Hate and spite

I rarely comment on things abroad, if I do it's usually that we mind our own business and not get involved. In particular I usually avoid comment about the situation in Israel because I have my views and other people theirs and it's not worth the effort to try and deal with them. Yet as ever the trouble over there has a tendency to translate itself over here if only because the left and islamists have forged an unholy alliance over Israel and their desire to see it wiped from the face of the Earth. Hence unlike islamophobia which appears to be cases of muslims feeling victimised, there has been a rise in anti-semitism which in this case means attacks on the Jewish people living here.
Mail.

Jewish people in Britain are enduring a backlash of attacks, bomb threats and anti-semitic insults fuelled by the bloodshed in Gaza.
More than 100 hate crimes have been recorded by police and community groups this month, more than double the usual number.
Community safety groups fear the total could be the second highest ever recorded, after an explosion of violence during the 2009 Gaza war.
In several disturbing cases attackers have invoked the Holocaust and even shouted: ‘Heil Hitler’ at victims.
A rabbi was attacked by four Muslim teenagers outside a Jewish boarding school in Gateshead in one of the most serious incidents.
In Belfast, bricks were thrown at the city’s only synagogue, smashing windows on two consecutive nights.
Groups of Asian men chanted 'Heil Hitler’ as they drove through a Jewish area of Manchester, throwing missiles at passers-by.
In north London, one pro-Israel organisation received a telephone bomb threat and a Jewish boy riding a bicycle had a stone thrown at his head by a woman in a niqab.

Makes you wonder why we fought WW2

 Wonderful is it not? Just a few reasons why we should never have allowed islam to take root in this country nor allow its pernicious influence any headway in a supposedly civilised country. Essentially these people are in group form a bunch of savages aided and abetted by the moronic left and various groups who call themselves right wing, but are basically nothing of the sort simply authoritarian racists. Sure the left have tried to define the language to the extent that they claim it's anti-zionism not anti-semitism hatred of Isael not Jews, but I'm pretty sure the article above isn't to do with Israel, not really, it's always been about the Jews, language sophistication or not. With the left it's down to Israel's support by America, they still haven't got over the death of the Soviet Union. With muslims it's because they hate everyone who isn't a muslim but espescially Jews who were given a country they felt was theirs and had the temerity to hold it despite 5 invasions by Arab forces and the utter humiliation the Israelis piled upon their pride.
Yes I have my views and my take is the enemy of my enemy etc. But, they should not be bringing these troubles over here and behaving like barbarians. If they want to peacefully protest fine, but both my grandfathers fought Hitler's armies one was at the liberation of Belsen. That muslims believe Hitler was right or didn't go far enough is just another reason in my eyes why they cannot remain here.

Snap

The so called Trojan Horse affair rumbles on though there are doubts to the veracity of the original letter. In the end though it comes down to what's happening in various schools where the majority of pupils are muslim and the things that they are being taught and the teaching staff are being encouraged to teach by the school governors. Whether there's a plot to take over the schools I do not know, I'm pretty sure some islamists would love to, yet it does strike me that even if there were no plot, we'd still have grounds to be worried over what muslim dominated schools are teaching as a matter of course...
Mail.

Fears were raised yesterday of more ‘Trojan Horse’ Islamist plots to infiltrate schools across the country.
Ofsted is carrying out ‘lightning’ inspections at schools in the north and south-east of England amid concerns over governors abusing their position and narrowing the curriculum.
Snap visits have already been made to schools in Bradford, Luton and Tower Hamlets in East London, and more are expected to follow.
One inspection – at a private Muslim school in Luton – uncovered books promoting stoning, lashing and execution.
In Bradford, Ofsted has visited Laisterdyke Business and Enterprise College, where all governors were sacked in April to prevent inappropriate interference in the running of the school. During a visit yesterday, pupils were allegedly forced to revise for exams in the street as staff did not want them speaking to inspectors.

Normally one would wonder what they have to hide, though in this case I suspect we know, it will be behaviour that muslims think is justifies by their religion, yet they know is frowned upon by civilised people.

