- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 13,178
- Points
- 113
“This is very urgent business ladies and gentlemen. I beseech you. Resist it while you still can and before your right to complain is taken away from you, which will be the next thing,” said the late Christopher Hitchens in 2009. “You will be told you can't complain because you are Islamophobic.”
Fifteen years later, on November 27, 2024, Tahir Ali, Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green stood in Parliament and called for blasphemy laws to be introduced in the UK, placing specific emphasis on Islamophobia Awareness Month at Prime Minister's Questions.
He referred to last year’s United Nations Human Rights Council resolution “condemning the desecration of religious texts, including the Koran”.
He later added on X that the Government should take “clear and measurable steps to prevent acts that fuel hatred in society”.
Keir Starmer agreed, replying: “We are, as I said before, Mr Speaker, committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including of course Islamophobia in all of its forms.”
It would seem that our Prime Minister, habitually putting the international order of the United Nations above the national one of the Crown in Parliament, supports the Pakistani-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution on “combating Islamophobia” on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
As Starmer nodded in acquiescence to Tahir Ali MP’s suggestions, a Muslim school girl admitted in court to lying that her history teacher, Samuel Paty, was Islamophobic. This falsehood led him to being decapitated by an asylum-seeking jihadist.
She lied because she had been suspended from school for a couple of days for bad behaviour and feared her father’s wrath.
To avoid short-term unpleasantness, she made up a story about Samuel Paty ordering Muslim students to leave his classroom while he showed caricatures of Mohammed drawn by Charlie Hebdo, an anarchist French weekly.
Lest we forget, the French magazine became the focus of international news in 2015 when two French-born Muslim murdered 15 cartoonists and journalists, injuring 11 others, because of the publication’s perceived Islamophobia.
You see, mocking Mohammed, synonymous with Islamophobia, carries the death penalty, according to some interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence.
And the industrialised rape of children across England has shown the dangers that arise from those who are too scared to investigate crime for fear of being perceived as racist or Islamophobic. Perceived Islamophobia, then, is dangerous, in some instances, deadly. And it will be much worse soon.
The Labour Party already agrees with the United Nations definition of Islamophobia, co-signed by exalted states such as Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan.
Intellectual giants Professor Imran Awan and Dr Irene Zempi of Birmingham City University and Nottingham Trent University respectively wrote a briefing paper used by the UN on the definition of the term.
Islamophobia is rooted in racism according to Awan and Zempi, the United Nations and, unsurprisingly, our very own Labour Party in Government.
Not, as the late Christopher Hitchens defined it as “the objection of the preachings of a very extreme and absolutist religion.”
As Mr Hitchens foresaw all these years ago, Islam is to be officially turned into a race for all intents and purposes, with the same protections afforded.
The treating of Islam as a race and not a religion is a deeply dishonest metamorphosis. It is in fact a dangerous lie. Of course, Islam is a religion, not a race. There is no overlap at all between the former and the latter.
Forcing the religion peg into the race hole, however, is politically expedient to our iconoclastic leadership class.
It means the threshold for criminal prosecution is easier to cross and will guarantee the final death knell to free speech in the UK.
Back in 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims heard from Dr Nadya Ali and Dr Ben Witham that “there is no ‘good faith’ criticism of Islam” with the central concept being the “inseparability of race and religion”.
Both agreed that the ability to speak freely on the topic is “Islamophobic hate speech” and “anti-Muslim racism.”
Of course, the corollary is that theological discussions on the ocean-wide gulf separating Islam’s central and widely held claims on the one hand and the fully contradictory reality of the contents of the religion’s very own texts on the other will be proscribed.
Intellectual curiosity on the topic, or anything that pertains to it, will be, like bacon and beer, haram. Further, anyone trying to establish what links Islamic terrorism and Mohammed, the perfect example to follow, will potentially be subject to criminal persecution. Seeking truth will become the offense.
Much more pernicious, however, but embedded in the discussion, is the idea that the “crime” of Islamophobia could be retrospectively applied.
As Professor Aristotle Kallis said to the committee, “the institutionalisation of the term genocide allowed for it to be used retrospectively and thus locate all similar crimes within the same category – a process that would be invaluable for identifying and tackling Islamophobic crimes.”
If Starmer supports Tahir Ali’s view of criminalising Islamophobia, with the broad Labour Party, Pakistan and the United Nation’s Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s blessing, the entire history of Great Britain will be judged retrospectively and dismantled.
Churchill, among others, will be an obvious target for the retrospective crime of Islamophobia. He wrote in The River War in 1899 that Islam “is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog.”
Another target will be the Cross of St George, thought to have been Richard the Lionheart’s crusader flag. Indeed, every institution and leaders from our past will be subjected to erasure for their perceived Islamophobia retrospectively, outlawing 1400 years of our island history, and us, in the process.
Anyone wishing to defend them or our inheritance will be branded and attacked in turn. The victim will become the aggressor and the aggressor the parliamentary-backed victim.
Further, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims points that way by referring to “British values” as a “nebulous concept”, with the Nation State contributing to “compartmentalising and ‘othering’ Muslims”.
The Nation State, a Christian concept, is problematic. As former peer and journalist Matt Ridley said when hearing our own Prime Minister backing blasphemy laws in the UK, this is a “truly black moment for Britain to hear a Prime Minister effectively endorse the idea that we should reintroduce blasphemy law”.
