[N]o sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he ‘threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’.
And so Fitna has been cancelled: it shall not now be screened in the House of Lords on 29th January.
The Pakistani Press is jubliant, and Lord Ahmed is praising Allah for delivering ‘a victory for the Muslim community’.
It is a sorry state of affairs indeed that a parliament whose liberties have been forged through centuries of religious intolerance should succumb to the threats of one intolerant Muslim. Lord Ahmed is manifesting a notion of Divine Right, and one suspects it is precisely the sort of defence of Islam that Prince Charles shall make when he is sworn ‘Defender of Faith’. The blasphemy laws are being re-forged to protect one god, one faith and one prophet; they no longer defend YHWH, Christianity, Jesus Christ or the Church of England. Lord Ahmed is not functioning as a Labour peer; he is the self-appointed khalifa of all things Islamic. He is not concerned to protect freedom of expression or freedom of speech, but to stifle debate and ensure that Parliament submits to the Dar Al-Islam.
It is for moments such as these that one might hope the Lords Spiritual might enter the fray and defend the right of the noble baroness to extend an invitation to a democratically-elected Dutch MP. Their silence is deafening. They no longer believe anything strongly for fear of causing offence; they no longer defend anything for fear of being abolished.
h/t BL@KBIRD
And, I continue to weep for the decline of her majesty’s empire.
Well, the British have opened themselves up to this. They insist that they believe in equality, but protect only the Anglican Church. They insist that they are color blind, but they have a long history of discriminating at the border on the basis of “national origins” (well since 1962 anyway). Believe it or not, in the 60’s and 70’s British citizens with British passports were denied entry into the UK because of their “national origins” (read skin color). Its that kind of double-speak that has landed them into this hot water.
Either you declare clearly that England is an Anglican state (as opposed to the current mishmash of bizzare secularism), or you remove these blasphemy laws and make it possible to insult all religions. Freedom of speech would technically favor the latter. The Anglican Church enjoys all kinds of outdated privileges that will always be an easy “theoretical” target.
To top it off, they’re up against a Muslim population that is increasingly asserting its Muslimness ( a real contrast to their “law abiding and quiet” pre-Rushdie Affair parents). This Muslim identity itself is borne out of the absence of a British identity that isn’t exclusive on the basis of race (one of the the Thatcher legacies of trying ot “englishize” the ‘British’ identity). Anglican Church priviliges just add fodder to a remarkably angry lot.
This is the obvious outcome of refusing to take a stand. They have British citizens who feel discriminated against. They are discriminated against, albeit on such minor technicalities as an age old pointless law that protects the Anglican church from criticism (from the Catholics). You know you have a problem on your hand when the people living in it think they re not going to be accepted as full citizens because of their skin color – the Hindus (millions in the UK) are showing similar trends of religious radicalization. All in search of an identity that will compensate for their self-percieved “exclusion” from a ‘British’ identity.
Things like this make you appreciate the relatively binding nature of the admittedly ambiguous (but inclusive) Canadian identity, though the Khadrs aren’t helping much.
“You either stand for something or fall for everything.”
G K Chesterton
Save a few tears for Canada when you cry for them. I don`t know about the people you associate with but when I talk about this stuff my friends and family roll their eyes up in that oh no not again way. Canada is way closer to that scenario then you think. Im waiting for the day that the MSM proudly announces that Jennifer Lynch is over there recruiting so that she can push their agenda through faster.
This is the decadance of the British ruling class coming home to roost. The Queen, herself, is a fine Defender of the Faith. She is a woman of Christian faith who lives Christian values every day of her life — especially in her unstinting and selfless service to her Kingdom.
Too many othah uppah-clauss Brits have squandered both their worldly and spiritual inheritance in wild living and unbridled oppulence and, for some reason, seem drawn to Islam and obscenely wealthy Muslims. Could it be that the Sheiks of their acquaintance supply a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed?
Certainly, the British upper classes have refused to lead by example and have badly let down the Brits. They have sold their Judeo-Christian heritage and the system of democracy it engendered — and which was the envy of the world — for what?
How the mighty have fallen — and great is the crash, with repercussions we haven’t yet seen.
Kyrie eleison.
By the rivers of Babylon — there we sat down and there we wept
when we remembered Zion.
On the willows there, we hung our harps.
For there our captors asked us for songs …
How could we sing the LORD’S song
in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you …
Psalm 137 (NRSV)
This is what happens when England has a couple of million Muslims. Moderate and violent alike.
