Britain | WarSclerotic | Page 11

Posted tagged ‘Britain’

Brexit Can Only Be Good for the United Kingdom

May 17, 2016

Brexit Can Only Be Good for the United Kingdom, American Thinker, Justin O. Smith, May 17, 2016

Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, warns that the U.K. will not be able to handle the upcoming surge of migrants if it stays in the EU. He observed during the April 1 Munk Debate that “Jeane-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, has changed the definition of what a refugee is, to include people … from war torn areas … [and] from extreme poverty … [and] perhaps 3 billion people could possibly come to Europe [as a result].”

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

The British people seem ready to leave the European Union through a historic June 23 referendum, because they are tired of the high-handed tyrannical regulations, clauses and counter-clauses, emanating from the EU Council on even the simplest aspects of their everyday lives. They have determined that leaving the EU will be the best step toward reclaiming their nation’s sovereignty and democratic rule in all matters of immigration and border control, their economy, free trade, and national security, and they are proudly waving the Union Jack, as they tell their would-be masters in Brussels to go to hell, declaring their independence.

In November 2015, U.K. prime Minister David Cameron attempted to renegotiate a treaty change with European Union Council president Donald Tusk concerning U.K. sovereignty, trade, immigration, and economic governance. Tusk rejected it all, with a minor exception regarding the handling of a few million pounds for children’s benefits. This dismal failure of P.M. Cameron only offered proof that the EU was closed to any substantial moves toward reform, which created a renewed and angry momentum for the Out of Europe, Vote Leave, and Brexit movements.

Corporatists, trans-nationalists, advocates of the U.N. 2030 Agenda, the BBC, and the Guardinista establishment are presenting dishonest and fear-based monologues regarding the uncertainty a U.K. exit from the EU might bring. They enjoy being able to circumvent individual nation’s policies by going through Brussels, and most of them have been made rich through their deals with the tyrannical, unelected, and entrenched bosses of the European Union.

Despite disingenuous conclusions from the trans-nationalist President Obama, does anyone really believe that a hundred years of shared security concerns and initiatives and trade agreements between the U.S. and the U.K. will be detrimentally affected by a “yes” vote to leave the EU?

What cogent thought process could people, like Lena Komileva (London economist), possibly be using when they ascribe the term “illiberal” to the British people’s desire for nationalist policies and reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty?

It will not take years for the U.K. to renegotiate trade deals with the U.S., as Obama suggests, but rather only months. And if small nations like South Korea and Chile can succeed in global markets, certainly Britain also will continue to succeed, especially since the EU already imports 45% of British exports.

Membership in the EU currently costs Britain approximately $30 billion annually. Although $55 billion in austerity cuts were made by the chancellor of the exchequer during the last Parliament, Britain’s contribution to the EU was roughly $132 billion. Every cut in public spending could be reversed, and Britain could still pay down its deficit faster if Britain were to leave the European Union.

In February, George Mason, senior vice president of Britain’s high-profile Tate and Lyle Sugars, made a mockery of claims by Britain Strong in Europe that Brexit would spell economic disaster for the U.K.: “we are absolutely certain that our business and people who work in it would have a more secure future outside the EU.”

Priti Patel, the U.K.’s employment minister, told the Daily Telegraph in March: “The Prime Minister has tried hard but the EU refused to give the British people what they want[.] … The only way to take back control over our economy[.] … [T]o create more jobs and growth is to Vote Leave.”

However, national security is the issue currently foremost in most Britons’ minds, but Eurocentrics, who believe that the U.K. will be safer in the EU through cooperation on crime and terrorism, have failed to see that the EU has never been capable of agreeing on effective foreign policy. Also not taken into account, the EU recently embraced the expanded definition of “refugee” put forth by the United Nations in its 2030 Agenda.

Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, warns that the U.K. will not be able to handle the upcoming surge of migrants if it stays in the EU. He observed during the April 1 Munk Debate that “Jeane-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, has changed the definition of what a refugee is, to include people … from war torn areas … [and] from extreme poverty … [and] perhaps 3 billion people could possibly come to Europe [as a result].”

