The thought crime bill has been passed in the House of Commons- citizens of the UK can now only hope that the bill is rejected by the House of Lords. Oddly enough, the British media seems to have completely ignored the story.
Islamic organizations have lobbied hardest for the legislation, saying their community needed protection, given an increase in anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11.
This is a common meme in the UK now- every news broadcast since 7/7 has carried a story about Muslims condemning the attacks and, in the same, breath, calling out that they must be defended against reprisals. Somehow, Islamic terrorists have made Britain less safe for Muslims. This is a major talking point of all the main politicians- Blair, Howard and Kennedy.
The prime minister condemned any attacks on British Muslims, saying the vast majority were decent and law abiding.
Conservative leader Michael Howard said anyone who nurtured resentment against Muslims would be behaving in the way terrorists wanted.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said everybody should keep stressing that the vast majority of Muslims totally condemned the bombings.
In fact, I think I've heard more comments the past few days about keeping Muslims safe and what a wonderful religion it is, than I've heard about measure to protect us from Islamic terrorism. You'd almost think that Britain was filled with people biting at the bit to attack Muslims, so much emphasis is being put into this.
Of course, Islam expert Tony Blair said of the terrorists - "It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam."
It's interesting he should say that because the head of London's Al-Maqreze Centre For Historical Studies said that there are no civilians under Islamic law and, of the London terrorist attack- "If Al-Qaeda indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world’s eight most powerful countries in the mud."
Strange how Western dhimmi politicians always seem to be contradicted by actual Muslims?
The thought-crime legislation actually goes like this-
If passed, the legislation will create a new offense, applying to written material and public verbal comments "that are threatening, abusive or insulting [and] likely to stir up racial or religious hatred." Anyone convicted under the law could be jailed for up to seven years.
In other words, if someone makes a statement which Muslims find insulting, they could find themselves in court. Given that any criticism of Islam will no doubt be found insulting it seems as if Muslims have been given carte blanche in the UK. First, the G8 gives the PA billions of dollars and now this. Who said that we were resolute in the face of terrorism?
Hat tip to Raging Capitalist.
8 comments:
Seems that the ol' al-Maqrizi Centre for Historical Studies is "headed by former member of the outlawed Egyptian group Islamic Jihad Hani al-Siba'i". [ref]
Well i don't see that being "the legitmate voice of Islam" from the get go.
The sad fact that you are highlighting what this org is saying as if it were legitimate is adding weight to the sheen of their so-called respectabiblity.
It's like quoting a mob of tooled-up Millwall supporters from the 70s as if they were on the board of Millwall. (no dis' to Millwall)
I know it's your blog but if you're going to keep linking to LGF as if that represented quiet and studied objectivity i'm just going to have take my offer of beers elsewhere.
re: Thought Police.
As for the new thought crime, well that has to go - worst idea ever.
Do away with all blasphamy laws - it's so exasperating; religions with judeo roots are all big enough and old enough and self-assured enough by now i would have thought to take it on the chin without "running to mummy" every time someone sticks their tongue out at god.
The problem with comments like those from Al Maqreze is that they are made by Muslim scholars and clerics- and they often refer to the Koran or to other Muslims teaching to back up their claims.
We do not hear of major Islamic clerics using the Koran to refute terrorism. I do not know of any major Muslim figure who will come out and say that suicide bombing is wrong- including that being carried out in Israel. That's the big problem- we need to hear the legitimate voice of Islam- whomever that may be- stand up and loudly refute terrorist actions with reference to the Koran and other texts.
It seems very suspicious that many of the men we've heard about in the past few years who have become terrorists did so after becoming deeply religious. I would love to hear that the moderate Islam we hear about is the majority but instead I hear that Islam has spawned terrorist organisations across the globe.
I watched a discussion on a late night ITV show a while back and there was a large Muslim audience proclaiming that Islam was indeed peaceful. By the end of the show, they were saying that they would be justified to kill those who insult Allah.
The Free Muslims Against Terror tried to hold a demonstration in the US a while back and almost every major Muslim group refused to join them. That's the message being sent out by the "vast majority of Muslims". There's talk of a big demo/march in London- I do hope it succeeds.
How about this- why don't you write a piece on how you see Islam and I'll post it on my main page? Right now most of the blogosphere is focusing on the bombers- although Jawa Report pointed out that his idea of a British Pakistani is Parminder Nagra from Bend it Like Beckham- so I think it'll be interesting to see what the view of a "non-radical" British Muslim is.
Heh, man you have no idea :)
What you'd be getting from me IF i venture to label myself Muslim is a dada-esque slacker style Muslim point of view and that's really too wooly and abstract to have any grounds for scripture based proposals. I go to mosque maybe once or twice a year if that and then only to please my dad. The following ain't anything in particular, I'm just rambling...
First off, my impression is that one of your (and the general tabloid media's) main problems is that you think a 'Muslim Scholar' is someone that says "hey look at me, I'm a Muslim scholar" and then just because we are inately lazy and it's easier than wondering if this guy is for real the media (loving a good sound bite) go on to nod at the things this dick says and goes "fuck! see that guy with the wiggy name, yeah him, look at that i told you they were extreme"
My understanding is that unlike the familiar Christian religion there is no hard and fast central authority like the Pope (not that i agree that's a wholly a good thing either, as how many shadowy vatican story have we heard over the years). Anyway given these lack of strictures there is at the most a "committee", a very loose confederation of Imams if you will (think Amateur Star Trek) or whatever, that issue guidelines rather than rules, as there's no need after all the rules are in the book, and there's no higher 3-dimensional-tangible-made out-of-atoms thing than The Book for Pete's sake you can't go changing that, Hence the You-aint-read-the-Koran-unless-you've-read-it-in-the-original-Arabic (you see the S.T. allusion again?). The problem comes when some politico rises up thru the ranks and no one questions him as he has the defacto top interpretation of the book than anyone else purely because everyone in the local community if all full of acceptance that what ever happens is what is deemed (ie Allah's will etc).
I'm only deemed Muslim because my dad is; as in, he handed out the After-Eight-Mint-of-Religiosity to my Bro and myself over a period of years way back in our youth and it never really took; we were too busy watching Starsky & Hutch and transcribing lyrics from Dean Friedman and various prog rock albums. My dad is a gentle old soul and i get the impression that everyone out there in the wider Indo/Pak community across London knows him. He does not kick up a fuss. He does the Indian equiv' of sucking his teeth whenever he happens upon something that bruises his Victorian sensibilities.
The point is that if most of the good Muslims are like my dad, and i tend to think they are (and i tend to think i'm right) they are just not sociatily (sp?) equipped to get up on a soapbox and protest that they are being mis-rep'd. As that's far too a material endeavour - they are religious to the point of thinking God (i'll use the big G this time) will straighten everything out and there's no need to get overly stressed about it. I'm inclined to think this may be why you only hear from the care-in-the-community-Muslims. When all said and done it looks like after all this time the champs of stiff upper lipness have been the trad c-of-e Muslims all along.
Oh btw, you may have missed this (and i did too)
11th of March 2005 : "Muslim clerics in Spain issued what they called the world's first fatwa, or Islamic edict, against Osama bin Laden on Thursday, the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, calling him an apostate and urging others of their faith to denounce the al-Qaida leader.
The ruling was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the country's 1 million-member Muslim community. The commission represents 200 or so mostly Sunni mosques, or about 70 percent of all mosques in Spain.
The March 11, 2004, train bombings killed 191 people and were claimed in videotapes by militants who said they had acted on al-Qaida's behalf in revenge for Spain's troop deployment in Iraq."
[see refs chinadaily and christiantoday]
Hi R-
I also read that at a mosque in Kuwait the imam started to preach against America and the congregation told him to stop. I'll try to find the link- slipped my mind where I read it.
It's early days yet, but it could be that 7/7 is a catalyst for the moderate Muslim community to finally take a public stand against the ideology of hate. Please do keep me informed of any developments you come across.
Hi R-
For some reason your earlier post (2:24am) got caught by my email's spam filter - only just got it now.
Pretty weird that you wrote what you did because I was going to ask you about the "Islamic hierarchy" i.e. any sort of equivalent group to the Pope. Strange coincidence.
Thanks for the response!
Re: Hierarchies
[contains flippancy as ever - be warned]
Long time since i was at school but I think I'd still be safe in saying that while a large selection of religions make be taught or explained in schools, Hierarchies, the actual working guts within religions in general aren't really taught. Nobody wants to do that. This would explain why I don't know if Jews, Hindus, or Zen practitioners have the equivalent of a Pope or not. I'm pretty sure Protestants don't have a nominated top physical rep on earth, as i suspect the Reformation was all about breaking away from the vatican. So all i have on this imaginary WWF tag-team against evil so far is the Pope and the Dalai Lama.
Post a Comment