New UK Anti-Terror Code

February 19, 2009

UK: Any Muslim advocating for the caliphate, sharia, jihad, and the slaying of homosexuals to be branded "extremist" -- new anti-terror code

In other words, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain. Yet "opponents say the strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and alienate them even further." If a Muslim believes in all the above, he/she has already alienated themselves from UK society; and so, it is a moot point for the UK to worry about "further alienating" them.

"Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims,'" by Vikram Dodd for the Guardian, February 17:

The government is considering plans that would lead to thousands more British Muslims being branded as extremists, the Guardian has learned. The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month.

Some say the plans would see views held by most Muslims in Britain being classed by the government as extreme.

According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces. But opponents say the strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and alienate them even further.

The Guardian has also learned of a separate secret Whitehall counterterrorism report advocating widening the definition of who is considered extremist. Not all in Whitehall agree with the proposals and one official source said plans to widen the definition were "incendiary" and could alienate Muslims, whose support in the counterterrorism effort is needed. There were also fears it could aid the far right.

Contest 2 is still being finalised by officials and ministers. Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds. Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation thinktank, said the root causes of terrorism were extremist views, even if those advocating the views did not call for violence.

Husain, once an extremist himself, said: "Violent extremism is produced by Islamist extremism and it's only right to get into the root causes."

Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims. Bunglawala, who now runs Engage, which tries to get Muslims to participate in politics and civic society, said: "That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists."

Well, Bunglawala, if the shoe fits -- wear it.

In a speech in December, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the government's counterterrorism strategy had to include challenging nonviolent extremist groups that "skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies".

The Contest strategy was put in place in 2003 as the UK beefed up its response to the threat of al-Qaida inspired terrorism.

But the security service's assessment shows no drop in those they consider dangerous and the UK's terror threat level remains at severe general.

The Home Office said: "We don't comment on leaked documents."

Lord Ahmed Threatens Parliament

England MP Lord Ahmed Threatens UK Democracy With 10,000 Terrorists

Hamas supporting, Jew, Christian bashing Lord Ahmed
brings Islamic Jihad into English House of Lords.

By Herb Brandon
Israel News Agency

Jerusalem --- February 14, 2009...... Illustrating Islamic Jihad in England, MP Lord Ahmed has threatened to mobilize 10,000 Jihadists against the English Parliament.
Hamas supporting Ahmed was responding to a member of the England House of Lords to invite colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch parliament who was invited to screen his anti-terrorism movie Fitna.

Wilders branded the British Government “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe” after he flew in to Heathrow yesterday and was promptly put on the first plane back.

"I am going to Great Britain because I was invited by another politician [the UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch]. I am a democrat. I am serving freedom of speech. They are not only being nasty to me, they are being nasty to freedom of speech. They are more Chamberlain than Churchill," said Wilders.

The MP had been invited to attend a showing of his 17-minute film at the House of Lords by Lord Pearson. The film features verses from the Koran with images of terrorist attacks in New York, London and Madrid, and calls on Muslims to remove “hate-preaching” verses from the text. Lord Pearson said that the screening would go ahead regardless.

The decision to refuse Wilders entry provoked Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Minister, to call David Miliband, the UK Foreign Secretary, to protest against the decision. “The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable,” Mr Verhagen said.

The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in?

A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Wilders’ opinions with him.

Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place last Thursday was cancelled. But after several hours of discussions on freedom of speech the event was placed back on.

Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistan press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”

A victory for the Muslim community, but a defeat for British democracy where topics to which Muslims object cannot even be debated. That, apparently, is what one gets when one accepts Muslims into the UK House of Lords.

Lord Ahmed is considered to be a “moderate” Muslim. The Pakistan born Nazir Ahmed became the United Kingdom’s first Muslim life peer in 1998. He is a member of the Labour Party and was appointed to the Lords by Tony Blair. Lord Ahmed took his oath on the Koran. He led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia. In February 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted an inciteful, hate smitten book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. In 2007, he responded to the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie by stating that he was appalled, saying that Rushdie had “blood on his hands.”

Lord Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up “to promote world peace in the aftermath of 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance.”

Thomas Landen of the Brussels Journals states: "What does “dialogue” mean to those who make discussion about controversial issues impossible? Thank you, Mr. Blair, for bringing “diversity” to the House of Lords."

If anyone had doubted the extent to which Britain has capitulated to Islamic terror, the banning of Geert Wilders into England, the home of the Magna Carta, should surely open their eyes. Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament who had made an uncompromising stand against the Koranic sources of Islamist extremism and violence, was due to give a screening of Fitna, his film on this subject, at the House of Lords on Thursday. This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak. To their credit, the Lords authorities had stood firm and said extra police would be drafted in to meet this threat and the Wilders meeting should go ahead.

