Admiral Warns: Potential for Islamist Raids on European Islands

Chris-Parry-640x480Breitbart, by OLIVER LANE, April 24, 2015:

The security situation in the Mediterranean will continue to deteriorate to the point where we can expect Islamist raids on A, a recently retired Royal Navy Admiral has told Breitbart London.

HMS BULWARK

Rear Admiral Chris Parry CBE, the straight-talking former Director General of the Ministry of Defence Development, Concepts, and Doctrine Centre, the government body tasked with foreseeing future strategic threats, made the comments in an interview this week as European nations gathered to discuss the sudden migrant crisis gripping the Mediterranean.

The Threat of Islam

Parry, who warned in a government paper in 1990 that Islam would replace Communism as the main threat against the West and accurately predicted the collapse of African and Arab nations during the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, told Breitbart London he regretted the government was only taking action now, and had not heeded his warning earlier. The Falklands veteran said his warnings were ignored in 2006 when he wrote a major paper on future threats, as the Labour government of the day deemed speaking about Immigration as racist.

Migrants Italy Reuters Large

Parry remarked:

“When I said these things in 2006, my political masters told me to drop it, that it was racist, but I told them it was just what came out of the analysis of the raw data.

“the government interpreted my report as having a go at immigration which was a ‘verboten’ subject in those days, it was all about multiculturalism. Any mention of immigration was considered to be ideologically incorrect. But I didn’t mention immigration, I merely said the world was heading for a migratory pattern that is on a par with the end of the fifth century”.

A speech given by Parry in 2006 at the Royal United Services Institute was reported by The Times after he said the migratory patterns that would emerge in the coming decade would resemble “the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals”, as European nations experienced a process of “reverse colonisation”.

Piracy on Europe’s Doorstep

Although Parry said he stood by his comments of moving diasporas and large populations of migrants with no allegiance to their new homes destabilising nations such as the UK, he said the increasingly fragile Mediterranean was more of a threat to Europe. Libya, now an increasingly lawless state after the British-backed toppling of former dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, is fuelling this change in the Mediterranean as it becomes a haven for criminals engaging in people smuggling.

Parry said at first, the switch from people smuggling as a profitable and comparatively risk-free criminal activity to piracy of the sort seen off the lawless Horn of Africa would be driven by a profit motive. He said:

“It is only a matter of time before we get crime and piracy off the North African coast. People will see it as a business opportunity and they will take it.

“People used to call them Barbary pirates, and they will come back when you have a collapse of governance if there isn’t a strong system of international control in the Mediterranean. You can compare it to what Jessie James is reputed to have said when asked ‘why do you rob banks?’ – ‘it’s where the money is’!”.

Mumbai Terror Attacks

During the last Caliphate, ‘Barbary’ pirates from North Africa grew incredibly rich by attacking European and American ships in the Mediterranean, taking the cargoes and holding the crews hostage. Many would be sold into slavery, with young white women and girls being particularly prized, while others were ransomed back at enormous profit, creating an income stream also used by the new Caliphate established by the Islamic State today.

Terror From the Sea

Parry said that isolated attacks on easily overpowered craft such as yachts could be expected soon. At least two coast guard ships have already been fired upon by Libyan people smugglers, as they used AK-47s to recapture impounded smuggling boats.

Pirates Reuters

Citing the 2008 Mumbai terror attack in which Islamist killers used inflatable speedboats to land commandos to kill over 150, Parry said terrorist groups in Northern Africa, a number of which have already sworn allegiance to the Islamic State, could launch raids against southern Europe. Such attacks were common in the 17th and 19th centuries, when Caliphate ships would raid coastal settlements in Italy, Spain, and even as far afeild as Cornwall in England to capture slaves and hostages for ransom. Parry remarked:

“90 per cent of the wealth, both personal and corporate in the Mediterranean is on the northern shore and 10 per cent is on the south. You have a demographic explosion all across North Africa, and an ageing demographic in Europe. That is all the historic ingredients for terror and crime.

“We will soon be experiencing minor hit and run attacks on remote parts of Europe, like Malta and the Greek Islands”.

Message to Policy Makers: How to Avert Disaster

It is possible for Europe and Western civilisation to forestall these attacks, Rear Admiral Parry said, even if the best chance for peace in the Mediterranean had already been lost, as the governments capable of maintaining peace in North Africa and the Levant had already collapsed in the Arab Spring. In his message to policy makers, Parry was unapologetic about the role Britain and other maritime nations like the United States, Canada and Australia had to play:

“Long term, we have to stabilise the whole community around the Mediterranean… we have to be able to hold our maritime borders, because we have very aggressive Islamism which wants to recreate the extent of Islamic lands the Middle Ages.

“If you look at the maps put out by the Islamic State, it is pretty clear what they want back. Italy, Spain. They want back what they once had. Islam is a very territorial religion.

“If there isn’t the political will or military ability to face down threats off the North African littoral, be it migration, criminality, or terrorism, then we will get progressive erosion. We will get raids on coasts, we will get yachts intercepted at sea, we will get merchant ships subject to terrorist, pirate, or criminal attack.

“The Western world needs to have more self belief in its own values, it has to hold its nerve, and we have to rediscover a lot of self-reliance”.

Praising Tony Abbott’s policy of sinking migrant ships with naval gunfire and returning people to their home countries where possible, Parry remained sceptic that the sudden tough talk about sinking smuggler boats in Europe would actually happen, remarking that sending in special forces teams to Libya would be like “putting your fingers in a mangle”.

The United Nation’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO) should be taking the lead in the Mediterranean, but he didn’t hold out much hope for their getting involved in a meaningful way either:

“If this sort of thing was happening on land, the area would be crawling with United Nations blue helmets [peacekeepers], but because it’s at sea, it is ignored. The gutless IMO always go for the low-hanging fruit like climate change and emissions control, collecting their grossly inflated pensions and doing bugger all”.

Also see:

UK: Sharia Courts Abusing Muslim Women

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, April 8, 2015:

The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land.

“I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.” — Muslim woman interviewed for the report.

The report concludes by calling on the British government to launch a judge-led inquiry to “determine the extent to which discriminatory Sharia law principles are being applied within the UK.”

“The government’s response will be a litmus test of the extent to which it genuinely upholds the principle of equality before the law or is so dominated by the fear of ‘giving offense’ that it will continue to allow these women to suffer in ways which would make our suffragettes turn in their graves.” — Baroness Caroline Cox.

Muslim women across Britain are being systematically oppressed, abused and discriminated against by Sharia law courts that treat women as second-class citizens, according to a new report, which warns against the spiraling proliferation of Islamic tribunals in the United Kingdom.

The 40-page report, “A Parallel World: Confronting the Abuse of Many Muslim Women in Britain Today,” was authored by Baroness Caroline Cox, a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords and one of the leading defenders of women’s rights in the UK.

The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land.

The Arbitration Act of 1996 allows parties to resolve certain civil disputes according to Sharia principles in such a way that the decision can be enforced in British courts.

According to the report, however, many Muslim bodies are using the Arbitration Act to support the claim that they are able to make legally binding decisions for members of the Muslim community, when in fact the law limits their role to that of being a mediator to help reach an agreement. “The mediator is not a judge or an arbitrator who imposes a decision,” the report states.

The report shows how Sharia courts often fuse the concepts of arbitration, in which both parties agree to submit their dispute to a mutually agreeable third party for a decision to be made, and mediation, in which the two parties voluntarily use a third party to help them reach an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

On top of this lies the problem of “jurisdiction creep,” whereby Sharia courts are adjudicating on matters well outside the arbitration framework, such as by deciding cases relating to criminal law, including those involving domestic violence and grievous bodily harm.

 

Haitham al-Haddad is a British Sharia court judge, and sits on the board of advisors for the Islamic Sharia Council. Regarding the handling of domestic violence cases, he stated in an interview, “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort their matters among themselves.” (Image source: Channel 4 News video screenshot)

As a result, Muslim women, who may lack knowledge of both the English language and their rights under British law, are often pressured by their families to use Sharia courts. These courts often coerce them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions, which are imposed and viewed as legal judgments.

Worse yet, “Refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia forum could lead to threats and intimidation, or being ostracized and labelled a disbeliever,” the report states, and adds:

“There is a particular concern that women face pressure to withdraw allegations of domestic violence after they make them. Several women’s groups say they are often reluctant to go to the authorities with women who have run away to escape violence because they cannot trust police officers within the community not to betray the girls to their abusing families.”

The report shows that even in cases where Muslim tribunals work “in tandem” with police investigations, abused women often withdraw their complaints to the police, while Sharia judges let the husbands go unpunished.

Meanwhile, most Sharia courts, when dealing with divorce, do so only in a religious sense. They cannot grant civil divorce; they simply grant a religious divorce in accordance with Sharia law.

According to the report, in many cases this is all that is necessary for a “divorce” anyway; many Muslim women who identify themselves as being “married” are not in marriages that are legally recognized by British law. Although a nikah (an Islamic wedding ceremony) may have taken place, if the marriage is not officially registered, it is not valid in the eyes of civil law. The report states:

“This creates a very serious problem: women who are married in Islamic ceremonies but are not officially married under English law can suffer grave disadvantages because they lack legal protection. What is more, they can be unaware that their marriage is not officially recognized by English law.”

This places Muslim women in an especially precarious legal situation when it comes to divorce. In Islam, a husband does not have to follow the same process as the wife when seeking a talaq (Islamic divorce). He merely has to say “I divorce you” three times, whereas the wife must meet various conditions and pay a fee. The report cites women, when speaking of their own talaqproceedings, who referred to their lack of legal protection after discovering that their nikah did not constitute a valid marriage under English law.

The report cites Kalsoom Bashir, a long-time women’s rights activist in Bristol, who discusses the added problem of polygamy. She notes:

“There is an increasing rise in polygamy within Muslim families and again the women who are involved are not in a position to be able to challenge the situation or get any form of justice. They find it difficult to obtain any maintenance as the marriages are not registered legally. Polygamy is used to control first wives who are told that if they are a problem the man has the Islamic right to take another wife. Sometimes just one of the marriages is registered leaving one wife without any legal protections.”

Overall, the report includes excerpts of testimonies of more than a dozen Muslim women who have suffered abuse and injustice at the hands of Sharia courts in Britain. One woman said: “I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.”

The report concludes by calling on the British government to launch a judge-led inquiry to “determine the extent to which discriminatory Sharia law principles are being applied within the UK.” It also calls on the government to support Baroness Cox’s Private Members’ Bill — the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill — which would “create a new criminal offense criminalizing any person who purports to legally adjudicate upon matters which ought to be decided by criminal or family courts.”

