Muslim Britain 420

Parts of Britain already belong to Islam. No action is being taken by the government to preserve the British nation. The United Kingdom is going the way of the Kingdom of Sweden.

Posted under Britain, Islam, jihad, Muslims, tyranny, United Kingdom by Jillian Becker on Thursday, June 27, 2019

Tagged with , ,

This post has 420 comments.


Londonistan 59

For a description of what London – once the exciting heart of Britain and the capital city of a vast empire –  has become with Islamization, we select these passages from an article by “A Londoner” at Jihad Watch:

The problem with London is that it has too much Islam. Vast areas of London are now cultural wastelands, thanks to Islam. London as a city is shrinking in terms of where one can go for fun things to do. Wherever Islam settles, fun things cease to exist. Pubs close down, nightclubs close, cinemas close. Walk through any Muslim-majority area in any part of the UK, and their high streets look like Third World bazaars. There are shops, but they are mainly market-stalls from which to do business. These clutter up the streets, and there are empty boxes lying everywhere. The produce on offer is of a very poor grade, and what the typical Muslim high-street has to offer is shops or stalls that sell rotting fruit and vegetables, hijabs or burqas. There are Islamic bookstores, and invariably there will be a mosque and a halal butcher shop — not much else. Oh, yes, there will also be some shops selling refurbished phones and SIM cards. These shops are filled with sun-bleached items that have lain in the windows for years. A lot of the shop-owners have been done for money-laundering, which would explain the rank odours upon entering and the worthless junk and outdated merchandise on display.

Walk through these areas as a non-Muslim man or woman, and you will be in the minority. If English is your native tongue, it will be the last thing you will hear being spoken on the street. If you’re a woman and not wearing at least a hijab you will stand out (Kilburn used to be wonderfully Irish; now it looks like the worst part of Turkey, with Dawah stalls set up everywhere). Likewise with men, if you’re not wearing some sort of religious garb or tribal outfit, you will be looked upon by suspicious eyes. Right here in London in the UK. You won’t find any arts centres, theatres, or cinemas. No Islamic dance clubs. The most you’ll get, by way of Islamic culture, is a curry on Brick Lane …

Most borough consensuses are from 2011, the next ones can be expected in 2021. They’re compiled every ten years and are broken down into demographics of race, religion, age, identity, etc. At this current point in time, most London borough are hovering around the 34% mark for residents who identify as white British. One borough, Newham, has only 10% white people in it. And it’s not just the outlying regions. If you go to Kensington and Harrods, you’ll find all the wealthy Arabs, the women wearing their niqabs but with golden designer glasses, handbags and shoes. …

London has shrunk as a city. Too many of its areas and boroughs have been taken over by religious bigots and Third World tribes. … If you have so many people wanting to live under sharia law and so many Muslim mayors and MPs, as we currently do, then the country can only look forward to a divided future. The East End of London (Shadwell, Stepney Green, Whitechapel, all the way out to Bromley by Bow) looks like Bangladesh meets Pakistan. If you head northwest, you will think you are in first Turkey and then Somalia. The self expression, the autonomy of movement, sexuality, and dress are disappearing fast and are being replaced with religious and tribal garb. …

We are being dragged backwards into the seventh century …

Our only disagreement: Britain will not be so lucky as to have a “divided future”. The country has an Islamic future. The writer has not considered the demographics – how the fertility rate of the Muslim invaders is well above stability, while the rate of the indigenous population is well below it. Britain will be an Islamic country. That is its future. A dreary, bleached, low-grade, fun-less, worthless future. A future under a supremacist and totalitarian oppressor. Under cruel and unjust sharia law. 

Unless the British people start now to topple the government, change the policy of accepting vast numbers of Muslim immigrants, get rid of as many Muslims now in the country as they can, and set about anathematizing the appalling ideology of Islam.  

Posted under Britain, Demography, Islam, jihad, Muslims, United Kingdom by Jillian Becker on Saturday, December 9, 2017

Tagged with

This post has 59 comments.


The tale of a Muslim terrorist parasite 87

This is a story of injustice in the name of compassion. It is one of thousands with the same plot and message. It is the European story of the age – along with the tale of the collapsing welfare states.

The following article by Philip Johnston, and the picture of Abu Qatada, are from the Telegraph:

Three years ago this week, a British man, Edwin Dyer, was kidnapped by nomads in north-west Africa, where he was working, and handed over to al-Qaeda militants based in Mali. They threatened to kill him if the British government refused to release the radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada from prison, where he was awaiting deportation.

A few months later, Mr Dyer was murdered … We cannot be sure that releasing Qatada would have spared Mr Dyer, since the extremists were also demanding a ransom. In any case, it is the British government’s long-stated policy not to deal with terrorists.

But the question that arose then, and still applies, is this: why was Abu Qatada even in the country to be included in a potential bargain with extremists? Since he was identified as Osama bin Laden’s “ambassador in Europe” after the 9/11 attacks on America, British authorities have been trying to deport him to his native Jordan.

Yet for more than 10 years, every effort to do so has been thwarted by human rights laws. In 2009, it looked as though he would be sent packing when the highest court in the land ruled that his deportation would be lawful, the government having gone to considerable efforts to extract a guarantee from Jordan that Qatada would not be ill‑treated if he was returned. But he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, whose judges yesterday said that in their opinion he could still face an unfair trial, since evidence against him might have been extracted under torture. He could not, therefore, be removed.

In doing this, the European Court moved the legal goalposts: it accepted that he would not be tortured personally – which would prevent his deportation under Article 3 of the convention – but ruled instead that his removal would be a breach of Article 6, the right to a fair trial. At every turn, Britain has found itself hamstrung trying to get rid of a foreign national considered to be a risk to public safety. How has this come about?

Principally, it is to do with the warped application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was drawn up after the Second World War as a response to the atrocities in Europe. The Abu Qatada saga is an affront to the enlightened attitudes that inspired the convention; it was never envisaged by its architects, many of them British, that it would end up making it impossible for democracies to defend themselves from those who would wish them harm.

We’ve always thought the “human rights” idea was a bad one. It arose out of the fairly common human need among a lot of nice people to feel good. But it is a sentimental idea, and sentimentality is the enemy of reason and commonsense. Furthermore, European politicians drew the wrong lesson from the Holocaust, so the Jews, who were its victims, are not the beneficiaries of Europe’s shame – Muslim Jew-haters like Abu Qatada are.

This story began in 1993 when Abu Qatada, a Palestinian wanted for terrorist crimes in Jordan, arrived in Britain on a forged United Arab Emirates passport.

Of course he should have been refused entry. But sentimentality won the day.

He was allowed to settle in Britain as a political refugee precisely because this country has a record of offering sanctuary to the persecuted. This generosity also turned London in the 1990s into a haven for Islamists who had no love for the West, nor for what they regarded as its decadent politics.

By the time the threat was catastrophically apparent in 2001, the capital was derisively being referred to as “Londonistan”, with Abu Qatada as fundamentalist-in-chief. According to security documents, he was responsible for “facilitating the recruitment of young Muslims for jihad”. One file stated: “He has been linked to support of terrorist and extremist activity, including support for anti-US terrorist planning in Jordan during the millennium [celebrations]. He has been a focal point for extremist fund-raising, recruitment and propaganda.”

Another added: “As soon as Abu Qatada had arrived in London and had applied for asylum, he started supporting jihad by recruiting for al-Qaeda. Abu Qatada was considered a major figure for al-Qaeda.”

He went on the run after 9/11 but was arrested in 2002 and held in Belmarsh top-security prison, along with other Islamists the Government wanted to remove but who could not be tried in this country, not least because the security service feared jeopardising its intelligence sources. In any case, Britain did not want to try them but to get rid of them.

There then began an extraordinary legal and political battle that has tied our courts in knots and undermined the rights of Parliament to decide who should be allowed to stay in the country.

Qatada’s detention was ruled unlawful on the grounds that since his deportation was blocked under Article 3 of the ECHR, he faced indefinite incarceration. He was even awarded £2,500 compensation for unlawful imprisonment.

In response, the last Labour government introduced a system of control orders to keep Qatada and other Islamists under house arrest. However, this was ruled unlawful by the courts here; it amounted to imprisonment without trial, so the restrictions had to be loosened.

Undaunted, the Home Office tried another tack. Officials opened talks with Jordan to obtain assurances that he would not be tortured if sent back. When these were forthcoming, the Law Lords in 2009 agreed his deportation should proceed.

Yet, three years on, that judgment has now been overturned by the European Court. The Government has three months to appeal but the chances of success are fanciful. In the meantime, Qatada will remain in jail.

And here is the most bizarre aspect of this affair. The reason he is in prison is because he breached the conditions of his control order. His offence was that he was suspected of trying to leave the country – the very thing we have wanted him to do for 10 years.

So sentimentality brought its ever more ludicrous consequences.

This, then, is the topsy-turvy world that the ECHR has produced – and the latest ruling goes much further than before, when the ban on deportation was effected under Article 3, where someone might face “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. …

The judgments of our courts are trumped by a 47-member body set up under the Council of Europe (not the EU), whose president, Sir Nicolas Bratza, is a British lawyer who has never held a senior judge’s job in this country. …

What began as an attempt to limit the power of the state in relationship to the individual by drawing upon British concepts of liberty has been transformed into a corpus of immutable rights that defy rational expectation. Even the 1951 Refugee Convention, under which Qatada was allowed into Britain in the first place, specifically states that asylum “cannot be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is”.

To add insult to injury, Philip Johnston points out, al-Qatada and his large family live on benefits paid for by the British tax-payer. Free house, free education, free medical treatment, and loads of cash in hand.

So this Muslim terrorist parasite will live not too unhappily ever after. Or at least until the British welfare state finally collapses.

News from Londonistan 64

One by one, the East End parishes and boroughs of London are becoming small de facto Islamic Republics. The latest  – not the only or the first as this report suggests – is Tower Hamlets. The police fear to act in them. Sharia law is enforced in them.

From the Telegraph:

Britain’s poorest borough …  has elected [Lutfer] Rahman as its first executive mayor, with almost total power over its £1 billion budget. At the count last night, one very senior figure in the Tower Hamlets Labour Party said: “It really is Britain’s Islamic republic now.”

Lutfer Rahman has links with “a Muslim supremacist body, the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) – which believes, in its own words, in –

transforming the “very infrastructure of [European] society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed… from ignorance to Islam.”

He won a democratic election, standing as an Independent, but –

We should be clear what this result was, and was not. It was a decisive victory. But it was not much of an endorsement by the borough’s people. Turnout, at 25.6%, was astonishingly low, with most voters (particularly the white majority, and they still are a majority) unaware of, indifferent to or turned off by the process. Lutfur’s 23,000-odd votes are only about 13 per cent of Tower Hamlets’ electorate.

It was not a victory for any sort of democracy.

Was it not? Okay, not a “victory” for the electorate, in the sense that most of the local population probably don’t want a jihadist in power, but if most of them couldn’t be bothered to vote then democracy hands the victory to those who do bother.

It was the execution of a careful and sophisticated plan by a small, well-financed and highly-organised cabal to seize control of a London borough. It deployed not just volunteers from the IFE and other bodies but also people paid to campaign by Lutfur’s business backers. Someone also paid for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of copies of the most pernicious literature ever seen in a British election, in which [Lutfer Rahman’s Labour Party opponent] Mr [Helal] Abbas was falsely smeared as a wife-beater, a bankrupt, a racist and and an insulter of Islam.

Britain has dhimmified itself. It has capitulated to jihad. Most Britons, of all classes, either passively accept Islamization or actively promote it. Prince Charles loves it. The Archbishop of Canterbury worked to have sharia law “partially”  adopted, and succeeded.

Fear of offending Muslims holds the nation in thrall.

That is real Islamophobia. Unfortunately there is all too little of the alleged sort – criticism, derision, outspoken rejection, organized opposition – that Muslims whine about. A cowering Western nation is a triumph for the jihadists, proving the efficacy of their terrorism.

So this is what the nation of Nelson and Wellington has come to? No spirit to resist? No pride, no courage?

London’s suicide bombers day 41

If this is true, Britain should now be regarded – and treated – as a terrorist-supporting country:

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a tottering terrorist group nearing its military collapse in Sri Lanka will defy UK anti-terrorism laws to glorify its suicide terrorism publicly when it holds its ‘suicide bombers day’ at the London Excel Centre, according to pro-LTTE media reports. Despite the proscription of the group in the United Kingdom , the Tamil language radio station, International Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) said in its broadcasts that the event would take place at the London ExCeL Centre, November 27 from 10a.m.

  Read more about it here.

Posted under Uncategorized by Jillian Becker on Sunday, November 23, 2008

Tagged with , , , , , ,

This post has 41 comments.