Lord Ahmed Threatens ...

Lord Ahmed Threatens Parliament Into Submission

A Member of Congress announces she is inviting Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders to come to Washington to meet with members of Congress and discuss his documentary film “Fitna.”

When Congressman Abdullah hears about this, he threatens the Member and the entire Congress that, unless Mr. Wilders’ visit is cancelled, he will mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent the visit from taking place.

As a result, the visit is cancelled and Congressman Abdullah praises Allah for delivering a victory to the Muslim community.

Of course, this couldn’t possibly happen in the United States, right? Read the commentary below, roll the clock back thirty years, and ask yourself how many Brits do you think would have believed it could happen in Great Britain today?

What was unthinkable in Great Britain thirty years ago is reality today. This is “cultural jihad” at work.

Twenty years ago who would have believed that today Harvard would create “women only” gym hours to meet the demands of Muslims. Or a state legislature would allow an imam to open its session with a prayer that calls on “victory over those who disbelieve.”

Or the Fairfax County (Virginia) police department dropping an anti-terrorism training program after complaints from Muslim police officers – one of whom was engaging in the various types of subversion the training program was intended to prevent.

For the British Parliament to abandon its right to free speech by knuckling under to the intimidation tactics by Lord Ahmed will only invite more – and bolder – tactics. To think that we in America can follow the path Great Britain has trod and not end up dealing with the same intimidation tactics is the worst form of wishful thinking.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lord Ahmed threatens Parliament into submission

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/01/lord-ahmed-threatens-parliament-into.html

Lord Ahmed is a repugnant individual. Not only in appearance, but in association, character and morality. And to hear that he has threatened jihad on the House of Lords if their lordships should fail to meet his demands only serves to intensify Cranmer’s loathing of the man.

It appears that a member of the House of Lords had invited the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to a private meeting in the Palace of Westminster. She had intended to invite her colleagues in the Lords to a private viewing of his ‘documentary’ Fitna, followed by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion. This is, after all, a liberal democracy, and their lordships enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, not to mention certain parliamentary privileges for the protection of their function in the legislature.

But no sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he ‘threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’.

And so Fitna has been cancelled: it shall not now be screened in the House of Lords on 29th January.

The Pakistani Press is jubliant, and Lord Ahmed is praising Allah for delivering ‘a victory for the Muslim community’.

It is a sorry state of affairs indeed that a parliament whose liberties have been forged through centuries of religious intolerance should succumb to the threats of one intolerant Muslim. Lord Ahmed is manifesting a notion of Divine Right, and one suspects it is precisely the sort of defence of Islam that Prince Charles shall make when he is sworn ‘Defender of Faith’. The blasphemy laws are being re-forged to protect one god, one faith and one prophet; they no longer defend YHWH, Christianity, Jesus Christ or the Church of England. Lord Ahmed is not functioning as a Labour peer; he is the self-appointed khalifa of all things Islamic. He is not concerned to protect freedom of expression or freedom of speech, but to stifle debate and ensure that Parliament submits to the Dar Al-Islam.

It is for moments such as these that one might hope the Lords Spiritual might enter the fray and defend the right of the noble baroness to extend an invitation to a democratically-elected Dutch MP. Their silence is deafening. They no longer believe anything strongly for fear of causing offence; they no longer defend anything for fear of being abolished.

If Lord Ahmed had threatened Cranmer with ‘10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House’, His Grace would have assured his Lordship of 100,000 people of all faiths and none to prevent the Muslims from preventing Mr Wilders from entering the House.

There are occasions when turning the other cheek is sheer folly.