Baroness Cox originally introduced the bill in 2011, but it went nowhere due to the lack of support from the main parties. She re-introduced the bill in 2013 and 2014, but it continues to languish, apparently because the main parties are afraid of offending Muslims. Cox has vowed to re-introduce the bill in the next session of Parliament, whose members will be elected on May 7.

The bill aims to combat discrimination by, among other restrictions, prohibiting Sharia courts from: a) treating the evidence of a man as worth more than the evidence of a woman; b) proceeding on the assumption that the division of an estate between male and female children on intestacy must be unequal; or c) proceeding on the assumption that a woman has fewer property rights than a man.

The law would also place a duty on public bodies to ensure that women in polygamous households, or those who have had a religious marriage, are made aware of their legal position and relevant legal rights under British law.

In a letter, Baroness Cox wrote that her recommendations “can by no means remedy all of the sensitive issues involved, but they do offer an important opportunity for redress.” She added that her bill “already has strong support from across the political spectrum in the House of Lords as well as from Muslim women’s groups and other organisations concerned with the suffering of vulnerable women.”

But it remains to be seen whether the next government will agree to support the bill. On March 23, British Home Secretary Theresa May pledged that if the Conservative Party wins the general election, she would launch a review into whether Sharia courts in England and Wales are compatible with British values.

But the Conservative government’s track record on confronting Islam has been patchy at best. In November 2013, for example, the government rejected an amendment offered by Cox to the Anti-Social Behavior, Crime and Policing Bill, which would have protected women who are duped into believing that their marriages are valid under British law when in fact they are not.

More recently, the Conservatives quashed a “politically incorrect” inquiry into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain.

While Cox welcomed May’s commitment to investigate Sharia courts, she also expressed concern that politicians will once again bow to political correctness. It is important, she wrote, that such investigations “do not fall at the first hurdle, as appears to have happened with previous, similar government-led reviews. Without powers to subpoena witnesses, any independent review — no matter how well intentioned — will be another lost opportunity.”

Cox summed it up this way:

“The government’s response will be a litmus test of the extent to which it genuinely upholds the principle of equality before the law or is so dominated by the fear of ‘giving offense’ that it will continue to allow these women to suffer in ways which would make our suffragettes turn in their graves.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

U.K. May Fire 100 Islamist Educators in “Trojan Horse” Scandal

Oldknow Academy, one of the Birmingham schools at the centre of the ‘Trojan Horse’ inquiry (Christopher Furlong)

Oldknow Academy, one of the Birmingham schools at the centre of the ‘Trojan Horse’ inquiry (Christopher Furlong)

IPT, by John Rossomando, April 7, 2015:

At least 100 Islamist teachers and teaching assistants implicated in last year’s “Trojan Horse” teaching scandal in Birmingham, England may face lifetime teaching bans.

Last June, the U.K.’s Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) found evidence that hardline Islamists had attempted to take control of some state schools. The report found that staff and headteachers felt “intimidated,” “undermined” or bullied into making changes they opposed.

Some headteachers with records of improving classroom standards were either marginalized or forced out of their jobs. In some cases, teachers faced unfair treatment due to their gender or religious beliefs.

The National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL), which oversees teachers in the U.K. and has the authority to ban them, is reviewing 30 cases, but as many as 100 teachers and assistants may be targeted.

The Sunday Times reports that NCTL obtained dossiers on some of those educators from the U.K.’s Department of Education. The dossiers reportedly contain information from the “Trojan Horse” investigation, which found a “co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action” by a number of individuals who sought to introduce an “intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos” into selected Birmingham schools.

Abusive practices, such as forcing students at Park View Academy, one of the Birmingham schools targeted by last year’s inquiry, to kneel on tiles in “stress positions” were observed by British investigators. NCTL investigators also found that an IT technician at Park View used school equipment to copy a video containing “typical Al-Qaeda footage, in which the individuals had their faces obscured with scarves and were holding guns.”

Students found to be dating each other were sent to an “isolation unit, where they work in individual booths of silence.” Designated senior students, known as prefects, were told to report romantic relationships between students to senior staff.

More than 50 Park View teachers – called the Park View Brotherhood – exchanged as many as 3,000 messages in a WhatsApp group that included offensive comments about British soldiers and claimed that Lee Rigby’s murder and the Boston bombings were hoaxes. The messages also discussed segregating boys and girls.

Britain’s home minister Theresa May recently called for stronger measures against Islamic extremism in U.K. schools.

“The allegations relating to schools in Birmingham raise serious questions about the quality of school governance and oversight arrangements,” May said. “How did it come to pass, for example, that one of the governors at Park View was the chairman of the educational committee of the Muslim Council of Britain? Is it true that Birmingham city council was warned about these allegations in 2008? Is it true that the Department of Education was warned in 2010? If so, why did nobody act?”

Will the May 7th UK Election Result in a Rollback of Islamization?

tmayNER, by Jerry Gordon, April 2, 2015:

On May 7th The Conservatives in the UK led by Prime Minister David Cameron, currently in a coalition with Deputy PM  Nick Clegg of the  Liberal Democrats,  will face  Labor led by Ed  Miliband and a surge by  the UK Independent Party UKIP  led by Nigel Farage in the election of a new Westminster Parliament.  Farage has been a long term Member of the European Parliament seeking to take the UK out of the EU.  A decade ago, this writer was on a weekly  Radio  America program, originating out of Washington, DC, where Farage held forth on his vision for the UK.  Given recent polling in the UK, Farage may be poised to siphon off upwards of 2 million voters from the Conservatives, perhaps making the UKIP a plausible junior coalition partner in an emerging UK government following the May 7th elections.  Like   Geert Wilders leader of the Dutch Freedom Party in the Hague Parliament and Paul Weston of the Liberty GB party in the UK, Farage has made significant inroads in normally Conservative voters over the issue of Mass Muslim immigration, and tolerant policies by the current Cameron government regarding Sharia law recognition and counterterrorism policies towards home grown Muslim rejectionists of British values and laws.  Some of whom have committed horrendous terrorist attacks and slaughter on the streets of Great Britain killing dozens and injuring hundreds. Then there are reports of Muslim gangs controlling prisons or in British communities engaging in gang rapes and sex grooming of young girls, and illegal female genital mutilation within their own communities.  Add to that emergence of informal Sharia monitors in predominately Muslim areas in the UK like Tower Hamlets in London.    Hundreds of Muslim young men and women   in the UK have left to join ISIS, some like “Jihad John” have prominently involved in ISIS videos beheading UK and American captives. Problems that Britain and the EU face in these matters are graphically depicted in Erick Stakelbeck’s new, ISIS Exposed: Beheadings, Slavery, And The Hellish Reality of Radical Islam that we reviewed in the April edition of the New English Review, The Caliphate TriumphantHe likened what the UK has become to a dystopian Muslim version of Anthony Burgess’ 1962 book and 1971 film, A Clockwork Orange, depicting Britain ruled by gangs of rampaging young criminal gangs subjected by authorities to “aversion therapy”.  His interview with Salafist and ISIS supporter Anjem Choudary of ‎Al-Muhajiroun  illustrated the barbarians already being monitored inside the gates in the UK.

Soeren Kern in this Gatestone Institute, “British Home Secretary to Islamic Extremists: “The Game is Up”published today discusses Conservative Home Secretary’s platform proposals directed at curtailing Islamization in the UK. Meanwhile let us not forget that PM Cameron championing the City of London becoming the world center for Sharia Finance at an address before the World Islamic Economic Forum in London in 2013.

May’s plan for redressing untoward Islamization in the UK is outlined by Kern:

The plan is part of the Tory election manifesto, a declaration of policies and programs to be implemented if Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party stays in power after the general election on May 7.

The home secretary has pledged that a future Tory government would — among other measures — ban Islamic hate preachers, shut down extremist mosques and review whether Sharia courts in England and Wales are compatible with British values.

May has also promised to crack down on Islamic extremism in British prisons, to monitor how police are responding to so-called honor crimes, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, and to change the citizenship law to ensure that successful applicants respect British values.

May in a March 23rd speech laid out the basis for the Conservative ‘manifesto:’

“There is increasing evidence that a small but significant number of people living in Britain — almost all of whom are British citizens — reject our values. We have seen the Trojan Horse plot to take over state schools in Birmingham. Some concerns about religious supplementary schools. Widespread allegations of corruption, cronyism, extremism, homophobia and anti-Semitism in Tower Hamlets. Hate speakers invited to speak at British colleges and universities. Segregation by gender allowed at universities and even endorsed by Universities UK [a lobbying group representing British universities]. Charities and the generosity of the giving public abused by extremists. Examples of Sharia law being used to discriminate against women. Thousands of ‘honor’ crimes committed every year. And hundreds of British citizens who have travelled to fight in Syria and Iraq.

“It’s clear from these examples that extremism can take many forms. It can be ideological, or it can be driven by social and cultural norms that are contrary to British values and quite simply unacceptable. We have been clear all along that the Government’s counter-extremism strategy must seek to defeat extremism in all its forms, but it’s obvious from the evidence that the most serious and widespread form of extremism we need to confront is Islamist extremism.

“Islamist extremists believe in a clash of civilizations. They promote a fundamental incompatibility between Islamic and Western values, an inevitable divide between ‘them and us.’ They demand a caliphate, or a new Islamic state, governed by a harsh interpretation of Sharia law. They utterly reject British and Western values, including democracy, the rule of law, and equality between citizens, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. They believe that it’s impossible to be a good Muslim and a good British citizen. And they dismiss anybody who disagrees with them — including other Muslims — as ‘kafirs,’ or non-believers.

“Extremism is not something that can just be ignored. It cannot be wished away. It must be tackled head on. Because where extremism takes root the consequences are clear. Women’s rights are eroded. There is discrimination on the basis of race and sexuality. There is no longer equal access to the labor market, to the law, or to wider society. Communities become segregated and cut off from one another. Intolerance, hatred and bigotry become normalized. Trust is replaced by fear, reciprocity by envy, and solidarity by division.

“But tackling extremism is also important because of its link to terrorism. Not all extremism leads to violence and not all extremists are violent, but there is without doubt a thread that binds the kind of extremism that promotes hatred and a sense of superiority over others to the actions of those who want to impose their beliefs on us through violence.

“I know there are some people who disagree with me. They say what I describe as Islamist extremism is simply social conservatism. But if anybody else discriminated against women, denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs, rejected the democratic process, attacked people on the basis of their sexuality, or gave a nod and a wink in favor of violence and terrorism, we wouldn’t hesitate to challenge them or — if the law was broken — call for their prosecution and punishment.

May ended her speech with a warning to Islamic extremists: “The game is up. We will no longer tolerate your behavior. We will expose your hateful beliefs for what they are. Where you seek to spread hate, we will disrupt you. Where you break the law, we will prosecute you. Where you seek to divide us, we will stand united. And together, we will defeat you.”

May’s Manifesto has unnerved Universities and Justice Ministers over free speech matters and control of imprisoned radical Imams.   Harass Rafik of the Quillam Foundation commented:

“For the lifetime of this coalition government we have had no published strategy on tackling the ideas and ideology behind non-violent extremism. We are still having the same conversations. We are still talking about Sharia law, still talking about learning more, still talking about tackling non-violent extremism, why aren’t we doing it?”

Banning non-violent extremists in a liberal secular democracy does not work. We can say over the last 10 years the policy does not work. Take the policy of Anjem Choudary and Al-Muhajiroun. Once they were banned initially, they just kept popping up under different names.”

There were the usual Muslim advocates decrying May’s plan as “Islamophobia:”

The chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Massoud Shadjareh, said: “Nobody will be fooled by the Home Secretary’s claims that these measures are designed to tackle extremism. They are a shameless expression of a hate and bigotry that is increasingly becoming normalized in Britain.” Manzoor Moghal, the chairman of the Muslim Forum, a think tank, told the BBC that May’s proposals would infringe on freedom of speech. “We might be sleep walking into what would be like a police state,” he said. Moghal also said that Sharia courts “do not contradict British laws” and were “subservient to British laws all the time.”

However, as Kern noted in his conclusion, my radio panel colleague of a decade ago, Nigel Farage’s UKIP now is ranked the third party in the UK because of its strong stand against Islamization that appeals to British voters. Kern notes that it “twice as popular as the Liberal Democrats” in the current Cameron government coalition. A tight race coming up on May 7th that might mark a roll back of Islamization in the UK, before it becomes a dystopian Muslim version of Burgess’ A Clock Work Orange.

***

British Islamists Respond to Theresa May: Go to Hell; We’ll Be Happy If They Deport Us to Syria:

UK: Whatever Happened to that Muslim Brotherhood Review?

Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, March 30, 2015:

The former head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, has described the Muslim Brotherhood as “at heart a terrorist organization.”

Officials who are soft on extremism hope that both the extremism strategy and the Muslim Brotherhood review are not merely being kicked into the long grass but will, in fact, never see the light of day.

This is, it must be said, politics at its very worst. The Muslim Brotherhood has wreaked havoc for decades. Its desire to carry our coups and to rule Middle Eastern countries according to the rule of a hardline interpretation of Islamic law is not ancient history — it is very recent history.

Britain has for some years now been the major global hub of for these revolutionaries to fundraise, organize and dip in and out of whenever they are in or out of power.

When countries harbor Britain’s enemies, we rightly regard those countries as less than friendly toward us. If Britain fails to publish the Muslim Brotherhood review, it will not just show that the country is unreliable to its friends and even to its own citizens.

What has happened to the British government’s “review” into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK?

The “review” (officials have been careful not to refer to it as an ‘”inquiry”) into the Muslim Brotherhood’s “philosophy and values and alleged connections with extremism and violence” was announced by Prime Minister David Cameron almost a year ago. At a press conference, he said that Britain’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, would lead the review. Explaining the need for such a process, Mr. Cameron said:

“What I think is important about the Muslim Brotherhood is that we understand what this organisation is, what it stands for, what its beliefs are in terms of the path of extremism and violent extremism, what its connections are with other groups, what its presence is here in the United Kingdom. Our policies should be informed by a complete picture of that knowledge.”

This is indeed something that is important. So why, a year later, have the findings of this review still not been published?

From the outset, the whole process has been subject to considerable public and private criticism, not to say opposition. Those people in the commentariat and political class who are generally uncritical of non-violent extremism (or rather “not violent, here, for the time-being” extremism) protested against conducting the Muslim Brotherhood review from the outset. Last year, for instance, the Financial Times quoted a “senior government figure,” saying that the investigation “Cuts against what the FCO has already been doing in this area… It risks turning supporters of a moderate, non-violent organisation that campaigns for democracy into radicals.”

This was a particularly revealing statement: it showed that apart from anything else, there were, from the outset, people at the very top of government who think that the Muslim Brotherhood is a harmless, pro-democracy group that is being unfairly and unhelpfully maligned. This is not the view of many experts on Middle Eastern politics. And it is certainly not the view of the former head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, who has described the Muslim Brotherhood as “at heart a terrorist organisation.” It also revealed the thinking in at least part of Britain’s political class.

There were also complaints from those who saw the review as only having been ordered because it was in fact some type of political or religious sectarian set-up. There were claims that the UK government had only ordered this process at the behest of the Egyptian government – which branded the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group again in 2013, after the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood-run government. Others claimed that the review had been ordered at the behest of the Saudis – a line bolstered by the appointment of Sir John Jenkins.

Despite these objections, Sir John got on with his review. Experts were called in over the course of several months and the review itself was finished some months ago. So why has nobody seen it?

For some time, the stalling has been put down to an issue of “sensitivity.” There are allied countries, potentially banks and certain figures in authority in allied countries, who may not come out well from Sir John’s review. It is also likely that prominent Muslim Brotherhood figures in the UK have been identified by name. Any and all of these people could have objected to being identified. One rumour in Westminster for some time has been that Muslim Brotherhood leaders, or the organisation as a whole, had considered issuing an injunction against the Prime Minister to prevent the publication of the report. How the Muslim Brotherhood could issue an injunction against a British Prime Minister in the British courts is uncertain, but there are certainly likely to be libel and other issues around.

Of course, these problems are fairly easy to get around by issuing a heavily redacted version of the report while keeping the full version for official use only. Indeed, before the latest stall it was expected that there would be a publication only of a two-page summary of the review’s main findings. But now it seems that even this will not be able to be released. So what is going on?

The UK government is running close to the period in which no more releases of potentially political information can be presented from Whitehall. This period, before the election, is generally referred to as “purdah.” The UK is about to enter this period, and the Muslim Brotherhood review is not the only document likely to become a victim. The British government has yet to release its new counter-extremism strategy. This long-awaited document was meant to be launched in January, but infighting at the top of the coalition government has delayed it. Credible reports say that the coalition has stalled over the refusal of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (leader of the Liberal Democrats) to endorse measures which would, among other things, stop extremist preachers and recruiters touring UK universities.

The counter-extremism strategy was meant to be released on the same day as the Muslim Brotherhood review. But now both are about to fall afoul of the pre-election deadline, and thus fall into post-election publication. That, of course, is precisely what Nick Clegg and other officials who are soft on extremism would like. Their hope is that the Conservative Party does not become the largest party after May 5th, so that both the extremism strategy and the Muslim Brotherhood review are not merely being kicked into the long grass but will, in fact, never see the light of day.

This is, it must be said, politics at its very worst. The Muslim Brotherhood has wreaked havoc for decades. Its desire to carry out coups and to rule Middle Eastern countries according to the rule of a hardline interpretation of Islamic law is not ancient history – it is very recent history. Britain has for some years now been the major global hub for these revolutionaries to fundraise, organize and dip in and out of whenever they are in or out of power.

Muhammad Ghanem, the representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, is shown here speaking on live television from London, in 2011. (Image source: MEMRI)

A decent democracy would not behave towards its public, allies and friends like this. When countries harbour Britain’s enemies, we rightly regard those countries as less than friendly toward us. If Britain fails to publish the Muslim Brotherhood review, it will not just show that the country is unreliable to its friends and even to its own citizens. It will show that it is outstandingly weak in the face of our society’s most obvious enemies.

Britain Surrenders

Muslim-rape-gang-450x260Frontpage, March 23, 2015 by Robert Spencer:

The phenomenon of Muslim rape gangs in Britain, and the unwillingness of law enforcement officials had of prosecuting them for fear of being tarred with charges of “racism,” is hardly summed up by the word “scandal” anymore. This isn’t just a scandal, it’s a surrender – a cultural and societal collapse unprecedented in human history.

The BBC reported last week that “South Yorkshire Police knew hundreds of young girls were making claims of sexual abuse in Sheffield but did not act, an ex-police officer has alleged.” The tally of these abused girls is beyond belief: last month, the Mirror reported that “there could be up to a million victims of child sexual exploitation in the UK, it is feared.”

What kind of society allows a million – a million! — of its young girls to be pressed into service as sex slaves and prostitutes by predatory gangs? What kind of society declines to hunt down, prosecute, imprison, deport more than a small number of these gang members, because its guardians of law and justice know that the Leftist establishment would accuse them of racism, bigotry and Islamophobia, and bring them to certain professional ruin, if they dared try to bring these men to justice?

What kind of society allows this? A desperately ill society. A dying society.

And there is no doubt that that is what happened. 1,400 British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in the British city of Rotherham, in accord with the Qur’anic allowance for the sexual enslavement of infidel women that the Islamic State has pointed to in order to justify its exploitation of captive Yazidi and Christian women. British officials there “described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”

It was the same thing in Sheffield. According to the BBC, more then 200 girls were sexually abused there by over 320 men – subjected to rape, trafficking, beatings, and threats. Some of the girls involved were as young as twelve years old. The BBC, ever careful not to offend Muslims, fastidiously notes that “the nationalities of the alleged abusers include a mixture of Iraqi Kurds, white British, black British, and Pakistani Heritage, among others.”

But these men did not victimize and brutalize these girls because of their nationality. They did so because they believed that their religion justified such behavior. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Muslim 3371)

Notice that the controversy is not over whether the Muslims can rape the captives but only over coitus interruptus. The rape is taken for granted.

How many more of these Muslim rape gangs have yet to be discovered? How many will it take for shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain to discard its willful ignorance and recognize why this is happening?

The question is rhetorical. A society that would allow one million of its young girls’ lives to be destroyed just so as not to appear racist is already galloping down the road to ruin. Farewell, Perfidious Albion.

***

Also see:

British PM Pulls MB Report

IPT, by John Rossomando  •  Mar 16, 2015

British Prime Minister David Cameron pulled a report Monday which was widely expected to recommend against labeling the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

The review, led by Britain’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, also is expected to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United Kingdom should be more open and remain under review. No concrete policy recommendations are expected; however, it is expected to name a network of linked organizations alleged to be involved in extremist activities.

This network reportedly included a complex web of at least 60 organizations, think tanks, TV channels and charities with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. The British government decided in December that it would release only a summary of the full report.

Cameron requested the report in April, reportedly at the instigation of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

6a01156fb0b420970c01a73d85b11c970d-800wi

The anticipated recommendations could place Britain at odds with Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization last year. The UAE included the U.K.-based Cordoba Foundation, headed by Muslim Brotherhood leader Anas al-Tikriti, and the Muslim Association of Britain(MAB) on its list of terrorist organizations.

Al-Tikriti previously served as MAB’s spokesman and has a track record of supporting Hamas. He also supported Islamist terrorists in their fight against U.S. and U.K. troops following Saddam Hussein’s fall.

British ministers worry that being too tough on the Brotherhood could annoy Qatar, which recently signed an intelligence agreement with the U.K.

Disputes over the Muslim Brotherhood’s terror connections delayed the report’s scheduled release, but the Financial Times suggests that the report is unlikely to see the light of day prior to Britain’s May 7 elections.

“I would like to update the House [the UK parliament] that a report into the main findings of the Muslim Brotherhood Review will be published alongside the Government’s new counter-extremism strategy,” Cameron told the MPs in a writtenstatement.

Cameron’s decision to pull the report even surprised his Liberal Democratic coalition partners. They reportedly agreed to its publication on Friday.

The Muslim Brotherhood hopes to use the report as political cover in its fight against the Egyptian government’s crackdown.

“If the British government claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization, the crackdown on MB members in Egypt could be eased,” MB lawyer Mohammed al-Damatti told the Cairo Post.

***

Postponed; UK Media Gets In Wrong About The Brotherhood And Terrorism

By gmbwatch on March 16, 2015:

The Financial Times in the UK is reporting that UK Prime Minister has intervened to postpone the publication of an investigation he ordered into the Muslim Brotherhood. According to a Financial Times report:

March 16, 2015 David Cameron has made an eleventh-hour intervention to postpone the publication of a controversial report into the Muslim Brotherhood in an attempt to avert a potential row with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The long-awaited report was due to be published on Monday afternoon but Mr Cameron’s move now means it is unlikely to be released before the UK general election on May 7, if at all. It was expected to conclude that the Muslim Brotherhood should not be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, although its activities in Britain should be more transparent and kept under review.

The Brotherhood has been banned by Saudi Arabia and the UAE; some ministers say the two Gulf countries pressured Mr Cameron into setting up the investigation in the first place.”

The Brotherhood has been banned by Saudi Arabia and the UAE; some ministers say the two Gulf countries pressured Mr Cameron into setting up the investigation in the first place.Just hours before its scheduled publication, Mr Cameron pulled the report, saying it should instead be released alongside the coalition government’s new counter-extremism strategy. Some officials in the Foreign Office had expressed concern the report could undermine Britain’s relations with key Gulf allies.

Downing Street said publication would happen “as soon as possible” but gave no guarantee this would take place before the House of Commons is dissolved at the end of this month. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Conservative foreign secretary, said the delay was “bound to raise eyebrows”, adding: “It’s not a very impressive example of how to handle a sensitive subject.”

Read the rest here.

Although the Financial Times and other UK media are reporting that the the UK investigation will not designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, the GMBDW is forced to conclude that any failure to so designate the Muslim Brotherhood represents a political decision and not a decision based on the available evidence. The Financial Times report did cite a comment by the GMBDW editor on the importance of the UK to the European Muslim Brotherhood, part of a broader set of comments also reported in The Independent today, but neither paper included his comments on the relationship between the Brotherhood and terrorism and the GMBW has extensively documented that global Brotherhood networks are enmeshed with terrorism at a number of different levels. While the GMBDW awaits the publication of the UK report before drawing any final conclusions, we are deeply skeptical that any of the above evidence below, for example, was taken into account.

To begin with, the Global Muslim Brotherhood has long been engaged in rhetorical tactics relating to terrorism that serve in various ways to legitimize the phenomenon. In 2008, we published an analysis titled “Muslim Brotherhood Positions On Terrorism- Denial, Deception, Defense, And Obstruction” that examined these tactics in detail. As recently as April 2013, we reported on an article published by an individual tied to the Canadian Muslim Brotherhood that neatly illustrates each of these four tactics. However, the Global Muslim Brotherhood support for terrorism goes far beyond rhetorical tactics. It is clear that the whole of the global Brotherhood acts in support of Hamas which is not surprising given that Hamas is intimately related to the Brotherhood and the Hamas charter says that it is “one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.” This support takes many forms including both political support as well as financial support as demonstrated for example by the Union of Good (UOG), a worldwide coalition of charities headed by global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi that has provided financial support to both the Hamas  “social” infrastructure, as well as its terrorist activities.

Yet the relationship of the Global Muslim Brotherhood with terrorism extends beyond support for Palestinian terrorism despite the common notion that there is a “firewall” between the Global Muslim Brotherhood and groups such as Al Qaeda. For example, global Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi has had a long standing relationship with Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Umayr al-Nu’aymi (Nu’aymi) who was designated by the US Treasury in December 2013 for providing financial support to al-Qa’ida, Asbat al-Ansar, al-Qa’ida in Iraq, and al-Shabaab. Al-Nu’aymi also heads the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign (GAAC), an international Islamist umbrella group which is comprised of Islamist scholars tied to the Global Muslim Brotherhood as well as Salafi-Jihadi scholars including individuals designated as terrorists by the US. We have reported that Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood leader and Qaradawi associate Rachid Ghannouchi had spoken at a December 2011 GACC meeting along with Dr. Walid Musa’id al-Tabatibai (aka Walid al-Tabtabai), a well-known Kuwaiti parliamentarian and Salafi leader who authored a letter praising Osama Bin Laden. In June 2013, we reported that a  conference on Syria was held in Cairo that included Youssef Qaradawi as well as more than 70 religious organizations from across the Arab world and that was jointly organized by various Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood groups in the Middle East and Europe together with the GACC. Also attending the Cairo conference was Salah Sultan, close to Qaradawi and last reported as the subject of an Egyptian arrest warrant as part of the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.

For background on the UK investigation, go here.

Muslim Group Accuses Government of Trying to ‘Criminalize’ Islam

muslim-lives-matter-AFP-640x480

Breitbart, by Andre Walker, March 12, 2015:

A group of “Imams, sheikhs, advocates, activists, community leaders, community organisations and student bodies of the Muslim community” have issued a joint statement claiming the government is trying to “criminalise” Islam.

The 128 signatories to the letter claim that Muslims are being unfairly accused of being a threat to national security, inorder to solicit votes at the General Election. The group make nine specific points on the website 5Pillars, they are printed below:

1) We reject the exploitation of Muslim issues and the ‘terror threat’ for political capital, in particular in the run up to a general election. Exploiting public fears about security is as dishonourable as exploiting public fears about immigration. Both deflect attention from crises in the economy and health service, but are crude and divisive tactics, where the big parties inevitably try to outdo each other in their nastiness.

2) We deplore the continued public targeting of Muslims through endless ‘anti-terror’ laws. There have been around ten pieces of legislation since the year 2000, all giving huge powers to the state, which have fuelled a media hysteria even though in most cases no crime was committed. This has created a distressing and harmful backlash towards Muslims, especially women and children.

3) We reject the portrayal of Muslims and the Muslim community as a security threat. The latest Act of Parliament, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, threatens to create a ‘McCarthyite’ witch-hunt against Muslims, with nursery workers, schoolteachers and Universities expected to look out for signs of increased Islamic practice as signs of ‘radicalisation’. Such a narrative will only further damage social cohesion as it incites suspicion and ill feeling in the broader community.

4) The expedient use of undefined and politically charged words like ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ is unacceptable as it criminalises legitimate political discourse and criticism of the stance of successive governments towards Muslims domestically and abroad. We strongly oppose political proposals to further ‘tackle’ and ‘crack down’ on such dissenting voices in the Muslim community despite their disavowal of violence and never having supported terrorist acts.

5) Similarly, it is unacceptable to label as ‘extremist’ numerous normative Islamic opinions on a variety of issues, founded on the Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), implying there is a link between them and violence, using such labels as an excuse to silence speakers.

6) We affirm our commitment to robust political and ideological debate and discourse for the betterment of humanity at large. The attempts by the state to undermine this bring into question its commitment to its very own purported values and liberal freedoms.

7) We affirm our concern about peace and security for all. We, however, refuse to be lectured on peace-building and harmony by a government that plays divisive politics and uses fear to elicit uncertainty in the general public, whilst maintaining support for dictators across the Muslim world, who continue to brutalise any legitimate political opposition to their tyranny.

8) We affirm our intention to hold on to our beliefs and values, to speak out for what is right and against what is wrong based on our principles, whether that be on matters such as the securitisation of society, corporate hegemony, war and peace, economic exploitation, social and moral issues in society, nationalism and racism. Not to do so would be dangerous and leave our community unguided.

9) We call on all fair minded people in Britain – including politicians, journalists, academics, bloggers and others concerned about fairness for all – to continue to scrutinise the scare tactics, fear-mongering and machinations of politicians, which do not bode well for societal harmony and only increase the alienation felt and experienced by Britain’s Muslim community.”

Amongst the signatories was the former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Moazzam Begg. Mr Begg now serves as the outreach Director for CAGE, the group that claimed Mohammed Emwazi was radicalised because he was harrassed by the British Inteligence Services.

There were also two signatories from the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the group that named Charlie Hebdo “International Islamophobe of the Year” despite the staff having been murdered.

WATCH You’ve Been Warned: The Dark Future of Europe, by an Expert on Muslim Radicalisation

Jihad-French-Army-640x480Breitbart, by OLIVER LANE, 8 Mar 2015:

George Igler, the director of the Discourse Institute, a think-tank which monitors the suppression of freedom of speech and offers support and protection to those who are persecuted for voicing controversial opinions in Europe was interviewed by American television network CBN for a new feature series called Warnings. Focussing on the expert analysis of world leading thinkers on subjects posing challenges to the Christian West, Igler was asked to speak on the topics that, in the words of CBN senior reporter Dale Hurd: “you should be hearing from the “mainstream media” but aren’t because of its bowing and bondage to political correctness and, in some cases, cultural Marxism.

“These will be, in many cases, dark visions of the future, because Europe, if it doesn’t wake up, faces a dark future”.

Speaking on the duplicity of the European political class, Igler said the spectre of resurgent Fascism and the “far right” had been used as a smoke screen to distract people, remarking: “it’s not thanks to Philip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang [A Belgian political party that would oblige migrants to adopt local customs and culture] that the Jewish population of Antwerp is currently under guard from Belgian paratroopers, it’s the fact that Belgium has a huge Muslim population. Brussels has a 26-percent Muslim population.

“There are a lot of particularly left wing political analysts who made a lot of money in a anti-radicalisation industry saying the real thing to fear was the growth of the far-right”.

Igler later speaks of literalistic interpretations of the Koran which are becoming more common in Britain, and dominate the thinking of the Islamic State: “If you believe in the five words in Chapter (2:191) that Idolatry is worse than carnage… then you are not an equal and relevant part of Western society, you are in fact a colonist. You are someone who has exactly the same opinions and intentions towards 21st century Europe, that Europeans had towards the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries.

“This is a reality that we are forced to live with. Somewhere, at some decision making process it has been decided up on high that my continent, and the rights and freedoms that uniquely evolved here over 3,000 years are somehow at the stage in which Islam should be allowed to moderate”.

Watch Warnings

 

Also see:

Child sex scandal council hires ‘mentors’ linked to hard-liners

Street UK's founder, Abdul Haqq Baker, pictured outside Brixton Mosque in 2001 Photo: Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph

Street UK’s founder, Abdul Haqq Baker, pictured outside Brixton Mosque in 2001 Photo: Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph

Council which failed dozens of girls abused by a sex grooming ring has hired a radical Islamic group with links to the Trojan Horse plot to “mentor” potential abusers from the Muslim community.

Telegraph, By Andrew Gilligan, Feb. 22, 2015:

The council which failed scores of girls abused by a sex grooming ring has hired a radical Islamic group to “mentor” potential abusers from the Muslim community.

The group, Street UK, also has links to the Trojan Horse plot, in which hard-line Muslims sought to Islamise state schools and push out secular head teachers.

The contract is part of Oxfordshire County Council’s response to Operation Bullfinch, which saw seven men convicted of 59 sex crimes against children and sentenced to a total of 95 years in prison. Five were of Pakistani origin and two were North African.

The council is braced for fierce criticism next week in a “serious case review” into the scandal. All the victims were known to Oxfordshire social services and five were living in council care, but for years officials and police ignored complaints from their parents and other warnings that the children were being raped and sold for sex.

In an effort to answer the attacks, the council has engaged Street UK, which it describes as a “national youth charity,” for a “pilot mentoring programme” in Oxfordshire’s Muslim communities to “work closely with those at risk of perpetrating child sexual exploitation and divert them away from such activity.” Street UK is in fact a group which had its government grant cancelled in 2011 after paying for the publication of a booklet by Salafi Manhaj, which issues regular fatwas enforcing a Salafist, or ultra-literal and conservative, view of Islam.

The fatwas call participation in parliament a “sin”, oppose “man-made laws”, such as British law, describe “those who speak in the name of ‘freedom of religion’ ” as “enemies of Islam” and forbid “a man and woman to be alone together under all circumstances”, unless married.

Salafi Manhaj condemns football as “impermissible” because players wear shorts and spectators “turn away from the remembrance of Allah” in a spirit of “repugnant bias and partisanship towards different teams”.

Street UK’s website published advice on clothing and music from anti-Semitic and extremist Salafi clerics. Its founder, Abdul Haqq Baker, an ultra-conservative Salafist, was chairman of Brixton Mosque, attended by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and Zacharias Moussaoui, 9/11’s “twentieth hijacker”. He says he tried to warn the authorities about them and opposes violence.

“This form of Salafism is strongly opposed to terrorism but promotes an extreme and separatist view of Islam,” said Haras Rafiq, director of Quilliam, an anti-extremism think tank. “They are not the right people to be working with potential abusers – or anyone else.” Despite this, Oxfordshire is far from the only public authority to employ the group. The Sunday Telegraph has established that Street UK has secured work to prevent child abuse from at least three other local safeguarding boards: Staffordshire, North Yorkshire and the east London borough of Havering.

It has also worked in at least four prisons, including “intensive mentoring of high-risk individuals” at Wormwood Scrubs in London, mentoring female offenders at Holloway, and young offender work at Rochester and Cookham Wood prisons. It has worked in schools in East Lancashire and West Yorkshire, and carried out other publicly-funded projects in London, Birmingham and Blackburn.

However, it is not clear where the money paid to the group has gone. Street UK does not appear to be a charity and has no connection to the charity of the same name, which deals with financial services. It was a company, but published its last accounts in 2010 and has now been dissolved. Its website is no longer operational.

Read more

One Million Child Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.?

Mr-450x299Frontpage,  by Arnold Ahlert, Feb. 9, 2015:

In a gut-wrenching development, it may turn out that last year’s report detailing a decade-and-a-half of sexual exploitation inflicted on at least 1,400 children from Rotherham, England—and the PC-driven effort to cover it up–may represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The city’s Labor MP Sarah Champion believes as many as one million children may have been victimized, describing it as a “national disaster” that requires the establishment of a task force to deal with the “horror.”

Champion picks up the story following the release of a report, titled “The Independent Inquiry Into Child Exploitation in Rotherham, 1997-2013.” “The day after the first report broke the victims started coming to me,” she told the Daily Mirror. “They couldn’t go to the police, they couldn’t go to the (Rotherham Borough) Council. So who do you go to?”

“For the first three weeks I generally thought I was losing my mind. I nearly lost my mind because of the level of depravity and horror,” she continued. “Listening to what these, now women, had gone through and how they were just left discarded, to flounder on their own. It was utterly mind-blowing and then the problem I had was that I was getting new cases coming to me, ones that hadn’t been reported which they wanted me to report. But I didn’t know who I could trust in the police to report it.”

“There was this parallel universe going on and it is mind-blowing,” she added, revealing that an average of 10 victims per week are seeking her help. Furthermore, it seems her concerns about the police were well-founded: a month after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began its investigation, 14 officers were suspended.

Last week a subsequent inspection report written by former Victims’ Commissioner Louise Casey was released, following allegations two councillors and a police officer had engaged in sex with minors. It hammered the Council for being “in denial” and failing to protect children because of “misplaced political correctness.” Minutes after the report’s findings were published, the entire Labor Cabinet of Rotherham Council, along with leader Paul Lakin, resigned. Five senior Whitehall officials, including a children’s services specialist, will assume control of the authority.

Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles announced new elections aimed at replacing the council’s “wholly dysfunctional” political leadership. “It is because the council is so seriously failing the people of Rotherham, and particularly some of the most vulnerable in that borough, that I am proposing to take this truly exceptional step,” he explained. “My aim will be to return these responsibilities to local democratic control as rapidly as possible.”

Cases contained in Casey’s report are highly disturbing. One concerns an alleged rape with a broken bottle, and girls being ordered to kiss the feet of a perpetrator at gunpoint. A mind-numbing 61 pregnancies were attributed to rapes. “Children were sexually exploited by men who came largely from the ­Pakistani heritage ­community,” the report stated. “Not enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators.” Inspectors further noted that council members bullied victims, with a witness insisting the council viewed those victims as “little slags.”

The police weren’t any better, refusing to believe accusations made by young girls on numerous occasions. “They were threatened with wasting police time, they were told they had consented to sex and, on occasion, they were arrested at the scene of a crime, rather than the perpetrators,” the report reveals.

Adding insult to injury, whistleblowers who raised concerns lost their jobs. “I stepped forward on behalf of young people – it cost me my job and my career,” one ex-staff member revealed.

A local police officer aptly illuminated the reasons for the coverup. “They were running scared of the race issue… there is no doubt that in Rotherham, this has been a problem with Pakistani men for years and years,” the officer explained. “People were scared of being called racist.”

Following the second report’s release, the National Crime Agency said it was looking into what were described as “potentially criminal matters.”

Last Wednesday an independent inquiry into the Rotherham scandal, along with the Westminster VIP pedophile ring that allegedly consisted of high-ranking members of Britain’s establishment abusing young boys in the 1970s and 1980s, was initiated. UK Home Secretary Theresa May appointed New Zealand High Court judge Lowell Goddard to lead the investigation that may last until 2018. In addition to investigating the two scandals, Goddard’s inquiry will also determine whether other public bodies, including government entities, charitable organizations, the Church and the BBC, also failed to step up and protect children.

The probe was initially set up last July to deal with the Westminster case, but failed to move forward due to a series of scandals that included the disappearance of a 40-page dossier on suspected establishment pedophiles compiled in 1983, raising suspicions of a government cover-up. May reached overseas for her investigator because the inquiry lost its first two chairs due to questions about their possible links with establishment figures.

Goddard promised the latest effort would put survivors “at the forefront and the whole center” of her inquiry. She will travel to the UK to meet Secretary May and discuss the investigation’s scope. The National Crime Agency told the Daily Mail Goddard’s probe would not slow down their own investigation.

A victim of the Rotherham scandal was overjoyed at the latest turn of events. “Finally somebody has listened to us,” said a mother whose daughter had been sexually exploited for five years—beginning at age 11. “Thank god my children will be safe now.”

Perhaps. “There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now, Champion warned. “Girls in the process of being groomed.” She explained her calculations “If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary,” she said.

Not really. It’s a very ordinary and predictable reflex born of decades of infatuation with political correctness and multiculturalism. Better to allow children as young as 11 to be systematically abused in Rotherham for more than 16 years, chiefly by men of Pakistani descent, than be labeled a bigot, racist or Islamophobe. Better to fire whistleblowers and better to bully the victims and/or dismiss them as low-lifes who deserve it.

This expanding investigation is now about far more than sexual abuse. The character of the entire UK is on trial. Soon the world will know whether their surrender to multiculturalism and political correctness is completely abject—and irreversible.

Also see:

How the Muslim Brotherhood fits into a network of extremism

Essam Mustafa, from Interpal, with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh

Essam Mustafa, from Interpal, with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh

The Telegraph, By Andrew Gilligan, Feb. 8, 2015:

The Government is preparing a major clampdown on organisations linked to the terror group Hamas after the long-awaited publication of its review into the Muslim Brotherhood.

The review, by the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, has been delayed for months amid disputes about how strongly it should say the Brotherhood is linked to terrorism.

It is expected to say that the Brotherhood, a multifaceted organisation, is not itself a terrorist group and should not be banned, a verdict most analysts agree with.

However, the report will dismiss claims by the Brotherhood that there is “no evidence” of links between it and terrorism. “There are clear links and Jenkins will trigger further action against some Brotherhood and Hamas-linked groups,” said one official source. Many of the groups have already been squeezed by removing their bank accounts.

Only a summary of the Jenkins report will be published. However, a separate investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found a number of clear overlaps between the Brotherhood’s UK operations and those of organisations linked to Hamas, which is banned as a terrorist organisation throughout the Western world. In particular, it is striking how often they appear to share premises.

One person involved in counter-extremism said: “When you start forensically going through the names and locations, there’s no way the Brotherhood can keep up the denials.”

The Sunday Telegraph has established that the main hubs for the Brotherhood’s operations in Europe are Westgate House, a serviced office block at the Hangar Lane roundabout in Ealing, west London, and Crown House, about half a mile north of it on the North Circular Road.

The two buildings contain at least 25 organisations linked to the Brotherhood, or to Hamas. A third building very close by – Pinnacle House on Old Oak Common Lane – houses Interpal, another major charity which has had close links to the Brotherhood and Hamas. Interpal is banned by the US government as a terrorist organisation.

Muslim_Brotherhood_3191823c

Crown House, above, and, below, Westgate House, both in London, are the Muslim Brotherhood’s main hubs in Europe

Muslim_Brotherhood_3191822c

Interpal is allowed to operate in the UK after claiming it has broken its links with Hamas, a claim accepted by the Charity Commission.