This is the direct result of multiculturalism and the state holding the rights of minorities above integration and essentially allowing them to think that they are above criticism and reproach for the twisted medieval views islam promotes in violence, misogyny and homophobia. The problem is not what is going on in the schools, it's islam and always has been. Yet there are those out there who will ignore all that islam does simply because they believe it's being persecuted by the state, they believe we are at fault and that somehow or other we are to blame for islamists.
More and more its becoming apparent that there is no place in a civilised society for islam, never has and never will be.

Not a mistake at all...

The BBC have admitted to making a terrible mistake over immigration back during the previous Labour administration. A 'mistake' I believe that many at the BBC and associated leftards believe was no mistake at all.
Express.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson yesterday admitted the Corporation was too slow to acknowledge problems and concerns about mass immigration under Labour.
He said that the BBC made a “terrible mistake” in the late 1990s and early 2000s by avoiding a proper debate amid fears it would “unleash” a wave of racism.
As a result, the BBC, along with many in Whitehall and Westminster, had been too slow to recognise and reflect concerns or address evidence of problems brought by large-scale immigration such as falling wages and community tensions.
Speaking ahead of a documentary called The Truth About Immigration that he is presenting tomorrow on BBC2, he said: “In public life, in politics and, I accept, historically at the BBC (we) didn’t have a warts-and-all...debate about immigration.”

Their solution at the time mirrored that of Gordon Brown was to label anyone who brought the subject up as a bigot, racist or right winger and essentially avoided the subject despite a growing awareness by the public that unfettered uncontrolled immigration was proving to be an utter disaster for communities, leading to factionalism, wage crisis and ghettoism along with the rise of islamist agitation.
No, this was no mistake, but deliberate BBC support of the then Labour government and an attempt to blacken the name of any group who pointed the finger at Labour and their new voting pets along with a tacit support of the EU from whom a tide of immigration was flowing and who left many skilled British workers struggling to find decent jobs paying a decent wage.
Still the BBC have come up with a solution, an absolute masterstroke if I don't say so myself...

A BBC spokesman said: “As we’ve previously made clear, this was a historical issue and we now believe our reporting is in the right place.”

Sorted... right?

Normalising a debased religion

I don't like islam, I believe that those who bomb, maim, mutilate, rob, steal, rape, groom underage children are all following in the exact words of its founder. That's not to say that all muslims are bad people, it's just my opinion that many are good people in spite of their religion, rather than because of it.
So it comes as no surprise that a leftard headmistress jumped the gun by telling parents that children would be marked down for racial discrimination if they did not attend a workshop on Islam. This is despite the fact that islam, nor muslim is actually a race despite the best attempts by the moronic left to insist that it is...
Mail.

Parents today accused a primary school of trying to 'blackmail' them after they were told their children would be marked down for racial discrimination if they did not attend a workshop on Islam.
The headmistress of Littleton Green Community School, in Huntington, Staffordshire, wrote to parents telling them about the school trip to the Explore Islam workshop at Staffordshire University next week.
They were told the Years Four and Six children would be looking at religious artefacts on their visit - and threatened with being labelled as racists 'throughout their school career' if they did not go.

Going through the various comments also displays a staggering ignorance with few being able to tell the difference between a religion and race. As for the schools reasoning that they have to study another religion, you'd think they'd opt to avoid one with a history of barbarism that stretches through to today. This comes on top of a threat of another twin towers outrage by muslim groups in Norway if they don't get a part of Oslo declared a muslim enclave under shariah law.
This is why there is no place for islam in any civilised society and this is why the left who have been complicit in apologising for these barbarians have no place in government, power or influence in the UK as they too are the enemies of civilisation.
We are storing up a dreadful legacy for our children by allowing this religion a place in our society in pretty much the same way as the left supported Hitler at the beginning of WW2 because of the pact between Hitler and Stalin and ended up horrified by the invasion of the barbaric Soviet Union.
You reap what you sow, something leftards and other apologists for the religion of hate seem to forget.