There are also reports of Bosnia, with a population of 3.8 million, being infiltrated by Islamic State terrorists. They are buying property there, and they would be free to travel to the U.K. if Bosnia is granted EU membership.

Andrew Rosindell, a Conservative member of Parliament, stated in March: “Being in the EU means we don’t have control of our own systems, we don’t have control of our own borders. We are effectively tied to countries which I think are not as good at protecting their people as we have been.”

One can only imagine the palpable red-hot anger of the British people upon hearing Martin Shulz, European Parliament president, say that he was “sad and angry [over] the undertone of national resentment” and it was “not possible” to make the changes PM Cameron wanted. Shulz added that Britain “belongs” to the EU. Really? Just watch, wait, and see.

Downing Street has declared that “a vote to leave is a vote to leave.” A leave vote will facilitate the U.K.’s departure through Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and terms for Britain’s withdrawal will then be negotiated over the next two years.

Over forty years ago, Britain last debated her relationship with Europe, and even then, elected officials on both the right and left, such as two of the most iconic political figures of that era, Enoch Powell and Tony Benn, campaigned against the U.K.’s membership in what was then the European Economic Community. They objected to Britain’s elected government meekly surrendering Britain’s national sovereignty to unelected foreign entities and the fundamental lack of democracy in the EU.

Lady Margaret Thatcher knew that it would be near impossible to effectively and efficiently impose one currency, one economy, and one national identity on many different countries (now 28) with such different languages, histories, customs, and cultures in general. Early on, the Iron Lady called the attempt to create a European super-state “the greatest folly of the modern era.”

Britons, excited and optimistic, are moving forward to reclaim a more free, prosperous, ally-connected, and nationally secure Britain, through their own elected officials and their own choices and wisdom, breaking free of the heavy bureaucratic chains of the European Union. As they shout “Hail Britannia,” they will vote to leave in June.

Categories: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Islamic invasion, Islamisation
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Islamic invasion, Islamisation

Comments: Be the first to comment

Queen to announce major crackdown on extremism in UK

May 15, 2016

Queen to announce major crackdown on extremism in UK, Times of Israel, Stuart Winer, May 15, 2016

(Would opposing the Islamisation of Britain and favoring Brexit constitute “extremism” under the legislation? — DM)

000_AF0CT-635x357

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II smiles as she speaks to British Prime Minister David Cameron, right, during a reception in Buckingham Palace in London, May 10, 2016. (AFP/PAUL HACKETT)

In an upcoming annual speech to parliament, the queen of England is expected to announce a major UK government crackdown on extremism, including measures to deny extremists access to vulnerable groups such as children and students.

Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech, known informally as the Queen’s Speech, will include references to the new Counter-Extremism Bill, which the British government has touted as a major step in the effort to defeat extremism in the country, The Telegraph reported Saturday.

Among the measures envisioned in the bill is banning hate speakers from working with children through a vetting process similar to safeguards against sex offenders.

The national criminal records checking service is to be updated to list those with a terror conviction or clear connection to extremism, enabling education officials, municipal councils and other employers to screen potential employees.

Officials hope to stop radicals from spreading extremist ideology in schools, colleges, and other institutes where they could influence young or vulnerable people and talk them into committing acts of violence.

Cameron

British Prime Minister David Cameron leaves 10 Downing Street in central London, May 4, 2016. (AFP/JUSTIN TALLIS)

Under the terms of the new bill, those convicted of extremism or who have strong links to extremism would be required to register with the government-run Disclosure and Barring Service — similar to existing rules for sex offenders.

Proposed laws would also give authorities the ability to ban organizations that promote hate or extremist action, and to close down mosques, Islamic educational institutes, and other places that repeatedly promote extremist activities.

Continuing a tradition that goes back to the 16th century, the queen is scheduled to deliver her speech as part of the State Opening of Parliament on Wednesday. The address, which is written by the government cabinet, presents the legislative plans for the coming session of parliament.

