Anorak

islam | Anorak

Posts Tagged ‘islam’

One Year After London Bridge and still no talk about Islam

A year ago Islamists murdered eight people in an attack at London Bridge. A year on and the BBC says the eight “died”. Yesterday at a remembrance service for the victims, their loved ones lit candles at the Southwark Cathedral service. In attendance was the Prime Minister, the mayor of London and members of the emergency services. The talk is of “love”, the hashtag #LondonUnited and placards declaring “London more united than ever”.

 

love london bridge attack

 

The murdered fought back. Londoners set about the three murderers with skateboards, chairs and beer bottles.  Roy Larner heard the killers shouting “This is for Allah!” as they burst into the pub where he was drinking. “Fuck you, I’m Millwall!,” he told the killers, a trio that one eyewitness referred to as the “three Muslim geezers”. Larner punched them. They stabbed him eight times. He lived. Romanian baker Florin Morariu hit one of the killers over the head with a crate. Ignacio Echeverría saw the killers stabbing at a woman. He hit them with his skateboard. The murdered him. Geoff Ho also went towards the violence.  “The bastard in the Arsenal shirt came at me first. I think I got a hit in on one of them, but either he or his accomplice got me with a shot to the throat,” said Geoff, “but either he or his accomplice got me with a shot to the throat.”

When the religionists attacked, Londoners were not cowed. The names of these brave people who fought back should be all over the Press.

We should also be talking about why it happened. Can we talk about Islam and the killers’ humanity hating ideology? Only willing fools and bastards blame these murders on all Muslims. The discussion should be about violent Islamism. How can be confronted by more than pub glasses if it is not debated freely? Tackling the killers’ nihilism does not mean ‘giving into hate’. What happened was not normal, so let’s not make it appear so by our passivity.

 

london bridge

 

The threat is real and active. The Guardian looks at prisoner release dates and foresees a surge in the number of convicted terrorists being released from prison in 2018. How should these people be handled?

And how can further attacks be prevented? The Daily Telegraph says MI5 will share intelligence with head teachers. This will stop students becoming turned on to violent Islamism.

 

london terror

 

The people murdered in the attack were: Christine Archibald, 30 (from Canada), James McMullan, 32 (London), Alexandre Pigeard, 26 (France), Sebastien Belanger, 36 (France), Xavier Thomas, 45 (France), Kirsty Boden, 28 (Australia), Sara Zelenak 21 (Australia) and Ignacio Echeverria, 39 (Spain). Let’s think about them – and how we can stop the poison that killed them.

Posted: 4th, June 2018 | In: News | Comment


Liege: biased reporting and Benjamin Herman’s last words

liege

Two of the victims

 

How important is the fact that Benjamin Herman screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered Soraya Belkacemi, Lucille Garcia and Cyril Vangriecken in the Belgian city of Liege? Jan Jambon, Belgium’s interior ministers says Herman had murdered a man the night before the attack. The BBC says “the authorities were working to establish a motive”. Herman, a 31-year-old drug dealer, had been in jail but was let out for two days on Monday to prepare for an eventual release in 2020.

According to RTBF, Herman had a history of violent behaviour and convictions for theft, vandalism and drugs offences.

Benjamin Herman is dead. Why he did it is something we might never know. But can the media present a narrative?

“There are signs he was radicalised in prison, but is it that radicalisation which drove him to commit these acts?” Mr Jambon told RTL radio. “It could have been because he had nothing to look forward to, because he also killed someone the night before, the guy’s psychology and the fact… he may have been on drugs.”

What Did The Killer Say?

Reuters notes in a story that includes the phrase “Jail to Jihad”:

A police source told Reuters that he had shouted “Allahu Akbar” — the Muslim affirmation of faith — during a gunbattle with officers at a school in downtown Liege on Tuesday after killing his three victims.

Or as the BBC puts it:

Police sources quoted in local media said the man was heard shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is greatest” in Arabic).

The Guardian adds (paragraph 7):

Witnesses said the attacker in Liège was dressed in black and was carrying a rucksack. Footage aired by the Belgian broadcaster RTBF showed him chanting “Allahu Akbar” – God is greatest, in Arabic – as he walked through the city.

In the Telegraph the story begins:

A suspected terrorist on day release from prison executed two female police officers with their own guns and shot dead a trainee teacher before he was killed in a shootout after taking two women hostage at a school in the centre of the Belgian city of Liege.

The bloody rampage on Tuesday morning, which left another four officers wounded, was captured on videos on social media, which showed the black clad man waving a pistol in each hand and shouting “Allahu Akbar” before he was gunned down by elite officers. Belgium’s federal prosecutors office has opened an terror investigation into the attack.

No “police sources” to claim the killer yelled “Allahu Akbar”. It was broadcast on social media.

The Sun makes the killer’s cry the main thrust. The headline declares: “BELGIUM BLOODBATH – Liege shooting – Terrorist on two-day jail release shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ is shot dead after killing two cops and a man.”

The New York Times doesn’t mention Herman’s cry at all, whether it be an Arabic phrase or a Muslim declaration. To omit the killer’s last known words is a remarkable oversight. Compare that blinkered approach to the monocular Breitbart and its report headlined: “Belgian Gunman Appeared on Multiple Reports on Radicalism, Killed 4th Person Before Attack.” It’s an eye-catching headline that the story below does not support.

The Guardian states in its more factual headline: “Belgium shooting: man kills passerby and two police officers in Liège.”

Best to stick to the facts. Via Sky News, we get this:

Media reported that the suspect had been radicalised in prison, and an AFP source close to the investigation said he had been reported as belonging to the “entourage of an Islamist recruiter”.

But justice minister Koen Geens said there was no consistent information for the claim, adding that the case was not “clear cut” and that Herman “certainly was not someone who could clearly be qualified as radicalised”.

Such are the facts.