No compulsion?

Whilst I am of the opinion that people ought to be able to dress the way they like whilst out in public, I'm of the opinion that when compulsion is used in the form of a religious mandate then it's very wrong. I'm ok with the likes of Mosques and Synagogues insisting on making visitors wear appropriate garb, but I'm not so sure on forcing non-believers to wear religious garb in a religious school, particularly if they are not of that religion...
Telegraph.

Staff at Al-Madinah School, in Derbyshire, say that they have been told to sign new contracts agreeing to wear hijabs and make girls sit at the back of classes.
The Muslim faith school, which caters for 200 students aged four to 16, also forbids the teachers from bringing in non-Halal food or wearing unacceptable jewellery, it is claimed.
Non-Asian staff have been seen removing the headgear immediately when leaving the building, but refused to reveal the extent of the school's demands.
Nick Raine, regional NUT officer, said: "We are very worried about the school and the education of the 200 children there.
"It's one thing to have a dress code which we can challenge and quite another to build it into a contract.
"The school is publicly accountable so there needs to be greater transparency."

Now whilst I'm mostly of the opinion that it's their gaff, their rules I feel that this is very different from the failure of that Birmingham college to try and ensure that faces will be uncovered for security (and honesty) reasons. This is a deliberate attempt to get staff to comply to a dress code foreign to this country and not islamic in any way shape or form.
As an imam Dr T Hargey who is the Director, Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford put it in a letter to the Times (paywalled)

For Muslims to claim that the niqab/burka is Islamic is not only deceitful, but disingenuous. At best it is an outmoded cultural convention and a primitive tribal habit. Many ill-informed Muslims have, however, been conditioned to conflate culture with religion and befuddle liberal Britain that this is a principle of religious freedom and human rights when it is neither. In fact, it is illegal for masked women to undertake the pilgrimage to Mecca or to perform their daily prayers. If women are prevented from hiding their identity at Islam's holiest shrine, why do they need to do so in the UK?

And as an imam, he would know.
No, this is yet another example of islamics trying to set themselves and keep themselves apart from society and enforce their weird and inappropriate dress sense on the rest of us. I suppose the staff could simply hand their notice in or refuse to wear medieval tribal clothing, but the point is as non islamics not in a religious building is that they simply have no need too.

Sue Arguile, branch secretary of Derby National Union of Teachers, said: "There are worries over practices concerning the discrimination between male and female pupils in the school, with the girls being told to sit at the back of the class regardless of whether they can see the board properly.

Perhaps we should simply close it down as they can't seem to follow civilised patterns of behaviour so that even the left wing NUT are concerned...

Muslim faith schools in race hate shocker!!! Or tell us something we didn't know.

Seems the daily Star has come up with a report that muslim faith schools might just be teaching young muslims some seriously offensive hate material. Took them a while, Channel 4 gave the game away back on 15 January 2007 with Undercover Mosque. Of course it might just be fear of stating the obvious and getting yourself arrested for being honest that might just have stayed their hand considering what happened to Channel 4 along with the examples of others who have stated just what islam is and what muslims are expected to believe and do.

Daily Star. (usual caveats)

“RACE-HATE” schools may be turning kids against the British way of life, secret papers have warned.
Ministers are said to have concerns that more than 100 independent faith schools, most of which are Islamic, could be encouraging anti-British hatred.
But education bosses fear they will be unable to crack down on extremism as it is too difficult to prove it is going on.
A Government source said: “There is a gap between what we think we know and what we can prove.”
Three schools flagged up as being “of interest” in the secret documents are run by a group which is alleged to have links to deported hate preacher Omar Bakri.
The schools, in north London and Berkshire, are controlled by the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation.
It has been claimed the foundation is run by activists from Hizb ut-Tahrir, a hardline Islamic group Bakri was once a member of.
However, the foundation said no such activists were on its board and added the Department of Education had “no concerns about extremism” in its schools.
Other faith schools said to be causing concerns include the Darul Uloom school in Birmingham.
Undercover filming at the school showed pupils allegedly being taught an extreme Islamic creed which blasted Jews and Hindus. This has led the Government to bring in new independent school standards.

