Here's what McEwan had to say (in part)...

"As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist," he said in an interview in "Corriere della Sera."

"This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist. And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on - we know it well."

Source: Telegraph UK

After reading McEwen's defense and the criticism leveled at Amis and him by Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, I decided to dig up Amis' essay and see for myself if he is guilty as accused (by Bunglawala) of "...advocating that the Muslim community be made to suffer 'until it gets its own house in order'.

Actually, I found nothing of the sort (notice the not-so-subtle shift in "voice" between what was actually said and what was restated in the accusation itself -- emphasis mine) .

What I did find was a deeply satisfying exposé on "islamism." I can see why Bunglawala is offended because Amis pulls back the currently popular veneer so carefully crafted by the defenders of Islamism to reveal what the defenders hoped you wouldn't discover.

You may not agree with all his points but you will agree (I think) that this essay is powerfully and beautifully presented. IMO, we will all walk away from this article with a much clearer picture of the existential threat of radical islam.

Here is a brief excerpt (link below)...

Suicide-mass murder is more than terrorism: it is horrorism. It is a maximum malevolence.
(...)
And it remains an accurate measure of the Islamists' contortion: they hold that an act of lethal self-bespatterment, in the interests of an unachievable 'cause', brings with it the keys to paradise. Sam Harris, in The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, stresses just how thoroughly and expeditiously the suicide-mass murderer is 'saved'. Which would you prefer, given belief?

'... martyrdom is the only way that a Muslim can bypass the painful litigation that awaits us all on the Day of Judgment and proceed directly to heaven. Rather than spend centuries mouldering in the earth in anticipation of being resurrected and subsequently interrogated by wrathful angels, the martyr is immediately transported to Allah's garden...'

Osama bin Laden's table talk, at Tarnak Farms in Afghanistan, where he trained his operatives before September 2001, must have included many rolling paragraphs on Western vitiation, corruption, perversion, prostitution, and all the rest. And in 1998, as season after season unfolded around the president's weakness for fellatio, he seemed to have good grounds for his most serious miscalculation: the belief that America was a softer antagonist than the USSR (in whose defeat, incidentally, the 'Arab Afghans' played a negligible part). Still, a sympathiser like the famously obtuse 'American Taliban' John Walker Lindh, if he'd been there, and if he'd been a little brighter, might have framed the following argument.

Now would be a good time to strike, John would tell Osama, because the West is enfeebled, not just by sex and alcohol, but also by 30 years of multicultural relativism. They'll think suicide bombing is just an exotic foible, like shame-and-honour killings or female circumcision. Besides, it's religious, and they're always slow to question anything that calls itself that. Within days of our opening outrage, the British royals will go on the road for Islam, and stay on it. And you'll be amazed by how long the word Islamophobia, as an unanswerable indictment, will cover Islamism too. It'll take them years to come up with the word they want - and Islamismophobia clearly isn't any good. Even if the Planes Operation succeeds, and thousands die, the Left will yawn and wonder why we waited so long. Strike now. Their ideology will make them reluctant to see what it is they confront. And it will make them slow learners.

Source: "The Age of Horrorism" by Martin Amis (Guardian UK)

Having been ‘courted’ by the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB) a few years ago, I remain privvy to their web forums and discussions (please though don’t tell them). An interesting thread of late has been the debate about whether or not Muslims and Muslim organisations should publicly endorse political parties and their representatives. In this particular instance, the thread referred to the public backing recently given to Ken Livingstone via an open letter to the Guardian. The debate has at times been quite heated and is split approximately 60/40 between those who do think that Muslims should offer public endorsements and those who do not (respectively? Is this grammatically required here – let me know).

Within the ‘do not’ camp is where I would firmly position myself. Without dismissing anyone on the list or indeed the organisations they represent, it would seem to me that in the current climate, having such groups as those listed endorsing you could be the final nail in the coffin (a la the Guardian, possibly) or at the very least, a long slow kiss of death infecting the recipient with a terminal illness that brings about a lengthy and protracted demise (a la the backlash Red Ken received following the visit of Yusuf al-Qaradawi). Beyond mere ‘should we’, ‘shouldn’t we’ discussions however, such ringing endorsements embed more serious problems, in my opinion at least.

