please log in to view this image I have posted 2 links in the Nest. Each is a show which was on TV recently investigating the EDL and Extremist Muslim groups. The first was on Ch4 tonight and followed the leader of the EDL, the other was on BBC last week and showed Stacey Dooley as she interacted and spoke to both parties. I thought i would post this so that we can keep all fall out here.
I for one agree that we cannot allow Sharia law in this country. I think it is very sexist, very discriminatory, and racist at a core level. How can a religion which preaches to kill anyone who is not a follower and calls non-believers Infidels be right for anyone?? However, i dont agree that violence is the answer, we have to get all parties together and make them talk.
Extremism in any form is undesirable and I would question the motives of anyone who continually focused on Muslim extremism. Too much reading of the Daily mail perhaps...
If thats directed at me Theo then no. I dont read any paper in particular. I learned a long time ago that they never report the truth, and always twist things. I agree that extremism in undesirable, but is it extremist not to want Sharia law to be practiced over UK law? Is it extremist to not want those who preach hatred and racism to be controlling. Im certain that every man and boy on this board loves and respects women. I doubt any of us would demand they cover their faces at all times, and forbid them to talk for themselves. I am not against multi-cultural societies, but i am against someone telling me what to think and what is best for me. Especially when that person calls me an infidel and is told by their holy book to kill me if i dont convert.
If it's not the Daily Mail, then it's paying far too much attention to lazy journalism...and, sadly, I include the BBC in that category these days. How on earth is Sharia law going to be imposed on the UK? We are still a democracy with a parliament largely made up of white Anglo-Saxons. Are they going to vote in any kind of Sharia law? Of course not and it is blatant sensationalism, based on questionable motives, to suggest otherwise. In fact, BBC or not, it's little better than muck-raking. You might as well suggest the British National Party is about to take control of our legislative system. As for women covering their faces, it is not a practice that will ever find favour with anything more than a minority. Indeed, in most Muslim countries...and I have just returned from one...young women are increasing deciding against it except in the remotest areas. As for your final paragraph, it is arrant nonsense. Yes, there might be one or two extremists who profess such hatred, but considering the number of Muslims in the world, they are no more or less than the various Christian sects who harbour similar thoughts about non-believers. Selecting one group of fanatics and continually highlighting their idiocy suggests a particular agenda which, though you don't read it, the Daily Mail is still the strongest advocate of...
Its nothing to do with lazy journalism. I have these views after watching multiple documentaries, seen the protests, heard the leaders of the groups preaching. Whilst i appreciate that it is unlikely, maybe impossible, i still dont agree with it. How is my last paragraph arrogant? It is a fact that the extremists believe that any person who is not Muslim is an infidel, they also believe that their prophet has told them to convert all and destroy those who cannot be converted.
British society is too tolerant of alien cultures. Yes, respect your neighbour for what he and she is or are, but if they are from elsewhere they must respect what was here first. Surely the reason people move around is the perception they will be able to better themselves or that they will not be persecuted in a place other than their place of birth and as such they should respect the new hosts. I full appreciate that Brits abroad have a terrible reputation because of the behaviour of a few but to see the BBC's female reporters in certain Islamic countries wearing headscarves out of respect to their hosts was surprising, considering the tolerance expressed by Islam of other faiths. A lot of people come to Britain because of this nation's tolerance but to then bring an entire religious/legal system with them is wrong. The arguement that the British wandered about the world imposing their outlook in the 19th century may or may not be relevant here, but currently the British are stepping back from the Commonwealth through a desire to do the right thing, contracts being fulfilled or because the locals want them out, and it is slowly reverting to local rule. I have seen comment that sharia law is permissable for solving local disputes in Britain and that there are already sharia courts in east London. This is completely unacceptable, as is the use of beth din and African witchcraft stuff. This is Britain, we live by British law - that is why we are here. Go to France to live by Fench law, Italy for Italian law, Iran by sharia law. If people wish to change things we have a democratic process that can be followed to get this done and if you don't like that go somewhere you are comfortable. You do not go somewhere and then bite the land that is protecting you, that is totally unacceptable. Rant over.
For me the acid test is, will a persons extremist views impact the freedoms of others. I for one do not care if Muslim women choose to cover their faces in public, just as I do not care if Jewish men choose to cover their heads. But what I do care about is members of our community standing on the streets preaching hatred and threatening me and my family because I choose not to follow their extreme religious zealot views. The only groups that I have seen acting in this way are the Islamic extremist groups that we have all seen in many newspapers and in many television documentaries. I find it offensive to be told that I should burn in hell and that my wife is abused and called a harlot because she is wearing ordinary western clothes whilst walking through a certain town - yes it has happened. Whether Sharia law could become the law of the land in the UK, is not necessarily the point, it is should we allow hatred and violence to be openly preached on the streets of our country? Their comes a point where this is no longer a democratic right. Before I am accused of being a Daily Mail reader - I abhor the the EDL, they are just a bunch of ex football hooligan racists that have found a new platform for their vile activities. I know a fair bit about their leadership and some of their activities and have no time for them either.
Documentary makers are journalists in the broadest sense of the word. If they make programmes suggesting extremists are the norm, they are failing to give an accurate view, pandering to the lowest level of public opinion. I did not use the word arrogant...arrant means something very different. If you read what I said, I did not dispute what extremists believe...simply that they are extremists and as such are in a very small minority. To represent them as typical, and thus influential, simply encourages those in our society who do hold racist views.