Posted: 30th, May 2018 | In: News | Comment


Justin Trudeau rides to the rescue on Khawlah Noman’s cut hijab

Racism exits, of course. But to prejudice incidents to fit our own prejudices serve no useful purpose. When CNN reported the claim of an alleged crime, the details were not couched in circumspection and a need to stick to the facts. The story told us: “Khawlah Noman was walking to her Toronto school when a man suddenly appeared behind her and cut her hijab.”

Fact. Nasty stuff. The story continues: ‘”I felt really scared and confused,” the 11-year-old girl said at a news conference Friday.’ A news conference for a nasty but not major crime seems overblown. No? You kind if wonder what role the police are taking. Child makes claim. Police stage press conference and issue a statement of fact.

The man approached the child from behind Friday morning as she made her way to school with her younger brother. He pulled the hood off the girl’s jacket and cut her hijab with a pair of scissors, police said.

More facts.

The story was so important that it went to the very top. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took to Twitter:

“My heart goes out to Khawlah Noman following this morning’s cowardly attack on her in Toronto. Canada is an open and welcoming country, and incidents like this cannot be tolerated.”

Was an alleged incident being used to polish the State’s sound morals? Canada was standing with Khawlah.

The facts kept on coming. Reuters wrote a report which was picked up by many publications. The following words appeared in the Daily Mail, NY TimesThe National and the Huffington Post:

Toronto police are investigating an attack on an 11-year-old girl whose hijab headcovering was repeatedly cut on her way to school on Friday, heightening pressure on Canadian governments to take further action against attacks on Muslims.

Newsweek rehashed the news:

Khawlah Noman, a sixth grader at Pauline Johnson Junior Public School in Toronto, Canada was walking with her younger brother to school when a man came up behind her, pulled off her jacket hood, and started cutting the bottom of her hijab.

Trudeau was breathless with pain as he told people that attacking children was not the kind of country Canada is.

 

 

It happened!

 

 

And now a report tells us:

An 11-year-old girl’s report last week that a man tried to cut off her hijab as she walked to school didn’t occur, Toronto police said Monday.

“After a detailed investigation, police have determined that the events described in the original news release did not happen,” police said.

“The investigation is concluded.”

Kids, eh.

Posted: 17th, January 2018 | In: Key Posts, News | Comment


3 dead in Marseilles: ‘Allahu Akbar’ ad infinitum

Three people are dead at Marseilles’ Saint-Charles train station in France. Police shot one dead after he’d murdered the other two. The Guardian says the murderer was a “man”, an “assailant” armed with a knife, a “knifeman”. And that’s all.

“Two victims have been stabbed to death,” says regional police chief, Olivier de Mazieres on AFP.

But a clue to what the “man” might have been and why he did it comes via an unnamed French official, who tells France’s Le Monde newspaper that the killer yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he stabbed two women to death.

How relevant is that chant? It’s very relevant, reasons the Daily Mail, which unlike the BBC and Guardian makes the familiar war cry of militant Islam central to the story. “Two passengers are killed as attacker shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ slits a woman’s throat with a butcher’s knife and stabs another at Marseille station before soldiers shoot him dead,” announces the headline.

The Mail mentions “Islamist radicals” in its story. The Guardian makes no mention of Islam whatsoever in its. Why is there such a clear difference in reporting? Why does one publication make Islam a key part of the narrative, whilst another ignores it entirely? I’d hazard a guess that it’s something to do with the uncertain, fearful censorious times we live in. Ever watchful of triggering the slack-jawed mob, the simplest fact is redacted from reports lest it foment a race riot. With free speech and free expression stymied, what should be objective – simply stating the facts – becomes confrontational and daring. Most worryingly, it leaves the facts to actual bigots who adopt the role of rebels and present themselves as brave and knowing sources of ‘truth’.

As for the police, well, the soldiers who shot the killer dead are part of Operation Sentinelle, the military operation launched after Islamists massacred so many at Charlie Hebdo magazine and a Jewish supermarket in Paris in January 2015.

Good the soldiers were there, then.

Aside from a conversation on armed police on the streets this attack invites, is there also a conversation to be had about Islamist violence? Since 2015, more than 230 people in France have been killed in Islamist attacks. Discuss.

Posted: 1st, October 2017 | In: Broadsheets, News, Tabloids | Comment


Fostering fear and division in Tower Hamlets: the Christian child and her Muslim carers

foster muslim london

 

The Times‘ scoop became a big talking point: a five-year-old, white, native English specking Christian girl had been placed with a Muslim foster family by London’s Tower Hamlet’s council. What problem with that? If the vulnerable child needed help and help was forthcoming, what matter respective religions? The council surely vets foster parents and made an informed choice.

Maybe not.

The girl spent four months with her substitute family. She says the family did not speak English in the home, encouraging her to speak Arabic. Her primary foster carer veiled her face in public. When placed with a second foster family, also Muslim, the girl spoke of regularly eating meals on the floor. The girl was scheduled to return to the first foster carers, but a council worker heard her complain of having had her necklace removed and not returned. The necklace featured a cross-shaped pendant. The girl claimed the family had refused to let her eat carbonara prepared by her family because it contained bacon.

The girl is now back with her family, living with her grandmother on the orders of Judge Khatan Sapnara – the Mail tells readers on its front page, the judge is a Muslim; a fact the Times repeats on page 6 in a lengthy profile on the woman who arrived in the UK as child from her native Bangladesh. Judge Sapnara told the council to seek “culturally matched placements” for children. She also made a stand for free speech. Tower Hamlets tried to block the Times story but failed when Judge Sapnara made it clear she “would not stand in the way of the freedom of the  press to report, within the law and in a responsible manner, in respect of this case.”

The Mail adds that the girl’s family had “pleaded” with the council to let her live with her grandmother. The girl “begged” not to be returned to the Muslim family. By page 17, Sarah Vine is telling readers about the value of “a granny’s love”. But taken in isolation, without us knowing why the child was in care at all, why grandma was overlooked in favour of foster parents and what the foster parents hope to gain from their role, opinion rides roughshod over fact. But Vine tells us that Tower Hamlets advertises foster carer allowances of “£313 and £253 a week”. “That’s a nice little earner,” says Vine.