First, championing ‘Muslim-only’ issues will continue to reinforce the stereotypical view that Muslims are inward looking isolationists, concerned only about themselves. Whilst the Guardian letter notes that Livingstone would be good ‘for all Londoners’, it does feel like this is something of an afterthought and that benefiting all Londoners – rather than just those of a Muslim persuasion – is incidental to the endorsees overall objective.

This is also problematic in other ways. A few weeks ago in Birmingham, a prominent Muslim organisation spoke at a conference about the educational under-achievement of young Muslims. What was problematic for me was that the speaker never once mentioned that other communities were experiencing the same levels of under-achievement, preferring instead to argue that this was – in some way, albeit never explained – evidence of Islamophobia in today’s Britain. Aside from dismissing the argument about Islamophobia (it’s clearly not), this was a lost opportunity as recent reports and statistics have shown that educational under-achievement is anything but a ‘Muslim-only’ (for ‘Muslim’ read Pakistani and Bangladesi only) issue. Instead, it is a serious issue that affects black and more recently white, lower socio-economic communities also. Little, if indeed any, evidence therefore exists to suggest that educational under-achievement is in any way related to any particular religion or religious identity. In doing so, not only did the Muslims at the conference – and beyond – miss the opportunity to find common ground with other communities finding themselves in a similar position but they also reinforced the widespread stereotypical view that they are both isolationist and exclusivist.

Secondly, the open letter somewhat inappropriately for a local election states that:

‘[Livingstone’s] stands and policies have constantly championed justice in the Middle East and around the world, freedom for the Palestinians and withdrawal of occupying troops from Iraq’

Having lived in London for more than twenty years and having family still living there in one form or another, I’m not sure how this would convince floating ‘non-Muslim’ Londoners to think about voting for him. Most Londoners – I presume and include Muslim Londoners in this also – would not have at the top of their list of concerns neither justice in the Middle East nor freedom for Palestinians. Both of course are extremely worthy and noble things to strive for but being brutally realistic, not something that is in the forefront of the average ‘man/ woman on the street’.

However, I am certain that if asked, those same Londoners would probably be more concerned with the levels of crime, the cleanliness of their streets and the affordability of housing rather more so than justice somewhere else in the world. This is not to state that championing such causes are unprincipled or that similarly influential public figures should not take such approaches, but instead merely to suggest that knowing your audience and getting the tone, pitch and content right is much more important than offering a rallying cry for (some) Muslims alone. Because of this, it wouldn’t take long for the average ‘man/ woman on the street’ to have the stereotype easily reinforced that Muslims are more concerned about what goes on ‘over there’ in ‘their countries’ than what goes on ‘over here’ in ‘our country’. Hopefully, the BNP won’t quote me on this.

Finally, since the visit of al-Qaradawi to London and the welcome afforded by Livingstone, many of the current mayor’s detractors have used his pro-Muslim bias as a weapon to beat him with. Whether this is fair or not I am genuinely unsure, but given the debacle around the ‘Search for Common Ground’ report that I contributed to last year and the fall-out from that (which formed a significant part of Martin Bright’s attack on Livingstone in Channel 4’s Dispatches programme last night), you would have thought that heightening awareness of Ken’s pro-Muslim tendencies or the links he has with certain Muslim organisations – many of which have elsewhere fallen out of favour with all and sundry - might have warranted more thought from those concerned. As a friend of mine put it to me earlier today, such a faux pas could easily be interpreted as little more than “a 'reward' to Ken for inviting Yusuf over” by all those concerned.

Since the open letter to the Guardian, Boris Johnson has responded by saying that he was "not remotely worried" by the statement of support:

"My grandfather was a Muslim and so was my great-grandfather. I am proud of my Muslim ancestry…But I want to talk about the interests of Londoners. I don't care what religion they are. I want to look after people from all communities".

Without endorsing Boris whatsoever – personally, I’ve been a fan of Red Ken for years and if I were living in London and there was an election tomorrow, I would vote for him without question – I do find myself agreeing with him as it would seem that what he is voicing here is the crux of the matter: namely that “I want to look after people from all communities”. Whether he does or not is another matter and we may well get the opportunity to find out sooner rather than later, but what the endorsees and their open letter have done is to put the ball firmly into Boris’ court and to provide Livingstone’s growing army of detractors with even more ammunition to use against him.

Let’s hope that recent reports are wrong when they state that Boris is now only 1% behind Ken in the opinion polls and that any further open letters (read ‘glowing endorsements’) are written so that they are seen to benefit all and not just Muslims. If they don’t, then will someone please get them put on hold or are at least thought about before any such decisions are made.

A senior Church of England member called yesterday for the building of mosques to be banned.

Alison Ruoff said more construction would lead to Islamic no go areas dominated by exclusively Muslim populations living under sharia law.

Mrs Ruoff, a member of the General Synod, the Church's parliament, added: "If we don't watch out we will become an Islamic state. It's that serious."

...

Speaking on Premier Christian Radio, she said: "We are constantly building new mosques, which are paid for by the oil states.

"There are enough mosques for Muslims in this country.

"You build a mosque and then what happens? You have Muslim people moving into that area, all the shops become Islamic, all the housing will become Islamic and that will be a no-go area for anyone else.

"They will bring in Islamic law. We cannot allow that to happen.

"We are still a Christian country, we need to hold on to that."

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "These are very narrow-minded and bigoted remarks.

"As a Christian, she surely ought to be working to build good ties between different communities."

Mr. Bunglawala, give us ONE example of Muslims in a Muslim country "working to build good ties between different communities." Is there an example in Mecca? You know, that city that non-Muslims aren't even allowed to enter?

How about Iran? Isn't Christianity outlawed there?

Africa? That entire continent where Muslims still enslave Christians?

Shut it, Mr. Bunglawala. Keep your dirty lies and ad hominem smears to yourself. Your religion only calls for tolerance and "good ties" when it's in the minority.

A senior Church of England member called yesterday for the building of mosques to be banned.

Alison Ruoff said more construction would lead to Islamic no go areas dominated by exclusively Muslim populations living under sharia law.

Mrs Ruoff, a member of the General Synod, the Church's parliament, added: "If we don't watch out we will become an Islamic state. It's that serious."

...

Speaking on Premier Christian Radio, she said: "We are constantly building new mosques, which are paid for by the oil states.

"There are enough mosques for Muslims in this country.

"You build a mosque and then what happens? You have Muslim people moving into that area, all the shops become Islamic, all the housing will become Islamic and that will be a no-go area for anyone else.

"They will bring in Islamic law. We cannot allow that to happen.

"We are still a Christian country, we need to hold on to that."

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "These are very narrow-minded and bigoted remarks.

"As a Christian, she surely ought to be working to build good ties between different communities."

Mr. Bunglawala, give us ONE example of Muslims in a Muslim country "working to build good ties between different communities." Is there an example in Mecca? You know, that city that non-Muslims aren't even allowed to enter?

How about Iran? Isn't Christianity outlawed there?

Africa? That entire continent where Muslims still enslave Christians?

Shut it, Mr. Bunglawala. Keep your dirty lies and ad hominem smears to yourself. Your religion only calls for tolerance and "good ties" when it's in the minority.

Shortly after the attacks of 9/11 and President Musharraf's suggestion that he was to support the 'war on terror', a small number of women peacefully protested outside the Pakistan embassy in London. The following day in the Daily Mail, alongside the now obligatory image of a woman wearing the niqab, was the headline 'Jihad in Central London'. Of course, for 'jihad' the Daily Mail meant 'peaceful protest'...

Anyway, the e-mail I've received is about the 'Yes to Equal Citizenship, No to Double Standards' vigil that has been arranged (I presume extremely rapidly and in the style of the Daily Mail I suggest that for 'rapidly' you read 'half-arsed') for outside 10 Downing Street tomorrow, Saturday 16th February. As soon as I read it, my heart plummeted.

I really worry about what the motivations behind these type of events. Although quite irrespective of these, equally worrying are the objectives because let's be honest, we all know how the media will cover it:

Muslim men with placards shouting...angry niqabis...the clash of civilisations...sharia versus democracy...jihad in central London

The list goes on. No doubt when the Mail on Sunday or the Sunday Express use any of these soundbites or use the obligatory images to accompany them, the same people who organised this will then denounce the media for attacking them. It's a vicious self-perpetuating cycle that neither 'side' seems to want to break.

And so why do Muslims - especially when the Preventing Violent Extremism Together Pathfinder fund is bankrolling so many media training courses - continue to have almost an unholy penchant for marches, vigils, protests and so on that gift wrap and serve on a platter the typical media fodder that the tabloids and others love?

Personally, I can't think of one of these type of events that have ever got the results that the organisers set out to achieve and so what is the probability of this public protest having the remotest chance of working compared to the probability it being counter productive?

Muslim organisations in this country seem to be the masters of unstrategic thinking and action, and by consequence, the masters of their own downfall. And so for example, before organising the 'vigil' I wonder to what extent the organisers got everyone 'on board' to ensure a unified and clear voice was heard? I wonder to what extent they discussed who they wanted to be addressing; who or what was likely to be changed by their actions; or what even was being demanded?

Is it for example more legislation? More restrictions? More censoring (all of which Muslim organisations have opposed in recent years)?

Or are the organisations involved merely wanting Gordon Brown and the Government to force wider society to stop hating/ disliking/ disagreeing/ misunderstanding/ questioning Muslims?

Of course if it is the latter of these and the Government is to force people to 'love' and 'like' Muslims, then under the banner of 'No Double Standards' Muslims should also be forced to respect the equalities legislation protecting gays, lesbians and transgender people for example. Obviously, all will agree with the premise and no double standards there at all...!!!

Another very worrying fact is that the event is badged as a 'vigil'. I wonder though how many of the organisers or their supporters realise exactly what a vigil is:

From the Latin vigilia, meaning wakefulness, a vigil is a period of purposeful sleeplessness, an occasion for devotional watching, or an observance

I doubt that any 'purposeful sleeplessness' or 'observance' will be going on, except that is from the press hacks and their photographers cohorts waiting for another rent-a-quote to denounce democracy as 'kuffar-ocracy' or for someone to arrive in fancy dress as a 'suicide-bomber'.

Despite nothing less than the belief that these groups and organisations have the very best intentions at heart, I just cannot see how watching a bunch of angry, largely male Muslims shouting and barracking outside 10 Downing Street are in any way going to change the views of the media, the Government or wider society.

From a PR point of view, I would suggest that it has probably already backfired and is, without doubt, another accident waiting to happen.

However, if you do want to participate in the 'purposeful sleeplessness' of getting 'equal citizenship' then here's the details (and good luck):

'Yes to equal citizenship, No to Double Standards'

Vigil outside 10 Downing Street
Saturday 16 February, 2-4pm

There come moments when it is important for fair-minded people to stand their ground. Now is a time for solidarity; to affirm respect, equality and parity for all Britons, irrespective of race and creed. Can it be good for Britain if a section of society – however small and socio-economically deprived - feels scape-goated and ostracised?

Following the Archbishop of Canterbury's thoughtful address calling for a dialogue on shariah issues there have been appalling displays of prejudice and contempt towards Islam and Muslims. It is not a matter of being unduly sensitive to criticism, but rather a warning of the slippery slope from verbal mockery to physical intimidation. Do we really want Mosely's Black Shirts back on the streets of Britain?

We are deeply troubled with the suggestion that it is somehow OK for a Muslim MP to be bugged because of the 'war on terror'. We are worried by headlines like 'Minister warns of inbreeding Muslims'. We are upset when an eminent Islamic scholar is denied entry to the UK. We are troubled that our concerns on issues of sacrilege are dismissed as an infringement on freedom of speech. It is no wonder that even in our schools, Muslim children highlight their fear of bullying more frequently than those from other faith groups. Is this the society of the future we want – one of first-class, confident citizens and second-class, anxiety-ridden citizens?

It is with these questions in mind that a number of civil society organisations have\n come together to stage a vigil outside No. 10 Downing Street on Saturday 16th February 2008 at 2pm, under the slogan 'Yes to Equal Citizenship, No to Double Standards'.

Supported by: Muslim Council of Britain and the British Muslim Forum

British Muslim Initiative, Islamic Forum of Europe, Muslim Association of Britain, Islamic Human Right Commission, Islam, Young Muslim Organisation UK, Muslimaat UK, The Cordoba Foundation, Centre for the Study of Terrorism, Friends of Al Aqsa, Palestinian Forum in Britain. IslamExpo, FOSIS, ICMG UK, Sri Lanka Islamic Forum UK, Algerian League in Britain and many others

 

England: Briterne har været så tossegode, at de har legitimeret et islamisk råd, Muslim Council of Britain, i håb om bedre integration. Nu viser det sig dog, at det måske ikke var en helt klog beslutning. I ugens løb, har rådet anklaget den engelske regering for at undertrykke ytringsfriheden. Men hvorfor? -> England har nægtet en fanatisk islamist indrejse i landet. Den rabiate imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, støtter selvmordsangreb på israelere og ønsker dødsstraf til homoseksuelle. Han har naturligvis indrejseforbud i USA. Han har udtalt om  terrorangreb: "Jeg opfatter denne type martyraktioner som bevis for guds retfærdighed.  Allah den mægtige, i hans uendelige visdom, har givet de svage et våben, de stærke ikke ejer, og det er deres evne at ændre deres kroppe til selvmordsbomber, som palæstinenser gør."

