A little bit more

A Crucifix, a Tory politician and unidentified people masked by veils. Source: Archbishop Cranmer

Concluding my entry, Another smokescreen, yesterday I wrote "A 'Christian MSP', Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives has suggested we should defend the right of Muslim women to wear the burka in the same way we defend the right of Christians to wear a cross. God help us!"

He has. No thanks to our bishops but to Archbishop Cranmer who blogged No, Ruth Davidson: the burqa is a world away from a crucifix. Brilliant.

Conservative Muslim Forum founder Lord Sheikh who criticised Boris Johnson for his comments about Muslim women wearing burkas has been back in the news. 

He told BBC Newsnight that he had received vile Islamophobic messages after calling for Mr Johnson to be sacked.

He said he took most exception to "vile things, horrible things, obscene things about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him".

High profile: David Cameron and Lord Sheikh pictured at a party for the Conservative MuslimForum

                                                                                                          Source: Mail Online 28 July 2013

The Mail Online reported in 2013: "To his many supporters in the Conservative Party, Lord Sheikh, a close  adviser to David Cameron, is the epitome of respectability and  a staunch advocate of family values."

The article goes on: 

"But we can reveal the 72-year-old peer became besotted with an attractive waitress 45 years his junior and travelled to her native Uzbekistan to ask for her hand, only to dump her the day before their secret wedding – all while he was still legally married.

"When his wife of 25 years, Shaida, discovered the relationship, she burst into the crowded cafe where the 27-year-old woman works and  launched a furious tirade against her.

"Lady Sheikh is now divorcing her husband.

"As the high-profile founder and chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum (CMF), Lord Sheikh’s behaviour is likely to cause deep embarrassment for Tories as they try to forge alliances with traditional Muslim voters."

Perhaps as a good Muslim he was striving to emulate the example of the Prophet Muhammad who had many wives and "married Aisha  at the age of six or seven - but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina" [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

"The peer – who has a daughter 15 years older than the waitress – acts as Mr Cameron’s ambassador to the wider Muslim world, as well as drumming up support for the Tories in Britain.

"Recently he said in an interview: ‘I joined the Conservative Party as its policies and ideologies match our own traditions and culture that are based on strong work ethics and family values’."

Another smokescreen

The conviction of 17 men and one woman in Newcastle in August [2017] restarted the national debate on grooming ( PA )                           Source: Independent

BBC Newsnight's coverage of former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnsons’s remarks about wearing the veil reported that the Chair of the Muslim Women’s Network UK regarded his choice of words as "clumsy and inappropriate". While acknowledging he was against a veil ban and against men telling woman what to wear, she said, “The problem I’ve got is the language he used".

One would have thought that Johnson's gaff could have been left there but the skirmishing continues.

Further Newsnight coverage last night featured a debate between journalist Yasmin Alibi-Brown and Claire Fox, Director of the Academy of Ideas:

"Ms Alibi-Brown argued that: 'Boris was jeering here. And I do think politicians have a special responsibility, especially in these fractures times'.

Ms Fox responded: "We should also have the freedom to make judgements and criticise. I believe in religious freedom, absolutely, but only if it comes with a freedom to lampoon, to make fun of."

"She added: 'certain subjects are ring fenced and I do feel that one of the subjects which is ring fenced is an open discussion about a problem of integration'."

Alibi-Brown's interruptions appeared designed to avoid such open discussion as she tried to divert attention to antisemitism. It had a familiar ring.

The furore that has erupted over this relatively trivial story once more provides a smokescreen which obscures far more serious issues such as the longstanding problem of predominately Muslim men regarding young white children as easy meat, as former Home Secretary Jack Straw put it.

Barely reported, and certainly not attracting the moral outrage and indignation as has Boris Johnson's remarks, three men who complained that their human rights had been breached because they may be deported as a result of the decision to remove their British citizenship were told that the decision had been upheld. They had been convicted for grooming and sexually exploiting young girls:

The Independent reported, Rochdale grooming gang members could be deported after judges uphold ruling to strip them of British citizenship

"Three men were among nine men jailed in 2012 after grooming and sexually exploiting young girls. In some cases the girls, aged in their early teens, were raped and pimped out to paying customers in Rochdale and Oldham.

"Each of them challenged the decision, arguing it amounted to a breach of their human rights, but their cases were rejected by both the government’s First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal.