Easy money? On the Tower Hamlets website we read:

If you are interested in becoming a foster carer you will need to meet with a social worker many times to talk about yourself, your family and your experiences of looking after children. Some people find the idea of this daunting, but our social workers are highly experienced and will do everything they can to help you feel reassured during this process. You will also need to have police and medical checks and will need to ask employers, friends and families to give references.

And Vine’s undersold the job: “Fostering fees and allowances up to £474 per week (per child in placement depending on age).” But, yes, the payments for a five-year-old are as she says. Fostering is a cottage industry. Why the public sector is turning child care into a job creation opportunity is not touched upon. And it costs:

In the 2013/14 financial year an estimated £2.5 billion (gross expenditure) was spent on the main looked after children’s services in England. The majority of expenditure (55%) was on foster care services (around £1.4 billion, 55%) and children’s homes (around £0.9 billion, 36%).

So much for the money.

What’s wrong is when Vine says the “real scandal” is that social services “would rather pay someone, irrespective of whether or not  he child will be miserable, than find a home where someone wants  to offer the one thing that has no price: a mother’s love.”

Eh? Surely is can be argued that the “strict Muslim” women was offering  just that: a place where the child would be treated like one of their own. Moreover, where is the child’s mother? Is she able or capable of offering the kid of love Vine seeks? Let’s not pretend a mother’s love is the ultimate nurturer of life and love.

Also troubling is that the story is presented as one of child abuse. The child was refused food. The child  was with “strict” adults. The child was upset. The child “sobbed”. Everything is presented to make readers suspicious of adults. The child’s view is pure and passes challenged. We’ve not heard from the Muslim women at the centre of the story. The overriding impression from reading this story is that when society revolves around child protection, everyone who works with children is cast as a suspect.

Posted: 30th, August 2017 | In: Broadsheets, Key Posts, News, Tabloids | Comment


Blaming YouTube for terrorism paints the killers as victims

Worse than video nasties, scourge of the 1980s, sex and trolls are YouTube videos possessed of a power to radicalise the viewer, transforming a normal bloke surfing the web for Wiggles songs and old episodes of Play For Today into a mass murderer. No circumspection, reflection or deliberation. To see is to do.

Jonathan Sacerdoti notes:

I’ve watched plenty of extremist videos and heard some dodgy speeches over the years. I even watched a couple of videos online this last week of extremist Rabbis preaching against rational and modern thought as well as homosexuality. But I didn’t become a backwards thinking fanatic.

Why do some people want to say “was radicalised” (a passive thing), rather than “chose to become an extremist and murderer”?

Passivity reduces the killer’s free will to dust. He’s one step closer to becoming a ‘vulnerable’ victim. And – boy – do Islamists love being victims. The actual victims – the people murdered – are reduced, their innocence linked to the killer’s vulnerability, the good boy or good girl from a good family who was ‘groomed’ online by powers too strong to resist. We are corralled into looking not only at the victim and saying “There but for the grace of god…”, but empathising with the killer, too. And you can’t blame a victim, so the narrative goes. You can’t get angry at a victim.

Radicalisation doesn’t come out of the blue or from a YouTube snuff movie or tweet. It’s rooted in the Islamists’ antagonism towards the prevailing culture and a search for a form of aggrandised, pristine identity they can embrace and be defined by. You might call them fascists.

Posted: 6th, June 2017 | In: News, Reviews | Comment (1)


After London Bridge: the geezer who ran with his pint didn’t spill a drop

After the London attack: Geezer Watch:

 

At £6 a pint, who can blame him?

 

london attacks

Posted: 4th, June 2017 | In: Reviews, Strange But True, The Consumer | Comment


London Bridge attack: London fights back but democracy capitulates

“We were throwing bottles, chairs, stools, anything we could get. A stool hit one of them on the head,” says Gerard Vowls, an eye-witness to the attack on London Bridge and Borough Market.

“They were running up going ‘this is for Allah’, they ran up and stabbed this girl, I don’t know how many times, ten times, maybe 15. She was going ‘help me, help me’ and I could not do anything. I tried to help her, I threw something at them. There was a bike on the floor, I tried to pick up the chair but it was locked to it, to throw it at them, to get them away from her…

“They kept coming to try to stab me … they were stabbing everyone. Evil, evil people.”

A chef from Fish restaurant tells us: “I saw two men with big knives downstairs outside Roast. They were stabbing people. The guy with the knife was killing two people. We were shouting ‘stop, stop’ and people threw chairs at them.”

Gerard and the other people fighting back make me proud to be a Londoner. The Islamists murdering people enjoying a night out in London are scum. Police shot three attackers dead.

Owen Evans was there. He says: “Then they told us to leave the pub and to run, and a policeman standing outside with a gun was shouting, ‘Go, get the fuck out.’ We ran down the street, turned left at the Market Porter, than ran down the road and away. We got to the South Bank and then waited ages for a tube, and eventually got home.”

The police make me proud to be a Londoner.

Politicians do not make me proud. To suspend the election campaign so close to the vote looks like capitulation.

The front pages:

 

 

Posted: 4th, June 2017 | In: News, Reviews, Tabloids | Comment


After Manchester: Salman Abedi and the stupidity of anti-marijuana campaigns

Salman Abedi murdered 22 people at a pop concert because… he smoked marijuana. Rather than leading to long spells sat on the sofa watching daytime telly, weed turns you into someone who massacres families at an Ariana Grade concert in Manchester.

 

daily mail Salman Abdei marijuana drugs

 

Well, maybe it does.

Dr Max Pemberton asks, “Is marijuana a factor in jihadi murders?” The Mail adds portraits of all the losers who murdered so many people in Tunisia, London, Nice, Orlando and Paris. All adhered to radical Islam. All saw the West as their enemy and murder as a duty. But Pemberton wonders if cannabis might be to blame.

If you want a meaningful debate on drugs, it might be better to turn the question around: why are so many attracted to smoking it?