Thankfully, we don't have those sort of issues on Jersey - the only time anyone from outside has tried to change our laws, it was the EU. Unfortunately, they succeeded even though we're not a member state. They stuck their nose in as it was affecting the Portugese. The permits they had to live here were for 9 months of the year only and they had to return (most of them are from Madeira) for the other 3. The change happened before I moved here but I get the impression that they didn't have a problem with the old system as most of them were getting the money to buy/build themselves a house back in Portugal. The change has caused ill-feeling towards the Portugese that don't mix and it has got to the point that the Police hope England and Portugal aren't drawn together at major competitions as there was violence after the last time.
I apologise then for thinking you said arrogant. I completely mis-read it. I am not saying they are the norm, thank God, but the fact that in a backwards way they have so much power, look at the arrest of the man for spraying a poppy on a mosque vs the punishment for those who burned poppies shouted hatred at our troops, is a worry. We listen to them more than our own people, and protect them far too much.
I don't think that the EDL or BNP do anyone any favours. For me..if you're going to do something like that, it needs to be done with respect...be the better man etc. These people are illiterate thugs. Their goal is not only not achieved..but they give anyone who a right sided view a bad reputation. The amount of times I have heard "You sound like the BNP" when it's an average right sided opinion (even if it's right-central) is too many to count. I agree with Theo that......it is a minority. I know lots of people who are Muslim, most of which are stand up guys and I have no problem with them in any way, shape or form. But even as a minority....when you live in London where there are so many Muslims....it can still be a lot of people. Sharia Law will not be introduced in parliament......but it is being practised on the street....behind closed doors with a veil of secrecy. That in itself is an outrage, but there is an increasing growth in foreign culture not only becoming popular, but completely overshadowing that of our British culture/s. Sometimes...it is these people's (not just Muslims...) goal to eradicate British culture and replace it with their own. Would they mind? No....they'd love it. Even as a minority.....these people are protected (whilst anyone who protests is a racist and ends up losing their reputation, their careers etc) and they are supported by members of parliament or councils because to not do so would mean that they will be branded racists. Literally, whenever I see a decision made which does not wholly bow down to the will of immigrants (or gay people or whatever other minority) they go straight to the press and the whole story is turned into a racism row.
If by "they" you mean Muslim fanatics, they have no more power than anyone else...less if anything given that they are under constant scrutiny. It's also very typical of the type of lazy journalism I referred to earlier to develop an argument based on the outcome of two different trials and sentences. Among any random selection of judges' conclusions there are always going to be anomalies, sometimes appearing sympathetic to one group; sometimes to another. There is absolutely no evidence that in terms of everyone brought to trial, Muslims are listened to any more than any other identifiable group. As for them being "protected", this begins to sound like paranoia. They have exactly the same rights before the law as anyone else...no more; no less.
"As for them being "protected", this begins to sound like paranoia. They have exactly the same rights before the law as anyone else...no more; no less." If that's the case then, why are the EDL constantly stopped from their protesting in what they believe, (whether right or wrong), where, as the Fanatical Muslims are free to spill there hatred and vile message of their views of the west under the protection of the police, and why were they allowed to burn poppies, spit and shout horrid things at the soldiers, if they arn't 'protected'! It's seems on the face of it, which is where the problem is, is that it's one free rule for the fanatics, and one 'do what your told' rule for the law abiding citizen!
Oxhey, it is very easy for a person of a slightly darker skin tone to claim discrimination on grounds of race and many of the fanatical moslems would indeed claim they are a race apart, which they patently are not. The powers that be are so petrified of causing upset that they will jump to that tune. A paler skinned youth who dresses a certain way and has a certain haircut must, by extension, be a racist. Unhappily it is very easy to paint sweeping generalisations without time or will to ascertain the proper facts, and this is something some of our press is very good at. If I can digress for a moment I read Australia is to deport a British born rapist, who has done his sentence, back to the UK. Why do the British courts not order the repatriation of any foreign born person who has been convicted of a crime in this nation after completing a prison sentence, perhaps they do I don't know? And why is it so easy to extradite a British person to the US and not the othr way around?
It's the same rule for everyone. Any group setting out to provoke violence, racial or otherwise, is likely to face a police effort to prevent public disorder and if they're overheard shouting obviously provocative comments, regardless of who they're aimed at, will be acted against if the evidence is there. I fail to see how "law abiding citizens" are at any kind of risk. But, I suppose, if people are sure someone's out to get them, they won't be convinced otherwise, so I'll waste no more energy trying to persuade anyone otherwise.
Not to mention why can a British citizen be extradited to the US but a radical Muslim cleric (Abu Qatada), who is wanted for inciting violence in the name of his religion throughout Europe, North Africa and the USA, cannot? As to your Australian 'question' Brag - the guy you mentioned is the fourth such case in the last six years that I know of. It may be slightly easier for the Australian government as there is provision in their Immigration Act that allows them to rescind visas in the event of the holders committing serious crimes - I don't think that exists here and, if it does, it may not apply to Euro nationals anyway. Each of the four cases were helped by the criminals themselves who, for reasons best known to themselves, were all long-term residents who had never taken up the offer of Australian Citizenship, meaning that they were only living there under visa conditions. Fortunate for Australia but not so for Britain I guess - especially for the 70 year old woman in London who suffered at the hands of one them three months after he arrived back.
Indeed that is how it should be, but unfortunitely that is not the case, as clearly seen from the news reports. The fanatics got away with it scott free! As for the "I fail to see how "law abiding citizens" are at any kind of risk.", well think of those "law abiding citizens" that lost their life's at 9/11 and 7/7, that thought 'not at risk' to.
This country does deport illegals or undesirable offenders after they have finished their sentence - sorry, I will rephrase that.This country SHOULD deport illegals or undesirable offenders after they have finished their sentence - however many are released from chokey before the Home Office wallahs get their paws on them. They then disappear to probably re-offend again...