"Outlining their offending, Lord Justice Sales said: 'All the men treated the girls as though they were worthless and beyond all respect. They were motivated by lust and greed'.”

From the Independent 8 October 2017: "Grooming gangs across the country are repeating the horrific abuse exposed in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and most recently Newcastle, victims and investigators have warned.

"There are mounting calls for nationwide action to combat sexual exploitation, with authorities accused of playing catch-up after ignoring victims 'for decades and decades'.

One victim who was abused as a teenager by the Rotherham ringleader waived her right to anonymity. She said abuse was underway “all over the country”.

“It’s an issue for every town and city, more people are being failed,” she told The Independent. “I’m hearing a lot of new complaints from survivors.

“Some are saying they have been to the police and didn’t get taken seriously, others are getting support.

“But I think the Government is still trying to play this down and make out it’s not a major issue – they are not doing enough.”

I don't hear the protesters raising their voices in defence of these vulnerable children.

The authorities have become paralyzed over the years for fear of being accused of being Islamophobic, a strategy designed to avoid any constructive criticism of a supremacist ideology.

So much so that too many politicians have joined the Islamophobia chorus with no apparent understanding of the issues involved.

A "Christian MSP", Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives has suggested we should defend the right of Muslim women to wear the burka in the same way we defend the right of Christians to wear a cross.

God help us!

Postscript [15.08.2018]

"Thirty men and one woman have been charged with offences linked to child sexual exploitation in Huddersfield.

"The offences relate to five women when they were aged between 12 and 18, and are alleged to have taken place between 2005 and 2012.

"Charges those accused face include rape, trafficking and sexual assault.

"Twelve men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have been charged with "numerous offences in connection with the same investigation", police said."

The above report is from the BBC. There are similar press reports, none of which mentions 'Muslim' or 'Islam' although readers of the reports may infer a link from the frequent appearance of names such as Hussain and Mohammed given the similarity of other cases including the conviction of 17 men and one woman in Newcastle in August 2017.

By contrast a former police Chief Superintendent, one of Britain’s most senior Asian policemen,  criticised Boris Johnson for "stating Muslim women wearing burqas 'look like letter boxes' and comparing them to 'bank robbers', are racist and likely to stoke violence against Muslim women."

Since when were Muslims a race?

The former Chief Superintendent would have served the whole community better if he explained what stokes child sexual exploitation and violence towards children among predominately Muslim men of Asian heritage.

Speaking up about more serious matters than attempted humour would be a real step forward.

Nonpcopinionophobia

Left: Hundreds of people protested against the veil ban on Wednesday Source: BBC/AFP  

Right: Mary McAleese at Dublin Pride with husband Martin (right), son Justin (second left) and his husband Fionan Source: BBC/PA

"Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that's still no reason to ban it." - Boris Johnson. The Telegraph (£)

Boris Johnson wrote his article in the Telegraph after the first woman was charged in Denmark for wearing niqab after the Denmark veil ban was introduced.

The law does not mention burkas and niqabs by name but says "anyone who wears a garment that hides the face in public will be punished with a fine".

Nevertheless, the Guardian headlined the event: Boris Johnson's burqa remarks 'fan flames of Islamophobia', says MP.

In the article Boris Johnson is accused of “dog whistle” Islamophobia by a former Conservative chair, Lady Sayeeda Warsi, who said the lack of action by the party over Johnson’s comments showed it was “business as usual.”

Sayeeda Warsi had previously called on the Conservative party to launch a “full independent inquiry” into Islamophobia in the party and warned the Tories were "pursuing a politically damaging policy of denial about the problem in its own ranks".

Back in 2010 she spoke out about what she sees as the rise of Islamaphobia in Britain. By coincidence in 2010 Sayeeda Warsi was "named one of the world's '500 Most Influential Muslims' by Middle East think tank the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre. She also topped the UK's Muslim women power list."

Also getting in on the controversy, "Labour demanded that the Conservative chair, Brandon Lewis, refer the former foreign secretary for mandatory equalities training, amid renewed calls for the party to open an independent investigation into Islamophobia in the party.

"In a letter to Lewis, the shadow equalities minister, Naz Shah, said Johnson’s comments were “ugly and naked Islamophobia” and said Lewis should abide by his word to give Tory members diversity training to combat Islamophobia."