Well there's always the infamous quran 5: 60...

Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."

Old Mo is of course talking about Jews and Christians and saying that those of us who question or mock islam are as apes and pigs. As for Hindu's, well they're heathens according to old Mo and don't even get the chance to pay jizya protection money and have to be slaughtered for simply not believing in the guff muslims are expected to suck up and spew out.
Islam is a poisonous faith that corrupts all that it comes into contact with, just look at the shithole nations who ascribe to its tenets. Where it becomes dominant, civilisation goes down the crapper. Most of the originalmuslims who came here wanted to escape islamic societies, unfortunately they didn't put their religion aside, but eventually invited in the imams and fanatics who inevitably destroy the very wealth they'd hoped to share in. As soon as they are able the fanatics cut the muslims off from mainstream society and proceed to alienate muslims from it and antagonise the mainstream with their views to cause the mainstream to view muslims with caution and a whole vicious cycle builds up until either the muslims are removed or they reach the stage through over breeding of taking over the mainstream. that normally wrecks the country involved and the sensible muslims move elsewhere for the whole ghastly cycle to begin again.
Islam is a cancer on our society, it really needs to be excised as soon as possible.

Just remember You may be a muslim if...
1. If you refine heroin for a living,
But you have a moral objection to liquor.
You may be a Muslim

2. If you own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher,
But you can't afford shoes.
You may be a Muslim

3. If you have more wives than teeth.
You may be a Muslim

4. If you wipe your butt with your bare hand,
But consider bacon unclean.
You may be a Muslim

5. If you think vests come in two styles:
Bullet-proof and suicide.
You may be a Muslim

6. If you can't think of anyone
You haven't declared Jihad against.
You may be a Muslim

7. If you consider television dangerous,
But routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
You may be a Muslim

8. If you were amazed to discover that cell phones
Have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
You may be a Muslim

9. If you have nothing against women
And think every man should own at least four.
You may be a Muslim

10. If you find this offensive or racist
You may be a Muslim (or leftard)

Racism

Not normally a subject spoken about when talking about white on white, though in the UK it's apparently ok if the people being discriminated against are the majority. Not that those who commit this type of discrimination or racism consider it to be racist of course, they cannot countenance that their behaviour might be wrong...
Telegraph.

Anti-English rhetoric is at risk of “creeping” into Scottish society after police reported a record number of racist attacks against white Britons, it was claimed last night.
Police recorded 1,295 racist incidents in 2011/12 where the victim was white and British. The total is up a quarter on the previous year and 57 per cent more than in 2004/05.
The category includes both attacks on English people and incidents where the victim is Scottish and the perpetrator is from an ethnic minority.
But the vast majority of perpetrators were also white, suggesting that many cases involved racism against the English.
SNP ministers said they were “very disappointed” by the figures but opposition parties said racist attacks against English people should be treated with the same seriousness as those directed at ethnic minorities.
The overall number of racist attacks increased by 10 per cent last year, with the largest number of incidents directed against the Pakistani community.

Thing is the Scottish Nation (though not individual Scots as such) have a history of anti-English violence along with a history of sectarianism which has often been excused as apparently the English 'ruled' them from Westminster and because the English were 'occupiers' that somehow justified bigotry, hatred and discrimination. Recent cases include the 'brave' Scot who attacked an English schoolboy for wearing an England top. Along with a woman beaten up simply because she was English. All condemned of course yet a symptom of a deep malaise or perhaps an inferiority complex in Scotland itself after all defining yourself by who you hate does not seem to be terribly healthy, yet I cannot recall any other nation selling 'anyone but...' tee shirts. No, I'm not talking about incidents where people have made light-hearted comments about English people, this is obviously going beyond that, there's nothing wrong with banter and the English are no strangers to it. But you don't hear of cases where people of known Scottish origin are beaten up in England simply because they are Scottish, do you?
The Scots will soon vote on going their own way, I wish them every success in this, perhaps it will help some of them at least 'grow up' Though I have my doubts...

