It seems it's official - According to Wikileaks anyway, Saudia Arabia is basically funding Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, to the tune of millions of dollars.
Not the Saudi state, officially at least, though it might be said there is a blurring between the stae and certain individuals there. It is reportedly through companies/charities/groups within Saudi Arabia. This region is the seat of the extreamist Whabbi funamentalist Islamic sect.
It is interesting that Saudi Arabia, like Kuwait and some other ostensibly 'friendly' middle eastern states seem to be more keen on dealing with internal terrorism, when they can't risibly blame it on westerners allegedly blowing each other up in fatal disputes over alcohol smuggling.
They seem far less keen on dealing with what amouts to the export of terriorism and steming the flow of funds to it from it's citizens.
One presumes one reason is these states feel they are less likely to suffer the effects of terrorism themselves - if it takes place off their own soil. If they allow what might otherwise be an internal problem with their own dissidents who might destabilise their own regimes to be safely occupied much further away, targeted agaisnt western 'infidel' interests else where.
One wonders, given this apparent massive terrorist funding through Islamic 'charities', how much of their funding is actually due to the trade in drugs and goods counterfeiting that western governments seem keen to blame it on - and why they are.
A continued uniterrupted supply of supply of oil might be a good reason. with the added bunus of providing a nice justification for new laws and powers.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Monday, 6 December 2010
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Suspect attempted mass murderer’s self justification full of holes
I happened to catch the confused pathetic inept and juvenile attempt at self justification of the would be mass murderer Ahmed Abdulla Ali’s so-called ‘martyrdom’ video on TV yesterday.
I noted he was careful to try to address certain points. He was for instance anxious to point out that he had not been ‘brainwashed’ and was "educated to a high standard" and "old enough" to make his own decisions. Though age and education are no bars to ideological blindness and confused, illogical thinking.
Brainwashed? Certainly there is something peculiar, or out of the ordinary in the way strong belief can, in certain individuals, often combined with prejudice, hatred or racism, allow them to justify terrible crimes against others to themselves, that normal decent people would baulk at.
I thought it telling when he said that: ”"This the opportunity to punish and humiliate the kuffar (all non Moslems), to teach them a lesson they will never forget.” this would appear to indicate a deep religiously based hatred of all who do not share his particular beliefs, or surely he would not have used those particular terms. It is reasonable to conclude he felt that Kuffars needed to be taught a damned good lesson, simply for the crime of being Kuffars.
The thing that really struck me as undermining his whole house mental of cards was that he justified the evil he planned on the basis that the public had collectively voted for the government who were apparently oppressing his people’s lands.
His peoples lands? He lived and had made a home in the UK. He had benefited from this. He no doubt expected to enjoy and in fact did and still does benefit from the rights and protections that come with that. Among other things it allows him to plead not guilty in the face of what amounts to his own self made recorded confession.
He complained that the public hadn’t protested sufficiently against, presumably the removal of Saddam Hussein, or possibly the situation in Israel.
That they were willing to pressure the government over fox hunting, but not over his perceived persecution of Moslems. "You don't care about the Muslims that are being killed."
This sounds rather like a set piece of anti Western Democracy rhetoric circulated by hate mongers that he was not bright enough to see through. It is paranoia to suppose that bad things that happen to people who also happen to be Muslims take place because they are Muslims.
It does not follow at all that simply because there were protests and because a fox hunting ban was imposed the British public does not care that Muslims, or anyone else, are being killed. It is a Non-Sequitur and is easily shown to be the lie it is by the outcry over the killing of Muslims in the Balkans when British troops, together with other western troops including American troops, were sent in specifically to prevent this. He conveniently chooses to ignore this, or perhaps never picked it up in the course of his vaunted ‘education’.
Any deaths in Iraq are squarely at the door of the insurgents many coming in from outside the country who seem to be doing to prevent it ever getting on it’s feet. Western troops would have been long gone by now if it were not for this. It is the insurgents who are deliberately slaughtering presumably fellow Muslims wholesale.
If he felt that further demonstrations (because there were demonstrations) might have helped he could have organised a pressure group, peaceful protests, lobbying. He chose not to do this.
He also fails to follow his own distorted logic to it’s conclusion. It is probable he would have had the opportunity to vote. By his own logic he is as ‘responsible’ as any other member of the electorate for the wrongs he apparently perceives. By his own logic he is just as deserving of ‘punishment’.