Last year Prime Minister David Cameron announced the plan, saying: “We know that extremism is really a symptom; ideology is the root cause – but the stakes are rising and that demands a new approach. A key part of this new approach is going further to protect children and vulnerable people from the risk of radicalization by empowering parents and public institutions with all the advice, tools and practical support they need.”

The bill has been held up, among other things, over the difficulty in finding a legally sound definition of extremism, the report said.

A definition of “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values” was deemed indefensible in court.

Categories: Britain, Extremism
Tags: Britain, Extremism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Will America Follow Britain further Into, or away from, the Abyss?

May 14, 2016

Will America Follow Britain further Into, or away from, the Abyss? Dan Miller’s Blog, May 14, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

The Muslim invasion is changing European and British demographics to the degree that some countries will soon have Muslim majorities. Will America follow Europe? What about our Publican and Demorat elites? Will we reject them and the unelected bureaucrats they have spawned and empowered?

America needs to vote for her own version of Brexit this November.

British and European Demographics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-hPCnel0qc

Paul Weston is the vile “Islamophobe” who dared to read — aloud and in public — a passage from a book written by another vile “Islamophobe,” Winston Churchill, a couple of years ago. For that, he (Weston, not Winston) was arrested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB7en-eu0X8

So what if Weston spoke accurately? He offended Muslims and that can’t be tolerated. Besides, Britain is terribly “racist” even though Islam is not a race.

Meanwhile, London’s East End is losing its native population and the place looks “less like a British city, more like Baghdad.”

The European Union and Britain

Currently, Mr. Weston of the Liberty GB Party is campaigning for Britain to leave the Europen Union, a force for unrequited love, charity and destruction. So is Nigel Farge of UKIP.

Here’s a long video about the EU and why Britain should leave it. It’s over an hour long but well worth watching. It’s principally about economics, the destructive power the EU has given unaccountable bureaucrats and the stifling of democracy.

As you watch and listen, please consider the similarities and differences between the EU and governance of, by and for the Publican and Demorat Establishment in America. Both have empowered and continue to expand unelected bureaucracies.

I was disappointed that the video does not deal with the immigration problem which will continue to plague Britain if she remains in the EU. Perhaps the topic was seen as likely to displease Britain’s already substantial Muslim population and prompt them to vote to remain in the EU. Remember, London just elected its first Muslim mayor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k

Here’s another “Islamophobic” EUophobe:

Democracy and self-governance are seen by far too many as absurdly old fashioned. In Obama’s America, where would we be if governance were taken away from our betters in the Publican and Demorat Establishment and returned to the vulgarian little people? Do we need great Establishment intellects to think for us so that we don’t have to do it ourselves? The vulgarian dummies living in EU member states haven’t had to think for years. Now, with the upcoming referendum, those in Britain l have a chance to do so. We will have a chance this November.

Obama has told the citizens of once-great Britain that membership in the EU is economically and otherwise good for them — perhaps even as good as His presidency has been for citizens of His America. Many disagree with “the smartest person in any room;” those in Obama’s America who do may even elect Vulgarian-in-Chief Donald Trump as President shortly after citizens of Britain who cherish self-governance may vote to exit the EU.

Conclusions

America does not yet have the same Muslim demographic problems as Europe or Britain. Unless we halt or at least reduce Islamic immigration and cease to subsidize it we will eventually. One way to minimize the problem is to get rid of the politically correct “Islamophobia” nonsense and speak of Islam as it is rather than as though it were a benign unicorn.

The elites of the Publican and Demorat establishment are a big part if the problem. Just as Britain seems to be moving toward leaving the EU, we need to diminish the power of our own elected elites by electing “vulgarians” to replace them. We also need to reduce the very substantial power of the masses of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats they have empowered. There is no need to replace them.