But shortly afterwards the British government announced that it was banning Wilders from the country. A letter from the Home Secretary’s office to Wilders, delivered via the British embassy in the Hague, said: "the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

English newspapers were not silent.

The Times states today: "Again and again we are told that Islam is a religion of peace and equality; how does that tally with some of what the Koran says?

What makes such anxieties really toxic is the feeling that they are suppressed and ignored by our government. Critics of Islam, however reasonable, know they are likely to fall foul of the many new Labour laws against freedom of expression, in particular against incitement to religious hatred, which was enacted under Muslim pressure.

Yet despite these laws, which silence critics of Islam, Muslims are allowed to teach views that are illegal in public mosques. The awkward truth is that certain teachings in the Koran are against the law in this country – teachings about homosexuality and the position of women, for example. In some places the Koran and some other Muslim teachings are sexist, homophobic and likely to incite religious hatred.

To call the Koran “fascist” as Wilders has done is stupid, empty and needlessly offensive. However, to say that some of its teachings, taken literally, are unacceptable in this country is merely to report a fact.....Wilders was kept away because of tacit threats from some British Muslims who won’t accept criticism of any kind. I don’t think the ban had much to do with the equally, but differently, agitated feelings of the non-Muslim majority: if Smith had considered them, she might have realised that it was equally inflammatory not to let Wilders in. David Miliband, our gaffe-prone young foreign secretary, was quick to point out that Fitna is “ a hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred and is contrary to our laws”. But he then had to admit that he hadn’t seen it either."

The Independent in an editorial says: "Joan Smith: Free speech has to be for all, Home Secretary. Let's start by getting a couple of things clear: Jacqui Smith is an idiot for banning Geert Wilders, and even more of an idiot to do it after the Government was lobbied to ban him by Lord Ahmed. The Home Secretary's argument for refusing to admit Mr Wilders again (he was here in December) is feeble; the only way his presence might threaten public security is if there was an intemperate reaction by people who don't like his views. Demands for a ban are based on the same perverse reasoning that led to Salman Rushdie's being accused of having "blood on his hands" – by Lord Ahmed – because some idiots chose to respond violently to his novel The Satanic Verses. According to this sophistry, it isn't someone's fault if he loses his temper and hits me; it's mine for upsetting him in the first place. It's got so bad that when Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque showed imams preaching hate in British mosques, the Crown Prosecution Service and the West Midlands Police began investigating the film-makers, coming to their senses only when they found themselves on the wrong end of a libel action. I don't like Mr Wilders' politics, but he doesn't advocate killing people, unlike Sheikh Qaradawi, who was allowed into this country until someone belatedly noticed that he supports suicide-bombing."

The Telegraph states: "Geert Wilders may be obnoxious, but he was elected; Lord Ahmed was not. Lord Ahmed claims that Wilders is guilty of incitement. He isn't. Being obnoxious is not a criminal offence. To find someone guilty of incitement, you need to show that they, you know, incited someone. Some of the preachers that Wilders excoriates are guilty of incitement in this sense, but this never seems to impede their entry and re-entry into the UK. No doubt in future all members of the Saudi Arabia ruling class will be denied entry, too. They do not call for the banning of the Bible and outlawing of Christian worship in their kingdom - they have done it. "

Melanie Phillips of the Spectator says: "So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.

It was the same reasoning that led the police on those pro-Hamas marches to confiscate the Israeli flag, on the grounds that it would provoke violence, while those screaming support for genocide and incitement against the Jews were allowed to do so. The reasoning was that the Israeli flag might provoke thuggery while the genocidal incitement would not. So those actually promoting aggression were allowed to do so while those who threatened no-one at all were repressed. And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’.

Wilders is a controversial politician, to be sure. But this is another fateful and defining issue for Britain’s governing class as it continues to sleepwalk into cultural suicide. If British MPs do not raise hell about this banning order, if they go along with this spinelessness, if they fail to stand up for the principle that the British Parliament of all places must be free to hear what a fellow democratically elected politician has to say about one of the most difficult and urgent issues of our time, if they fail to hold the line against the threat of violence but capitulate to it instead, they will be signalling that Britain is no longer the cradle of freedom and democracy but its graveyard."

Lord Ahmed, has not only taken aim at Salmon Rushdie and Geert Wilders but is openly advocating the arrest of British Jews.

"I asked Her Majesty's government if they were aware of British citizens who may have been involved with the war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Force and Israeli Defense Reserves. Her Majesty's government did not have any figures because dual nationals do not have to inform the government. However, there are reports in the Daily Mirror and The Sun with the names of British citizens who have been fighting in Gaza," said Ahmed.