While many people will agree that the Denmark veil ban is reasonable, Boris Johnson did not but he is accused of making Islamophopbic remarks.

Honest opinions are no longer acceptable unless they conform to the latest politically correct dictums so people at large are deterred from saying what they feel for fear of being condemned as Islamophobic regardless of the facts.

In 2011 I blogged under the heading Islamophobia:
"phobia /pho·bia/ (fo´be-ah) a persistent, irrational, intense fear of a specific object, activity, or situation (the phobic stimulus), fear that is recognized as being excessive or unreasonable by the individual himself. There is nothing irrational, excessive or unreasonable about the fear of Islam. In her University of Leicester speech today the Tory Party Chairman, Baroness Warsi, raises the now familiar cry of Islamophobia, warning that describing Muslims as either “moderate” or “extremist” fosters growing prejudice. If it is a question of either we would have to choose "extremist" because at the root of the Islamic ideology is a belief that Islam is supreme and that any means, including lying (taqiyya), are legitimate weapons to achieve world domination."

Constant claims of 'Islamophobia' regardless of the context is a device used to raise a political ideology to a level beyond criticism while religions such as Christianity are under constant threat. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this phenomenon is its contradiction with feminist ideals of 'equality'.

Feminists have used similar tactics in the Anglican Church with their constant cries of misogyny and homophobia. After attacking Western Anglicanism their attention has turned to the Roman Catholic Church which is threatened from within as well as from outside.

 Irish Church must confront issues to avoid 'decline into irrelevance' shouts the Tablet headline. "The Church needs to confront its teachings on issues like celibacy, female ordination, its theology on sexuality and its hierarchical structure, otherwise it will continue to decline into irrelevance, Fr Kevin Hegarty has warned."

In an obvious nod towards secularism he said, “People began to lose confidence in an institution whose teaching on this subject was so out of sync with their lived experience.”

Mary McAleese who was the Irish President of from 1997 to 2011 has condemned the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality as "evil" and was "hopeful the Pope would change the church's position on the issue".

No doubt the former President was influenced by that fact that she was the first recipient of the Vanguard Award at the Gaze LGBT film festival in Dublin. In June she became the first former Irish president to take part in the Dublin Pride parade when she marched with her son Justin and his husband Fionan.

If the Roman Catholic Church follows the example of Western Anglicanism, what hope is there for Christianity in the West?

Free speech must be maintained. If people disagree they must defend their position. Fair comment must not be silenced by unwarranted charges of phobias.

Beyond the veil

Photo: Philip Hollis/Telegraph

"Muslim migrants 'threw Christians overboard during row on boat from Libya to Italy', say police" - The Independent

"Muslim women should be allowed to wear the veil in court, top judge suggests" - The Telegraph

Two headlines from yesterday's newspapers. Intolerance protected by tolerance. How very British, sowing the seeds of our own destruction through kindness which is not reciprocated. That is not turning the other cheek, it is turning a blind eye. The veil may or may not be a sign of oppression depending on your point of view but it has become a symbol which enables some Muslims to thumb their noses at the rest of us while they continue to press for the implementation of Sharia after being welcomed to the United Kingdom.

International lobbyist on human rights and refugee issues, Jacqueline Pascarl lived as a Muslim woman from the age of 17 until she was 22 after marrying a Malaysian prince. She explains here that it is "rubbish" that Muslim women mostly wear the burqa to express their religious devotion. Burqas, she says "reveal more about men than women".

Nevertheless, the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, claims that judges should allow Muslim women to appear in court wearing a full-face veil. It was "crucial that courts and judges show, and be seen to show respect towards different customs". - Even if that involves tossing fellow refugees over the side for being Christians, killing at random, destroying churches and razing ancient settlements while committing "genocide of Christians in the Middle East"? That is increasingly becoming their custom towards minorities in Islamic states.

Lord Neuberger made his remarks in an address to the Criminal Justice Alliance because a judge had ruled that Muslim women wearing a veil over their face must remove it to give evidence in court although women will be allowed to wear a veil when standing trial. The ruling came after the Prime Minister’s office expressed support for allowing schools to ban students from wearing veils. A YouGov poll in 2013 showed that "61% of British adults agreed with the statement, "the burka should be banned in Britain", while about a third (32%) disagreed.

This is where it starts, learning by heart, in Arabic, the words copied by supporters of an illiterate man who claimed they had been delivered to him from God.

The results are all too obvious, among the latest in Australia where five teenagers aged 18 and 19 have been arrested in a series of raids in Melbourne for allegedly planning "atrocious" ISIS-inspired attacks on police and the public next week events in Australia on Anzac Day. Nothing it seems is sacred in Islam, except Islam.

"Not the British way"

"Two thirds of Britons said full face veils made them feel 'uneasy'. "                Photo: Rex Features

"Banning Muslim women from wearing the veil is 'not the British way' and would be like attempts to clamp down on the miniskirt in the 1960s" according to Baroness Warsi in an article for the Telegraph here. Not the best comparison and definitely not the view of the majority of Britons in another Telegraph article here who want to see a ban on full face veils in all public places, similar to the laws in France. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them but if Muslims want to enjoy the benefits of freedom offered by a Christian country they should not abuse the privilege.

The true "British way" encourages openness and freedom of expression. But these values must not be used against us as a means of changing Britain by imposing alien cultures on others, especially in the knowledge that the same privileges of religious expression are denied to non-Muslims in Islamic countries . Wearing the veil is not the British way. Like Islamic dress which is now commonplace, intentionally or unintentionally, it supports cultural jihad by 'normalising' an ideology that despises Western culture:

"In Western Europe, Islam has achieved much of its goal of eroding Western values, culture and institutions from the inside. Islam has very keenly used the failed concept of multiculturalism to exponentially increase the Muslim population in Western Europe while concurrently instituting a policy of creeping yet deliberate institutionalizing of Islamic “states” within the host countries.
There are a few tactics that have greatly helped Muslims to achieve these goals. First, Muslims have demanded that the host nations incrementally adopt various aspects of Sharia law and Islamic traditions, or else risk being deemed discriminatory or “Islamophobic.” Meanwhile, Islamic immigrants increasingly elect not to assimilate into their host societies, choosing instead to cultivate ethnic separatism and push for the creation of a (Muslim-only) state-within-a-state. Finally, Western leaders acquiesce to many Muslim demands in order to avoid further Muslim violence and crime that has plagued Europe over the last two decades." Full article here.

Today comes the news that a terror suspect has gone missing after changing into a burka at a mosque and is being hunted by police. Will they be inhibited in their task by complaints about 'stop and search'? Earlier this year burka-clad Selfridges raiders escaped with £1m worth of watches, story here. It is too easy to play the victim in this country. We are becoming the victims of our own stupidity. We are acquiescing to demands that would be denied to us in other countries because of a misplaced sense of fair play.

In reality Islam has been shoved down our throats for years without our knowledge on a 'not asked, don't tell' basis, see here. I don't want to eat the flesh of an animal that has been bled alive listening to religious phrases recited in praise of Allah. That is not the British way. The last time I shopped at Waitrose was when I enquired whether a leg of lamb was halal after reports that most New Zealand lamb was. The butcher's response was that all their meat was halal implying greater respect for the beliefs of Muslims than for Christians. Although their web site now states that some non-halal meat is available, market share and the profit motive appear to be uppermost in their marketing strategy. By contrast Morrisons has a clear marketing strategy of selling non-halal meat unless specifically asked for. Occasionally things go wrong as demonstrated here but such episodes clearly demonstrate a greater sensitivity to Muslim beliefs than to Christians who are regularly served halal meat slaughtered "In the name of Allah" without their knowledge. Full story here.

Having condemned multiculturalism as a failure a couple of years ago with the comment "We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.  We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values", last week the Prime Minister announced that "Britain is set to become the first non-Muslim country to sell a bond that can be bought by Islamic investors in a bid to encourage massive new investment into the City." Read the article here which drew this response from the Spectator:

And once it is officially proclaimed a good thing for a non-Muslim country to offer sharia-compliant products, it will not be long before rich and powerful people will start arguing that other sharia-compliant customs — marriage, for example, and criminal punishments — should also be accommodated in our law. Our great western economic and financial institutions seem unaware that the battle for sharia-compliance is highly controversial in the Muslim world itself. Extremists push it, moderates resist it. The British government and the City of London are lining up with the former.

Christ had a few things to say about getting around the law so why in a Christian country do we welcome a system of Islamic compliant finance that complies with rules set by Islamic scholars, the same class that issue fatwas against us? Even if we need the money, it is not the British way.

You looking at me?

Photo: Global Research

The 'wise' can make compelling cases for just about everything. There is a reasoned defence by a distinguished professor who teaches law, philosophy, and divinity here of women choosing to wear the veil. There are many other opinions with highlights from the New York Times archives here. In Great Britain the general attitude is 'live and let live'.

Whether it is freedom of choice or freedom of religious expression, save for specific security or health care reasons, people in the UK are allowed to wear what they like provided they wear something. Whilst not a religious requirement, claims that wearing the veil is a religious requirement have become commonplace because Muslim scholars disagree on the subject, but claiming religious rather than cultural reasons has the effect of putting the subject off limits as Islamophobia.

In Egypt where Christians have been under constant attack there is a TV channel featuring only fully face-veiled women. But it is not all women. To quote: "There is also a big role for men at the channel. Maria TV’s owner, Ahmed Abdallah, is a prominent Salafist preacher, well known in Egypt for his anti-Christian rhetoric. Abdallah and his son Islam, the channel’s chief executive, were arrested last month for burning a Bible during a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Sept. 11."

Logic suggests that the modesty of these veiled women would be better protected using a radio show instead but then the visual effect of making the veil commonplace would be lost. In areas of Britain where Islamic influence dominates the sight of the niqab no longer raises an eyebrow - see 'Londonistan' here. Meanwhile in areas where Islamisation is in its infancy the veil actually draws attention. There is an element of cultural jihad here. In some instances the veil has become a means of Muslims thumbing their noses to the very people who have welcomed them choosing segregation in preference to integration. The gullible will see no problem with this until they become victims of exclusion in the land of their birth. In many of British cities in Britain, traditional tolerance has resulted in large areas being converted into ethnic ghettos.

'Live and let live' is not an idiom that appeals to Muslims, rather, it is do it our way, or else! While Muslims insist on their rights in this country, Christians abroad are not so fortunate, see here and here. They are not even allowed to practice their religion openly in some countries. Where it is permitted persecution prevails. In Pakistan on Sunday men, women and children not only had their clothes ripped from them but their bodies were ripped apart. This appalling act of barbarism, perhaps because it is only one of many in Muslin countries, has been almost neglected by the media. - Read Cranmer here for a full account - but beware if you are at all squeamish - and VOL here.

There are occasional protests from the Muslim community in response to acts of terror, usually when they feel vulnerable after another Muslim outrage but otherwise attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims around the world are simply brushed aside as the actions of Islamists who do not represent Muslims in general. They may not represent all Muslims but they all subscribe to the same faith which Islamists claim permits atrocities against fellow human beings, indeed, even against fellow Muslims for holding a contrary view to theirs. 

As a gesture of solidarity against Muslim terrorism women tempted to wear the veil could, if only temporarily, demonstrate their solidarity by rejecting it until Muslims eradicate the violence that shames them. Only then they will stop wondering: You looking at me?

Postscript: Veils, segregated schools and why we risk sowing the seeds of Islamic terror in Britain

From an article by Manzoor Moghal  in the Mail Online:

The aim of true multi-racialism should be to promote tolerance, understanding and integration. These are vital qualities if our increasingly diverse society is to function successfully. But while the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant people, the extremists are pushing in precisely the opposite direction. Their eagerness to impose their fundamentalist, alien values is undermining harmony, with suspicion and division rising in their place...

It’s claimed that, in defiance of all British traditions of tolerance, girls and boys are segregated at the school; that even non-Muslim staff are required to wear the hijab, the Muslim headscarf; and that stringed instruments, singing, the telling of fairy tales and even the use of the word ‘pig’ have all been banned. I am a proud Muslim — but I find this appalling. Such superstitious, divisive nonsense should have no place in a British school. We are not living in rural Pakistan or a Taliban-run region in Afghanistan. Apart from anything else, the pupils are being deprived of a proper, rounded education and therefore will not have the same life chances in adulthood.

Under the great English tradition of justice, we are all meant to be equal before the law, regardless of status, wealth or religion. Indeed, it is exactly that genuine equality under the law that has long attracted many migrants to Britain. ... Nothing imposes that sense of alienation more powerfully than the full veil, which is at the centre of a furore over whether it should be tolerated at educational colleges, or worn by hospital staff and defendants in court.

Read full article: here