Can one imagine when the number doubles?
Hint: England will be a Muslim state. It doesn’t require a population majority, it just requires a Bloc vote, backed by the threat of violence.
Canada is not far from this UK scenario if you have seen youtube videos of the recent Palestinian death marches in Toronto. Hezbollah marches in Montreal were a similar indication of simmering muslim sentiment right here in Canada.
Christian values have eroded in Canada as people have embraced materialism wholeheartedly, though the current economic crisis may bring that into question now. Since we have stood for nothing otherwise, we will now fall for anything.
Multiculturalism CBC style where everyone else in the world has a legitimate culture except us here in Canada.
Immigration, where we welcome incompatible immigrants with no love of this country without question.
Democracy, liberal style, where big brother knows best, so government takes most of our money and distributes it the way they see fit.
When given the choice, Canadian voters are now too apathetic to bother visiting the polls. Record lows at the ballot box indicate a malaise which is prevalent in western societies today.
Muslims are united and are taking advantage of our apathy to gain ground on us. If you’re going to weep for Britain, save a few tears for us, because we’re going to need them here, too.
Saw this at Instapundit so I am sure everyone has seen this excellent piece on the failure of gun control … The British Called – They Want Their Guns Back
“Mobilize 10,000 Muslims”?
To paraphrase another famous Brit, “Are there no prisons? Are there no laws, no tear gas, no tasers, no machine guns, no tanks? The bobbies, the riot police and the Army, these are still in operation?”
The advocates of stealth Sharia win their victories by inches. They do not attempt big pushes until they have succeeded in many small ones. By allowing the small pushes to succeed, the West guarantees (a) that the big pushes will eventually come, and (b) when they do, we will have so weakened ourselves through incremental compromise that we will be unable to resist them.
Lord Ahmad (I throw up a little in my mouth even THINKING about that phrase), by threatening the House of Lords with violence, has come perilously close to treason, if not high treason. That said, however, who is the greater traitor? The muslim fanatic who demands that the West bow down to his faith? Or the craven, compromising Western politician, who obediently tugs his forelock, drops to his knees, and pays the jizya, fervently hoping that when the crocodile comes, it will eat him last?
In which context, I can only ask, “Is there no gibbet?”
“Pick any two.”
Do I have to? Picking one necessarily leads to the other two, it seems. Liberal democracy must lead to immigration, and immigration leads to multiple cultures congregating in roughly the same place at roughly the same time, i.e. multiculturualism.
Two of the happiest countries on earth are China and Russia, as measured by citizen satisfaction with government. Liberal democracies rank at the very bottom, the more liberal the greater the dissatisfaction.
The only bright side is knowing that Canada and western civilization is about to become a vastly less hospitable place for gays and women, who sold their countries out in lieu of short term collaboration with immigrants from the most anti-woman anti-gay societies imaginable.
Speaking of which, no need to look to the UK for exhibit a:
“Lesbian couple says doctor refused them as patients
Updated Tue. Jan. 27 2009 3:53 PM ET
The Canadian Press
WINNIPEG — A Manitoba lesbian couple rejected by a family doctor from Egypt for religious reasons says Canada must better educate foreign-trained physicians. ”
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090127/lesbian_couple_090127/20090127?hub=Health
Schadenfreude doesn’t begin to cover this one.
Do what i say or I will have an organized mob, chartered for violence descend upon you.
Nothing wrong with protesting but, using the mob as the threat to prevent rather as an expression of disapproval….well, thats not a democracy, I would show it just because now, because this Parliaments or Houses of Lord’s arent supposed to be subject to threats.
It only encourages more of this behaviour.
Fitna really isnt much of a flim, more of an extended powerpoint presentation.
if the aboriginals were right to fight back in the US and Canada as “their lands were invaded” by european immigration, that is the narrative, then what will th reaction be when the aboriginals of Europe decide who they want on “their land”.
We wont even start with the “muslim land” comparisons.
*
a little close to home…
“I’ve gotta confess… I don’t get this whole “dissing” thing.
Where exactly… and no, you can’t put it all on Vin Diesel…
does this stupid shit come from?”
*
a motivated world wide conspiracy vs an effete establishment …..primitive uneducated intellects vs a cowardly amoral elite….defanged disarmed citizens steeped in white guilt and pacifism vs instamobs capable of the most abject violence…..the jarndycean rule of law vs the law of the jungle….the spirit and intent of international law suborned on turtle bay supported by myriad Acorns and NGOs vs town hall meetings
so who ya gonna bet on suckas ?
can a people be terminally stupid? yes.
not quite right old buddy white dude…
it’s strictly the leadership…or more precisely those who have wrested the levers of power from the middle of the road realistic representatives of the average citizen that can be correctly be called stupid….and shortsighted…and ideologically hidebound…and cowardly….and traitorous to their forebears and their history.
for example the English are a superb people…but their leadership is shite…pure shite.
“The only bright side is knowing that Canada and western civilization is about to become a vastly less hospitable place for gays and women, who sold their countries out in lieu of short term collaboration with immigrants from the most anti-woman anti-gay societies imaginable.”
Except for the “bright side” part I concur with this statement.
John B
To answer your question “so who ya gonna bet on suckas ?” I’ll bet on “straight white dudes” as soon as the the aforementioned “women and gays” halt their war against men. So long as political correctness is allowed to run amuck I guess I’ll have to bet on the other guys.
Straight white dudes are not the suckas, we will easily be able to assimilate to oppressing women and gays. I can pray and grow a beard if I have to! I wonder if I’ll still get the 72 virgins? For me the number is negotiable.
“Canada is way closer to that scenario then you think.”
Bob Devine
Well Grant when you bring in 1% of the population per year and ban most whites then offer the higher caste types affirmative action, gratuitous welfare payments etc. Yes it’s close, very close and they only vote for parties who support racist hiring policies.
We need at best 25,000 immigrants a year who speak English and will blend into the melting pot.
Why is Toronto’s unemployment so high, when they are soooo enriched? huh?
Who hath drunk the cool aid?
Not I but watching doesn’t make it better.
Most Canadians want less immigration.
“We need at best 25,000 immigrants a year who speak English and will blend into the melting pot.”
On the face of it, an understandable statement. Underlying it, however, is the failure to acknowledge the fact that hundreds of thousands of ‘Canadians’ leave the country for economic opportunities elsewhere. I have many issues with Canada’s immigration policies, but there is a certain strategy behind it.
– only those with substantial capital are allowed to immigrate. There is a strong vetting process in this regard.
– They have to spend three years in Canada to get citizenship. In that time, they either get employed or they dip into their savings. They come here. They buy products. They buy cars and houses. They pay taxes. Once the passport comes, most qualified people who are underemployed, leave. Canadian passport in hand. You will find substantial numbers of Canadian Passport holders EVERYWHERE in the world. People who don’t even visit Canada in decades.
“Why is Toronto’s unemployment so high, when they are soooo enriched? huh?”
To put it very simply, the Canadian immigration model is flawed in this regard. While it is based on the understandable idea that bringing in more consumers with capital (immigrants) will help stimulate economic growth, the Canadian economy does not have the capacity to employ the qualified people it seeks. These folk are unemployed, but they are not in the welfare scheme (they were allowed in precisely because they had money). They’ll take up odd jobs. And when the passport comes, they will leave. They are usually denied jobs on the basis of lack of Canadian experience, or being overqualified. I like the lack of Canadian experience one becuase it represents a catch 22 – cant get employed cos you dont have experience, but cant get experience because you arent employed. Of course, there is some merit to this argument – for instance in banking, any banker from outside Canada would wonder why Canadian consumers are stupid enough to pay monthly charges to banks. This is perhaps the only country in the world where you pay a bank to hold your money.
“Most Canadians want less immigration.”
Sure they do. Problem is the population will shrink to about 20 million within a couple of decades. That would be closer to the actual capacity of the economy, which is basically appearing larger because of infusions from immigrants dipping into their savings. Once the immigrants stop, the economy will take a real hit. Its not as strong as you want to believe.
This is reaching but I’ll post it anyway: Last week we were parked next to a massive P&O cruise ship loaded with Brits. I walked off from my better half while he took numerous unnecessary and unremarkable shots of an island that can only be described as Trona in the Caribbean. Anyway, as suspected, he struck up a conversation with one of the P&O passengers to determine the capacity of their vessel. The Brits seem to be as star-struck with BO as our own unwashed masses and want to talk about nothing but. When questioned, my husband replied, “You mean the fine, young Irish lad?” Of course the punch line is, “Barry Obama.” He didn’t get that out before the Brit stated [in stilted tones] that his wife is Irish. That seemed to telegraph a deep-seated racism, if you ask me. As with most civilized male exchanges, things ended on an up beat since BOTH their wives are Irish and actually share an unusual Scots sirname. Small world. Furthermore, say what you will about fat Americans, there is no more horrifying sight than a beach peopled with bone-colored and flaccid Brits in stretched out one-piecers or inadequate Speedos. Yikes.