"The point I was making is that war crimes have been committed, white phosphorous has been used and if there are people who have broken the 4th Geneva Convention, then whoever they are, when they return to this country, they should be arrested and charged - unlike the Major General who escaped in 2005."

Press TV asked Ahmed: "Are you certain these are up to date reports about British citizens serving in Israel?"

Ahmed responded: "These are very new reports, dated January 2009, of British citizens who have gone out to fight against the Palestinian people as part of the IDF. Their names and ages are mentioned in these reports. We know that there are student unions that have been actively recruiting young people in Britain to join the Israeli Defense Force and we also know that there are young Jewish students who go and serve on the kibbutz and also in schools, who are also then doing national service in Israel."

Ahmed attempts to play divide and conquer with British Jews quoting England MP and self-hating Jew Gerald Kaufman. "We know that very fine members of parliament like Gerald Kaufman MP, who is himself Jewish, very openly said that just because these people were victims of the Holocaust does not mean they should perpetrate another holocaust on the Palestinian people." Gerald Kaufman is one of England's leading Jewish critics of Israel. Kaufman has called for economic sanctions and an arms ban against Israel, citing the success of such measures against apartheid South Africa. He has called Israel a "pariah" and its senior politicians "war criminals". Kaufman also made a comparison of Hamas terror members in Gaza to the Jewish resistance during World War II, saying: "The spokeswoman for the Israel army, Major Leibovich, was asked about the Israeli killing of Palestinians. She replied instantly that '500 of them were militants'. That was the reply of a Nazi. I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants." And he said: "It is time for our government to make clear to the Israeli government that its conduct and policies are unacceptable and to impose a total arms ban on Israel.”

Kaufman sounds more like an Islamic Capo than a Jew. He actually supports Hamas, a US defined terror organization, which openly declares its intent to destroy all of Israel. Israel, which left Gaza three years ago in a unilateral peace move, has been attacked by over 8,000 missiles from Gaza in that time.

Twenty years ago, on February 14 1989, when the Iran Islamic leader, Imam Khomeini delivered his fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's death, Ahmed was truly elated. It was a very welcome reminder that British Muslims did not have to regard themselves just as a small, vulnerable minority; they were part of a truly global and powerful movement. Ahmed said: "If we were not treated with respect then we were capable of forcing others to respect us."

In London, Lord Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim peer, said he had been "appalled" by the award to a man he accused of having "blood on his hands".

The UK's first Muslim life peer has joined forces with a number of British-based Islamists to sign a letter praising Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who walked out of a recent debate after a bitter argument with President Shimon Peres over Gaza.

Lord Nazir Ahmed recently led a delegation to the Turkish Embassy in London to pay tribute to Erdogan for walking off the stage during the appearance with Peres at last month's Davos Conference, according to a London-based think tank, the Center for Social Cohesion (CSC).

The letter was signed by a number of radical Islamists, including Mohamed Ali Harrath, who was convicted in absentia in 1992 for terrorist-related offenses by a Tunisian court, and Mohammed Sawalha, described by a US court as a former Hamas leader, and presented by the delegation to the embassy.

Harrath was on Interpol's most-wanted list, and had connections to Osama bin Laden, the CSC said.

According to the BBC, Sawalha masterminded much of Hamas's political and military strategy in the West Bank. He also served as president of the Muslim Association of Britain, described in parliament as the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a document submitted as evidence in a US federal court, the movement's goal is described as a kind of grand jihad aimed at destroying Western civilization from within and "sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

"By being part of this delegation, Lord Ahmed is allying himself with some of the most radical Islamists in the UK," CSC researcher Robin Simcox said.

Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle writes: "On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas. The gist of Shamir - Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the [political] parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking.” “In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.” “The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” “Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide.”

Why would Lord Ahmed have hosted such a man in the Lords, asks Pollard?
It is, of course, possible that Lord Ahmed had no idea that Shamir - Jermas was a rabid anti-Semite. Yet it takes only a quick Google to discover his views and background. He has worked for Zavtra, Russia’s most anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.

Ahmed did nothing to dissociate himself from Shamir and to this day must, we assume, be proud of having issues his invitation.

So that gives us a pretty good idea of what he considers acceptable. David T takes up the latest instalment in the tale of Lord Ahmed:

"Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who has moved in a very few years from a liberal to an anti-immigration position, that has brought him close to the neo Nazi party, Vlaams Belang. He is facing prosecution in the Netherlands, in connection with his film “Fitna”.