I noted he was careful to try to address certain points. He was for instance anxious to point out that he had not been ‘brainwashed’ and was "educated to a high standard" and "old enough" to make his own decisions. Though age and education are no bars to ideological blindness and confused, illogical thinking.
Brainwashed? Certainly there is something peculiar, or out of the ordinary in the way strong belief can, in certain individuals, often combined with prejudice, hatred or racism, allow them to justify terrible crimes against others to themselves, that normal decent people would baulk at.
I thought it telling when he said that: ”"This the opportunity to punish and humiliate the kuffar (all non Moslems), to teach them a lesson they will never forget.” this would appear to indicate a deep religiously based hatred of all who do not share his particular beliefs, or surely he would not have used those particular terms. It is reasonable to conclude he felt that Kuffars needed to be taught a damned good lesson, simply for the crime of being Kuffars.
The thing that really struck me as undermining his whole house mental of cards was that he justified the evil he planned on the basis that the public had collectively voted for the government who were apparently oppressing his people’s lands.
His peoples lands? He lived and had made a home in the UK. He had benefited from this. He no doubt expected to enjoy and in fact did and still does benefit from the rights and protections that come with that. Among other things it allows him to plead not guilty in the face of what amounts to his own self made recorded confession.
He complained that the public hadn’t protested sufficiently against, presumably the removal of Saddam Hussein, or possibly the situation in Israel.
That they were willing to pressure the government over fox hunting, but not over his perceived persecution of Moslems. "You don't care about the Muslims that are being killed."
This sounds rather like a set piece of anti Western Democracy rhetoric circulated by hate mongers that he was not bright enough to see through. It is paranoia to suppose that bad things that happen to people who also happen to be Muslims take place because they are Muslims.
It does not follow at all that simply because there were protests and because a fox hunting ban was imposed the British public does not care that Muslims, or anyone else, are being killed. It is a Non-Sequitur and is easily shown to be the lie it is by the outcry over the killing of Muslims in the Balkans when British troops, together with other western troops including American troops, were sent in specifically to prevent this. He conveniently chooses to ignore this, or perhaps never picked it up in the course of his vaunted ‘education’.
Any deaths in Iraq are squarely at the door of the insurgents many coming in from outside the country who seem to be doing to prevent it ever getting on it’s feet. Western troops would have been long gone by now if it were not for this. It is the insurgents who are deliberately slaughtering presumably fellow Muslims wholesale.
If he felt that further demonstrations (because there were demonstrations) might have helped he could have organised a pressure group, peaceful protests, lobbying. He chose not to do this.
He also fails to follow his own distorted logic to it’s conclusion. It is probable he would have had the opportunity to vote. By his own logic he is as ‘responsible’ as any other member of the electorate for the wrongs he apparently perceives. By his own logic he is just as deserving of ‘punishment’.
Friday, 8 February 2008
Arch Bishop suggests adoption of aspects of Sharia Law in the UK
About now there must be quite a few people, especially in the corridors of power and possibly within the Anglican Church tuning over the phrase: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” in their minds - or possibly paraphrasing it and substituting turbulent for pestilential.
Not content to be presiding over the apparent disintegration of the Anglican Church the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Williams has chosen to start stirring things up by unhelpfully suggesting the adoption of some of Sharia law in the UK appeared to be “unavoidable”, attracting criticism from across the (rather narrow these days) political spectrum.
Such comments can only put back the possibility of Moslem integration into British society.
He did raise some valid points in his speech, identifying problems - but his conclusions, solutions and ideas; betray him as misguided, weak and rather foolish.
If the law of the land does not apply equally and fairly for all then it is not the law of the land at all. Ghettos where different laws apply will just entrench the no-go areas the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali spoke of.
Better we separate religion from the state formally and entirely.
Parliament should be the place the law is decided and it should be uniform - though unfortunately that is becoming less so, as more and more, actual power, is brazenly transferred to the EU, amid political denial.
It seems almost traditional now that Arch Bishops of Canterbury will say something controversial from time to time, possibly in an attempt to appear ‘relevant’.
But maybe it is time for this one to consider stepping down in favour of a more capable pair of hands – and who knows – converting ;-)
Not content to be presiding over the apparent disintegration of the Anglican Church the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Williams has chosen to start stirring things up by unhelpfully suggesting the adoption of some of Sharia law in the UK appeared to be “unavoidable”, attracting criticism from across the (rather narrow these days) political spectrum.
Such comments can only put back the possibility of Moslem integration into British society.
He did raise some valid points in his speech, identifying problems - but his conclusions, solutions and ideas; betray him as misguided, weak and rather foolish.
If the law of the land does not apply equally and fairly for all then it is not the law of the land at all. Ghettos where different laws apply will just entrench the no-go areas the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali spoke of.
Better we separate religion from the state formally and entirely.
Parliament should be the place the law is decided and it should be uniform - though unfortunately that is becoming less so, as more and more, actual power, is brazenly transferred to the EU, amid political denial.
It seems almost traditional now that Arch Bishops of Canterbury will say something controversial from time to time, possibly in an attempt to appear ‘relevant’.
But maybe it is time for this one to consider stepping down in favour of a more capable pair of hands – and who knows – converting ;-)
Saturday, 2 February 2008
Bishop receives death threats
It is interesting to note that since his remarks about no go areas in the UK for non-adherents to the so-called “religion of peace” the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, has received death threats.
Confidentially folks, I may be wrong here - but I suspect the threats were not from Seventh day Adventists, Buddhists, Jews, or Quakers, who were homicidally enraged by his daring to point out the bleedin’ obvious.
One suspects that if the good Bishop’s surname hadn’t been Nazir-Ali then he would have been attacked by some of his less rabid critics employing the dubious combination, Non-Sequitur/Ad hominem erroneous accusation of being ‘racist’ by now. It would certainly not be the first time they have played the race card by any means.
That seems to be their usual first attack that many will reflexively fall over themselves to kowtow to. It cannot be racist to criticise a religion, unless possibly it is one that only allows adherents of one ethnic group with no conversions.
Clearly Islam is not such a religion as it’s ultimate goal is a world Islamic state and it currently has adherents from many different ethnic groups.
Confidentially folks, I may be wrong here - but I suspect the threats were not from Seventh day Adventists, Buddhists, Jews, or Quakers, who were homicidally enraged by his daring to point out the bleedin’ obvious.
One suspects that if the good Bishop’s surname hadn’t been Nazir-Ali then he would have been attacked by some of his less rabid critics employing the dubious combination, Non-Sequitur/Ad hominem erroneous accusation of being ‘racist’ by now. It would certainly not be the first time they have played the race card by any means.
That seems to be their usual first attack that many will reflexively fall over themselves to kowtow to. It cannot be racist to criticise a religion, unless possibly it is one that only allows adherents of one ethnic group with no conversions.
Clearly Islam is not such a religion as it’s ultimate goal is a world Islamic state and it currently has adherents from many different ethnic groups.
Monday, 21 January 2008
Sharia Law comes to the UK
Delhi born Dr/Shaikh Suhaib Hasan has set himself up in his own little Sharia court in a converted corner shop in Leyton, North East London.At the moment this has all the legality of a TV show ‘court’ where participants are technically only bound in as far as they agree to be bound. Though it is perhaps much more than just that to a Moslem, embedded in largely exclusively Moslem community, who has no English.
Dr Hassan is the General Secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council and bills himself as a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.
He is keen to share the benefits of Sharia Law, on an official and legal basis, with the rest of us. He is convinced it can turn the HK into a “haven of peace”.
In fact he, in a documentary, currently scheduled to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled ‘Divorce: Sharia Style’, Dr Hasan reveals ‘just where he is coming from’, as they say. He revealingly comments:
"Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.”
"We want to offer it [Sharia Law] to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."
I think the good Dr’s Freudian slip is showing here - As far as I am aware adultery is not a crime in the UK, there is certainly no penalty, apart from the possibility of divorce, for it.
I am sure he is correct in that the realistic prospect of being stoned to death would discourage it, against the law or not, that’ll do it for you most every time.
One wonders what else that the good Dr disproves of, that is not against the law we can consider stoning people to death for?
How the man can seriously suggest such a thing without realising it brands him as a fascist is beyond me.
The Muslim Council of Britain is usually held up by the ‘great and the good’, as an exemplar of ‘moderate’ Islamic opinion. This man is their Sharia spokesman.
If this is moderate it can only be so by comparison to something incomparably worse. If this is moderate maybe we need to redefine the meaning of ‘moderate’.
Oh! - Looks like we did already…
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Teacher charged in Sudan inciting hatred and insulting Islam over naming of Teddy Bear
Many of us will now be aware of the plight of Gillian Gibbons, a teacher fairly recently arrived in the Sudan, who is in trouble because she didn’t prevent a pupil of her’s named Mohammed naming a teddy bear after himself. It has been posted about quite a bit on the net.Teddy bears have a pretty positive image, so inciting hatred is difficult to see and if a president of the US did not find it insulting to have them generically named after him, then why should it be seen as an insult?
In any event, it was not Gillian Gibbons who named the Teddy.
Before this incident I had rightly, or wrongly, largely associated the place largely with the slaughter and beheading of General Charles Gordon, in Khartoum, by ‘mad’ Mahdi Mohammed Ahmed - Now I have something else to tuck into my mental ‘Sudan’ pigeonhole with that.
And before anyone says it - no I have not forgotten Darfur, or the Sudanese government’s semi official military arm the Janjaweed.
The Sudanese Embassy had previously claimed it was all "storm in a teacup" and she could be released soon, as the incident was based on a cultural misunderstanding.
It seems this is not the case and she has now been charged with insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs. This could result in a fine, prison, or 40 lashes. It’s just as well New Labour had the teeth pulled on a bill introducing similar legislation here - for the moment.
It is difficult to see what the Sudanese authorities are playing at, one presumes they are not actually trying to bring Mohammedism and Sharia Law into disrepute, or make the average Westerner more suspicious of their co-religionists, but they would have found it difficult to do a better job of it if they were.
Maybe they are hoping to use the affair as leverage...
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Saudi rape victim gets 200 lashes and six months
While the great and the good were busy sucking up to the Saudi King Abdullah on his recent State Visit, no doubt salivating at the prospect of more arms sales to the regime, one wonders if they gave much if any thought to this:
A 19 year old Shia girl went to meet her former boyfriend to get any pictures he had of her, as she was due to marry someone else. (Note at this point that the Shia are a minority in Saudi Arabia.)
They were discussing the matter in a car when seven Sunni men kidnapped them both and gang raped them both - Her 14 times!
Naturally enough they complained to the authorities – big, big, mistake.
They were both tried under Sharia law for being unchaperoned and sentenced to 90 lashes.
She made the even bigger mistake of appealing - so the court upped her sentence to 200 lashes and sixty days behind bars.
Their lawyer, Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, is facing disciplinary action. His comment:
“My client is the victim of this abhorrent crime. I believe her sentence contravenes the Islamic Sharia law and violates the pertinent international conventions,"
"The judicial bodies should have dealt with this girl as the victim rather than the culprit.
"The court blamed the girl for being alone with unrelated men, but it should have taken the humane view that it cannot be considered her fault."
There is something deeply repulsive about a system that will do this and feel it justified.
Maybe a word in the right ear during that visit could have made this appalling miscarriage of justice go away - like the suggestion of anything untoward concerning certain commercial arrangements with the regime did - when they felt it might be ‘appropriate’.
Friday, 5 October 2007
UK Teachers becoming reluctant to teach theory of evolution
It seems that teaches in the UK are becoming more and more reluctant to include the theory of evolution in science classes.
Not as you might initially imagine because of fundamentalist Christian objections.
No. Apparently it is much more because teachers are worried about Moslem objections.
Accoring to a Professor at the Institute of Education, London, Moslems are less likely to accommodate the theory of evolution within their belief structure than Christians. A much greater percentage are Creationists than amongst Christians. The large increase in Moslems in the UK means that there are many more pupils and parents with more extreme creationist views.
One can’t help wondering if teachers would be quite so concerned about the views of, say Christians for example - and if the real driver behind their concerns is not political correctness and fear of being unjustly accused of being institutionally prejudiced, culturally insensitive, or racist, in some way, if objections are raised to their covering the subject.
Not as you might initially imagine because of fundamentalist Christian objections.
No. Apparently it is much more because teachers are worried about Moslem objections.
Accoring to a Professor at the Institute of Education, London, Moslems are less likely to accommodate the theory of evolution within their belief structure than Christians. A much greater percentage are Creationists than amongst Christians. The large increase in Moslems in the UK means that there are many more pupils and parents with more extreme creationist views.
One can’t help wondering if teachers would be quite so concerned about the views of, say Christians for example - and if the real driver behind their concerns is not political correctness and fear of being unjustly accused of being institutionally prejudiced, culturally insensitive, or racist, in some way, if objections are raised to their covering the subject.
Saturday, 8 September 2007
Creeping overtake of UK Mosques by fanatics
Worryingly, according to the Times over 600 of the mosques in the UK are now run by a Moslem sect known as the Deobandi. That is around half of them.
The Deobandi sect is an ‘ultra-conservative’ movement. The Taleban in Afghanistan originated from it - So they are not known for being ‘moderate’ then.
The sect, has managed to gain a significant foothold on the Muslim Council of Britain.
Now it seems a chap who goes by the name of Riyadh ul Haq is poised to become it’s leader in the UK. He makes the BNP look like a bunch of particularly wet Polly Toynbee wannabes, by comparison.
He is fanatically against what he sees as ‘western’ values and has openly called upon Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah.
He loathes any Muslims who admit to any commitment to being British, believing that any friendship with a Jew, or a Christian, is “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.
Clearly pretty ‘moderate’ then ;-)
By all reports he is not someone you would want to see in charge of rounding up shopping trolleys, let alone armed with ‘spiritual’ authority, pouring his hatred into the unwary and volatile.
It seems he wasprogrammed educated and trained at an Islamic seminary in the UK. So the Governments talk of wanting ‘home grown’ imams does not look, on reflection, like such a good idea after all, as things are.
Mr ul Haq is part of a whole new generation of UK Imams who share similar views and agendas.
It seems the Deobandis run Seventeen of Britain’s twenty six Islamic seminaries and are quiely churning out four, out of every five, of all UK trained Muslim clerics. In many cases blithely funded by local education authority grants.
Should we be concerned?
Just because they cloak their evil in religion does not make them any less sinister, any less dangerous or any less to be resisted than the black-shirts of the 20th century.
The Deobandi sect is an ‘ultra-conservative’ movement. The Taleban in Afghanistan originated from it - So they are not known for being ‘moderate’ then.
The sect, has managed to gain a significant foothold on the Muslim Council of Britain.
Now it seems a chap who goes by the name of Riyadh ul Haq is poised to become it’s leader in the UK. He makes the BNP look like a bunch of particularly wet Polly Toynbee wannabes, by comparison.
He is fanatically against what he sees as ‘western’ values and has openly called upon Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah.
He loathes any Muslims who admit to any commitment to being British, believing that any friendship with a Jew, or a Christian, is “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.
Clearly pretty ‘moderate’ then ;-)
By all reports he is not someone you would want to see in charge of rounding up shopping trolleys, let alone armed with ‘spiritual’ authority, pouring his hatred into the unwary and volatile.
It seems he was
Mr ul Haq is part of a whole new generation of UK Imams who share similar views and agendas.
It seems the Deobandis run Seventeen of Britain’s twenty six Islamic seminaries and are quiely churning out four, out of every five, of all UK trained Muslim clerics. In many cases blithely funded by local education authority grants.
Should we be concerned?
Just because they cloak their evil in religion does not make them any less sinister, any less dangerous or any less to be resisted than the black-shirts of the 20th century.
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
UK School wins right to ban Christian ‘purity’ ring
The Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex in the UK banned a pupil from wearing a ‘purity’ ring as it contravened the schools uniform policy.
She was one of a dozen girls who wore the ring, engraved with a verse from the Bible, as a sign of their intention to abstain from sex until they married.
She took the school to court on the grounds that it was as "unlawful interference" with her fundamental rights to express her Christian faith, but the court rejected this.
A school that banned a teenage girl from wearing a "purity" ring to symbolise her opposition to sex before marriage did not discriminate against her religious beliefs, the High Court ruled today.
The judge ruled, that the ring could not be regarded as ‘a proper Christian symbol’, and so the school had not breached the Human Rights Act. The decision does seem a little perverse and one wonders at how qualified he was to make the decision and what advice he may have taken.
This is the same school that had no problem allowing Moslem girls to wear headscarves. These scarves are clearly no more a (in the words of the court) ‘proper’ Moslem symbol, originating as they do with certain Middle Eastern ethnicities and not necessary to all Moslem women.
The Koran talks about modesty, but there is no specifically prescribed dress code for Muslim men and women.
The details regarding women's dress differ in various Muslim countries according to local cultural traditions. It ranges from any form of modest but not specifically Moslem dress to the extreme, all-covering chador, or burqa.
In fact the scarves when they are worn are worn to symbolise their ‘modesty and purity’ fulfilling much the same roll as the ring albeit far more overtly - and with just as much, or as little, ‘proper ness’ as the ring. Modesty might be regarded as a requirement but not the wearing of the scarf
Some in the Moslem world regard the headscarf and other more extreme versions of dress for Moslem women as an agenda being pushed by the more the ‘fundamentalist’ to assert a strict Middle Eastern homogenising control over Muslims in Europe.
Surely to be fare it should be one rule for all - and it does not look all that much like one rule for all at the moment.
Will the school, having won it’s argument on this basis, now be banning headscarves on the same basis? Or will they reconsider allowing the rings?
How likely is that?
She was one of a dozen girls who wore the ring, engraved with a verse from the Bible, as a sign of their intention to abstain from sex until they married.
She took the school to court on the grounds that it was as "unlawful interference" with her fundamental rights to express her Christian faith, but the court rejected this.
A school that banned a teenage girl from wearing a "purity" ring to symbolise her opposition to sex before marriage did not discriminate against her religious beliefs, the High Court ruled today.
The judge ruled, that the ring could not be regarded as ‘a proper Christian symbol’, and so the school had not breached the Human Rights Act. The decision does seem a little perverse and one wonders at how qualified he was to make the decision and what advice he may have taken.
This is the same school that had no problem allowing Moslem girls to wear headscarves. These scarves are clearly no more a (in the words of the court) ‘proper’ Moslem symbol, originating as they do with certain Middle Eastern ethnicities and not necessary to all Moslem women.
The Koran talks about modesty, but there is no specifically prescribed dress code for Muslim men and women.
The details regarding women's dress differ in various Muslim countries according to local cultural traditions. It ranges from any form of modest but not specifically Moslem dress to the extreme, all-covering chador, or burqa.
In fact the scarves when they are worn are worn to symbolise their ‘modesty and purity’ fulfilling much the same roll as the ring albeit far more overtly - and with just as much, or as little, ‘proper ness’ as the ring. Modesty might be regarded as a requirement but not the wearing of the scarf
Some in the Moslem world regard the headscarf and other more extreme versions of dress for Moslem women as an agenda being pushed by the more the ‘fundamentalist’ to assert a strict Middle Eastern homogenising control over Muslims in Europe.
Surely to be fare it should be one rule for all - and it does not look all that much like one rule for all at the moment.
Will the school, having won it’s argument on this basis, now be banning headscarves on the same basis? Or will they reconsider allowing the rings?
How likely is that?
Saturday, 30 June 2007
Woman unwilling to remove hijab in UK court
A Moslem woman who appeared in Magistrates court yesterday, charged with Criminal Damage, in Manchester wearing a hijab was unwilling to remove it.
Zoobia Hussain, 32, of Crumpsall, Manchester was unwilling to remove the hijab, so the Magistrate, Ian Murray, a Taxi Driver, walked out. He now understandably faces an inquiry.
It seems perfectly reasonable to insist that a defendant in court appear without a face covering. There is something deeply counter to the whole concept of British justice for the defendant to conceal themselves from the court in such a way. Quite frankly it is difficult to conceive of an instance where it would be reasonable for a defendant to do so.
Never-the-less Mr Murray went about the matter the wrong way. He should have first asked that she remove it, considered dealing with the matter by way of contempt of court, or at least adjourned the case. Now he has managed to make himself look foolish and unreasonable when his actual objection was perfectly reasonable.
Miss Hawkins, Zoobia Hussain’s legal representative, said yesterday the Defendant, ”remains shocked and distressed. She suffered hurt feelings and felt intimidated and deeply embarrassed by the treatment she received at court.”
Yes – By coincidence she also stands a pretty good chance of getting off now as well one suspects.
Apparently: "She is angry that, as a result of the ensuing publicity, she has now had to explain to her children what happened."
Well people who end up in court charged with criminal damage sometimes have to do that, don’t they - covering or no covering, especially if they get publicity, or get sent down.
If she didn’t want publicity a reasonable person might draw the conclusion she would have been wise not to court it ;-) by turning up in the hijab, or an even more effective strategy - avoid being charged with criminal damage in the first place...
Zoobia Hussain, 32, of Crumpsall, Manchester was unwilling to remove the hijab, so the Magistrate, Ian Murray, a Taxi Driver, walked out. He now understandably faces an inquiry.
It seems perfectly reasonable to insist that a defendant in court appear without a face covering. There is something deeply counter to the whole concept of British justice for the defendant to conceal themselves from the court in such a way. Quite frankly it is difficult to conceive of an instance where it would be reasonable for a defendant to do so.
Never-the-less Mr Murray went about the matter the wrong way. He should have first asked that she remove it, considered dealing with the matter by way of contempt of court, or at least adjourned the case. Now he has managed to make himself look foolish and unreasonable when his actual objection was perfectly reasonable.
Miss Hawkins, Zoobia Hussain’s legal representative, said yesterday the Defendant, ”remains shocked and distressed. She suffered hurt feelings and felt intimidated and deeply embarrassed by the treatment she received at court.”
Yes – By coincidence she also stands a pretty good chance of getting off now as well one suspects.
Apparently: "She is angry that, as a result of the ensuing publicity, she has now had to explain to her children what happened."
Well people who end up in court charged with criminal damage sometimes have to do that, don’t they - covering or no covering, especially if they get publicity, or get sent down.
If she didn’t want publicity a reasonable person might draw the conclusion she would have been wise not to court it ;-) by turning up in the hijab, or an even more effective strategy - avoid being charged with criminal damage in the first place...
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Knighthood for UK author stirs hatred & controversy
The UK author Salman Rushdie has been awarded a knighthood by the Government.
Rushdie has been under threat of death from a fatwa issued in Iran since 1989 when he wrote a book called ’Satanic Verses’. The book would have had very little exposure if it were not for the Moslem threats - and certainly gets far more than I suspect it deserves as a result.
On hearing of the award Pakistan’s Religious Affairs Minister Mohammad Ejaz ul-Haq said:
“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified,”
Everyone’s a critic - I guess he must be a ‘moderate’
He later tried to weasel it by trying to claim he actually meant the honour meant a risk of suicide attacks because Muslims believed Sir Salman had insulted Islam.
Iranian conservatives criticised Queen Elizabeth on Tuesday over the conferring of the honour, presumably having no real idea how the system works - and that the Queen doesn’t just pick the conferees personally.
Iran’s First Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar addressing Iran's parliament said to great applause:
"The action by the British Queen in knighting Salman Rushdie, the apostate, is an unwise one.
The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important."
So, if bestowing titles isn’t still deemed important, then why is he bothering to comment? It is obviously is important to him.
I wonder if he ever read the book – Nah! Nor most of the flag burners and assorted rent-a-crowd either.
These Ranters need to understand that the knighthood has very little to do with trying to annoy fanatical religious types. I doubt it even entered into the equation.
It comes from a small insulated little world, as a natural progression of Rushdie being an acclaimed “arty type”, who has been (despite the fatwa) around for a while and not (to mix metaphors) blotted his arty lefty liberal credentials. It was his turn dummies! No conspiracy, no complicated global Zionist Military/Industrial complex, fiendish and cunning plan to diss Islam.
…Just - his - turn. Smell that coffee folks!
Rushdie has been under threat of death from a fatwa issued in Iran since 1989 when he wrote a book called ’Satanic Verses’. The book would have had very little exposure if it were not for the Moslem threats - and certainly gets far more than I suspect it deserves as a result.
On hearing of the award Pakistan’s Religious Affairs Minister Mohammad Ejaz ul-Haq said:
“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified,”
Everyone’s a critic - I guess he must be a ‘moderate’
He later tried to weasel it by trying to claim he actually meant the honour meant a risk of suicide attacks because Muslims believed Sir Salman had insulted Islam.
Iranian conservatives criticised Queen Elizabeth on Tuesday over the conferring of the honour, presumably having no real idea how the system works - and that the Queen doesn’t just pick the conferees personally.
Iran’s First Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar addressing Iran's parliament said to great applause:
"The action by the British Queen in knighting Salman Rushdie, the apostate, is an unwise one.
The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important."
So, if bestowing titles isn’t still deemed important, then why is he bothering to comment? It is obviously is important to him.
I wonder if he ever read the book – Nah! Nor most of the flag burners and assorted rent-a-crowd either.
These Ranters need to understand that the knighthood has very little to do with trying to annoy fanatical religious types. I doubt it even entered into the equation.
It comes from a small insulated little world, as a natural progression of Rushdie being an acclaimed “arty type”, who has been (despite the fatwa) around for a while and not (to mix metaphors) blotted his arty lefty liberal credentials. It was his turn dummies! No conspiracy, no complicated global Zionist Military/Industrial complex, fiendish and cunning plan to diss Islam.
…Just - his - turn. Smell that coffee folks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