The curtain on our Sceptred Isles could fall very quickly, if it hasn’t already done so.
Fifteen years later, on November 27, 2024, Tahir Ali, Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green stood in Parliament and called for blasphemy laws to be introduced in the UK, placing specific emphasis on Islamophobia Awareness Month at Prime Minister's Questions.
He referred to last year’s United Nations Human Rights Council resolution “condemning the desecration of religious texts, including the Koran”.
He later added on X that the Government should take “clear and measurable steps to prevent acts that fuel hatred in society”.
Keir Starmer agreed, replying: “We are, as I said before, Mr Speaker, committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including of course Islamophobia in all of its forms.”
It would seem that our Prime Minister, habitually putting the international order of the United Nations above the national one of the Crown in Parliament, supports the Pakistani-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution on “combating Islamophobia” on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
As Starmer nodded in acquiescence to Tahir Ali MP’s suggestions, a Muslim school girl admitted in court to lying that her history teacher, Samuel Paty, was Islamophobic. This falsehood led him to being decapitated by an asylum-seeking jihadist.
She lied because she had been suspended from school for a couple of days for bad behaviour and feared her father’s wrath.
To avoid short-term unpleasantness, she made up a story about Samuel Paty ordering Muslim students to leave his classroom while he showed caricatures of Mohammed drawn by Charlie Hebdo, an anarchist French weekly.
Lest we forget, the French magazine became the focus of international news in 2015 when two French-born Muslim murdered 15 cartoonists and journalists, injuring 11 others, because of the publication’s perceived Islamophobia.
You see, mocking Mohammed, synonymous with Islamophobia, carries the death penalty, according to some interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence.
And the industrialised rape of children across England has shown the dangers that arise from those who are too scared to investigate crime for fear of being perceived as racist or Islamophobic. Perceived Islamophobia, then, is dangerous, in some instances, deadly. And it will be much worse soon.
The Labour Party already agrees with the United Nations definition of Islamophobia, co-signed by exalted states such as Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan.
Intellectual giants Professor Imran Awan and Dr Irene Zempi of Birmingham City University and Nottingham Trent University respectively wrote a briefing paper used by the UN on the definition of the term.
Islamophobia is rooted in racism according to Awan and Zempi, the United Nations and, unsurprisingly, our very own Labour Party in Government.
Not, as the late Christopher Hitchens defined it as “the objection of the preachings of a very extreme and absolutist religion.”
As Mr Hitchens foresaw all these years ago, Islam is to be officially turned into a race for all intents and purposes, with the same protections afforded.
The treating of Islam as a race and not a religion is a deeply dishonest metamorphosis. It is in fact a dangerous lie. Of course, Islam is a religion, not a race. There is no overlap at all between the former and the latter.
Forcing the religion peg into the race hole, however, is politically expedient to our iconoclastic leadership class.
It means the threshold for criminal prosecution is easier to cross and will guarantee the final death knell to free speech in the UK.
Back in 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims heard from Dr Nadya Ali and Dr Ben Witham that “there is no ‘good faith’ criticism of Islam” with the central concept being the “inseparability of race and religion”.
Both agreed that the ability to speak freely on the topic is “Islamophobic hate speech” and “anti-Muslim racism.”
Of course, the corollary is that theological discussions on the ocean-wide gulf separating Islam’s central and widely held claims on the one hand and the fully contradictory reality of the contents of the religion’s very own texts on the other will be proscribed.
Intellectual curiosity on the topic, or anything that pertains to it, will be, like bacon and beer, haram. Further, anyone trying to establish what links Islamic terrorism and Mohammed, the perfect example to follow, will potentially be subject to criminal persecution. Seeking truth will become the offense.
Much more pernicious, however, but embedded in the discussion, is the idea that the “crime” of Islamophobia could be retrospectively applied.
As Professor Aristotle Kallis said to the committee, “the institutionalisation of the term genocide allowed for it to be used retrospectively and thus locate all similar crimes within the same category – a process that would be invaluable for identifying and tackling Islamophobic crimes.”
If Starmer supports Tahir Ali’s view of criminalising Islamophobia, with the broad Labour Party, Pakistan and the United Nation’s Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s blessing, the entire history of Great Britain will be judged retrospectively and dismantled.
Churchill, among others, will be an obvious target for the retrospective crime of Islamophobia. He wrote in The River War in 1899 that Islam “is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog.”
Another target will be the Cross of St George, thought to have been Richard the Lionheart’s crusader flag. Indeed, every institution and leaders from our past will be subjected to erasure for their perceived Islamophobia retrospectively, outlawing 1400 years of our island history, and us, in the process.
Anyone wishing to defend them or our inheritance will be branded and attacked in turn. The victim will become the aggressor and the aggressor the parliamentary-backed victim.
Further, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims points that way by referring to “British values” as a “nebulous concept”, with the Nation State contributing to “compartmentalising and ‘othering’ Muslims”.
The Nation State, a Christian concept, is problematic. As former peer and journalist Matt Ridley said when hearing our own Prime Minister backing blasphemy laws in the UK, this is a “truly black moment for Britain to hear a Prime Minister effectively endorse the idea that we should reintroduce blasphemy law”.
The curtain on our Sceptred Isles could fall very quickly, if it hasn’t already done so.
