on the battle for major constitutional change or the party will return to being an amateur shambles.

Although political watchers can sympathize with Farage, he leaves behind a party that’s in shambles and that desperately needs a leader — a leader like Farage. Sadly, if the man himself doesn’t step up to the plate, there’s nobody with his gravitas to replace him. Nuttall tried but failed. His successor will undoubtedly suffer the same fate. There’s nobody else in UKIP with Farage’s political acumen and charisma.

And that means that the end of UKIP as a political player is in sight, which would be a terrible loss not only for Britain itself but also for the rest of Europe, which desperately needs eurosceptic parties — parties that put Brussels’ feet to the fire and warn the citizenry about the secret power grabs of the European elites.

Theresa May, Britain’s prime minister, to seek early election on June 8

April 18, 2017

Theresa May, Britain’s prime minister, to seek early election on June 8, Washington Times, Jill Lawless – Associated Press, April 18, 2017

(BREXIT  – Theresa May:  It’s time to leave the EU. — DM)

Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May speaks to the media outside her official residence of 10 Downing Street in London, Tuesday April 18, 2017. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced she will seek early election on June 8 (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Polls give May’s Conservatives a double-digit lead on Labour, which is divided under left-wing leader Corbyn.

***************************

LONDON (AP) — In a shock announcement, Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday called for an early general election to be held June 8 to seek a strong mandate as she negotiates Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Standing outside 10 Downing Street, May said she would ask the House of Commons on Wednesday to back her call for an election, three years before the next scheduled date in May 2020.

She said that since Britons voted to leave the EU in June, the country had come together, but politicians had not. She said the political divisions “risk our ability to make a success of Brexit.”

At present, May’s governing Conservatives have 330 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons. May said that “our opponents believe that because the government’s majority is so small, our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course” on leaving the EU.

“They are wrong,” she said. “They underestimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country.”

Under Britain’s Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, elections are held every five years, but the prime minister can call a snap election if two-thirds of lawmakers vote for it.

The leader of the main opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has previously said he would back such a call.

May took office in July after predecessor David Cameron stepped down following his failed attempt to get voters to back remaining in the EU. Since then she has ruled out calling an early election to get her own mandate. But she said Tuesday she had “reluctantly” changed her mind.

Polls give May’s Conservatives a double-digit lead on Labour, which is divided under left-wing leader Corbyn.

The pound rose 0.1 percent against the U.S. dollar after the announcement, to 1.257, recovering from a 0.4 percent drop an hour earlier.

U.K. government loses Brexit case, must consult Parliament

January 24, 2017

U.K. government loses Brexit case, must consult Parliament, Washington Times, Danica Kirka, January 24, 2017

pmmayBritish Prime Minister Theresa May speaks on the third day of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2017. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans to trigger negotiations by the end of March.

The 8-3 ruling forces the government to put a bill before Parliament, giving pro-EU politicians a chance to soften the terms of Brexit — Britain’s exit from the EU. “Leave” campaigners had objected, saying Parliament shouldn’t have the power to overrule the electorate, which voted to leave the bloc in a June 23 referendum.

May had said she would use centuries-old powers known as royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty and launch two years of exit talks. The powers — traditionally held by the monarch — permit decisions about treaties and other issues to be made without a vote of Parliament.

“The referendum is of great political significance, but the act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result, so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the U.K. Constitution, namely by an act of Parliament,” the president of the Supreme Court David Neuberger said in reading the judgement.

“To proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries,” he said.

The case was considered the most important constitutional issue in a generation, clarifying who ultimately wields power in Britain’s system of government: the prime minister and her Cabinet, or Parliament.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller sued to force the government to seek Parliamentary approval before invoking Article 50. Leaving the EU will change the fundamental rights of citizens and this can’t be done without a vote of lawmakers, she argued.

May had argued the referendum gave her a mandate to take Britain out of the 28-nation bloc and that discussing the details of her strategy with Parliament would weaken the government’s negotiating position.

Significantly, the court also ruled that parts of the United Kingdom — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — do not need to be consulted. Had the court ruled that the “devolved” Parliaments needed a say, a significant delay to the process would have been likely as lawmakers from the regions piled in with concerns.

The decision doesn’t mean that Britain will remain in the EU. But it could delay the process — though May’s Downing Street office said its timetable remained on track.