The Mail’s poser is an agenda-driven, to-deadline question perched atop a weak argument. The idea that weed was a factor – that getting wasted made it “easier to disregard the welfare of others” and butcher them –  absolves individual terrorists of responsibility for their actions. It wasn’t me. It was the weed.

So we can answer the Mail’s question very simple. It’s ‘no’. They don’t get off that easily.

After Manchester: worst of all Salman Abedi was a sexist

Posted: 26th, May 2017 | In: Key Posts, Tabloids | Comment


After Manchester: worst of all Salman Abedi was a sexist

Salman Abedi

SEXIST!

 

So far the attack on Manchester in which saw 22 people were murdered at a pop concert by Salman Abedi has been used to illustrate racial harmonyinsult footballers, lambaste apathyfind missing children in Australia and spot fake news. Joanna Williams has a great look at how the horror is being used to insult men.

Just hours after the attack, feminist writer and speaker Jaclyn Friedman tweeted: ‘Here is what the coverage will not say: targeting an Ariana Grande concert is targeting young women. This is a violent act of misogyny.’ …

The argument that the bombing was ‘a massive act of gender-based violence’ has continued. The headline of one article, ‘The bombing at a Manchester Ariana Grande show was an attack on girls and women’, is as simplistic as it is inaccurate. Most obviously, it overlooks the fact that men died in the attack too – fathers, brothers and boyfriends attending the concert or waiting to take people home. The author goes on to explain how ‘Grande has advanced a renegade, self-reflexive sexuality that’s threatening to the established heteropatriarchal order’. Rubbish. Grande’s Nickelodeon cuteness combines bunny ears with pink balloons. She’s loved by teen girls because her sexuality is safe and fun and threatens no one.

And it keeps coming.

“It’s not Muslims or people with mental-health problems who are most likely to kill you in a terrorist attack – it’s men’” –Independent.

Why Manchester Bomber Targeted Girls – Rolling Stone.

During Ariana Grande’s Dangerous Woman tour, Abedi gave the world a sick reminder of the dangers of being a woman in public in 2017, attacking largely female concertgoers for doing nothing but enjoying themselves while listening to music.

These girls and women weren’t just listening to any music, either – this was feminist music.

Williams nails it: “In presenting terrorism as part of a broader gender war, feminism ultimately reduces mass murder to just another example of everyday sexism.”

Posted: 25th, May 2017 | In: Key Posts, Reviews | Comment


Epic fail: Sikh Muslim Manchester cab driver illustrates the dire state of journalism in three tweets

Read and weep as journalism takes on the Manchester terror story and fails epically:

 

muslim sikh driver Manchester cab taxi fail

 

 

muslim sikh driver Manchester cab taxi fail

 

 

muslim sikh driver Manchester cab taxi fail

Posted: 24th, May 2017 | In: Key Posts, Reviews | Comment


Indonesia whips two consenting adult men 85 times for having gay sex

To Indonesia’s Aceh province where the court has sentenced two men (ages: 20 and 23) to 85 lashes for having sex with each other. The Associated Press reports:

The couple were arrested in late March after neighborhood vigilantes in the provincial capital, Banda Aceh, suspected them of being gay and set out to catch them having sex.

Aceh is the only province in Muslim-majority Indonesia to practice Islamic law, or sharia, which was a concession made by the national government in 2006 to end a years-long war with separatists. It implemented an expanded sharia code two years ago.

How how dies the UK view Indonesia?

British Embassy Jakarta

UK and Indonesia enjoy a close relationship, with many common interests and values. We are partners in challenges like terrorism and global warming, and work together closely within the G20. We are also here to support and protect UK interests in Timor Leste.

Global warning takes precedence over whipping consenting adults for being gay. Who owns your body?

Posted: 17th, May 2017 | In: Reviews | Comment


The courtroom artist captured only the police

The women accused of being Britain’s “first all-female terror gang” are in the dock at Westminster magistrate’s court. They are all charged with conspiracy to murder. The judge asked both women who appeared in veils that covered their faces to lift their veils. One, says the Mail, lifted hers “for a few seconds”, but the other did not.

What is telling is that the Mail, Express, Star (front page), the Sun and Mirror all feature the court artist’s sketch.

If court is to be a place where getting to the truth is all, should not the accused be encouraged to be at ease, and that includes dressing as they would in accordance with their culture?

Next stop for the ladies is the Old Bailey, where men and women in horsehair wigs and long cover-all black gowns will judge them.

 

accused terrorists veil in court accused terrorists veil in court accused terrorists veil in court accused terrorists veil in court

accused terrorists vei

Posted: 12th, May 2017 | In: Reviews, Tabloids | Comment (1)


When it’s ok to be anti-Semitic and wear a headscarf

Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen – the final ‘d’ is silent, so I’ll leave it off – says all Austrian women should wear a headscarf. This will help Muslims feel comfortable and to battle prejudice, he reasons.

“If Islamophobia continues to spread,” he told a room full of students, “the day will come when we will have to ask all women to wear headscarves. All of them, in solidarity with those who [wear them] for religious reasons. This isn’t too far-fetched.”

Van der Bellen continued, adding that he remembered a story about some non-Jewish Danes wearing the Star of David during the German occupation of Denmark in World War II.

Alex, mate, they did that to counter the censors, bigots, meddlers and murderers not because they were forced to on pain of law. Wearing a Star of David when it could get you abused, raped and killed by the invaders’ enforcers is an act of bravery. If you force people to wear the veil and view those courageous Danes as your inspiration, you will celebrate freedom by doing exactly the opposite. And as for reducing a symbol of conservative religious beliefs to a sign of your own liberal views, well, good luck with that.

The Washington Post adds:

The Austrian president seems to have been surprised by the scandal. “We should be happy if we don’t have bigger problems than the question of the headscarf,” he told reporters during a visit to Slovakia this week. “I am not a friend of the headscarf, but there is freedom of expression in Austria.”

Not always. The JTA reports:

An Austrian woman who questioned the Holocaust was found guilty of violating an Austrian law that makes Holocaust denial illegal.