Categories: 2016 elections, BREXIT, Britain, Donald Trump, European Union, Freedom of Expression, Illegal immigration, Islam in America, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, London, Multiculturalism, Nigel Farge, Obama's America, Paul Weston, Political correctness, Political establishments
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, Donald Trump, European Union, freedom of expression, Illegal immigration, Islam in America, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, London, Multiculturalism, Nigel Farge, Obama's America, Paul Weston, Political correctness, Political establishments

Comments: Be the first to comment

Britain’s Muddled Priorities?

May 14, 2016

Britain’s Muddled Priorities? Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, May 14, 2016

♦ On the one hand, the overwhelming cause of our current security problems is Islamist terror. It is the number one cause of concern to our police, intelligence services and everybody else with the nation’s security at heart. The public expects to be protected from such terror and expects that protection to come from that security establishment.

♦ Yet all the time, a vocal lobby of Muslim and non-Muslim figures tries to pretend that the threat is not what it is, or that an attempt to depict any and all efforts to protect the country — even one phrase said by one actor in one simulated attack scenario – is some terrible crime of bigotry.

♦ An actor saying “Allahu Akbar” in a simulated terror attack may be offensive to somebody’s religion. But if so, what is more offensive to their religion: one actor saying “Allahu Akbar” as part of a simulation, or countless Muslims around the world shouting the same phrase before real attacks in real time?

Sometimes you can see a whole society’s self-delusion in under a minute. Consider a single minute that occurred in Britain this week.

On Monday night, Greater Manchester Police staged a pre-prepared mock terrorist attack in a Manchester shopping centre in order to test emergency responses capabilities, readiness and response times. At one stage, an actor playing a suicide bomber burst through a doorway in a crowded part of the shopping centre and detonated a fake device.

It turned out that the actor pretending to be a suicide bomber had shouted the words “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is Greatest”) before the simulated attack. This may have helped make the simulation more realistic, but it had an immediate backlash. Nobody complained about the simulated attacks. What disturbed some people was the simulation of the signature Islamist sign-off.

1596

A video still from the mock terrorist attack staged on May 9, 2016 by the police in Manchester, England.

Within hours, the simulated moral outrage machine, social media, began deploring the outrageousness of the exercise. Soon, community spokesmen were on the airwaves, deploring the use of the crucial phrase. Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said,

“[O]n reflection, we acknowledge that it was unacceptable to use this religious phrase immediately before the mock suicide bombing, which so vocally linked this exercise with Islam. We recognise and apologise for the offence that this has caused.”

Greater Manchester’s police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, tried to explain that,

“it is frustrating the operation has been marred by the ill-judged, unnecessary and unacceptable decision by organisers to have those playing the parts of terrorists to shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ before setting off their fake bombs. It didn’t add anything to the event, but has the potential to undermine the great community relations we have in Greater Manchester.”

By now, most of the national papers and the 24-hour news programs were all over the story. That is where the revealing minute happened. On Sky News, interviewer Kay Burley was interviewing one Jahangir Mohammed, who was introduced as a “community worker.” Mr. Mohammed spent some time commenting:

“Like everything, there’s a securitised approach to these things and that’s necessary in training like this. But I think sometimes there’s also a need for them to have a bit of religious and cultural context when they’re doing training like this in a wider setting about the possible implications and the effects on wider society and communities within that society.”

Ms. Burley thanked Mr. Mohammed for his illuminating contribution and went onto the next news item. In other main stories, she said,

“One man has died, three others injured after a knife attack at a train station near Munich. The attacker — a 27-year-old German — shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ according to witnesses, before stabbing people at the station in Grafing. He was overpowered at the scene and is now in custody.”

The combination of these two news stories took about one minute.

Whether or not the Grafing attacker turns out to be a non-Muslim with psychiatric issues, as the press is currently suggesting, or an Islamist with or without such issues, this single minute of broadcast footage says so much about the problem that societies such as Britain’s are now in.