However, its managing trustee, Essam Mustafa, was pictured just over a year ago accompanying the Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, on an official visit in Gaza. The two were later filmed clapping and singing together. Mr Mustafa is a former member of Hamas’s executive committee.

The organisations based at Westgate House include the Cordoba Foundation, described by David Cameron as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood” and run by Anas al-Tikriti, the key spokesman and lobbyist for the Brotherhood in Britain, though he claims not to be a member himself. The Cordoba Foundation’s office is on the seventh floor of the building.

Mr al-Tikriti states openly that “the Brotherhood supports Hamas. I believe that if you are occupied you need to fight back.” Mr al-Tikriti co-founded a group called the British Muslim Initiative with a senior commander in Hamas, Mohammed Sawalha, and a Hamas “special envoy,” Azzam Tamimi.

The seventh floor of Westgate House also houses the Muslim Charities Forum, an umbrella body for 10 British charities, at least six of which have funded Hamas organisations and most of which can also be linked to the Brotherhood.

The Muslim Charities Forum was stripped of £250,000 in Government grants in December in what the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, described as a decision to “cease funding any organisation that supports or is linked to individuals who fuel hatred, division and violence.” More than £100,000 of the grant has already been paid, however.

Six of the Muslim Charities Forum’s 10 members are or were members of the Union of Good, also known as the 101 Days Campaign. The Union of Good is designated by the US Treasury Department as a terrorist organisation created by the Hamas leadership “in order to facilitate the transfer of funds to Hamas”.

The Union of Good is chaired by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a key intellectual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who has twice turned down offers to become its political leader.

Mr Al-Qaradawi, who is banned from the UK, is a strong supporter of suicide bombings, describing Israeli civilians as legitimate targets. The Union of Good’s founder and general secretary was Essam Mustafa, the managing trustee of the British charity Interpal.

Members of the Muslim Charities Forum include Muslim Aid, which has admitted funding organisations run by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Islamic Help, which works closely with a Hamas front organisation in Gaza; Muslim Hands, which also funds Hamas front bodies; and Human Appeal International, accused by the FBI, CIA and in the leaked US diplomatic telegrams of funding Hamas and of other terrorist links.

The Cordoba Foundation’s Anas al-Tikriti

The Cordoba Foundation’s Anas al-Tikriti

The Brotherhood’s objective is to replace secular democratic government with an Islamic caliphate under sharia law. Members swear an oath of allegiance declaring that “the Quran is our constitution” and “to die for the sake of God is our greatest objective”.

The Brotherhood’s leaders insist that it works democratically – albeit to secure the replacement of democracy – and says the British Government review is a form of “pandering” by Britain to Gulf dictatorships.

Hamas’s 1988 founding charter states that it is “one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine”, but the British government has tended to treat Hamas and the Brotherhood as unconnected.

The organisations based at Crown House comprise broadly the Brotherhood’s UK outreach wing. They include the Palestinian Return Centre, the Brotherhood campaign group with the closest links to mainstream politics.

The PRC last month met David Quarrey, director for the Middle East at the Foreign Office, according to its website, and was also present at the Labour Friends of Palestine annual dinner in November, addressed by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband. Many MPs have spoken at its events.

The PRC has close links to the Brotherhood, sharing directors with the Muslim Association of Britain, the Brotherhood’s main declared British affiliate.

However, it is also claimed by the Israeli government to be “Hamas’s organisational branch in Europe” whose members are “senior Hamas leaders who promote the movement’s agenda in Europe”.

The PRC denies these claims. However, it has regularly hosted Hamas leaders, including Mr Haniyeh, at its annual conferences.

Other organisations at Crown House are Middle East Monitor (Memo), a news site which promotes a strongly pro-Brotherhood and pro-Hamas view of the region. Memo’s director, Daud Abdullah, is also a leader of the Brotherhood-linked British Muslim Initiative, set up and run by the Brotherhood activist Anas al-Tikriti and two senior figures in Hamas.

Memo’s “senior editor”, Ibrahim Hewitt, is chairman of Interpal, the Hamas and Brotherhood-linked charity.

Another organisation at Crown House is the Emirates Centre for Human Rights (ECHR), also set up by Anas al-Tikriti. Its website was registered to his wife, Malath Shakir. Its founding director, Abdus Salam, is the husband of Mr al-Tikriti’s sister.

The ECHR has co-organised at least two meetings at the House of Commons with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights. The ECHR’s director, Anas Mekdad, has personally tweeted supporting recent terrorist attacks in Jerusalem. He is the founder of AlMakeen Network, a UK-based website which also publishes articles praising the Brotherhood, Hamas and suicide bombings.

Other extremist organisations based at Crown House, though not formally linked to the Brotherhood, include the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA), which sends extremist preachers around British universities and mosques.

Both Westgate House and Crown House have other tenants and there is no suggestion that all their tenants are Islamists or extremists.

European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 2: Britain

enclavesby Soeren Kern
February 3, 2015

“There’s things that I see when I’m driving around Birmingham that shouldn’t be happening. I only drive into these areas, never actually walk into these areas, I just wouldn’t. Just in case I did do something that…because of their culture or their religion it was a threat or it was an insult or something.” — Resident of Birmingham.

“There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all… there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves.” — Sir Tom Winsor, chief inspector of the police forces in England and Wales.

“We are sleepwalking our way to segregation. We are becoming strangers to each other and leaving communities to be marooned outside the mainstream.” — Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

“One of the results of [multiculturalism] has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into ‘no-go’ areas where adherence to this ideology [of Islamic extremism] has become a mark of acceptability.” — Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester.

This is the second article in a multi-part series documenting so-called no-go zones in Europe. The first article in this series documents no-go zones in France. This second segment focuses on the United Kingdom. It provides a brief compilation of references to British no-go zones by academic, police, media and government sources.

An erroneous claim on American television that Birmingham, England, is “totally Muslim” and off-limits to non-Muslims has ignited a politically charged debate about the existence of no-go zones in Britain and other European countries.

No-go zones can be defined as Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are de facto off limits to non-Muslims due to a number of factors, including the lawlessness, insecurity or religious intimidation that often pervades these areas.

In some no-go zones, host-country authorities are unable or unwilling to provide even basic public aid, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services, out of fear of being attacked by Muslim gangs that sometimes claim control over such areas.

Muslim enclaves in European cities are also breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism.

Europe’s no-go zones are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to remain segregated from — rather than become integrated into — their European host nations.

The problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist. Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue — often by deliberately mischaracterizing the term “no-go zone.”

Islam expert Andrew C. McCarthy has offered a lucid clarification of what no-go zones are and of what they are not:

“[N]o sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

“White Flight”

In the United Kingdom, much of the debate over no-go zones — in Britain they are sometimes referred to as “Muslim areas” or “Muslim enclaves” — has focused on “white flight,” the large-scale migration of native white Britons out of a given neighborhood as more and more Muslim and other immigrants move in.

Although the issue of “white flight” remains taboo for British multiculturalists, official statistics and academic research confirm that many British cities are undergoing huge demographic transformations due to mass immigration.

A study by Oxford Professor David Coleman showed that if current immigration levels continue, white Britons will be a minority in little more than 50 years — within the lifespan of most young adults alive today. Coleman warned that this will be accompanied by a total change in national identity—cultural, political, economic and religious. He wrote: “The ethnic transformation implicit in current trends would be a major, unlooked-for, and irreversible change in British society, unprecedented for at least a millennium.”

A recent study by the think tank Demos found that native white Britons are increasingly abandoning parts of the country where Muslim immigrants have become the majority of the population. Demos wrote:

“In these areas, departing white British are replaced by immigration or by the natural growth of the minority population. Over time, the end result of this process is a spiral of white British demographic decline.”

An example of this trend is Birmingham. In August 2007, researchers at Manchester University predicted that the number of native white Britons in Birmingham would drop by nearly one-fifth over the next 20 years, from 65% in 2006 to 48% in 2027. At the same time, the number of Pakistanis in the city would nearly quadruple, increasing from 13% in 2006 to 48% in 2027.

In January 2013, Manchester University statistician Ludi Simpson analyzed official data from the 2011 census and found that native white Britons are already a minority in Leicester (45%), Luton (45%) and Slough (35%). He also forecast that they would be a minority in Birmingham by 2019, nearly a decade earlier than the previous estimate.

Muslim Enclaves in Britain

An analysis of 2011 census data reveals the existence of more than 100 Muslim enclaves in Britain. The Muslim population exceeds 85% in some parts of Blackburn and 70% in a half-dozen wards in Birmingham and Bradford. There are also large Muslim communities in Dewsbury, Leicester, London, Luton and Manchester, among others.

Birmingham: Bordesley Green (includes Small Heath) (73.9%); Hodge Hill (includes areas of Saltley and Ward End) (41.5%); Ladywood (35.2%); Lozells and East Handsworth (48.9%); Nechells (43.5%); Sparkbrook (includes Sparkhill) (70.2%); Washwood Heath (includes Alum Rock) (77.3%).

Blackburn with Darwen: Audley (68.7%); Bastwell (85.3%); Corporation Park (62.6%); Little Harwood (51.9%); Queen’s Park (51.5%); Shear Brow (77.7%); Wensley Fold (39.8%)

Bolton (Greater Manchester): Crompton (32.7 %); Great Lever (36.6%); Halliwell (27.9%); Rumworth (51.8%)

Bradford (West Yorkshire): Bowling and Barkerend (45.8%); Bradford Moor (72.8%); City (57.3%); Great Horton (42.8%); Heaton (55.9%); Keighley Central (51.2%); Little Horton (58.0%); Manningham (75.0%); Toller (76.1%)

Brent: Barnhill (23.3%); Dollis Hill (31.3%); Dudden Hill (23.5%); Harlesden (21.8%); Stonebridge (28.2%)

Dewsbury (West Yorkshire): Dewsbury South (including Savile Town) (43.8%); Dewsbury West (46.7%)

Leeds: Gipton and Harehills (33.2%)

Leicester: Charnwood (38.7%); Coleman (39.7%); Spinney Hills (69.6%); Stoneygate (50.2%)

London Borough of Enfield: Edmonton Green (29.1%); Haselbury (25.7%); Jubilee (24.1%); Lower Edmonton (24.1%); Ponders End (29.0%); Upper Edmonton (26.4%)

London Borough of Tower Hamlets: Bethnal Green South (45.7%); Bromley-by-Bow (48.7%); East India and Lansbury (42.9%); Limehouse (35.5%); Mile End and Globe Town (34.3%); Mile End East (45.9%); Shadwell (46.7%); Spitalfields and Banglatown (38.6%); St Dunstan’s and Stepney Green (48.7%); Weavers (30.3%); and Whitechapel (42.4%).

London Borough of Newham: Boleyn (40.5%); East Ham Central (39.6%); East Ham North (50.1%); Green Street East (49.1%); Green Street West (50.4%); Little Ilford (44.8%); Manor Park (45.4%); Wall End (33.9%)

London Borough of Redbridge: Clementswood (42.7%); Cranbrook (36.6%); Goodmayes (33.5%); Loxford (46.0%); Mayfield (34.6%); Newbury (29.4%); Seven Kings (31.3%); Valentines (40.0%)

London Borough of Waltham Forest: Forest (31.9%); Lea Bridge (32.3%); Leyton (30.2%); Markhouse (32.4%)

Luton: Biscot (64.6%); Dallow (includes parts of Bury Park) (61.6%); Saints (51.1%)

Manchester: Cheetham (43.3%); Longsight (53.8%); Rusholme (37.9%); Whalley Range (32.7%)

Oldham: Coldhurst (64.2%); Medlock Vale (32.3%); St Mary’s (58.7%); Werneth (68.2%)

Pendle: Bradley (45.7%); Brierfield (38.8%); Walverden (47.1%); Whitefield (69.8%)

Rochdale: Central Rochdale (52.4%); Milkstone and Deeplish (67.1%)

Slough: Baylis and Stoke (44.7%); Central (40.6%); Chalvey (37.2%);

Westminster: Church Street (42.0%); Harrow Road (24.1%); Hyde Park (25.1%); Queen’s Park (26.3%); Westbourne (33.1%)

Wycombe: Bowerdean (35.6%); Oakridge and Castlefield (45.7%)

Britain’s Asian Muslims

The British Muslim community is ethnically diverse, although the vast majority are from Asia. Census data shows that two-thirds of Muslims (68%) have an Asian background, including 38% from Pakistan and 15% from Bangladesh. Just over 10% of Muslims fall into the official census category of “Black/African/Caribbean/Black British,” 7.8% are “White” and 6.6% are “Arab.”

Opinion surveys cited by Ludi Simpson show that most ethnic minorities identify as “British” at least as strongly as do native white Britons.

Many areas of Britain with large concentrations of Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi Muslims, however, are insular, parallel societies that are run according to patronage-based politics, known as the biraderi (clan or tribal) system. These enclaves are also run according to Sharia law, as evidenced by the prevalence of honor-based violence, polygamy and forced marriage.

A report by the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Lord Ouseley, foundthat arranged marriages, common among Asian Muslims, are a key factor in the formation of Muslim ghettoes in Britain. The report said:

“The Sikh and Hindu communities are doing relatively well. Overall, their children are performing above average in educational terms. They tend to be better housed and are more likely to be in employment than are those of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origins. This can be explained mainly in class terms. Most of the Sikhs and Hindus come from the middle strata of their societies and are relatively well educated. Most of the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, predominantly Muslim, come from rural, or more correctly, peasant societies. Many have relatively little education and hold traditionalist views on religion. This, coupled with complex family relationships often identified with land ownership in Pakistan and Bangladesh, leads to a predominance of first cousin marriages which include one spouse from the country of origin. It is estimated these constitute 60% of marriages. This has a significant impact.

“It has a major impact on population growth. About 1,000 Bradfordian Muslims marry each year. If most of those marriages were internal to this country, it would lead to 500 new households which would be likely to average 4 children per household. (This is based on experience from other immigrant groups where family size usually halves that of the first generation by the second generation.) With 60% of marriages involving a spouse from overseas, the number of households goes up to 800 and, with many of the spouses being first generation, family size is likely to be significantly larger. So whereas 500 internal marriages might be expected to produce 2,000 offspring, the 800 marriages are likely to produce 4,000 offspring. This leads to very rapid population growth. In the eighties the Council estimated that the Muslim population would reach 130,000 by 2030 and then level. Now the projection is for 130,000 by 2020 and rising. The number of separate households is predicted to rise from 16,000 now to 40,000 in 2020. This rate of growth concentrated in particular areas puts severe demands on the public services. It has other ramifications. Many of the children arrive at school with little or no English. Many of those who come from overseas have little education and do not possess skills which are transferable to a Western economy. The high family size means overcrowding will be a persistent problem.”

Blackburn

A BBC Panorama documentary about separation and segregation between Muslim Asians and white Britons in Blackburn in Lancashire can be viewed here. According to the BBC:

“For all the hopeful talk about ‘integration,’ ‘multiculturalism’ and now ‘cohesion,’ the reality on the ground appears to be that Britain’s Muslim Asian community and its white community have few points of contact, and that the white majority often feel they share little in common with the growing Muslim Asian minority.”

Professor Ted Cantle, an expert on inter-cultural relations, told the BBC:

“There is not just simply residential segregation, but there is separation in education, in social, cultural, faith, in virtually every aspect of their daily lives, employment too.

“It exists as a problem, to some degree or other, throughout the country, and it may be in small pockets and neighborhoods within larger cities like London and Birmingham and therefore not quite so evident.

“It might be whole boroughs or whole cities, but to some degree or another it exists. There is some degree of separation or segregation in most towns and cities.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

ISLAM IN EUROPE NOW A NO-GO SUBJECT

WhiteHouse.gov

WhiteHouse.gov

The American Spectator, By Aaron Goldstein, Jan. 28, 2015

A few days after the terrorist attacks in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher grocery store, terrorism expert Steve Emerson appeared on the Fox News Channel’sJustice with Judge Jeanine hosted by Jeanine Pirro to discuss Islamic extremism in Europe. During his appearance, Emerson spoke about Muslim “no-go zones” throughout Europe where countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and Britain have ceded sovereignty and non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. Emerson also stated that Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city, is “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

All hell would break loose and Emerson would issue an apology for his comments whileFNC issued several apologies after repeating Emerson’s statements. Despite the apology, the mayor of Paris has declared she will sue Fox News. In a snarky piece written in the Atlanticby David A. Graham titled “Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die?” Graham writes:

Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can’t even enter? Don’t get too worried if you haven’t: They don’t exist.

Needless to say the Left hasn’t been this happy since Barack Obama’s first election victory. Speaking of President Obama, his British BFF David Cameron referred to Emerson as “a complete idiot.” Cameron is one to talk. This is the same man who once characterized Israel’s blockade of Gaza as “a prison camp.” Never mind that Egypt was also participating in this blockade as well. Apparently, Cameron also thinks the Hamas-run government bears no responsibility for the sorry state of affairs in Gaza either.

Criticize Steve Emerson all you want. Emerson may have been wrong in this instance, but he did warn the world months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, “Al Qaeda is … planning new attacks on the US…. [It has] learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.” No, Steve Emerson is not a complete idiot. Far from it. In exposing threats from Islamic extremists, Emerson has subjected himself to numerous death threats by jihadists and, for the past two decades, has taken extraordinary protective measures in his day-to-day living. I can attest to the heavy security measures deployed when I went to see him speak at a Brookline synagogue more than a decade ago. Emerson’s bravery cannot be called into question, which is more than what I can say for David Cameron.

Besides, if David Cameron considers Steve Emerson to be a complete idiot for talking about the existence of Muslim no-go zones then why, as Robert Spencer has noted, have the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic also used the term “no-go zone”?

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republicreported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Actually, the New York Times used the term “no go zone” as recently as September 2014 in anarticle discussing European anti-Semitism.

Yet FNC apologized and it wasn’t alone in issuing apologies. CNN’s Anderson Cooper also issued an apology for using the term “no-go zones” on the air as well. Will  the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic be issuing apologies next? If so, will Cameron also call them complete idiots?

It may be wrong to say that large parts of Europe are under Muslim control where law enforcement and non-Muslims at large are forbidden from traversing. But only a complete idiot would deny there isn’t a desire among a critical mass of Muslims to impose Sharia law or, at the very minimum, behave in a violent manner towards non-Muslims.

In 2011, the group Islam4UK led by Ahmed Choudary began putting up posters around the UK bearing an ominous warning:

YOU ARE ENTERING A SHARIAH CONTROLLED ZONE

ISLAMIC RULES ENFORCED

The sign also indicated that in these zones alcohol, gambling, drugs, smoking, porn, prostitution, music and concerts were forbidden. At the time Choudary stated, “We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.”

If the name Ahmed Choudary sounds familiar, it should. Following the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Choudary penned an op-ed in USA Today praising the attacks:

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Choudary was interviewed last November on 60 Minutes Overtime as was his colleague Abu Ramaysah. Take a look what Ramaysah told correspondent Clarissa Ward:

Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia law in Europe. And I want to see it in America as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.

In view of Choudary and Ramaysah’s aims and objectives in conjunction with Choudary’s praise of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he and those who wish to impose Sharia law in Britain and elsewhere in Europe must be taken every bit as seriously as the people who perpetrated theCharlie Hebdo attacks.

It is true that these posters Choudary disseminated were not legally sanctioned and Scotland Yard worked with local councils to take them down. Nevertheless, this hasn’t prevented self-appointed Muslim Patrols from trying to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London. Similar patrols have also surfaced in Germany.

In October 2013, an American student from Florida named Francesco Houyne was severely beaten and had a beer bottle smashed into his face by one of these London patrols for drinking alcohol. Two months later, a Muslim Patrol threatened a couple holding hands in public telling them, “Let go of each other’s hands. This is a Muslim area!” and then blocked their car when they tried to get away. On both occasions the people responsible for the incidents were arrested and charged.

It would be difficult for British authorities to overlook violent incidents which take place in public. However, when things take place behind closed doors in Muslim majority neighborhoods, the authorities have looked the other way. as was the case in the Rotherham child sex scandal in which 1,400 girls were sexually abused over a 16-year period by a group of predominantly Muslim men of Pakistani origin (or “Asian” origin, as the Brits like to say). Police and the local council were aware of the abuse, but did nothing out of fear of being called racist. Indeed, a researcher who alerted authorities to the abuse back in 2001 was sent on an “ethnicity and diversity” sensitivity course and admonished for making reference to their “Asian” heritage. As far as British police and public officials were concerned, the sexual abuse of girls by Muslim men was, well, a no-go zone.

This problem isn’t confined to Britain. Consider what Pakistani-born Canadian Muslim journalist Natasha Fatah wrote in December 2010 following a trip to Malmo, Sweden, with her husband:

Malmo was supposed to be a symbol of Sweden’s multiculturalism. But it is in danger of turning into an Islamist ghetto, with a hard core of those who favour an Islamic state.

Fatah went on to write that synagogues have been vandalized and Jews have been publicly accosted on the streets, but that local authorities have done little to stop the problem and as a result Jews are leaving Sweden. So here is a Muslim who recognizes the danger of turning Sweden into an Islamic state. Would David Cameron call her a complete idiot too?