The woman, 53, was given a suspended jail sentence and fined $1,280 by a court in the western Austrian city of Feldkirch on Friday, the Associated Press reported.

She criticized a post on Facebook which showed a German soccer team commemorating the liberation of the Auschwitz Nazi camp, in which she accused the team of “spreading lies,” according to the AP.

During a search of her home a sign was discovered over her toilet reading: “This Hitlerine needs a clean latrine.” It also is illegal in Austria to praise the Nazi era.

Nasty. False. But to criminalise an expression of bigotry that makes liars of the millions murdered and praises their killers suggests Austrian lawmakers do not have much faith in their own people to hold ignorance and racism up to the light. Bellen is wrong, then. Freedom of expression is not sacrosanct in Austria.

Undeterred, Bellen moved on:

In a statement posted to his Facebook page, the president’s office attempted to explain the context of his statement, noting that a student had asked about whether a ban on headscarves would shut some women out of the labor market.

The president was talking about “the stigma of headscarved women,” the statement said, and the president did agree that in some specific circumstances a headscarf might be prohibited but that other religious symbols should be prohibited, too, in those circumstances. The president was also concerned about “racism from the other side,” the statement said, pointing to the example of a Muslim cabdriver who refuses to accept Orthodox Jews as passengers.

Racism from the other side? No, it’s just racism.

Such are the facts.

Posted: 1st, May 2017 | In: Key Posts, Reviews | Comment


Banned in Australia: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is unfit for human consumption

Anyone who bought a ticket to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak on her Australian tour will get a full refund. It’s been cancelled because her opinions as so outrageous they present a threat to her security and the safety of every Muslim in Oz. Stick a ‘BANNED” label on a record cover or book and we all want to listen to it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali might think about getting “Banned in Australia” on a T-shirt or a medal.

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 

 

She’s banned because when 400 Muslim women petitioned for her to be stopped from spreading her “divisive rhetoric” and thus amplifying “hostility and hatred towards Muslims” the State caved in. Hard won freedoms about speech and thought were obliterated. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s words are unfit for human consumption. No debate. No ridicule. No Q and As with her sympathizers and accusers. Just banned.

Ali, a campaigner for women’s rights and a strident critic of Islam, which in her words is “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death”, is taboo. A woman who was abused under Islam cannot criticize it. However potent or toxic Ali’s view is, banning her quashes progressive moves for the airing and exchange of ideas in a public space. It increases separatism, otherness, division, conformity, intolerance and misunderstanding. Ideas hermitically sealed in closed groups fester and curdle into something claustrophobic and suffocating.

“Shame on you for carrying water for the Islamists, shame on you for trying to shut people up who are trying to raise awareness about sharia law,” said Ali is response to the ban. “We can’t have that open discussion, we can’t stop the injustices if we say everything is ‘Islamophobic’ and hide behind a politically correct screen. We should not make the mistake of finding ourselves inadvertently allied with the Islamists, as these petition-signers are doing.”

The event, “Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Hero of Heresy”, was advertised as an opportunity to “step inside the controversy” surrounding Islam and Muslim womanhood. The controversy rumbles on, albeit in private.

Spotter: SMH

 

Posted: 4th, April 2017 | In: Reviews | Comment


Denmark stages blasphemy trial after man burns the Koran

If you burn a book in Denmark you can be hauled before the Beak. In the fourth blasphemy case in Denmark’s entire history – the first in 46 years – a 42-year-old idiot who filmed himself burning a copy of the Koran in his back garden and posted it on Facebook is to have his moment in court.

The burning, which took place in Jutland in December 2015, was published on a Facebook page called “Yes to freedom – no to Islam”.

Forget Islam. Freedom’s already gone when you can get arrested or burning your own book in your own garden.  Prosecutor Jan Reckendorff  explains why this bellend is in court. “It is the prosecution’s view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion,” he opines.

You can’t mock religion in Denmark. What horror!

The courts have turned a fool who seeks to cause offence into a martyr.

Is the West so fragile, so lacking in direction and authority that a minor incident is deemed a threat to society? Or is the assumption that if this mentally negligibly anti-thinker is not censured there will be riots and anarchy? The Danish authorities’ sad attitude to a sad act tells us something: they fear the people. In the dust of one local oddball they see a trigger that unleashes anarchy and legitimises a typically unhinged reaction from Islamists. Intolerance from one side serves and feeds off intolerance from the other, leaving the West and its enemies locked in a deathless embrace, each mouthing the same mantra at the people they don’t trust: ‘I’m doing this to keep you safe.’

* As for the other cases hear in Denmark’s law courts: ‘The Local reports the other three cases involved four people distributing posters mocking Jewish religious beliefs in 1938, two people partaking in a fake baptism in 1946, and two radio presenters airing a song which mocked Christianity in 1971.’ The ridicule we can take. The criminalising of thought we cannot.

Posted: 25th, February 2017 | In: Key Posts, News, Reviews | Comment


Zakaria Bulhan: the tabloids’ favourite Somali-born Muslim terrorist who wasn’t

Zakaria Bulhan, 19, stood in the dock at the Old Bailey and admitted killing US tourist Darlene Horton and wounding five others – Lillie Selletin, David Imber, Martin Hoenisch, Bernard Hepplewhite and Yovel Lewronski – (all strangers to him) on 3 August 2016. Yesterday Bulhan pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and charges of wounding. Bulhan has been handed an unlimited hospital order.

Mr Justice Spencer told Bulhan:

“It is quite clear that when you committed these dreadful crimes you were not in your right mind. You were in the grip of mental illness. These were crimes which caused enormous public concern because, from their timing, it was feared initially that they might be the work of a terrorist fanatic. As it turned out they were not, although that is no consolation to your victims.”

So how does the media report an unusual crime that was front-page news? Is it a tale of knife crime, ‘broken Britain’ or mental health care? No. Parts of the media make Islam and otherness central to the story.

 

zaakria bulhan

 

The Star (page 5) says Bulhan ‘mumbled “Allah, Allah, Allah“‘ after he was Tasered by police and bundled to the ground.