On the one hand, the overwhelming cause of our current security problems is Islamist terror. It is the number one cause of concern to our police, intelligence services and everybody else with the nation’s security at heart. The public expects to be protected from such terror and expects that protection to come from that security establishment. Yet all the time, a vocal lobby of Muslim and non-Muslim figures tries to pretend that the threat is not what it is, or that an attempt to depict any and all efforts to protect the country — even one phrase said by one actor in one simulated attack scenario — is some terrible crime of bigotry.

Of course, there would have been no social media backlash and no swift apology from the Greater Manchester Police if the terrorist simulation had involved a “far-right” terrorist. But there is always a backlash if the scenario reflects the real security threat that all our societies are facing. This is yet another occasion in which the general public’s view of people’s priorities is legitimately raised. Why would any Muslim or anyone else genuinely opposed to terror object to the realistic simulation of such an event? One can see, of course, that it may be offensive to somebody’s religion. But if so, what is more offensive to their religion: one actor saying “Allahu Akbar” as part of one simulation, or countless Muslims around the world shouting the same phrase before real attacks in real time?

If I were a Muslim, I would spend every minute of my waking life trying to persuade my co-religionists not to kill people right after shouting about my Allah. I do not think I would bother for a second if a police force, trying to keep people safe, chose realistically to simulate the behaviour of my co-religionists. It is a matter of priorities, and across Britain and many other countries in the world today, our priorities are now seriously awry.

Categories: Britain, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: Britain, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia

Comments: 1 Comment

Brexit The Movie

May 13, 2016

Published on May 12, 2016

Full version of Brexit: The Movie – the crowdfunded film making the case for Britain to LEAVE the EU on June 23rd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k

H/T E.J. Bron
(www.ejbron.wordpress.com)

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, EU

Comments: Be the first to comment

Manchester Police Apologize for “Allahu Akbar”

May 11, 2016

Manchester Police Apologize for “Allahu Akbar” Power Line, John Hinderaker, May 11, 2016

In Manchester, England, police staged a mock suicide bombing attack at a shopping center as part of a training exercise. The pretend bomber yelled “Alluhu Akbar” just before he detonated his mock explosives–a touch of verisimilitude appropriate to the exercise. But it prompted a complaint, followed by an apology:

Police in Manchester, England has issued an apology, after a suicide bombing “simulation” which involved an actor shouting the Islamic phrase “Allahu Akbar” (God is greater) before detonating mock explosives.

The simulated terror attack was held at one of the UK’s largest shopping centers, the Old Trafford Centre, and was part of a counter-terrorism training drill preparing for a possible Paris-style assault by jihadist terrorists.

However, police later apologized for “linking Islam” with terrorism.

The drill had been criticized by some politicians and Muslim activists, including The Community Safety Forum, an anti-Islamophobia organization.

“This sort of thing panders to stereotypes and further divides us. It will increase anti-Muslim hate crime,” the group claimed.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes being, of course, the issue that is currently roiling Europe. Here is the Manchester Police Department’s statement:

“For the past 24 hours, GMP (Greater Manchester Police), along with other agencies, has been hosting a counter-terrorism training exercise based at the Trafford Centre, which began with a mock suicide bomber detonating a bomb inside the shopping centre,” police spokesman Gary Shewan said.

“It is a necessity for agencies, including the police, to train and prepare using exercises such as this, so that we would be in the best possible position to respond in the event that the unthinkable happened and an attack took place.”

“The scenario for this exercise is based on a suicide attack by an extremist Daesh-style organisation,” he continued, using the Arabic term for the ISIS terrorist group, “and the scenario writers have centred the circumstances around previous similar attacks of this nature, mirroring details of past events to make the situation as real life as possible for all of those involved.

“However, on reflection, we acknowledge that it was unacceptable to use this religious phrase immediately before the mock suicide bombing, which so vocally linked this exercise with Islam. We recognise and apologise for the offence that this has caused.”

“Linking” Islamic terrorism to Islam is now an offense punishable by career derailment.

So, what is the actor carrying out a mock suicide bombing supposed to yell before he pulls the cord? Excelsior? Geronimo? (No, wait, never mind.) Take that, you Limeys? I suppose he had best maintain a discreet silence.

Reality eventually intrudes:

Also on Tuesday, Italian police revealed that two Afghan nationals arrested in the southern Italian city of Bari were part of an Islamist terror cell linked to ISIS, which was plotting attacks in both Italy and Britain.

Three other cell members are still at large, two of whom are believed to have returned to Afghanistan.

Fortunately, the terror attacks planned by this stall have been forestalled, at least for now. But if they had been carried out, you can be sure they would have been preceded by cries of “Allahu Akbar.”

fake-suicide-bomber

The Manchester suicide bombing exercise

Categories: Britain, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Political correctness
Tags: Britain, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Political correctness

Comments: Be the first to comment

Pro-Palestinians Muslims in Britain attack people for drinking beer while shouting “Free Palestine”

May 10, 2016

Pro-Palestinians Muslims in Britain attack people for drinking beer while shouting “Free Palestine” LiveLeak Channel, May 8, 2016

Categories: Britain, Islamic tolerance, Pro Palestinians
Tags: Britain, Islamic tolerance, Pro Palestinians

Comments: Be the first to comment

New UK campaign – it’s ‘payback time’ for the EU

May 9, 2016

New UK campaign – it’s ‘payback time’ for the EU, Israel National News, Ari Yashar, May 9, 2016

As the UK is poised ahead of a fateful vote on whether or not to remain in the EU, a group of concerned British ex-pats and Israelis have launched a new “Support Israel-Leave Europe” campaign to get Britain out of the EU and stop helping its efforts against the Jewish state.

The campaign, which is funded by Jewish land rights watchdog Regavim and whose website can be viewed here, has launched a humorous video of Hamas terrorists calling on the UK to stay in the EU to continue helping fund the terrorists in their fight against Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=vO654XRQ7FI

Regavim’s work on the project comes amid their legal battle against the EU over its funding of illegal Arab settlements in Area C, the region in Judea and Samaria designated as being under full Israeli control by the 1994 Oslo Accords and which contains all the Jewish residents. Area A is under complete Arab control and only security in Area B is controlled by Israel.

The new “Support Israel-Leave Europe” campaign presents several major reasons why those who support the Jewish state should want to see Britain leave and consequently weaken the EU.

Firstly, the EU has paid millions in aid money to the Palestinians, a large portion of which is going directly to pay the salaries of terrorist murderers.

Another strike against the EU is its funding of illegal Arab buildings in Area C, as it has built over 1,000 structures in the region to create a de-facto state of “Palestine” there.

The campaign also argues the EU’s recent campaign to label all Jewish products made in Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is a form of state-sponsored anti-Semitism, and finally it notes that the EU provides huge budgets for hundreds of virulently anti-Israeli NGOs to support their work delegitimizing Israel and conducting lawfare against it.

“For decades the European Union has meddled in Israeli affairs to the detriment of the Jewish State, for thousands of Israel supporters in the United Kingdom and ex-pats around the globe, it’s pay back time,” said Ari Briggs, Regavim’s international director.

“We call on everyone who supports Israel to ‘vote leave’ and deal a major blow to this mammoth bureaucracy that has an unhealthy obsession with Israel.”

Briggs warned that “the double standard in which the EU holds Israel, is nothing short of state-sponsored anti-Semitism. We encourage all eligible ex-pats in Israel and elsewhere to make sure they are on the electoral registry before the June 7th deadline to ensure they can vote, all the information needed is provided on our website.”

Categories: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Israel, Israel and EU, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian schools, Palestinian terrorists, Palestinians and Jews, Support for terrorism
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Israel, Israel and EU, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian schools, Palestinian terrorists, Palestinians and Jews, Support for terrorism

Comments: Be the first to comment

London’s New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist?