The B word

Certain words trip off the tongue of those on the left of the political spectrum, they're mostly used to try and shut down debate by accusing those who oppose the proposals or cause as something beyond the pale. That it backfires is no surprise, just ask Gillian Duffy or indeed Gordon Brown...
So it really should not have come as a surprise to Nicky (boy) Clegg that using derogatory terms to try and suppress or attack the opponents of one of his pet causes should backfire...
BBC.

Nick Clegg has become embroiled in a row over gay marriage after aides had to remove comments in the draft version of a speech calling opponents "bigots".
The deputy PM was expected to launch an attack on those against the policy - which include some Tory MPs - in a speech at a reception in London.
But the wording of initial extracts released to the media was changed.
Mr Clegg later insisted he never intended to use such language as it was "not the kind of word" he would use.
Sources close to Mr Clegg said the "bigot" claim was "a mistake" in an early draft of the speech which should not have been released to the press.
But Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said the remarks were "very offensive".
"If he persists in taking that view I and others would be very offended, he said.
"To be called a bigot is a very offensive statement and I would ask him to recall it...because there are issues here that demand very serious debate."

I'm not sure who first said it, but it's a truism that if you have to resort to insult, then you've lost the debate, Clegg's claims that it was just a draft may indeed be true, however knowing how the mindset of those on the left work (and Clegg is indeed a lefty) the term bigot was probably thought to be a suitable term for those who oppose 'gay marriage' whether they were bigoted or not.
The church has deep seated religious reasons for being opposed to gay marriage, they regard the term 'marriage' as being the union between a man and a woman to bring children into the world and believe it to be the way approved of by God. At the moment, civil partnerships provide exactly the same rights in a same sex relationship, so why the insistence on being allowed to call it a marriage is a little beyond me, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then all semantics aside, it is a duck!
If however this is just some sort of way to try and force churches to marry people of the same sex to each other in the sight of God then sorry, no, you don't get to do this without a change in the rule book, and good luck with that one. It's certainly not the privilege of politicians to dictate to the church, not now, not then, not ever.
That's not to say there aren't bigots involved in the debate, it's just that they are likely to be on both sides of the debate, however as the boy Clegg has just found out, using the B word first automatically loses you a battle in the war. Personally I don't hold with Clegg's excuse that this was a draft copy, I simply think he didn't know better and was shocked when the controversy came right back to his door.
But sadly that's the left for you these days...

Tradition is not fact #2

Surprise, surprise, after a thousand threats including promises of violence, Channel 4 has decided to shelve 'Islam the hidden story'
Independent.

A screening of a controversial documentary on the history of Islam has been cancelled on security advice after its presenter was threatened.
Historian Tom Holland's Channel 4 show Islam: The Untold Story sparked more than 1,000 complaints when it was broadcast.
Holland was threatened online with a torrent of abusive messages on Twitter.
A Channel 4 spokeswoman said: "Having taken security advice, we have reluctantly cancelled a planned screening of the programme Islam: The Untold Story. We remain extremely proud of the film which is still available to view on 4oD."
The investigation into the origins of the religion claimed that there is little written contemporary evidence about the prophet Mohammed.
Holland, the writer of best-sellers Rubicon and Persian Fire, said that Islam is "a legitimate subject of historical inquiry".

And they wonder why we consider them barbarians...

When Cultural = discrimination

When various governments of the UK came up with legislation to 'enforce' equality it was as ever poorly written and designed mainly to keep either men or the English in general in their place, ie. the bottom of the pile. Various 'buzzwords' were trotted out by the powers that be (and often enough socialists) to try and shame people into either silence or acquiescence. Couldn't stop us thinking what we wanted of course, but if you said or wrote something that didn't fit in with the 'accepted' view then woe betide you. 'Fascist, racist, islamophobe, sexist, bigot' etc. all used to try and silence those who were, but also to stifle any debate on any subject where minorities or non white male genders were running roughshod over true equality where everyone was/is supposed to be treated equally. Though sadly there are more than enough cases to prove that this is not really the case and that equality for some actually means that they are the top dog and different rules must apply to them because they aren't 'white and/or male'
Birmingham Mail.

A BIRMINGHAM children’s centre has been plunged into a sexism row after openly telling dads: “You’re banned.”
Kids Go Wild recently opened in Sparkhill and boasts it is the first soft play venue in the country for just mums and their kids.
Staff have told dads they are not allowed in for ‘‘cultural’’ reasons – but the Equality and Human Rights Commission is now looking into the ban.
Kids Go Wild advertises itself as “the UK’s first ladies and children’s only soft play centre.”
Staff openly tell men they are not allowed in and a flyer posted to homes in the city reads: “Ladies and children only. No boys over nine allowed.”
They claim the ban is for “cultural” reasons and in the interests of the “predominantly Asian” local community.

For 'Asian' as ever read 'Muslim' which appears to be a piss poor MSM way to deflect blame from the Muslim community who constantly demand their own way because it's a) cultural and b) Muslims are ubermensch because allah said so to a 7th century barbarian paedophilic warlord.
Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if this was reversed? That men had set up a business that wouldn't allow women entry and specifically stated that this was the case. Feminists would have went mental, miles of column inches in the Guardian would have been taken up castigating the people involved. But when it's women doing it and it's 'cultural' different rules are believed to apply.

When the Birmingham Mail rang the play centre a woman who claimed to be the manageress, but who refused to give her name, defended the policy.
She said: “It’s a predominantly Asian community around here and we’re catering for that. It’s a cultural thing.
“We’ve had ladies coming in and they’ve not questioned it [ban on men]. They’ve been asking for it for a long time.”

You can spot the fact that they think they are on very dodgy ground when names are refused, nor would I expect women to question it, after all they are pretty much used to not thinking equality rules apply to them, but to men alone. Throw in the 'Asian' buzzword for raving Muslim fanatics who are so afraid to show their faces in case (only Muslim) men will sexually assault them for just showing an ankle. Then obviously they thought they could get away with ignoring the law because it's 'culture'
Still it would be nice to see the law being applied equally in this case, espescially as it's being applied to those who usually think it only applies to others...

Getting it wrong, twice

Sectarianism is a problem in parts of Scotland, Rangers and Celtic being the prime example of two competing factions vying through the tribal fan system of football to make their mark over a hated rival. It isn't racism as you'd be very hard put to tell the difference between the supporters without their colours, it isn't religious either, though a difference in religion goes deep within the two communities.
It's not something we're used too in England, the religious aspect anyway, though the tribal rivalries of football fans we're well used too. However what we wouldn't do, is call for a football clubs fans to not fly a flag that represents their country, after all, that would be a bit racist, wouldn't it?
Mail.

For almost 130 years the proud supporters of Berwick Rangers have revelled in the fact that they are a British team playing in the Scottish Football League.

Ok, lets get the sodding obvious bit out of the way first, whilst Berwick Rangers are a British club, so are the rest of the teams playing in the Scottish Football League! Berwick are different only in the fact that they are based in England!

They call themselves The Borderers, and proudly display both the St Andrew's cross and the St George's cross on their scarves and merchandise.
But now the club's supporters have been told that they can't show the St George's cross when attending away games - because it incites sectarian tension.

As sectarian implies religion, I cannot see how flying a flag of St George is being sectarian, what it does imply that this club is English and that it's not sectarianism we're talking about here, but racism. They aren't particularly protestant, they certainly aren't Scottish (much as many Scots would claim)
Personally I think it's rank hypocrisy of Stranraer FC to claim sectarianism, when the plain facts speak for themselves, they are indulging in racism. However by calling it sectarianism they hope to get away with it, save only that the idiots at the Daily Mail decided to do an article on it.