The Mail doesn’t mention the story at all.

The Sun doesn’t report on Bulhan.

 

zakaria-bulhan daily mirror

 

The Mirror mentions the story on page 10. ‘Crazed killer is locked up,’ runs the headline in the fourth story down in a sidebar. Bulhan is ‘a teenager who killed a US tourist’. It does not mention what the man of ‘Somali origin’ with paranoid schizophrenia ‘mumbled’.

The Express covers the story on page 10. Bulhan is the “knife rampage killer’. The story begins: ‘A paranoid schizophrenic stabbed an American tourist to death…’  In the third paragraph, the paper says Bulhan is a ‘Norwegian-born Somali Muslim‘. You might say he’s a Norwegian. But his nationality had nothing to do with his crime. So why mention his religion, which also had nothing to do with the case?

Whereas the Star heard Bulhan ‘mumbling’ the Arabic word for ‘God’, the Express says, ‘They [Armed police] heard him chanting Allah! Allah!” as they Tasered him and found an Islamic leaflet in one of his pockets.’

Mumbling or chanting? And what was on the leaflet? We’re not told.

The tabloids got it wrong with Bulhan. Islamic terrorism played no part in his crime. His religion, place of birth and roots all played no part in his crime. A cynic might think the Press is disappointed by this. But surely papers will get face the problem that writing about mental health lacks the punch and pull of Islamic terrorism, stick to the facts and correct any mistakes made? Surely papers won’t manipulate the story to fit an agenda?

But they do. And it’s ugly.

On August 9, the Mail reported:

Was ‘devout Muslim’ Russell Square knifeman radicalised? Police to trawl ‘impressionable’ attacker’s PC for links to ISIS as neighbour claims mental illness is a ‘scapegoat’

Answer: no. He was not radicalised. He was not in ISIS. He was not a devout Muslim.

The Mail continued:

Counter-terror police will today forensically study computers belonging to the Russell Square knifeman as a neighbour claimed the ‘impressionable’ teenager could have been inspired by ISIS.

He wasn’t.

The Mail called him a ‘migrant‘ on its front page.

daily mail islam

 

The Sun called him a ‘Somali’. He isn’t. He’s Norwegian.

 

zakaria-bulhan-killing

 

daily-mail-bulhan-islam

 

daily-mail-bulhan-islam-jihad

 

 

The Sun wondered if Bulhan was a jihadi who had read books.

 

 

zakaria bulhan

 

He wasn’t. He isn’t.

It’s worth looking at Justice Spencer’s sentencing statement in full, lest we missed the Muslim angle. Express readers get an insight into why Bulhan had ‘Islamic literature’ in his pocket.

4. You are 19 years of age, with no previous convictions. Your parents emigrated from Somalia to Norway in 1994, and that is where you were born. In 2003, when you were 5 years old, your mother came to the United Kingdom and you have been living in this country with her ever since, with your brother and sister.

Bulhan was five years old when he arrived in the UK. His family entered the country legally.

Although your mother and father had separated you saw him regularly too. You left school at 16 but retook your GCSE examinations at college and did well in your studies. You became concerned yourself about your mental health and consulted your general practitioner from 2015 onwards. You were referred for assessment by psychiatric services and you were seen by your local early intervention service on 20th April 2016. You were diagnosed with an anxiety and depressive disorder but it was not thought at that time that you were presenting with any psychotic symptoms.

Can we have a discussion abut mental health services?

5. Sadly your mental state deteriorated sharply over the next few months. You started hearing voices frequently and became convinced that you were possessed by devils, that people were conspiring against you, and that that your life was in danger.

At the end of July 2016 your mother and younger brother went to Holland to visit family members which meant that you were living alone at the family home in Tooting. You became convinced that your neighbours wanted to kill you. You went to stay with your father and he tried to look after you. He took you to the mosque on successive days up to the evening of 3rd August, hoping you might receive some form of counselling.

Did Bulhan pick up that aforesaid leaflet at the mosque, the one the Express delivered fully loaded?

When you were at evening prayers that day and a phone rang you got up and ran out of the mosque. Your father waited for you to come back and tried to find you, and tried to contact your mother in Holland for help, but all
to no avail.

6. Your movements thereafter that evening have been traced to a degree. It is clear from the CCTV clips that you were moving around the streets in a distracted and bizarre way. At some stage you acquired a large kitchen knife. You probably took it from a shop counter. At about 10.20pm you entered Russell Square. It was busy with pedestrians heading home after an evening in London’s West End. Among them were many visitors to London from overseas.

13. You were chased by members of the public. When you stopped in Bedford Place one witness described you as standing aggressively, holding the knife, uttering sounds in what appeared to be a form of incantation, although your voice and expression were not aggressive. An armed response unit attended very soon afterwards. You were told to stand still but instead you screamed and ran away. Eventually you were tasered and brought to the floor.

Such are the facts.

Posted: 8th, February 2017 | In: Key Posts, News, Reviews, Tabloids | Comment


The war on Christians and Christmas: Trump v the New York Times and UVA

Donald Trump thinks the attack on a Berlin Christmas market was an assault on Christianity. “Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday,” says Trump. “ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad.”

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the massacre.

It’s a group not famed for its tolerance of other religions.

So why did it choose to murder people at a Christmas market?

The New York Times says there is no “war on Christmas” and, therefore, Christian belief is not in peril.

The greeting “Happy Holidays” has been in use as a Christmas greeting for more than 100 years. But it has grown in popularity in recent decades as people have tried to be inclusive and sensitive to those of other faiths and the nonreligious.

Do you say happy holidays at Eid or Diwali?

Not everyone opts for coercion at the point of a sabre.

Tim Black notes: “…to defend the freedom of those Christians today who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage, or who believe that a heterosexual couple provides the best environment to raise a child, does not entail defending the beliefs themselves; rather, it entails defending people’s right to hold and practise those beliefs where, as Tom Paine had it, ‘their practice doesn’t disturb public order as established by the law’.”