May 8, 2016

London’s New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist? Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, May 8, 2016

Sadiq-Khan-HP

Sadiq Khan makes his acceptance speech. (Photo: Video screenshot)

Majid Nawaz’s assessment of London’s new Muslim mayor, the newly elected Sadiq Khan, is that he is not an Islamist extremist. He is merely a manipulative politician willing to use guile and duplicity to achieve his electoral aims — not so different from the average politician.

Leading up to the mayoral vote, questions arose about Khan’s association with extremists, which constitutes a long list in the new mayor’s political history.

Consider:

In 2001, Khan was the lawyer for the American radical Islamist group Nation of Islam, successfully arguing in front of the UK’s High Court to overturn the ban on its leader, Louis Farrakhan.
In 2003, Khan appeared at a conference with Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the banned al-Muhajiroun group that was founded by hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad (now prohibited from entering the UK) and led by hate preacher Anjem Choudary (whose many organizations have been said to have contributed “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history”). Sajeel also ran a terrorist training camp in Pakistan attended by 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.
In 2004, Khan testified to the House of Commons as head of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee. As council legal head, Khan argued in parliament that the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi “is not the extremist that he is painted as being.” Qaradawi (also banned in the UK for his extremist views) advocates, among other sharia principles, for wife beating and suicide bombings against Israeli citizens. After the murder of an Ahmadi Muslim in Scotland for wishing his Christian customers a peaceful Easter, the council “condemned” the incident by pointing out that Ahmadis are not Muslims.
Khan was the defense lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 terrorist and confessed member of Al Qaeda.
Khan attended events for the extremist group CAGE and wrote a forward for one of their reports. CAGE is a primary supporter of the Islamic State executioner known as “Jihadi John,” who they described as a “beautiful young man.”
Khan appeared on panels with Muslim community leader and cleric Suliman Gani, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), no less than nine times.
In 2010, Khan shamelessly played the Ahmadi card, flaring up sectarian hatred in his reelection bid to the parliament when faced with stiff competition from Nasser Butt, an Ahmadi who had opposed the war in Iraq unlike Khan who had voted in favor of it.

Defending himself against charges of extremism, Khan points to his record on supporting rights for homosexual and transsexual rights. Since he was first elected to parliament in 2005, that support has been unwavering.

Khan has been an outspoken critic of anti-Semitism. Most recently, he stated he was “embarrassed and sorrowful” about the glaring anti-Semitism that has been spotlighted in his own party.

As the Muslim Public Affairs Committee in the UK (MPAC-UK) derogatorily pointed out in a comment piece on their website posted just two days before the election, “A Vote for Sadiq Khan in the London Mayor Elections is a Vote for Israel.”

Much to MPAC-UK’s chagrin and dismay, Khan is an opponent of the anti-Israel BDS movement. Although he called for sanctions against Israel in 2009, he says he has since changed his mind.

On the last day of his campaign, it was revealed that in an interview Khan gave in 2009 on Iranian television, he referred to Muslims fighting extremism as “Uncle Toms.” (He has since apologized.)

Still, Majid Nawaz insists that Khan is no extremist. Khan was Nawaz’s lawyer when he was arrested in Egypt for working for the banned Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Nawaz, now a prominent counter extremism campaigner, says he is forever indebted to Khan for visiting him in Egypt’s Mazra Tora prison, “while the world gave up on me.”

Ironically, it was Nawaz’s counter-extremism foundation Quilliam that were targeted by Khan in his “Uncle Tom” remarks.

Nawaz refrained from commenting on Khan and his electoral bid until after the election. In his first piece penned after the election, Nawaz paints a picture of Khan as a realist (read: opportunistic) and consummate politician.

“When push comes to shove, gaining power becomes more important for politicians from all parties, than defending principles,” writes Nawaz. “And sadly, extremists remain among the most powerful organized forces in Britain’s Muslim grassroots.”

Nawaz explains the unfortunate political climate in today’s Britain: “By 2009, extremism had grown so rife among my own British Muslim community that, in a sign of our times, a Muslim government minister for Social Cohesion [Khan] would find it politically expedient to call a group of Muslims, who were not in government, ‘Uncle Toms’ simply for criticizing extremism.”