Det er skandaløst at den islamistiske lobbyorganisation Muslim Council of Britain har fået 1 sekunds taletid! Hvilken frækhed at tale om 'ytringsfrihed'! De skulle have deres kæft skrubbet med sulfur, hver og én! - Og det var så min mening om den sag...

Læs hele skandalen hos Telegraph.

By MILES GOSLETT and DANIEL BOFFEY - Daily Mail online

Some Asians in the police and in Government jobs have been accused of blocking the crackdown against so-called honour killings.

It is alleged they are not only failing to help desperate women trying to flee abuse and arranged marriages but are actively encouraging punishment for those they believe are breaking traditional taboos.

Terrified victims who seek official help are even being tracked down by a network of Asian men working in Government departments and social services, according to a study written by the think-tank Social Cohesion.

One woman was found by her family after she signed on at a Jobcentre where a member of the Asian community was working.

The study follows the horrific case of 20-year-old Banaz Mahmod whose body was found in a suitcase after she was raped and strangled with a bootlace by hitmen hired by her family

The report also claims some Asian police officers actually return women to their abusive families or refuse to act against men enforcing 'traditional' roles.

Meanwhile, non-Asian officials and police officers are scared of acting against families who abuse their relatives for fear of being branded as racist, the report says.

The study follows the horrific case of 20-year-old Banaz Mahmod whose body was found in a suitcase after she was raped and strangled with a bootlace by hitmen hired by her family

She was killed for falling in love with a man the family disapproved of – despite unsuccessfully asking police for help five times.

In one plea she recorded a video message that helped convict her father and uncle of her murder.

Controversially, the report accuses one of the Government's closest advisers on Muslim matters, the Muslim Council of Britain, of hampering attempts to criminalise forced marriage.

It said: "The MCB has sought to block legislation aimed at ending honour-based violence. Almost all women's groups interviewed for this report say that the MCB has done little or nothing to end honour-based violence...

"In many northern towns...South Asian women are often afraid to seek help because they know that Asians working in local government believe that women who break traditional taboos deserve to be punished."

Report contributor Nazir Afzal, of the Crown Prosecution Service, added: "Domestic violence is not an issue the Muslim Council of Britain wants to know about."

David Davies, the Tory MP for Monmouth who is on the Home Affairs Select committee investigating forced marriages and domestic violence, said: "Thousands of girls are being taken to Pakistan every year for marriage, although it is best described as abduction and rape."

James Brandon, one of the report's authors, said: "It is estimated that ten women a year in Britain die through honour killings and honour violence. The Government must change the way it approaches this problem."

The MCB said: "Our position has always been clear: so-called honour killings are murder. They are severe criminal offences which we condemn."

There was a lot of shunning this week in a very interesting article about morality in Time Magazine. Jeffrey Kluger argues that there are one or more of three main factors operating behind moral behaviour, and shunning is one of them. The factors that he believes influence morality are: empathy - our ability to recognise that someone else's pain is our pain; tribalism - the ability to recognise who is part of our in-crowd and our motivation to protect them; and shunning - that ability to enforce group norms and our fear of being caught out.

I don't really want to get into a debate about the validity of his case - it's his argument, not mine - but, in the light of recent events (more below) the piece did stimulate me to think a lot about how cultural morality can change.

Merely being equipped with empathy does not mean we practice moral behaviour. Something has to teach us how to do it and make sure it happens. Shunning is very powerful. Being very vulnerable predators, we all fear banishment.

If membership in a tribe is the way you ensure yourself food, family and protection from predators, being blackballed can be a terrifying thing. Religious believers as diverse as Roman Catholics, Mennonites and Jehovah's Witnesses have practiced their own forms of shunning--though the banishments may go by names like excommunication or disfellowshipping. Clubs, social groups and fraternities expel undesirable members, and the U.S. military retains the threat of discharge as a disciplinary tool, even grading the punishment as "other than honorable" or "dishonorable," darkening the mark a former service person must carry for life.

Human communities can impose their own oughts, but these vary radically from culture to culture. Sometimes it is possible to catch glimpses of particular tribes changing their cultural oughts (however briefly and superficially) and I was intrigued by this.

The first example of change was Teddybeargate. Despite initially being convicted in Sudan for insulting Islam (she allowed a member of her primary class to name a teddy bear Muhammad) Gillian Gibbons has been pardoned and allowed home. Teddybeargate was brought to an end, in part, because of the intervention of two Muslim peers. The group shunning was lifted.

The second example of change was also provided by the Muslims. The Muslim Council of Britain have decided to end their boycott of the Holocaust Memorial Day and voted this weekend to end its six-year protest, which had angered the British government and Jewish groups. The decision may lead to some groups leaving the MCB, an umbrella organisation with over 500 members. Its working committee voted 18 to 8 to end the boycott, which began in 2001. Those who voted to attend said the stance had allowed the MCB to be accused of antisemitism and seeming to disrespect the suffering of Jews.

Don't get hung up about the rights or wrongs of the individual examples, just think about the shunning and what brought about the changes. In both cases, both 'tribes' were initially acting to protect some values or stance of the group, and in at least the first case, this shunning had been further set in concrete by a religious system (the force of the latter contributing to the public riots against Gillian Gibbons in Khartoum).

My hypothesis is that a group will consider changes to its morality if it is exposed to the morality of a larger group that challenges it. When such an exposure does not take place, the smaller group only looks to itself. It sees itself as it wants to see itself. When exposed to a larger group, the smaller group starts to see itself as others see it, and often that can eventually lead to a degree of disquiet and change. Initially there may be great protests and uproar; there may be a degree of withdrawal and retreat; but sometimes a few courageous people from within the smaller group may say: "Hey, we are looking ridiculous by behaving like this. We need to change."

The good news is that we live in an age when smaller groups are more and more likely to be exposed to the morality of different larger groups, either because of changes in society, or because of increased travel and technology. 100 years ago, very few people in the West would have ever heard about Gillian Gibbons and the dreaded teddy bear. The bad news is that some of the morality of the smaller groups is encrusted in hundreds or thousands of years of tradition or religion, and the force of exposure to the larger group is fought against with great vigour, though even here, there is hope.

Take the example of the Church of England. Outsiders have been witnessing the slow, painful, change process over a number of years. Developments in society and changes of attitude to the rights of women, and to sexual orientation have forced the Church of England to reconsider who or what it shuns, or to face further retreat and alienation. That process is still ongoing. We have women priests, but not yet women bishops or archbishops. The present debate about homosexuality will cause a split in this tribe, with part of the tribe adapting, and part maintaining its values and becoming an even smaller tribe.

I may, of course, be wrong, but I think that the two, relatively small changes in the Muslim communities described above, may have come about because of exposure. In a post 9/11 world, some Muslims could begin to see the danger of anything that could contribute to the ridicule and increased demonization of their faith.

Ironically, both groups got into the initial situation because they saw they were trying to honour their faith, but in both cases, it backfired. In Karhtoum, British Muslim peers were able to explain the cultural faux pas and also explain that a guilty verdict brought their faith into disrepute in the minds of many humanitarian people of the world (regardless of faith). The shunning offended the bigger code and the Sudanese Muslims started to feel themselves being shunned.

In Britain, some members of the Muslim Council could argue that their shunning of the Holocaust Day was nothing to do with antisemitism, but was rather about gaining some recognition for attrocities against Muslims, and wanting them to be remembered too. However, after a six year failure, and a realization that there was a large groundswell of opinion that the boycotting was perceived as being antisemitic, the implicit shunning of the larger group encouraged them to see their own shunning in a new light.

In the grand scheme of change, both of the changes described above may be small, but I am encouraged by them. And in human time, evolution is a very, very slow process.

• The trouble with Islam - A few words about the world's fastest growing religion
• More demands from Islam - Another turn of the screw
• Unholy scripture - A message to racists, and a few words about the Bible
• Why does faith deserve respect? - Short answer: It doesn't
• God bless atheism - A few questions answered
• Was Jesus gay? - ... and what would it matter if he was?
• A word to Islamofascists - More propaganda from the Muslim Council of Britain
• Why are we friends with Saudi Arabia? - As if we didn't know
• Re: Blasphemy Challenge - This is my response to the Rational Response Squad's Blasphemy Challenge

They should have separate changing rooms for sports and swimming, single sex classes for sex education, prayer rooms and new rights to Islamic worship, and different uniform rules, the Muslim Council of Britain said.

Schools win the right to ban the veil after girl's court defeat

Boys should be allowed to grow beards for religious reasons, said new guidelines for schools published by the council.

The call for special treatment for Muslim pupils comes at a time when Government efforts are concentrated on eliminating segregation and encouraging 'British' values to tackle religious extremism.

The National Association of Head Teachers dismissed the ideas as "completely undoable" and warned they ran against the grain of tolerance in schools.

In a paper offering guidance on the treatment of nearly 400,000 Muslim pupils in state schools, the council said some schools "have not been receptive of legitimate and reasonable requests made by Muslim parents and pupils in relation to their faith-based aspirations and concerns".

It added: "Many of these issues relate to aspects of schooling such as collective worship, communal changing, swimming, halal meals and sex education. It is essential that positive account is taken of the faith dimension of Muslim pupils in education and schooling.

"Unfortunately Muslim pupils are sometimes placed in situations where they feel pressured into acting contrary to their beliefs and conscience and also experience Islamophobic sentiments and comments within schools."

It said that in the vast majority of primary schools, boys and girls change for PE together.

"Muslim children are likely to exhibit resistance to this sort of compromising and immodest exposure, but are often pressurised to conform to institutional norms which do not take account of their own or their parents’ beliefs and values."

The council said schools could consider building "separate changing facilities that include individual changing cubicles".

"Islam forbids nakedness in front of others or being among others who are naked. Muslim children should not be expected to participate in communal showering," the guidance said.

Sex education, the council said, should be in single-sex groups with a teacher of the same sex and should reflect "Islamic moral perspectives".

CARD {Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination} Source: dailymail.co.uk

David Cameron pretends to want to stop Sharia, but actually supports the policies that create it, immigration, welfare, public benefits. Cameron policies in practice like Blair's are like swallowing Polonium cocktails made in Moscow. Or is it like drinking Polonium tea in London?

David Cameron's policies are the Polonium teapot. Looks British on the outside, tastes British going down, and kills you from the inside out. That is the Sharia tea of Muslim immigration and welfare.

Following from

"Tories set sights on separatist British Muslims"

"· Welter of initiatives to promote UK cohesion
· Muslim Council of Britain rejects report's criticisms"

Will Woodward, chief political correspondent
Tuesday January 30, 2007
The Guardian

The report will underline comments made by the party's leader, David Cameron, who warned yesterday that separatist Muslims who promote sharia law and demand special treatment for their faith are the "mirror image" of the British National party.

The report says a significant number of Muslim groups are "keener to promote ideologies than the totality of the communities they claim to represent", and that their political influence greatly exceeds the extent to which British Muslims feel represented by them.

Just like Tony Blair's Labour Party and David Cameron's Conservative Party. Actually Phony Conservative Party, PCP.

How did we get here? For fifty years Labour and Conservative Party leaders have told the identical lie, that immigrants assimilate. They don't. They displace, demand change and kill when it isn't fast enough. Sounds like Fatah and Hamas doesn't it? They have assimilated well in the last 50 years haven't they?

Enoch Powell told the truth in the "Rivers of Blood Speech" and was sacked, by the Conservatives. Just for knowing the truth, they want to get the BNP Ballerina sacked. The more things change, the more they tell the same lie.

Bush Clinton Blair Cameron. Bush Blair Clinton Cameron. Can the English speaking world survive?

There will always be an England, but only if you vote BNP.

==

Actually Cons and Labs mirror Muslim extremists. Total Leftist intolerance from both of them about Islam from Enoch Powell speech on. Mirror in sense they are the same and you can't tell which is the real one and which the reflection.

Cameron and Blair are identical in their hostility to the British people, if they even know what that means and don't think its racist. There are Arabs, so there must be something call British or English. To say otherwise is the real racism. Which is exactly what David Cameron and Tony Blair express by their acts.

==

Labs and Cons thrive on fear, fear of voters to think of themselves as bigots to vote for their own survival.

Blair and Cameron are the extremists.  They want to force Sharia law by immigration and ethnic and Christian cleansing.  This is what immigration does, it substitutes out those there for immigrants.  That is the BC program and its working.  As ethnic cleansers, BC are the extremists.

--
This article is opinion, hypotheses, speculation or a warning of the decline of the West. All other disclaimers apply.