In the West Christians are criminalised and placed ‘on the wrong side of history’ for expressing their heartfelt beliefs. Coercion has replaced reason.

Trump, the Times‘ and IS each espouse their monocular view of religious intolerance.

Liam Stack ends his NY Times article by stating: ‘It should be noted that Jews, Muslims and others who do not celebrate Christmas often say they are not offended by a hearty ‘Merry Christmas”.’

Who asked them and why were they asked?

As the pollsters look for offence, Campus Reform asked students at the University of Virginia if they find Christmas offensive enough to want it banned.

 

,,m

Posted: 22nd, December 2016 | In: Reviews | Comment (1)


Larry David Was right: driving gives women orgasms, says Islamic cleric

Tweet of the Week was supplied by @S_alqsimi , via, Deanne DuKhan ‏(@DukhanD), who responds to news as to why women driving is forbidden. “Lorraine in the UK asks, which makes and models please?”

women driving haram

 

Hey, ladies, Curb Your Enthusiasm (language is NSFW):

 

Posted: 28th, October 2016 | In: Key Posts, Reviews, Strange But True | Comment


Malaysian religious government says hot dogs are un-Islamic

Hot dogs are un-Islamic, says the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (MIDD). To receive halal certification,the MIDD, a religious government body, says hot dogs must be renamed.

MIDD’s Sirajuddin Suhaimee explains says: “In Islam, dogs are considered unclean and the name cannot be related to halal certification.”

Yes, but the hot dog contains no dogs, it being most often a composite blend of pigs’s scrotum, anus and lips.

“Malaysian halal food guidelines say halal food and halal artificial flavour shall not be named or synonymously named after non-halal products such as ham, bak kut teh, bacon, beer, rum and others that might create confusion,” he adds.

The Auntie Anne store has been refused halal certification unless it renamed its “Pretzel Dog”. Mr Suhaimee says it should be called a Pretzel Sausage”.

And in keeping with Islamic law, Auntie Anne might care to ‘circumcise’ the tip of its Fat Torpedo:

 

hot dogs auntie anne preztel islam

Warts and all

 

Posted: 20th, October 2016 | In: Reviews, Strange But True, The Consumer | Comment


Kelvin MacKenzie and the Sun beat Channel 4 News and a hijab

On July 18, the Sun featured a column but its former editor Kelvin MacKenzie in which he asked, “Why did Channel 4 have a presenter in a hijab fronting coverage of Muslim terror in Nice?”.

That the question was rhetorical became apparent in the next line: “Would C4 have used a Hindu to report on the carnage at the Golden Temple of Amritsar…of course not.”

And again: “Would the station have used an Orthodox Jew to cover the Israeli-Palestine conflict? Of course not.

Hundreds complained to Ipso, the press regulator. This meant lots of people were talking about the Sun and MacKenzie – and so both became relevant.

MacKenzie posed more questions:

…I could hardly believe my eyes. The presenter was not one of the regulars — Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Matt Frei or Cathy Newman — but a young lady wearing a hijab. Her name is Fatima Manji and she has been with the station for four years. Was it appropriate for her to be on camera when there had been yet another shocking slaughter by a Muslim?

Was it done to stick one in the eye of the ordinary viewer who looks at the hijab as a sign of the slavery of Muslim women by a male- dominated and clearly violent religion?

So why did they do it?

With all the major terrorist outrages in the world currently being carried out by Muslims, I think the rest of us are reasonably entitled to have concerns about what is beating in their religious hearts. Who was in the studio representing our fears?

Questions upon questions. And like all good columnists, MacKenzie triggered a heated debate.

Manji called MacKenzie’s words “ill-informed, racist and Islamophobic”.

Ben De Pear, who edits the Channel 4 news show, said:

“Whilst we agree that freedom of expression is a fundamental right, we do not believe that it should be used as a licence to incite or discriminate. His inflammatory comments on Fatima Manji’s professional status, which were widely condemned, and his attempts to equate the wearing of a hijab with support for terrorism, have no place in a properly informed and tolerant society… We employ reporters based on their journalistic skills, not their ethnicity. We see no reason why a Muslim journalist should be prevented from covering any story and Fatima will continue to report and present the news on the issues of the day with impartiality and depth. We are grateful for all the support shown to Fatima during this difficult time.”

Difficult time? Really? (See those questions are catchy.) Channel 4 is hardly a fan of the Sun and its readers. Surely the broadcaster got some satisfaction from MacKenzie’s rant? Prejudices, you know, we do so love them when we can back them up with evidence. Manji did not like it. But Ipso has rejected her complaints.

“There can be no doubt that this was deeply offensive to the complainant and caused widespread concern and distress to others. This was demonstrated by the number of complaints IPSO received.

“The article was highly critical of Channel 4 for permitting a newsreader to wear the hijab. It also contained pejorative references to Islam. But the essential question for the committee was whether those references were directed at the complainant.

“Clause 12 seeks to protect individuals while respecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression enshrined in the preamble to the code.

“The article did refer to the complainant. But it did so to explain what triggered the discussion about a subject of legitimate debate: whether newsreaders should be allowed to wear religious symbols.

“While the columnist’s opinions were undoubtedly offensive to the complainant, and to others, these were views he had been entitled to express. The article did not include a prejudicial or pejorative reference to the complainant on the grounds of her religion.

“Clause 3 seeks to protect individuals from harassment. In the light of its findings under Clause 12, and given that the course of conduct complained of was the publication of a single article on a matter which, while sensitive, was the subject of legitimate public debate, the Committee took the view that it did not amount to harassment under Clause 3.

“The columnist’s view that Islam is ‘clearly a violent religion’ was a statement of his opinion. This view, however extreme or offensive to many, did not raise a breach of Clause 1.

“The suggestion that the complainant was a ‘pawn in this tv news game’ was clearly conjecture, and underlined that the author’s criticism was directed at Channel 4 and not at the individual newsreader. There was no breach of Clause 1.”

Kelvin MacKenzie and newspapers are still relevant after al these years. Who knew?

Posted: 19th, October 2016 | In: Reviews, Tabloids | Comment


Pixelating faces to protect the underage and women in burqas

To pixelate or not to pixelate? That’s the question editors have to face when publishing news items featuring minors in criminal matters. The Telegraph, for instance, fell foul of the new IPSO Press watchdog when it published a Facebook picture of footballer Adam Johnson’s underage victim. The paper had taken care to alter her face but left her hair, pose and clothing unchanged.

It is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act to identify any alleged victim of a sexual offence unless that person has waived their right to lifelong anonymity. The press is prohibited from publishing any details that might lead to identification.

The Telegraph Media Group was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay the teenager £10,000 in compensation. That followed an earlier fine for the Sun, which had used the same picture, although it had taken great care that, in the judge’s words, “no facial features [were] identifiable from the photo, the hair colour has been disguised, the hair length has been changed, and the background to the photograph has been altered and indeed there have been other changes relating to, for example, clothing”. The paper was fined £1,300 costs and paid £1,000 in compensation to the girl for any distress caused.

So to Sydney, where two local teenagers have been arrested for allegedly preparing a terrorist attack. As Tim Blair says, “It’s against the law to identify charged children, which also means we can’t identify older relatives in case that leads to the children becoming known by association.”

One of the teenager’s mothers appeared in the Daily Telegraph. Dressed in a full burqa, the Daily Telegraph published her image unaltered. But Fairfax media erred on the side of caution and pixelated her eyes:

pixelated face court Muslim

The case continues.

Posted: 14th, October 2016 | In: Reviews | Comment


‘Muslim’ refugee assures Western paedophiles that raping boys is OK in Myanmar

The culture wars are heating up in Australia, A refugee from Myanmar is in the dock. The Mail calls him foremost a “Muslim refugee”.

 

refugee rape

 

He appears to be foremost a paedophile. There is no word that Islam played a part in his crimes. Maybe culture did?

A refugee jailed over the sickening rape of a 10-year-old boy told authorities that it was culturally acceptable to sexually assault children in his homeland.

Mufiz Rahaman, 20, slumped forward in the dock at Downing Centre District Court yesterday as he was sentenced to five years in jail, with a non-parole period of three years, after pleading guilty to aggravated sexual assault of the boy in the child’s bed on January 8 last year …

In sentencing Rahaman, Judge Andrew Scotting said the community from which the offender came from “had demonstrated a lack of proper morality”.

Do citizenship lessons include a section on morals? And isn’t raping boys why so many Western men travel to south-Eastern Asia?

Posted: 1st, September 2016 | In: Reviews | Comment


Mia Ayliffe-Chung: Smail Ayad, Allahu Akbar and mental illness

The Townsville Bulletin has more on the alleged murder of Mia Ayliffe-Chung. We don’t why she was killed.  We may never know, let alone understand the alleged killer motives. It’s alleged yelled Allahu Akbar as she struck. One line is that he did this because he might be mentally ill.

Smail Ayad, 29, had fawned over Mia Ayliffe-Chung, 21, for several days, telling other backpackers at the Home Hill hostel the pair were deeply in love and married … Furious at the unrequited love, he allegedly stabbed Ms Ayliffe-Chung multiple times while screaming “Allahu Akbar”, leaving her to die on the floor of her Shelley’s Backpackers room.

 

Mia Ayliffe-Chung smail ayad

 

He’s been arrested and charged:

Yesterday afternoon as police transferred Ayad from hospital to the watchhouse, he allegedly bashed two police officers, after they had to pull over on Woolcock St as he was lashing out in the back of the police paddy wagon. Both officers were hospitalised.

Police were forced to use capsicum spray on Ayad to subdue him and the Bulletin understands it took seven officers to get Ayad into a padded cell, as he continued to scream “Allahu Akbar”.

And the police continues to say::

Queensland Police Minister Bill Byrne described the stabbing attack as “tragic and disturbing” but sought to distance the incident from extremism. Despite police being unable to rule out radical links to the murder, Mr Byrne said the attacks were not “about race or religion”.

What they don’t know and what they do know.

The Guardian:

Queensland’s police minister Bill Byrne has called for an end to “opportunistic commentary” on extremism following the fatal stabbing of a British backpacker in the state’s north… Byrne said there was no immediate evidence to suggest extremism as a motive for the attack.

As police continued to interview 30 witnesses who saw the shocking attack, federal politicians began to link the incident to a debate on immigration. One Nation senator Pauline Hanson used the tragedy to reissue calls for a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

“I’m not going to be silenced on yet another attack involving Islamic extremism – especially one occurring in the state I am representing in the Senate,” she said…

While not referring to any politician specifically, Byrne said some of the commentary from “predictable sources” was highly speculative and unhelpful.

“There’ll be those that seek to exploit this incident,” he said. “What is required here is cool, calm and thoughtful consideration.”

More to follow…

Posted: 25th, August 2016 | In: Reviews | Comment


Burkini ban: France has a moral police force – like Saudi Arabia

When did we become such prudes that a woman wearing too many clothes on the beach was a crime? The Telegraph:

French police made a woman remove her burkini on a Nice beach while another was fined in the resort of Cannes for wearing leggings, a tunic and a headscarf…

At which point the French rose up as one and cried aloud for liberty? No.

Along the coast in Cannes, a mother of two told AFP on Tuesday she had been fined on the beach for wearing leggings, a tunic and a headscarf. Her ticket read that she was not wearing “an outfit respecting good morals and secularism”.

France, place of enlightenment, now has a moral police police.

The BBC meets the woman who designed the cover-all:

Aheda Zanetti, who claims the trademark on the name burkini and burqini, said online sales were up by 200%… “I’m an Aussie chick, I’ve been here all my life,” she said. “I know what hijab means. I know what veil means. I know what Islam means. And I know who I am. I wanted my girls to grow up to have that freedom of choice. I don’t care if they want to have a bikini. It’s their choice. No man in this entire world can tell us what to wear or what not to wear.”

She gets it.

Posted: 24th, August 2016 | In: Reviews | Comment