Yet, Nawaz doesn’t give Khan a free pass, saying, “It did not need to be like this. As a column in the Wall Street Journal recently noted, ‘Other Muslim leaders took a different approach.’

“The struggles that reforming liberal and ex-Muslims face every day, the dehumanization, the delegitimization, the excommunication, the outcasting, the threats, intimidation and the violence makes this inexcusable … Why is it okay for a mayor to have shared panels with all manner of Muslim extremists, while actively distancing himself from, and smearing, counter-extremist Muslims?”

A good question it would behoove the new mayor to answer.

Categories: Britain, Islam, Muslim mayor of London
Tags: Britain, Islam, Muslim mayor of London

Comments: 1 Comment

Op-Ed: Britain’s Labour Party and the sunny side of Adolph Hitler

May 7, 2016

Op-Ed: Britain’s Labour Party and the sunny side of Adolph Hitler, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, May 6, 2016

Suddenly, Hitler is back in the picture, and quite popular too.

If you’ve been following the news trending from Britain’s Labour Party, you know that’s where anti-Semitism has been making a comeback with a vengeance, if it ever left, and where some 50 Labour members have been suspended and others have been censured for tasteless remarks against Jews and/or the Jewish State.

All that, but they can’t seem to suspend anti-Semitism.

Several of these rascals have been named, including the lady who forcefully suggested that Israel ought to be cleansed of Jews and moved to the United States. Quite a few of these names sound foreign and nothing like what we’ve been used to over the centuries, like Winston, Clive and Ken.

Instead, Mohammed ranks near the top for names given to newborns in the UK.

Yet the biggest headline comes from the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who’s been quoted as saying that Hitler was a Zionist.

Dare we call that anti-Semitism – that, plus the resurfaced obsession with Jews in the first place? Well, anti-Semites come in a variety of sizes.

But, as we see, one word fits all.

From my findings I have concluded that there are people who are full-time anti-Semites, they go to bed and wake up like that — and people who are part-time anti-Semites, I call them weekend anti-Semites, acting on the impulse when it’s slow around town and there’s nothing better to do than hate Jews.

That’s when people like Ken Livingstone awaken themselves to the sunny side of Adolph Hitler.

We have them here, too, in the United States, like author Michael Chabon who gets double credits; he is Jewish and a full-time anti-Semite. Impressive!

Back to Britain, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, himself with shaky credentials as a Zionist, says, who me?

He claims that there’s no anti-Semitism going on in his back room worthy of the label.

He wants it defined. Let me try. True, there is no such thing as an official anti-Semite. We trust our instincts when we come across one.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart explained it like this when he was asked to rule on pornography, “I know it when I see it,” and that is precisely how it works for me when I am asked to pin it down on anti-Semitism. We know who you are, period, and if that sounds too harsh, imagine how we feel when out of the blue we are Topic A all over again.

For what reason? Who knows? Anti-Semites, they know.

Truths is, I never liked using the term and have avoided it as much as possible in my books and columns, first because it is shopworn, overused, too simple, and it is the ultimate putdown. So here, however, is the problem. There is no substitute. An anti-Semite is an anti-Semite and no synonym will do.

I checked the Thesaurus and nothing doing; it keeps sending me back to anti-Semitism, and back to Britain and the rest of Europe.

If I sound touchy about the anti-Semitism roiling Labour this very day, well we’re in a period of remembrance for the Holocaust that wiped out more than half my family, so now is not the best time for keeping a stiff upper lip, which anti-Semites seldom do anyway, being ever so quick to speak freely about their intolerance.

For me, as a novelist, Israel is the perfect love story – the Romance of a Land and its people.

At the moment when Britain’s left – and who knows about the right? – is so busy with the Jews, thank God we have this blessed Land.

We know what anti-Semites can do once they get their hands on us – but now it’s not so easy, is it?

Categories: Antisemitism, Britain
Tags: Antisemitism, Britain

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives