Saturday, January 15, 2011

Is That What We In Britain Really Want?

Last night’s news feed included an article from This Is Kent about an 80-year-old Anglican woman in southern England who caused quite a controversy with a brief essay published in her parish magazine.

Below are excerpts from the news article about the controversy, with certain phrases bolded for later reference:

AN anti-Islamic article aiming to “liven up” a church magazine has sparked outrage after it branded the religion a “threat”.

Muriel Clark’s controversial piece on “Islamisation” in the monthly Hildenborough Keys has been slammed for urging residents to take a stand against Muslims coming into this country.

The 80-year-old divorcee claimed in her column for the St John’s Church publication that young Christian schoolchildren were being brainwashed with Islamic ideology.

Both magazine editor Nick Hawkins — who admitted toning down the original submission because it was “too extreme” — and the Reverend John Chandler this week defended the piece, which was sent out to all homes in Hildenborough.

But residents and the West Kent Muslim Association (WKMA) have called it “unacceptable” and “harmful to the community”.

That’s what the local MSM said. Now let’s take a look at the original essay, which may be found in Keys, the parish magazine of Hildenborough Parish in Kent. An alert reader in Britain sent us a link to a pdf of the January issue of Keys, and the controversial essay may be found on page 16.

For Counterjihad regulars, the sentiments expressed here will seem exactly right, and in fact quite commonplace. Once again, I’ve bolded certain phrases:

by Mrs. Muriel Clark

In view of the worldwide media interest in the fate of Mrs. Ashtiani in Iran, I am concerned about the ever increasing Islamisation of our own country, and think we should take a stand against: —

a)uncontrolled immigration of Muslims whose birth rate exceeds that of other groups.
b)allowing Turkey to enter the EU with the inevitable consequence of the increase in our Muslim population.
c)establishment of non-integrated Islamic communities, including no-go areas to so-called ‘infidels’ in our cities.
d)imposition of ‘sharia’ laws, taking precedence over our legal and banking systems.
e)‘halal’ meat and dairy products stealthily introduced into our prisons, schools and shops.
f)the sometimes intense, and often subtle promotion of Islam in many primary schools in order to influence impressionable young minds.

If we are honest, we know about the oppression of Islamic regimes in Muslim lands, where ‘infidels’ are not tolerated. Is that what we in Britain really want?

Despite the seeming lack of faith in our Christian heritage, even in sections of the Church nowadays, I am convinced that by far the majority do not welcome these undoubted pressures to bring our country into submission to Islam.

The first thing to notice is that, contrary to the hysterical précis in This is Kent, the author never mentioned the words “threat” or “brainwashed” (or any related forms) in her essay.

Mrs. Clark didn’t urge anyone to “take a stand against Muslims” — she said she was concerned. Specifically, she was concerned about:

  • The uncontrolled immigration of Muslims
  • The establishment of non-integrated Islamic communities
  • The often subtle promotion of Islam in the schools

Those seem reasonable concerns to me — They’re my concerns, too. But, then, I’m an “Islamophobe”.

Needless to say, the local Muslims are upset. According to the MSM article:

WKMA president Nasir Jamil said: “We strongly condemn these views.

“Islamisation is a very sensitive issue. Her views are a bit extremist and it’s a bit out of the blue. It really hurts us.

“How can they publish it, especially to a small community? It creates a bad impression that Muslims are extremists.”

And the Greens, too:

Tonbridge Green Party’s Steve Dawe said he hoped the article — which sits alongside more benign offerings about coffee mornings and whist drives — was a one-off.

He said: “I hope those responsible indicate this was a mistake, and will never occur again.

“If not, then this is clearly a matter for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who may wish to bring a case on the grounds of incitement to religious hatred.”

Aha! Time for the prosecutors to roll out a Section Four charge!

But the parish is standing by Mrs. Clark:

But the writer, editor and vicar have all stood by the piece.

Mr Hawkins said: “A couple of things were too extreme, so I took them out. But we should be awake to what’s going on.

In Muriel Clark’s words, “[T]he majority do not welcome these undoubted pressures to bring our country into submission to Islam.” I’m certain she’s quite right: if the general public in England had ever been asked, they would not have assented to the Islamization of their country.

But they weren’t asked. Their opinion is of no concern to the Anointed, who have already made their decision. For the good of the Realm, the country must become Islamic.

What the people of Britain want really doesn’t matter.


Nick said...

And you'll notice that she framed the whole 'debate on a question of public interest' by opening with: 'In view of the worldwide media interest in the fate of Mrs. Ashtiani in Iran ...'

Note here Section 59 of TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti v Norway: '... there is little scope under Article 10 (2) of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest ...' (bold mine).

Profitsbeard said...

Kudos to granny.

What's wrong with hating a "religion", like Islam, which hates all infidels as unclean sub-humans?

I hate Islam because Islam hates me.

Fair's fair,

Mohammad was a thieving pedophile. A slaveholding, mass-nurdering totalitarian tyrant.

And his sick ideology needs to be opposed by all who value humanity, liberty, decency and a free future.

Islam: ~what's not to hate?

I would have hated the heart-ripping worship of the Aztecs also.

Sue me, Quetzecoatl.

Sue me, CAIR.

Nick said...

One's emotions have no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the assertions one makes.

These people claim that the assertions made by this old lady (and Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolff et al) are motivated by 'hatred' and are therefore false.

In fact any philosophy undergraduate will tell you that they are making the very mistake they claim this old lady is making.

It is they who are making ad hominem assertions which are, obviously, fallacious.

EscapeVelocity said...

But residents and the West Kent Muslim Association (WKMA) have called it “unacceptable” and “harmful to the community”.

Its time to start telling Muslims what is unacceptable and harmful to the community. To stop it or hit the road. Preaching violence and hate against Kuffar and Muslim Supremacism at the mosques and Friday Prayers. Just one small example of religously aggravating. Or passing out books filled with hate passages like the Koran. Also religiously aggravating. Next onto Dawkins and slap him with some religiously aggravating charges. Then onto the BBC.

Christians need to take back their countries.

Pavelina said...

Does anyone ever explain why the govt. is trying to bring the country into submission to Islam?
There needs to be an open discussion about this.34 It's time to put the enablers on the spot.

Richard said...

Profitsbeard your forgot rapist when you were listing the Pedophile Prophets list of good points.

Nick said...

'Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society; subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. (Sunday Times v United Kingdom (2) Paragraph 50(a))

This is settled law. There is no legal basis whatsoever for the British state, or anyone else within the borders of the United Kingdom, trying to interfere with this old lady's right, as enshrined in Article 10(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, to freedom of expression.

noiseytappet said...

Pauline said 'Does anyone ever explain why the govt. is trying to bring the country into submission to Islam?'

Since the end of world war 2, we in the West, have been sold out by a succession of political elite – some elected – some not. In my opinion, it was during this conflict that the true value and power of oil was realised.

All our subsequent problems have been a net result of this, or indeed part of the ongoing cover up.

The Arab has 'bought' the West from our traitorous Elite and now he wants to take up residence, an invasion without a shot being fired.

The political elite may well be Marxists but they are rich with corrupt with Arab oil money.

I do believe that the ongoing Elite really do see themselves as a new form of aristocracy. 'Eating cake' so to speak, while all the ordinary folk around them are literally losing their heads.

They just dont realise that there will be NO infidels anywhere, in the New [Muslim] World Order

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

While the technological contribution of islam to the West has been negligible the ideological influence has been substantial for the Western totalitarian of the left there is the element of equality in submission and for the totalitarian of the right there is the element of supremacy in the hierarchical might is right structure of islam.

The economics of oil is a modern phenomenon based on necessity, historically the attraction of the Western elites to islam has been ideological, a curse on the west since the inception of islam.

What we maybe witnessing is the convergence of the dualism of islams (political) power structure amongst the left/right elites of the west a janus secularised islam grafted on to the political mindset of the Western political elites.

goethechosemercy said...

When is the British government going to stop internalizing non-Western perspectives of the West?
Christians worship.
They do not submit.
They worship God.
They do not worship the Allah of Islam.
And those who have read the Koran know precisely the differences between the two.
So let's stop telling ourselves the fairy story that Islam and Christianity are related by one God.
They are not.
In most of their doctrines, they are, in fact, diametrically oppoosed.
So if a Christian writes that Islam is profane, a threat, a curse and even Satanic, that Christian is merely being honest, not hating anyone.

Profitsbeard said...

Richard said... Profitsbeard your forgot rapist when you were listing the Pedophile Prophets list of good points.

1/16/2011 1:40 AM


Richard, I stand amended.

When collecting Mohammad's outrages: So many crimes, so little time.

There is also: plagiarist (of the Torah and New Testament), assassin of poets, rabid art and music and dog-hater, hallucinator ("The Night Journey"), ad nauseam.

The guy was a compendium of delerium and disease.

EscapeVelocity said...

The older Brits remember the good ole days. They wont be around forever, and the new norm will be what it is.

Green Infidel said...

Any chance of a Europe-wide legal defence fund, especially for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and section 4-style cases? The "offenders" could then afford not to care less what their local Green Party has to say...

Also important - to get the message out that the labeling of the article by the likes of This is Kent is disputed. Most media in England have a "letters to the editor" section. This could be a good window to let the wider world know that there is not only one view on the issue.

Michael Servetus said...

By definition and integrity of identity religions and cultures say immplicitly that others are false, otherwise they would be the other but they are not and choose not because they believe in their own rightness. Christianity would be Islam and Islam Christianity if they were not different. If they didn't disagree they would collapse into one another by implication they each reject each other and insinuate or inadvertently promote the idea of each others falsehood, I would say that roughly the same thing goes for cultures. They are manifestations of what their respective constituents believe to be the best and wisest thereby making a statement by what is omitted.
These meddling political bureaucrats must accept that if you have Christians or Muslims in the society these separate identities are by essence in effect making disparaging statements about one another and that doesn't mean one is wrong or both are wrong. If you want to outlaw such ideas which go against freedom you might as well say you outlaw difference and choice for choice and difference imply the selection and rejection of one or another. in rejection and choice are reasoning and intellectual discrimination. So this leads to the forbidding of reason. perhaps one day they will issue a license for that purpose.
The Muslim association in Kent said that the views expressed were unacceptable and harmful to the community, what community? English or Muslim? Can it be harmful for a community to express itself?
Also in those comments is not the community tryying to explain what it detects as being harmful to it? Moreover if these expressions are considered harmful what about the verses in the Koran that tell a Muslim to resist nonbelievers ways and not take them as friends and show evidence of keeping Muslims separate? Is that not harmful to community? No, your very Muslim existence and expression in a non Muslims country is harmful to that community and unacceptable. But according to the EU the once Great Britain is not a Christian country and is not to be defined by its past it is whatever they make it to be and fill it with. It is therefore for practical purposes an empty house with no one home.

The Backward Bride said...

Michael Servetus is so right - the house is empty, derelict and now occupied by squatters! I must own up to a personal interest in this story, the lady in question is my husband's aunt! I knew nothing about this until I was making my daily check of this Blog, and was astounded to see the story. I followed the link to the newspaper article, and was dismayed to see how much personal information the newspaper had released about her and am glad that she's away from home for a few days. I'd offer her sanctuary, but I have a few enemies at my own gates and am locked in combat with the religion of peace to the extent that I have been declared a 'Jinn' at the local mosque! See this link to see why:

Professor L said...

But Baron, remember the meme - only the right wing racist fascist nazi monarcho-imperialist capitalist swine can possbly be hysterical.

Never mind what is actually said, nor how reasonable. It's the Venomous Blotoad, with its stun grenade against reason.

And you know what we do with toads here in Australia? We take out our golf clubs, cry "Four!" and let slip with a mighty whack!

gsw said...

Why be puzzled?
WKMA president Nasir Jamil is offended that anyone has a view different to the one he advocates, let alone states this view.
The correct response would be for everyone who received the article to write to the publishers stating that regardless of agreement or disagreement, in England you are permitted to have views.

EscapeVelocity said...

Please Michael Servetus,

Write a letter to the editor. The second half of your post pummels the midsection, in a serious of devastating blows.

Anonymous said...

as far as commments here go on this topic, Profitsbeard hit the nail on the head. they hate me, so I hate them.

I dont give a rats ass about them, I didnt even know what a muslim was before 911 and I didnt care.

as far as im concerned they started the hatin first.

to paraphrase will smith from men in black, "dont start no hatin wont be no hatin"

this will be my knew answer to those who brand me islmaophobice or hatefull

BritishActivism said...

Is it me, or has the article in the linked PDF vanished?

I just downloaded the PDF file and cannot find the article. Have they replaced the PDF with a "sanitised" version?

Please keep the original and make it available for download.