“Sure they do. Problem is the population will shrink to about 20 million within a couple of decades. ”
Factually inaccurate, and ignores negative feedback loops, much like the global warming con artists do.
“In that time, they either get employed or they dip into their savings. ”
Factually inaccurate, many are refugees who cannot legally work, many are also seniors, children, and disabled.
“which is basically appearing larger because of infusions from immigrants dipping into their savings. ”
Factually inaccurate, and a slap in the face to taxpayers who subsidize immigration to the tune of tens of billions annually.
“hundreds of thousands of ‘Canadians’ leave the country for economic opportunities elsewhere. ”
Factually inaccurate, the number is scarcely 10,000.
Quite the pro-immigration site here. One point you didn’t consider: the 400,000 immigrants who arrive annually can and will leave Canada when the tax bill comes to pay for this “temporary” deficit”.
Basically, we are fronting the government $100,000,000,000 so immigrants can have a nice stay at Hotel Canada for the next 5 years, then check out when taxes go up and services go down. As a single passport born and raised Canadian I and millions of others don’t have that option.
Protip: mass immigration Canadian style is so bad for so many reasons that you’ll only look foolish trying to justify it.
The virus of socialism (anti-private property, anti-personal freedom, anti-family, anti-religion other than socialism) has so infected the UK that it is now open to the seeds of Islamism. I often to watch UK mysteries and police dramas which tend to be superior to the American ones, but I have noted a certain trend when it pertains to Christianity. Christianity is typically portrayed in an extremely negative light and all racists and bigots are White Christians. Muslims are given a positive image and even terrorists end up being fanatical Christians. So is it surprising that Islam is given the supremacy that Islamists demand?
Canada is following on the same road as some have mentioned and our original liberal (in the classical sense) democracy is only a dim light in the past. I see no evidence of Canada changing course, so look at the UK to see our future.
Two?
There’s only one rational choice and the other two are just ways to undermine it.
“they have a long history of discriminating at the border on the basis of “national origins” (well since 1962 anyway). Believe it or not, in the 60’s and 70’s British citizens with British passports were denied entry into the UK because of their “national origins”
Believe it or not? I choose not. A holder of a British passport is not subject to UK immigration controls period. It doesn’t matter what their skin colour is. You clearly know very little about the UK.
Cranmer is one of the few voices of reason left in the UK, and there’s a reason why he has to blog under a pseudonym.
“Believe it or not? I choose not. A holder of a British passport is not subject to UK immigration controls period. It doesn’t matter what their skin colour is. You clearly know very little about the UK.”
An error on my part. I should have noted very clearly that the national origins clause only applied to British Passport holders coming from newly independent African nations. If you could prove you were from the British isles, you were let in immediately. If you could not (ie if you were from South Asia), you had to apply to be allowed in and a quota system was put in place. You had to apply and wait a couple of years, in some cases up to a decade, before you would be allowed into Britain. Again, this only applied to those British passport holders who could not prove that they were descendents of people who had lived on the British Isles.
Of course being a non-African in the newly Africanized state was a traumatic experience for a lot of the British passport holders left to fend for themselves as their businesses and farms were nationalised, while the British government did everything to dissuade them from coming to Britian, by literally asking them to wait in those conditions for years. If your grandfather was born in Scotland, you were waved through immediately – no waiting for a quota number. If your grandfather was taken from India to Kenya as a bonded laborer (by the British government in a number of cases), tough luck. Wait till you can be fitted into a quota that was for non-whites only. Unsurprisingly, the non-whites noticed, and this has been a bitter point of contention that comes up in immigration debates even today.
This only applied for a decade or so between the 60s and 70s. And you are correct to point out my failure to mention this clearly.
But beyond that, I suspect you don’t know very much about the UK. I just happen to be well-versed in British immigration law, having helped many talented Canadians flock there to earn to their real (as opposed to Canadian) potential. Part of knowing a law is knowing its history, and the transformation of British immigration law between 1945 and now is truly remarkable.