So where does this leave the term “no-go zone”? The term was coined by Daniel Pipes back in 2006. But by 2013, following visits to Muslim neighborhoods throughout Europe, Pipesreassessed his view:

I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

So how does Pipes think these enclaves should now be described? He suggests “semi-autonomous sectors.” Honestly, it doesn’t matter what term Pipes uses to describe Muslims who seek to impose Sharia on the rest of the population. Islamists and their left-wing apologists in the media believe Islam is beyond criticism. They want Islam to be a no-go subject.

The Muslim Brotherhood Inquiry: What’s Happening?

Gatestone Institute, by Samuel Westrop, January 23, 2015

There are several reasons the British government may be publishing only the “principal findings” of the report. First, some of the information gathered will have been done so by the intelligence services, so there are assets and agreements to protect. Another is the possibility that by revealing the scope of the Muslim Brotherhood network in full, the government would be revealing its own partnerships with Brotherhood organizations, and providing insights into the vast amount of public funds that has filled the coffers of Brotherhood charities.

“Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in each country work according to a common vision — but in complete operational independence, making the Brotherhood an informal global movement. It’s what makes designating the whole movement a terrorist organisation virtually impossible in the UK, as authorities knew from the very beginning. But the lack of a ban does not equal an exoneration or an endorsement — hardly the general tone of the review.”

The British government will publish only the “principal findings” of an inquiry commissioned by the British government into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain, according to a report in the Financial Times.

Although the former head of the MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, has described the Brotherhood as being, “at heart, a terrorist organization,” Brotherhood organizations in the UK have, nevertheless, long enjoyed the support of government ministers and taxpayers’ money.

Previous media statements have indicated that the report written for the inquiry, first commissioned in April 2014, has since sparked a great deal of argument between government ministers and officials and has led to a lengthy delay.

The biggest point of contention has reportedly focused on concerns over the expected reaction of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — both of which have recently designated the Muslim Brotherhood and some of its front groups as terrorist organizations – if the inquiry’s report is perceived to be a whitewash.

London, it seems, has long been an important hub for the Muslim Brotherhood. Over the past 50 years, Brotherhood members have established dozens of Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, including lobby groups, charities, think tanks, television channels and interfaith groups.

The secretary-general of the International Organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, Ibrahim Munir, is a resident of London. In 2013, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry al-Youm reported that Munir was providing funds to the Egyptian Brotherhood through British Brotherhood groups such as the Muslim Welfare House — but under the guise of fundraising for Palestinians in Gaza.

This government inquiry was established to examine not just the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain, but to understand better the workings of the worldwide Brotherhood network. This network is both big and nebulous. The inquiry sought to examine the network comprehensively, including the Brotherhood’s collaboration with other Islamic groups, such as Jamaat-e-Islami, a South Asian Islamist network that also has a strong presence in Britain.

Why, then, has the report been delayed?

The question that has dominated most British media reports of the inquiry’s findings has centered on the allegation of terrorism. The relationship between Western governments and the Brotherhood on this point has long appeared murky. In 2002, for instance, the United States government shut down the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood fundraising group for the Hamas terrorist organization. And in 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives: “I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.”

At the same time, however, both the Bush and Obama administrations also sought to woo the Muslim Brotherhood. One anonymous Palestinian official, quoted in Asharq Al-Awsat, claimed: “The Americans mistakenly think that moderate political Islam, represented by Muslim Brotherhood, would be able to combat radical Islam.”

The inconsistency seems to have revolved around the Muslim Brotherhood’s connection to Hamas. Although Hamas’s 1988 covenant asserts that, “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine,” Western governments have nevertheless treated Hamas and the Brotherhood as unconnected entities — despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

In the United Kingdom, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas networks appear to overlap heavily. In 2005, for instance, the British government handed over the running of London’s Finsbury Park mosque to the Muslim Association of Britain [MAB]. The Muslim Association of Britain was founded by Muslim Brotherhood activists including Kemal Helbawi, who described the Israel-Palestinian conflict as “an absolute clash of civilisations; a satanic programme led by the Jews and those who support them, and a divine programme carried [out] by Hamas … and the Islamic peoples in general.”

One of the trustees appointed to run the Finsbury Park mosque was Muhammad Sawalha, a fugitive Hamas commander who, according to BBC reports, is “said to have masterminded much of Hamas’s political and military strategy” from London. Yet the police and local government continue to fund the mosque with tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

Muhammad Sawalha, a fugitive Hamas commander who is “said to have masterminded much of Hamas’s political and military strategy” from London, is a trustee of the Finsbury Park mosque, which receives tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money. (Image source: inminds YouTube video screenshot)

By ignoring both the operational and ideological relations between the Brotherhood and Hamas, Western governments have been able to claim a dedication to opposing terrorism while at the same time courting Islamist allies, ostensibly to help fight the jihadist threat. By 2009, for instance, the British government provided the Muslim Welfare House, mentioned earlier, with £48,000 of “counter-extremism” funds. To this day, leading Islamist charities, established by Brotherhood figures, continue to receive millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The Muslim Brotherhood, without Hamas, has worked hard to present itself as a benign organization. It is the government’s apparent failure to demonstrate adequate evidence of connections to terrorism, some critics argue, that has led to the delay in publishing the inquiry’s report. The prominent newspaper journalist, Peter Oborne, has claimed that the report “had discovered no grounds for proscribing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group… Publication of the report as originally written would infuriate the Prime Minister’s Saudi allies — and not just them. The United Arab Emirates have long been agitating for the defenestration of the Brothers…. The reason [for the delay] is simple: money, trade, oil, in a number of cases personal greed.”

Peter Oborne, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, was, in fact, echoing the line taken by the Brotherhood itself. British Brotherhood operatives, such as Anas Al-Tikriti, recently placed an advertisement in the Guardian newspaper that claimed, “this review is the result of pressure placed on the British government by undemocratic regimes abroad, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.” The letter was signed by a number of senior Brotherhood activists, MPs, Peers and journalists — including Peter Oborne.

The “Saudi pressure” argument serves a useful purpose. There is not a lot that can undermine a government inquiry so much as an accusation of political leverage and foreign financial influence. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE regard the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat, and would like to see it suppressed. But neither the Saudis nor the Emiratis are naïve: both have worked to influence the British government for decades and both know how Westminster works. Hence, both know that it is extremely unlikely that the British government would ban the Muslim Brotherhood.

All that said, it is still possible to ignore Hamas and nevertheless link the Brotherhood to violence. In September 2010, the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Badie, advocated violent jihad against the United States, and declared that, “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life… The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise.” In 2013, Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters in Egypt attacked 70 Coptic Christian churches, and more than 1000 homes and businesses of Coptic Christian families were torched.

Banning the Brotherhood, however, is difficult for another reason. Security analyst Lorenzo Vidino writes:

“Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in each country work according to a common vision — but in complete operational independence, making the Brotherhood an informal global movement. It’s what makes designating the whole movement a terrorist organisation virtually impossible in the UK, as authorities knew from the very beginning. But the lack of a ban does not equal an exoneration or an endorsement — hardly the general tone of the review.”

If the delay in the report’s release has been the product of political wrangling at all, the debate within Westminster is most likely over the influence of the Brotherhood upon extremism and radicalization, and with which groups the government should continue to work.

There is already some indication that changes are taking place. On December 18, 2014, the government announced publicly that two Brotherhood-linked Islamic charities, Islamic Help and the Muslim Charities Forum, were to lose their government grants over links to extremism. The Department for Communities and Local Government stated that it would not fund any group “linked to individuals who fuel hatred, division and violence.” This loss of funding followed a Gatestone Institute report investigating the Muslim Charities Forum’s links to extremism, which was subsequently picked up by mainstream British media.

Also in December, Islamic Relief, after being placed on terror lists by both the governments of the UAE and Israel, published an “independent audit,” claiming there was “absolutely no evidence” to link the charity to terrorism.

The British government, which has provided over £3 million of funding to Islamic Relief since 2013, offered little comment, but did publish, at the end of December, a document revealing that the UK government would match £5 million of donations to Islamic Relief until 2016.

Herein lies the contradiction. The Muslim Charities Forum is essentially a project of Islamic Relief. The present chairman of the Muslim Charities Forum, in fact, is Hany El Banna, who founded Islamic Relief, the leading member body of the Muslim Charities Forum. Islamic Relief, as the Gatestone Institute has previously revealed, has given platforms to the same extremists as those promoted by the Muslim Charities Forum, an act that led to its loss of funding. Why would the British government discard one charity while embracing the other? Is this perhaps a sign of further sleight-of-hand to come? Rather than sanction the Brotherhood as a whole, is the government likely in future to work only with sections of the Islamist network?

We have seen such posturing before. In 2009, Britain’s Labour government cut ties with the Muslim Council of Britain after some of its officials became signatories to the Istanbul Declaration, a document that calls for attacks on British soldiers and Jewish communities. The government has continued, however, to work with and fund interfaith groups partly managed by MCB figures and Istanbul Declaration signatories.

There are several reasons the British government may be publishing only the “principal findings” of the report. First, some of the information gathered will have been done so by the intelligence services, so there are assets and agreements to protect. Another is the possibility that by revealing the scope of the Muslim Brotherhood network in full, the government would be revealing its own partnerships with Brotherhood organizations, and providing insights into the vast amount of public funds that has filled the coffers of Brotherhood charities.

In spite of the expectedly unexciting report, the global Muslim Brotherhood still seems worried. Even the most benign report could damage the legitimacy upon which the Brotherhood thrives. Although unlikely, visas for Brotherhood residents in Britain could be revoked, and the report could produce a domino effect — sparking inquiries in other European countries. Evidently, the Brotherhood attaches great importance to its political and diplomatic connections and influence.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding the report, media misinformation and Brotherhood propaganda have been spreading. Back in April 2014, the British government’s announcement of the inquiry produced a great deal of noise. The actual scope of the inquiry and the possible consequences, however, were left to the imaginations of the many commentators and conspiracy theorists.

Consequently, just as the full findings of the report are unclear, so is its significance. If certain sections of the Brotherhood are declared unsuitable, it seems that the report might provide a useful opportunity for the British government — aided by new statutory powers for the Charity Commission and proposed new counter-extremism powers — to crack down on those parts of the Muslim Brotherhood which serve to accrue financial and political support for Hamas.

Thus far, for the government, the Muslim Brotherhood inquiry has been a PR disaster. The eventual publication of the inquiry’s report could provide an opportunity for the British government to end its continued support and funding for Britain’s Muslim Brotherhood charities, and to stop treating Brotherhood operatives as representatives of Britain’s Muslim community. It would indeed be a shame if the only outcome of the inquiry were an even cozier realignment with the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities.