Sunday, June 01, 2008

No Preaching Allowed!

Back in January the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, got himself in trouble with the Anglican hierarchy for stating the obvious: the concentration of Muslims in some of Britain’s urban districts has effectively turned them into no-go zones for non-Muslims.

The Church of England considers these multicultural areas to be models of diversity. Referring to them as “no-go zones” shows a disturbing lack of tolerance, and is evidence of racist thinking.

A couple of Christian evangelists decided to take this multi-culti party line at face value, and went into one of the go-go zones in Birmingham. They found to their misfortune that, although they were allowed to enter the area, they were not allowed to proselytize — they had entered a no-preaching zone.

According to The Telegraph:

Christian preachers face arrest in Birmingham

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that “no-go areas” for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.

Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, both full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed their right to profess their religion.
- - - - - - - - -
Mr Abraham said: “I couldn’t believe this was happening in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester was criticised by the Church of England recently when he said there were no-go areas in Britain but he was right; there are certainly no-go areas for Christians who want to share the gospel.”

Last night, Christian campaigners described the officer’s behaviour as “deeply alarming”.

The preachers, both ministers in Birmingham, were handing out leaflets on Alum Rock Road in February when they started talking to four Asian youths.

A police community support officer (PCSO) interrupted the conversation and began questioning the ministers about their beliefs.

They said when the officer realised they were American, although both have lived in Britain for many years, he launched a tirade against President Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Cunningham said: “I told him that this had nothing to do with the gospel we were preaching but he became very aggressive.

“He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station.”

The preacher refused to give the PCSO his address because he felt the officer’s manner was “threatening and intimidating”.

The ministers claim he also advised them not to return to the area. As he walked away, the PCSO said: “You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned”.

West Midlands Police, who refused to apologise, said the incident had been “fully investigated” and the officer would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication.


Hat tip: Fjordman.

21 comments:

Joanne said...

I'm wondering who the police officer is and if he is a Muslim himself.

It is truly unbelievable how low people can sink in the name of appeasing the Muslim.

Findalis said...

The preachers should be there everyday handing out their leaflets, preaching the Gospels and making it known that Great Britain is an CHRISTIAN nation.

By doing this every day they bring a presence into the area. And if they get arrested for it, then they show to the world the failure of multiculturalism and the destruction of the guarantees of freedom. This is a move that Ghandi (the man who Muslims and the left love to quote) would have done.

spackle said...

"I'm wondering who the police officer is and if he is a Muslim himself. "

The sad part is he probably isnt. Just another well indoctrinated automoton.

" the incident had been “fully investigated” and the officer would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication."

So let me get this straight.To cure this officer of his PC behavior he must be given further PC training? Everyday it seems there is just one more nail being driven into the UK's coffin.

spackle said...

A little OT. Yesterday I read a story of a man who photographed his life once a day for 18 years until he died of cancer at the young age of 41. I propose an art project using stills and video for individual countries from ww1 to the present documenting events leading to its slide into the depths of which we find ourselves today. For ideas, suggestions and volunteers go to:

"Escape from freedom"

linked in the sidebar of this site. Baron and Dymphna. Forgive me for the slight hijacking of this thread.

Zenster said...

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.

WTF? WTF?

While it becomes increasingly apparent that the officer in question was expressing far more hostility because the preachers were American, that in no way alters the hideous absurdity of law enforcement actively collaborating with Muslims in the creation of no-go zones.

A further irony is how the proseltyzing was interpreted as "committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam". In fact, had the youths converted, THE MOST LIKELY "HATE CRIME" TO OCCUR WOULD BE WHEN MUSLIMS KILLED THE APOSTATES FOR LEAVING ISLAM.

This incident does not just represent unequal application of the law. It represents both defiance of British law regarding freedom of religion and active legal support for the imposition of shari'a law inside Britain.

The depth of such a breach cannot be easily stated. It is an affront to British legal tradition and an equally greivous insult to the average Briton.

This is nothing more or less than willing participation in the dhimmification of Britain and the support of those who actively seek to subvert British constitutional law. The officer's action constitutes PURE TREASON.

Finally, in the grand tradition of Christian martyrdom, I'm afraid that it will probably prove necessary for several Christians to be killed at the hands of Muslims in their no-go zones so that it becomes unavoidably clear how reciprocity with Islam is nonexistent.

I'm hoping that, perhaps, a few Christians who know they have terminal cancer or some other life shortening affliction will be courageous enough to enter the lion's den and show Muslims for the intolerant, genocidal born-again Nazis that they are.

It is difficult to imagine that Britons would not be galvinized—possibly for once and all—by depictions of peaceful Christians being torn apart at the hands of vicious, bigoted Muslim mobs.

Whoa! Wait a minute ...

A couple of Christian evangelists decided to take this multi-culti party line at face value, and went into one of the go-go zones in Birmingham.
[emphasis added]

Exactly why were these preachers hanging about with mini-skirted young fillies wearing white patent leather thigh-high boots? This throws everything into an entirely different cast!!! Enquiring minds want to know!

christian soldier said...

I just had to share this: a wonderful horse and rider combination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQgTiqhPbw

As a lover of horses and Dressage-it has come to me; why are we still training horses to perform for war when the chances of them ever being used for war are slim?
Is the Hand of God in this or am I reaching (-:?

mike18xx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

mike18xx --

You stepped over the line with your comment, so I had to delete it. You violated rule #1 with gratuitous insults of another commenter, and rule #2 with some rather blatantly intemperate recommendations.

I suggest you chill out or take your vituperations elsewhere.

Darrin said...

SO Britain has all these little Dar-al Islam's scattered throughout, what will happen if they join together? As you are aware, the residents of Camden, Australia have been called all sorts of names for merely defending their values. So defending values == bad. More recently people were objecting to what some considered to be child pornography, the Henson photographs of naked 12 year old girls. People objecting to this "art" were attacked as philistines, therefore defending values == bad.

So its bad for Australia's reputation to be seen resisting Islam ( and its intolerance to women ) while at the same time its bad for Australia's reputation to be seen objecting to the exploitation of 12 year old girls. The same people whom promote this "art" are also Islam enablers. There is a convergence of the left and Islam that probably centers around misanthropy in form or another.

heroyalwhyness said...

Muhammedans can proselytize/advertise on the very same style double tiered bus that was terror bombed by their own devout followers? . . . Muhammedans can foist halal meals on entire student body? . . .Muhammadans can openly indoctrinate British Students with Get "Know Islam" Kits . . .it goes on and on and on ad infinitum.
. . .yet Christians are penalized for returning the favor - in a Christian country (where's the Church of England) ?

Insanity.

Robohobo said...

All the more reason why some of us maintain that GB & EUrope are toast - gone - done. Unless the Muslim is shown the door and deported they will continue the onslaught against Western values.

mike18xx said...

> some rather blatantly intemperate recommendations....

What? Stuff and nonsense...

"The Danish Civil War" is still up here, with "genocide" impertinently all over it.

Good grief.

-- You're part of Dar al Harb. Get used to it.

randian said...

It's the beginning of ethnic cleansing in Muslim-dominated areas of Britain.

randian said...

While the articles doesn't say, I'd bet that officer is Muslim.

Ginro said...

The Daily Mail is also running the story now and yes, exactly as peoiple guessed, the policeman concerned is a muslim. What a surprise, not.
And yet again it's the West Midlands police force behind this disgraceful behaviour. Remember it was they who tried to accuse Channel 4 last year of trying to stir up hatred when Channel 4 ran a programme about the muslim hate preachers in Birmingham. Thankfully Channel 4 took the West Midlands force to court and won.

Baron Bodissey said...

Mike --

You're part of Dar al Harb. Get used to it.

Gee, am I really? Thanks for keeping me informed.

Does being a part of Dar al-Harb require me to allow your intemperate behavior to cause this blog to be closed down?

Or are our interests better served by keeping Gates of Vienna up and running?

If you read El Inglés' essays carefully, you'll notice that he speculated about events that might occur; he didn't advocate them.

It's the difference between saying "Someone may kill you because of your political beliefs" and "You should be killed for your political beliefs".

I don't for a minute think that you are too unintelligent to comprehend this distinction; therefore I must assume that you are being disingenuous. This kind of behavior tries my patience.

Also -- before you bring up Zenster's comments, I'll point out that he very explicitly recommends targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders as a government policy, not as a vigilante activity.

These are distinctions which you are quite capable of understanding. Please abide by them.

mike18xx said...

> "You should be killed for your political beliefs".

That's NOT what I advocated. ("Political beliefs" is a nebulous abstraction, meaning, therefore, absolutely nothing in particular. An aggressor ought be killed as a *consequence of their ACTIONS*, when said actions amount to impositions of tyranny, writ-small or large. -- That is a species of justice, BB; and there should be nothing at all philosophically incendiary about it.

> If you read El Inglés' essays carefully, you'll notice that he
> speculated about events that might occur; he didn't advocate them.

That is just "playing cute" -- role-playing Dungeons and Dragons and whacking the heads off orcs, and pretending it's just speculative fantasy rather than a euphemistic means of doing exactly what I did. If a government bureaubot were looking for reasons to close a blog down, which do you think is more likely to get the place in trouble: a commentator arguing with a moderator, or an article speculating "genocide"? While I freely confess to not having any experience in such a matter (since I do not have a blog), this does not appear to be a "close call" to me.

Lastly:

> Also -- before you bring up Zenster's comments, I'll point out
> that he very explicitly recommends targeted assassinations of
> terrorist leaders as a government policy, not as a vigilante activity.

A government cannot legitimately claim any right unless said right is also indigenous to those people it purports to represent. -- If a government has a right to assassinate, where do you suppose it would come from?

The moral agency to pro-actively defend yourself against an avowed aggressor is innate to your being as a sentient being. The person who surrenders all authority for earned-retribution to a government has, ipso-facto, already declared himself to be a slave to whatever power-monger manages to claw his way over him.

I'll leave you thinking about this: When and if your government becomes in league with totalitarians (such as the EU blatantly is, and the USG to a slightly lesser extent with the Saudis), do you leave yourself with no options? Are individuals just hopelessly screwed if the governments which boss them around while asserting to speak on their behalf -- are bad?

David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/02/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Baron Bodissey said...

Mike --

This is getting annoying. I will try one more time.

This is NOT about the moral correctness of your case, or the merits of the arguments you make in favor of citizens taking matters into their own hands.

It is about avoiding a shut-down by Blogger.

You may not care whether Gates of Vienna gets closed down by Blogger, but I do. As a result, I reserve the right to delete imprudent and intemperate comments that I deem to be too close to the boundary.

It's a judgment call. If it looks intemperate to me, I will delete it. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, or that I disagree with you; it simply means that I believe your comment could put our blog at risk.

If I ever have opinions resembling yours, I will not air them in this venue. Do I make myself clear?

But what I really object to is your seemingly wilfull obtuseness about this issue. If you cannot comment here in good faith, while observing the house rules, then why bother commenting at all?

mike18xx said...

> It is about avoiding a shut-down by Blogger...

I venture to speculate that that will eventually happen anyway -- and at the most inopportune time (per Murphy); it wouldn't be the first time that someone whining about "hate speech" has had that effect, and over far more innocuous material.

But there's no reason to live in climate of fear: Consider a move to Liberty News Service ahead of time. See: http://tinyurl.com/5dkhsh

Jack said...

Europe is melting down.