A member of the House of Lords has proposed a screening of Geert Wilders’ Fitna. This is what happened next: The British Parliament has canceled the showing of a controversial film “Fitna” by the right-win Dutch MP Geert Wilders following vociferous protest by the Muslim community. The screening was to take place on January 29 at the House of Lords. The decision to cancel the showing was taken on Friday when Lord Nazir Ahmed had a meeting with the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and Leader of the House of Lords, together with representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, British Muslim Forum and other representatives from the British Muslim community. The Far-right Dutch politician will now be put on trial for his public statements against Islam. As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been canceled Lord Ahmed termed the decision as “a victory for the Muslim community.”

As David T writes with regard to Ahmed's invitation to Shamir: There were no meetings with whips or leaders. There were no demonstrations. The meeting was not cancelled.

I think it's pretty clear where we Jews and Christians stand with Lord Ahmed now.

Clearly Lord Ahmed is selective about the types of free speech he chooses to condemn."

And so is the current British government.

Great Britain, famous for appeasing Adolph Hitler a half century ago, is appeasing today all those who seek to replace English law with Islamic Sharia law.

After all, many English MP's need the Muslim vote to stay in power and the Arab oil rich states to finance their next electoral campaigns.

England, which once stood proudly as an icon for freedom and democracy, today allows supporters of Islamic suicide bombers to enter their nation while banning those who wish to talk about 9/11 and 7/7 Islamic terror London bombings.

Geert Wilders Banned From UK

GEERT WILDERS' SPEECH IN HOUSE OF LORDS IF HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

vrijdag, 13 februari 2009

London, Feb. 12, 2009

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.
For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.

But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.

You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?
Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.

The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.

Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

We have to defend freedom of speech.

For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

The choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.


Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands

UK's Muslim Schools Linked To Extremists

Exclusive: over 60 per cent of Britain's Muslim schools have extremist links, says draft report

Posted By: Damian Thompson at Dec 17, 2008 at 13:05:37 [General]

Britain's Muslim schools have been sharply criticised in a controversial draft report commissioned by a leading think tank which suggests that over 60 per cent of them are linked to potentially dangerous Islamic fundamentalists.

An early version of the report, entitled When Worlds Collide, alleges that of the 133 Muslim primary and secondary schools it surveyed, 82 (61.6 per cent) have connections or direct affiliations to fundamentalists. The 133 schools are in the private sector but supposedly subject to Ofsted inspection.

The report also claims that some of these schools teach "repugnant" beliefs about the wickedness of Western society and Jews.

The claims in the report, written by Denis MacEoin in response to a commission from Civitas, will provoke ritual cries of "Islamophobia" from the Muslim Council of Britain and fellow travellers such as Koran Armstrong. MacEoin has been careful to back up his claims with evidence - in particular, screen captures of links to Islamic hate-mongers, including supporters of Al-Qaeda.

Civitas, however, is not prepared to endorse MacEoin's 61.6 per cent figure, which will not appear in the published version of When Worlds Collide. A spokesman for Civitas explains: "We want to concentrate on claims that are absolutely robust, rather than complicated material, some of it in Arabic, that might unjustly damage someone's reputation."

Perhaps the most alarming finding of the draft I've seen is that so many of these schools (including ones with no connections to political extremism) are bricking up their pupils behind a wall of Koranic injunctions and Sharia law.

The schools known as Darul Ulooms, which base their curriculum on a seventeenth-century Indian teaching system, include very few secular subjects, claims the report. It says: "Their aim is not to prepare pupils for life in the wider world, but to give them the tools for a more limited existence inside the Muslim enclaves."

The consequences for bright Muslim British girls are absolutely dire. Lively intellects are being destroyed and brilliant careers cut off before they can begin. To quote the report again: “Every year, an incalculable number of Muslim teenagers and young women are lost to the wider world that informs their citizenship.”

The numbers are increasing fast, and there is confusion over how many schools exist. The growth of non-Muslim schools, says MacEoin, is “hugely overshadowed by a rapidly growing sector of Muslim institutions. These now number 127 [sic] full-time schools and an estimated 700 part-time madrassas for intense religious instruction [and that doesn’t include the Darul Uloom seminaries] … Many recreate in the UK the style and content of schooling that can be found in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.” Great.

And all this is happening with the implicit consent of the Government, Ofsted – and Christian leaders, who bang on about the threat to “faith schools” (and, in the case of R. Williams, the virtues of Sharia) while shielding their eyes from the evidence that many Muslim faith schools are poisonously anti-Christian.

I've seen many of the extremely damaging screen grabs on which MacEoin bases his claims. Memo to the Muslim Council of Britain: start lining up irate spokesmen now.