The government moved quickly to say it would offer its plans in detail to the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon. Legal experts suggest that May will try to keep the scope of the legislation narrow — focusing solely on triggering Article 50 — in order to limit the chance for amendments that could delay a vote.

But opposition became evident immediately. Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the party would seek to amend the legislation to make sure the government is “accountable.” The Scottish National Party, the third largest party in the House of Commons, promised to offer 50 amendments.

“Today’s result comes as a surprise to no one. Unfortunately for businesses and other institutions, Brexit still means uncertainty,” said Phillip Souta, head of U.K. public policy at law firm Clifford Chance. “Parliament remains divided and the outcome of the negotiations remain unknown.”

The bill could also be subject to delay in the unelected House of Lords.

“Defeat in the House of Lords would not stop Brexit from happening, but it could delay it until mid-2020,” Souta said.

Miller, an online investment manager, had argued the case wasn’t about blocking Brexit. Instead, she said, it was about “democracy” and the “dangerous precedent” that a government can overrule Parliament.

For Miller, who brought the case with hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, the Supreme Court judges brought vindication after months of threats to her security that followed her involvement in the case.

“No prime minister, no government can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged,” she said. “Parliament alone is sovereign.”

The case revolved around an argument that dates back almost 400 years to the English Civil War as to whether power ultimately rests in the executive or Parliament.

Underscoring the importance of the case, May put Attorney General Jeremy Wright in charge of the legal team fighting the suit. Wright had argued the suit is an attempt to put a legal obstacle in the way of enacting the referendum result.

The decision is a bad defeat for the government and means that the government “still does not have control of the Brexit timetable,” said David Allen Green, lawyer at London legal firm Preiskel & Co.

“The appeal decision is, however, a victory for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and a vindication of an independent judiciary,” Green said. “The Supreme Court has told the government to get back into its box: A proper process has to be followed.”

Egypt’s parliament responds to UK Commons’ ‘defence of political Islam’

November 23, 2016

Egypt’s parliament responds to UK Commons’ ‘defence of political Islam’, Ahram on LineGamal Essam El-Din, November 21, 2016

The Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee said its report aims to expose Europe and the UK’s false views on “political Islam”

egyptparliament

“The UK parliament report ignores – either on purpose or due to a lack of knowledge about historical facts – that since it was established in the first third of the previous century the Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for spreading the radical Islamic ideology upon which all terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida, ISIS, Hamas, Ezzeddin Al-Qassam, Al-Nusra Front and Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis were based,” said the report, adding that “most of the leaders of these terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida’s current leader Ayman Al-Zawahri were once members of Muslim Brotherhood.”

“This group is the godfather of all jihadist and Salafist ideologies which dream of resurrecting the state of the caliphate against the infidel West,” said the report.

***************************

A 10-page report issued by the Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee on Sunday launched a scathing attack on EU and UK politicians and MPs who defend “political Islam.”

The report, issued in response to a 7 November UK House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee’s report on the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam, said it does not aim to defend the Egyptian government’s security and legal measures against the Brotherhood group and its affiliated militant and terrorist organizations.

“Our report reflects our responsibility as elected MPs to stand against a group which seized its one year in power to turn Egypt into a religious state and show the world the true meaning of “political Islam,” said the report.

It added that the “Muslim Brotherhood tried to steal history and turn the Arab world’s first civilian state into a theocratic state that is hostile to human civilization and the values of freedom, equality and citizenship.”

The report said “if Europe and the West are really keen to stem the tide of religious terrorism and the political hijacking of Islam, they should correct their understanding of all political Islam movements which claim they have a licence from God to implement his laws on earth and impose the state of the caliphate on the world .”

Ahmed Said, head of the Egyptian foreign affairs committee, told reporters Sunday that Egypt’s parliament deplores the UK report’s inclusion of a number of horrible lies.

“Our committee’s report aims to expose these lies. We intend to send it to the Egyptian ambassadors in England and Germany to stand against  the attempts of several politicians and MPs in these two countries to polish the image of political Islam ,” the report said.

Said said “we know from history that Europe was able to move ahead and achieve progress only after it made a separation between religion and politics.”

“So we are surprised by the new generation of European radical liberals and progressives who defend political Islam and thereby give cover for Islamist movements which claim victimhood to spread across Europe and create a fertile ground for Islamist radicals there,” said Said.

The report said the UK parliament’s report offered a very artificial interpretation of “political Islam.”

“We wonder how a parliament that was based on separating religion from politics  approves that a country like Egypt be governed by a theocratic state,” said the report, adding that “this is a setback from all the democratic and liberal ideals which formed the foundation of European civilization.”

The report said that “the UK parliament made a very artificial and marginal differentiation between Islamist movements that exploit democracy to reach power on the one hand, and Islamist movements that seek the path of violence and armed jihad to impose their radical ideology on societies, on the other.”

“All studies that have been conducted on political Islam movements show that there are no essential differences among them and that they all seek one objective – that is trying to impose a strict code of Islam and Islamic Sharia law on the world, and to launch an armed Jihad against ‘infidel rulers’ everywhere,” argued the report.

“In other words,” the report added, “these groups want to Islamise the entire world and they only differ on when and how these objectives should be implemented,” said the report.

“While a group like the Muslim Brotherhood shows the face of artificial Islamic moderation to gain ground in the West and infiltrate societies there, other groups seek the road of violence. Each complements the other,” said the report.

The report described the Muslim Brotherhood “as the mother of all jihadist and Salafist movements.”

“The UK parliament report ignores – either on purpose or due to a lack of knowledge about historical facts – that since it was established in the first third of the previous century the Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for spreading the radical Islamic ideology upon which all terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida, ISIS, Hamas, Ezzeddin Al-Qassam, Al-Nusra Front and Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis were based,” said the report, adding that “most of the leaders of these terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida’s current leader Ayman Al-Zawahri were once members of Muslim Brotherhood.”

“This group is the godfather of all jihadist and Salafist ideologies which dream of resurrecting the state of the caliphate against the infidel West,” said the report.

“We doubt that UK politicians or MPs have any books about the ideological basis of this group, which is highly hostile to the West and what they describe as its “liberal and infidel culture,” said the report.

To press its case, the report reviews a number of political assassinations which the Muslim Brotherhood has carried out since it was established by its leader Hassan Al-Banna in 1928.

The second part of the response accuses the UK report of making “a big mistake” by drawing a comparison between the experience of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia.

“The Media and politicians in the West always like to portray Tunisia as the democratic, inclusive model in the Middle East,” said the report, adding that “this is a big mistake because facts show that Tunisia has become a fertile ground for Islamist jihadists who spread extremism and terrorism in France and Europe and that more than 1,000 Tunisians — the greatest number from any Arab country — a have joined the IS group.”

“Doesn’t this show that the Muslim Brotherhood ideology was behind the transformation of Tunisia into a breeding ground for jihadists,” wondered the report, adding that “not to mention that Tunisia is a small country – with 11 million people – but Egypt is a country with 90 million and the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which exploited political tolerance over eight decades to create a wide network of businesses and secret armed militias.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt owns banks, charity organizations and receives huge donations from wealthy sympathisers in the Arabian Gulf and throughout the Islamic world,” said the report.

The report also argued that the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia accepted democracy only for tactical reasons. “After they saw how millions in Egypt revolted against their mother group, they decided to backtrack only for tactical reasons,” said the report.

The report’s third section is devoted to explaining the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and internal structure “which is highly hostile to all democratic values.”

“Their ideology is based on strict obedience to the group’s supreme guide, not to mention that its main ideologues, such as Sayyid Qutb, were the ones who invented the jihadist ideology which states that “democracy goes against the rule of God and Islamic Sharia,” said the report.

The report also reviews in detail “the one year of the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.”

“They exploited the collapse of (former president) Hosni Mubarak’s ruling party to exclude all civilian political forces from power and impose their rule on the country. When millions revolted against them and expelled them from power on 30 June, 2013, they resorted to claims of victimhood again, only to find an ear in the UK and its parliament,” said the report, insisting that “Egyptians stand firm against the rule of ‘the supreme guide’ and will not allow their country to become a religious state.”

“Egyptians are in a battle of life and death against this group, which is the mother of all radical Islam movements,” said the report.

The report also said that many of those who implemented terrorist attacks against the US on 11 September, 2001 received training at the hands of old and veteran Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

The report spotlights what it calls the Muslim Brotherhood’s “empowerment ideology” which seeks to Islamise the entire world in a gradual way.

The report urges the UK parliament and politicians to review “the dark history of the Muslim Brotherhood” and to verify their information about it “instead of issuing distorted reports about political Islam.”

“While the world has become increasingly aware of the dangers of all radical Islam movements, we are surprised that the UK MPs and politicians still live in a coma, insistent not only on polishing the image of these movements, but also propagating the biggest lie: that it is a peaceful and moderate movement,” the report concludes.

The report includes a great number of details about the yearlong rule of former president Mohamed Morsi and how the Brotherhood exploited this year to isolate all political forces.

“For all those who believe in the West that Islamist movements can be integrated into the political process of Arab countries, we offer this bitter experience to put an end to this lie,” said the report.

The UK House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee released its report on 7 November, commenting on the findings and conclusions of a December 2015 review by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on the Muslim Brotherhood.

The 2015 FCO report concluded that the group has long maintained a dubious position vis-à-vis the use of violence and terrorism to achieve political change.

The UK parliament committee said that the FCO review “undermined confidence in the impartiality of the FCO’s work” due to the “misguided appointment” of Sir John Jenkins, the UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to head the review effort.

British MPs face booze ban as Parliament moves to building governed by Sharia

August 8, 2016

British MPs face booze ban as Parliament moves to building governed by Sharia, Jihad Watch

British MPs are facing a six-year drinking ban after a committee decided that they will move to an office block that is operating under Islamic law while the Palace of Westminster is being refurbished. The committee’s recommendations were leaked.

Back in 2014, it was announced that Britain was launching the first Islamic bond scheme in the non-Muslim world. Three government buildings in Whitehall were transferred to Islamic bonds, switching the ownership from British taxpayers to Middle Eastern businessmen and banks, and thus rendering the premises fully compliant with Sharia law, which includes the banning of alcohol.

It almost seems too farfetched to imagine Islamic law governing British MP’s, which would make them officially dhimmis in obedience to the Sharia. But it is happening.

booze-ban

“MPs face six-year Sharia booze ban: Parliament to move to Islamic-owned Health department block in 2020 while Palace of Westminster is refurbished”, by Rory Tingle, UK Mail, August 7, 2016:

MPs face a six-year drinking ban after a committee decided they will move to an office block operating under Islamic laws while the Palace of Westminster is refurbished.

Their new home, Richmond House in Whitehall, was transferred to finance an Islamic bond scheme in 2014.

The building, currently the offices of the Department of Health, will house MPs when a multi-billion-pound refurbishment of Parliament begins in 2020.

Palace of Westminster decided against MPs remaining in the building while work takes place.

Their recommendations, which will be voted on by MPs when they return after the summer recess, was contained in a report leaked to The Times.

A plan to nationalise the nearby Red Lion pub so it could be kept private for MPs was shelved after owners Fuller’s Inns spoke out against the idea.

Peers will go to the QEII Centre at the other end of Parliament Square.

Renovating the Palace of Westminster while it is vacant is expected to cost between £3.5billion and £3.9billion and take six years.

The committee rejected two other plans, which would have been more expensive.

One was to move MPs and peers out of the Palace of Westminster at different times as the building was repaired, costing £4.4billion and lasting 11 years, while the other would have seen them stay put as repairs were carried on around them.

This third choice would have taken 32 years at a cost of £5.7billion.

MPs will vote on whether to accept the committee’s recommendations after they return from the summer recess.

The Palace of Westminster has dozens of bars and restaurants, where MPs, peers, staff and other passholders can enjoy pints for as little as £2.90.

This is 70p cheaper than the average price of a pint in London thanks to taxpayer subsidies worth £4million a year.

The landmark, opened in 1859, has a leaky roof, crumbling stonework and faulty cabling.

The Queen Elizabeth Tower, which supports Big Ben, is also tilting by 18 inches.

Richmond House is one of three Whitehall buildings that were transferred to the £200million Islamic bond scheme, which switched their ownership from British taxpayers to wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks.

George Osborne announced the move in June 2014 as part of an effort to make the UK a global hub for Islamic finance.

But critics say the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain’s financial and legal systems by imposing Sharia law onto government premises.

The bonds – known as Sukuk – are only available for purchase by Islamic investors.

The money raised will be repayable from 2019.

But instead of interest, bond-buyers will earn rental income from the three Government offices as interest payments are banned in Sharia law…