REVEALED: Imams Preaching Saudi-Imported Hate Texts In British Jails

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Breitbart, by DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS, April 19, 2016

Muslim chaplains working within Britain’s prison system have been routinely distributing Islamist hate literature, leaving extremist pamphlets preaching death to non-believers and hatred of the West within easy reach of inmates, a leaked review has revealed.

The Ministry of Justice, who has oversight for chaplaincy appointments within prisons, is understood to have issued an urgent internal alert warning of “severe reputation damage” thanks to the extremist nature of the material.

The compact discs (CDs) and leaflets, some of which were imported from Saudi Arabia, contain homophobic and misogynistic messages, as well as inciting hatred against non-Muslims and Western culture. Yet it was left by the Muslim chaplains on library bookshelves where inmates were free to come and peruse it, The Times has reported.

Lack of scrutiny inside the jails paired with weak corporate guidance meant that there was very little or even no assessment of the material before it was released to “impressionable minds”, the leaked report said.

And it found that the chaplains at several jails had been encouraging inmates to raise funds for Islamic charities with links to extremist organisations and international terrorism, warning that failings at senior levels within the prison service had created a breeding ground for Islamic radicalisation.

Others of Britain’s approximately 100 Muslim chaplains were unaware of their statutory duty to prevent inmates being drawn into extremism, or were under-equipped to take on counter-radicalisation work “sometimes because they lacked the capability but often because they didn’t have the will”.

The report comes just days after some high security prisons were found to have ‘Sharia blocks,’ where former terrorists and Islamic extremists were taking over and imposing Sharia law on non-Muslim inmates.

Overall, it is said to have “pulled no punches”, taking to task the National Offender Management Service (Noms), the Ministry of Justice executive body that oversees prisons.

“Nobody there has been brave enough to confront and tackle this pernicious ideology,” a Whitehall insider said.

The review, led by a former senior Home Office official and ordered by Justice Secretary Michael Gove, has not yet been released as it is still awaiting clearance from No 10. A summarised version was due to be released last month but has been postponed.

For the last 13 years the process for appointing Muslim chaplains has been overseen by Ahtsham Ali, the prison service’s Muslim adviser. He has previously held senior roles in British organisations with strong links to India’s Jamaat-e-Islami movement, founded by the Islamist theologist Abul Ala Maududi.

Yet despite the report’s findings, Michael Spurr, Noms chief executive, has issued a letter insisting that Mr Ali retained the confidence and support of the organisation.

Meanwhile concern is growing regarding the over-representation within the prison service of chaplains drawn from the Deobandi sect, another Islamic sect founded in India, and the influence they may have on the 12,328 Muslim inmates held in English and Welsh jails, particularly the 1,000 deemed vulnerable to radicalisation.

The Deobandis are the largest sect in the UK, controlling 600 of the UK’s 1,500 mosques, the majority of Britain’s Muslim schools, and turning out 80 percent of all domestically trained scholars. 70 percent of Muslim prison chaplains were trained in Deobandi seminaries.

But although it claims to be moderate, it has hosted the hate preachers who trained the 9/11 bombers, while its schools have been caught disseminating anti-Semitic and misogynistic literature. An offshoot, the slightly more hard-line Tablighi Jamaat, has been described by some as an “Army of Darkness”.

Powerful interview with Tommy Robinson: “The Biggest Problem I Face is the State”

FrontCoverGates of Vienna, April 15, 2016:

Yesterday evening, after the court case against him was dismissed, Tommy Robinson was interviewed at length by Trinity Channel, an American Christian broadcaster. The topic was “The Islamization of the United Kingdom”.

Now that Tommy’s legal entanglements are over (for the moment), he is able to speak out freely about the persecution he has suffered at the hands of the British state. In this excerpt there are details about what happened to him that I hadn’t heard before. He also talks about the defense fund that was recently set up to pay for his legal representation — which you, the readers of Gates of Vienna (among others), helped make a reality with your generous donations. Thanks to your contributions, Tommy Robinson is a free man today.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading this video:

Update: This is the direct YouTube link for the above video.

The full video is recommended viewing. In addition to Tommy’s segments, Nonie Darwish is interviewed about sharia and the Islamization of the West.

What Britain’s Muslims Really Think… Is That Nothing Is Ever Their Fault

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by James Delingpole, April 14, 2016:

In a Channel 4 documentary called What Britain’s Muslims Really Think, presenter Trevor Phillips presented survey evidence suggesting that large numbers of British Muslims don’t want to integrate and dislike Jews and that many thousands of them support extremist views including terrorism and suicide bombing.

The British Muslim community has responded in the usual way…

Smear the polling company

“Lets not forget ICM is one of the polling companies that wrongly predicted the 2015 general election. The stats just don’t hold enough weight.” (Nazia, 35, W. Yorkshire)

Cast doubt on the methodology

“Other issues include the fact that the study targeted areas that were at least 20% Muslim and a large chunk of the sample were born abroad. If the study was conducted where English is not widely spoken, how do we know the participants fully understood what they were being asked?” (Nazia, 35, W. Yorkshire)

Hint that even asking these questions is divisive and Islamophobic

What is going to happen to our stated desire to build robust social cohesion if we keep singling out British Muslims as unique special cases? And what is it that is really underlying such constant scrutiny? (Rachel Shabi, Al Jazeera)

Nothing to do with Islam. It’s ‘cultural’, innit?

Moreover, Trevor Philips and the show portrayed segregated schools as an Islamic problem, that somehow where a school finds itself admitting children of a certain colour, that it is a religious issue. I would argue that this is a cultural and geographical issue and conflating religion with state school segregation is ridiculous. (Ibraham Ilyas, 18, Birmingham)

There’s no such thing as a ‘Muslim’

Being a Shia Muslim I wish Wahhabi or Salafi elements of society weren’t able to answer on my behalf. (Zaynab Mirza, 32, London)

I have a degree in social sciences, majoring in grievance studies

“We were presented in an extremely negative light. We were othered.” (Ismail, 32, Dewsbury)

Some Muslims are doctors, nurses, and teachers – so that makes everything nice

The show did not look at all at the positive contribution Muslims have made to Britain; that we serve as doctors, nurses, teachers and we actually aid the community we live in. (white convert Sarah Ward Khan, 36, London)

Whatabout…?

None of this is to give sexism, homophobia or any other prejudices a free pass. Nobody is suggesting that it’s brilliant that a minority of British Muslims support stoning – or, for that matter, that 45 percent of the overall British population would bring back hanging. (Rachel Shabi, Al Jazeera)

Lovely Nadija from Great British Bake Off make everything nice

But when there are 13 Muslim MPs, a British Muslim candidate for mayor of London, aMuslim dragon in the Dragons’ Den, and a Muslim winner of the Great British Bake Off, it seems that in reality, Muslims are very much part of British society. (Miqdaad Versi, Muslim Council of Britain)

Nothing to do with Islam. Did we mention this already? Well, it isn’t. And here’s some made-up stasticoids from a parti-pris organisation with affiliations to the Muslim Brotherhood…

The Muslim Council of Britain’s own research has shown that far more serious concerns relate to poverty, gender, criminality and Islamophobia. (Miqdaad Versi, Muslim Council of Britain)

Have you noticed something glaringly absent from these responses?

At no point does anyone seem to be suggesting that there is a serious problem here which Muslims need to address.

Perhaps there isn’t.

Perhaps, for example, you think it’s perfectly OK that – as the programme reported – a nine-year old boy at one of the Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham suggested that his middle-aged Muslim headmistress was a “slag” because she wasn’t wearing a headscarf.

Or that boys at the same Birmingham state primary school would act like religious police and clout girls not wearing the veil over the head.

Or that there are now 85 Sharia councils in Britain which – according to Zurich professor Elham Manea, herself a Muslim – are enforcing on Muslim communities (especially with regard to marriage) a version of Islam as extreme as that practised by the Taliban or in Manea’s native Yemen.

Or that over 40 per cent of the mosques in Britain are controlled by the Deobandis, promoters of the same form of fundamentalist Islam as the Taliban.

Or that in part two of BBC Radio 4’s excellent investigation into the Deobandis, researchers found literature in a London mosque aggressively promoting the kind of hatred against the supposedly heretical Ahmadi sect which led to the recent murder of a peaceful Muslim Glasgow shopkeeper?

Call me an Islamophobe but I’m not sure that any of the above represent shining examples of a community that is bending over backwards to accommodate itself with the host culture.

Isn’t about time we heard a bit more from British Muslims about what they plan to do remedy this?

I worry, you see, that if they’re not careful that harmless, peace-loving religion of theirs might start to get a bad rap.

***

Also see:

Feminists Need To Know — Islam Kills Women

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Breitbart, by  ANNE MARIE WATERS, April 9, 2016:

I used to be a feminist, but I gave it up so I could speak out for women’s rights. Even before the “intersectional”, “how many genders are there?” lunacy took over, feminism was filled to bursting with types who think men are misogynists who all secretly want to rape us (this despite the fact that men are among the greatest supporters of women’s rights) and a happily married mother is some kind of traitor.

The kind of people, in other words, who nobody in their right mind could possibly get along with.

While I will always speak out for women to maintain our just civil rights, I do want Sharia Watch to spend significantly more time on freedom of speech (we will run an autumn campaign ‘Islam Kills Free Speech’) and the impact of Islam on children, but before I do, I intend to spend the summer doing something very important – informing the ludicrous feminists of today of something they desperately need to know: Islam Kills Women.

Islam Kills Women is a joint effort between Sharia Watch UK and Examine-Islam.org  It aims to do one thing and one thing only, show the world just why it is that women are treated so utterly appallingly in every Muslim society on earth.

As well as producing articles from various writers and information packs and videos, I will challenge every feminist organisation in Britain to debate me, so that they can attempt to prove me wrong.  When they realise that they cannot do this, I invite them to stand alongside me at the culmination of this campaign – a protest rally to be held outside Parliament on August 20th.

Islam kills women not only physically – although of course it does – but it kills the spirit of far greater numbers.  From birth, girls are degraded and humiliated, most often by their own mothers.  These girls accept their status and then pass it on to their own daughters in an endless cycle of what can only be described as evil.

Often forced in to marriage, forced to live with domestic violence, and enslaved under a system of ‘honour’, life can be sheer misery for girls unfortunate enough to have been born in to Islam.  To top it off, many will have their clitoris cut off so that sex will be painful and they can suffer the further humiliation of incontinence and other side-effects.

All of this, but all of it, is maintained and sustained and justified by Islam.  That is a matter of fact. I will prove it right now.

One of the most contentious is FGM so let me start there.  FGM is sanctioned by Islam. Fact. There are several hadiths which justify it.  You can read these here, but I shall recount just one which should be enough to ring a few bells: “Abu al-Malih ibn `Usama’s father relates that the Prophet said: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.”’ Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167.

While it is true that some Islamic “scholars” have condemned FGM, many others promote it and use hadiths to do so. The Muslim Brotherhood for example pushed for FGM when it took over Egypt, and in  “moderate” Indonesia, where somewhere between 80 and 100 per cent of girls suffer this mutilation, 100 per cent of women interviewed believed it to be an Islamic obligation. According to ‘Stop FGM Mid East’ the practice did not exist in Indonesia until the introduction of Islam.

Let’s move on to forced marriage.  Child marriage is rife in the Muslim world, and it is not, as some suggest, simply a consequence of extreme poverty.  The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, for example, has endorsed it on Islamic grounds for the simple reason that Mohammed married a six year old, therefore it must be permissible.

The relevant hadith is this: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88)

Iran allows the marriage of nine-year-old girls based on these same hadiths, and recent attempts in Pakistan to prevent child marriage were stopped by the Council of Islamic Ideology who deemed it “blasphemous” and “un-Islamic”.  The chairman of the council helpfully explained: “Parliament cannot create legislation that is against the teachings of the Holy Quran or Sunnah.”

Stoning to death sounds just too terrible to be true.  It sounds like something from pre-history that couldn’t possibly be happening today, but it is – in one kind of society only, Islamic society.  It is a punishment used almost exclusively on women accused of committing adultery.  I say ‘accused’ because that is all it takes, she has no defence.

Remember that under Islamic law, a woman’s word is worth half of a man’s, so if her husband accuses her, her denial is worthless and she will be found guilty on his word alone. This is brilliantly illustrated in the hard-to-watch movie ‘The Stoning of Soraya M’, a true story about the stoning of a young mother in Iran on the word of her husband only; he simply wanted rid of her. Her father and sons joined in with the stoning.

Stoning for adultery occurs under Islamic law for a reason that you may by now be able to guess: it was endorsed by Mohammed. There are several Islamic sources to back this up. I will recount just one part of Sahih Bukhari 3:50:885 which reads: Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, I will judge between you according to Allah’s Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais, go to the wife of this (man) and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death.” Unais went to that woman next morning and she confessed. Allah’s Apostle ordered that she be stoned to death.

Domestic and honour violence can be banded together as I believe they emanate from one verse of the Koran – Sura 4, verse 34, which reads: “Men have authority over women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.”

Could this verse be any clearer?  Women must obey and if they don’t, you may use violence against them. This can, and in practice does, justify all kinds of horrors against women. It is very clear that if the men in her family don’t approve of her conduct, they can beat her for it.

I have not even scratched the surface. The oppression of women in Islamic countries is by far the cruellest in the world. No other major societies treat their women in this way and that is not an unfortunate coincidence, it is the direct result of these and many other teachings in Islamic scripture.

With all of this evidence in front of them, my challenge to British feminists is this: will you admit the truth in what I have written, and do you want this religion to have more or less influence in countries where women have fought and died for their freedom?

If, like me, you want to see a religion like this have zero influence, will you stand with me and oppose its import via mass immigration as Sharia Watch and Examine Islam intend to do on August 20th?

My guess is that you will not. You will not even respond to my requests, and you certainly won’t have the courage to debate me. You will continue to pretend that the truth is bigotry and that the lie is moral, and you will continue to deny the most pertinent truth about the treatment of women in the Middle East, Africa, and increasingly in Europe – this abhorrent treatment of women has everything to do with Islam.

To donate to the Islam Kills Women campaign, please visit www.shariawatch.org.uk and click the ‘Donate’ button.

***

Creator of “Islamophobia”: I Got Everything Wrong

unnamed (39)

By Counter Jihad, April 12, 2016:

Twenty-three percent of British Muslims support the introduction of sharia law to replace the laws crafted by Parliament, according to a new study in the UK. The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, is helping to present the study as a way of making up for having gotten “almost everything wrong”during his tenure in government.  While heading the commission he led the formation of an official report that created and popularized the term “Islamophobia” as a way of stigmatizing any criticism of Islam or of mass Muslim immigration.

Now, he admits he was wrong about everything.

An ICM poll released to the Times, in Britain, ahead of the broadcast reveals:

• One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house

• 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband

• 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife

• 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal

• 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament

The documentary will portray the U.K.’s Muslims as a “nation within a nation” that has its own geography and values.

His comments ought to improve the debate over mass immigration, at least.  Since the 1997 report he commissioned, concern about large-scale Muslim immigration has been treated as if it were literally a psychological disorder.  A “phobia” is a groundless, irrational fear that ought to be trained out of a person by aversion therapy or some other treatment.  It is not in any way a concern to be taken seriously.  It is simply a disorder that must be corrected.

Now we learn that those who were raising these concerns were right all along.  The fear that the massive importation of Muslims would create significant changes in British culture turns out to be perfectly well-grounded.  The suggestion that it would create a growing bloc of voters who wanted to repeal the unwritten British constitution in favor of sharia law was not a part of a ‘phobia’ at all.  It was simply true.

Phillips also acknowledges that it is not the general run of British society, but the Muslims themselves, who are possessed of sexism and racism.  Speaking of the child-rape scandals that have plagued England’s cities with large Muslim communities, Phillips wrote:  “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities.”  (Emphasis added.)

Now he is trying to fix his mistakes.  His proposals include the very things this site and others suggest as obvious, common-sense steps:  “halting the growth of sharia courts,” watching mosques with extremist funding, and an end to avoiding criticism of Islamic law and communities in return for votes.  If Britain is to survive, it has to reclaim its soul.

UK Equalities Chief Who Popularised The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better’

Bradford, United Kingdom – Getty

Bradford, United Kingdom – Getty

Breitbart, by Raheem Kassam, April 10, 2016:

The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals: 

  • One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
  • 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
  • 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
  • 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
  • 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”

Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.

Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.”

Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”.

And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves.

“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.

“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”

His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West.

“We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.”

“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”

And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.

Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.”

Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.”

And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.”

“Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.”

In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”.

Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.

What British Muslims Really Think is on Channel 4 at 10pm on Wednesday

Also see:

Britain braced for ’10 simultaneous ISIS terror attacks’ as special forces put on standby

SAS troops and bomb disposal experts are on high alert following terrifying warnings of multiple Paris-style attacks in the UK

Firearms instructors play the role of terrorists during a Metropolitan Police training programme

Firearms instructors play the role of terrorists during a Metropolitan Police training programme

Army units and police have been put on standby amid fears Britain could face an onslaught on up to 10 ISIS terrorist attacks at the same time.

In a dramatic escalation of anti- terror security, SAS troops and officers from the Metropolitan Police have been put in place to deal with a Paris-style attack.

A crackdown on firearms has also been ordered by the National Crime Agency over concerns a similar gun assault could hit London.

But despite multiple threats from terrorists in Syria, an unnamed government minister said the UK was well prepared for such an attack.

Armed Response Vehicle (ARV) officers during a Metropolitan Police training programme

Armed Response Vehicle (ARV) officers during a Metropolitan Police training programme

He told the Sunday Times: “We used to plan for three simultaneous attacks but Paris has shown that you need to be ready for more than that.

“We are ready if someone tries with seven, eight, nine, ten.”

In the event of an attack, the British Army is also on standby outside London, along with a bomb-disposal unit tasked with tackling a chemical or biological “dirty bomb”.

The National Crime Agency has ordered a crackdown on firearms amid terror concerns

The National Crime Agency has ordered a crackdown on firearms amid terror concerns

Training exercises focused around dealing with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used as weapons of mass destruction are being carried out by the SAS.

These ramped up security measures come after terror suspect Salah Abdeslam was captured and charged in Belgium for his part in the Paris massacre.

He was on the run for four months following the attack, in which 130 died, but was finally caught in the Belgium capital of Brussels in a dramatic police sting.

Abdeslam, 26, was shot in the leg during the raid, but is said to be co-operating with police after release from hospital.

Sharia Law or One Law for All?

Qaradawi and al-AlwaniGatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, March 12, 2016:

  • Here is the fulcrum around which so much of the problem turns: the belief that Islamic law has every right to be put into practice in non-Muslim countries, and the insistence that a parallel, if unequal, legal system can function alongside civil and criminal law codes adhered to by a majority of a country’s citizens.
  • Salafism is a form of Islam that insists on the application of whatever was said or done by Muhammad or his companions, brooking no adaptation to changing times, no recognition of democracy or man-made laws.
  • The greatest expression of this failure to integrate, indeed a determined refusal to do so, may be found in the roughly 750 Muslim-dominated no-go zones in France, which the police, fire brigades, and other representatives of the social order dare not visit for fear of sparking off riots and attacks. Similar zones now exist in other European countries, notably Sweden and Germany. According to the 2011 British census there are over 100 Muslim enclaves in the country.

As millions of Muslims flow into Europe, some from Syria, others from as far away as Afghanistan or sub-Saharan Africa, several countries are already experiencing high levels of social breakdown. Several articles have chronicled the challenges posed in countries such as Sweden and Germany. Such challenges are socio-economic in nature: how to accommodate such a large influx of migrants; the rising costs of providing then with housing, food, and benefits, and the expenses incurred by increased levels of policing in the face of growing lawlessness in some areas. If migrants continue to enter European Union countries at the current rate, these costs are likely to rise steeply; some countries, such as Hungary, have already seen how greatly counterproductive and self-destructive Europe’s reception of almost anyone who reaches its borders has been.

The immediate impact, however, of these new arrivals is not likely to be a simple challenge, something that may be remedied by increasing restrictions on numbers, deportations of illegal migrants, or building fences. During the past several decades, some European countries ­– notably Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark — have received large numbers of Muslim immigrants, most of them through legal channels. According to a Pew report in 2010, there were over 44 million Muslims in Europe overall, a figure expected to rise to over 58 million by 2030.

The migration wave from Muslims countries that began in 2015 is likely to increase these figures by a large margin. In France, citizens of former French colonies in Morocco, Algeria, and some sub-Saharan states, together with migrants from several other Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia, form a population estimated at several million, but reckoned to be the largest Muslim population in Europe. France is closely followed by Germany – a country now taking in very large numbers of immigrants. There are currently some 5.8 million Muslims in Germany, but this figure is widely expected to rise exponentially over the next five years or more.

The United Kingdom, at around 3 million, has the third largest Muslim population in Europe. Islam today is the second-largest religion in the country. The majority of British Muslims originally came from rural areas in Pakistan (such as Mirpur and Bangladesh’s Sylhet), starting in the 1950s. Over time, many British Muslims have integrated well into the wider population. But in general, integration has proven a serious problem, especially in cities such as Bradford, or parts of London such as Tower Hamlets; and there are signs that, as time passes, assimilation is becoming harder, not easier. A 2007 report by British think tank Policy Exchange, Living Apart Together, revealed that members of the younger generation were more radical and orthodox than their fathers and grandfathers – a reversal almost certainly unprecedented within an immigrant population over three or more generations. The same pattern may be found across Europe and the United States. A visible sign of this desire to stand out from mainstream society is the steady growth in the numbers of young Muslim women wearing niqabs, burqas, and hijabs – formerly merely a tradition, but now apparently seen as an obligatory assertion of Muslim identity.

In Germany, the number of Salafists rose by 25% in the first half of 2015, according to a reportfrom The Clarion Project. Salafism is a form of Islam that insists on the application of whatever was said or done by Muhammad or his companions, brooking no adaptation to changing times, no recognition of democracy or man-made laws. This refusal to adapt has been very well expressed by Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:

“Islam is not constrained by time or space, for it is eternal… what Muhammad permitted is permissible until the Day of Resurrection; what he forbade is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection. It is not permissible that his ordinances be superseded, or that his teachings fall into disuse, or that the punishments [he set] be abandoned, or that the taxes he levied be discontinued, or that the defense of Muslims and their lands cease.”

The greatest expression of this failure to integrate, indeed a determined refusal to do so, may be found in the roughly 750 zones urbaines sensibles in France, Muslim-dominated no-go zones, which the police, fire brigades, and other representatives of the social order dare not visit for fear of sparking off riots and attacks. Similar zones now exist in other European countries, notably Sweden and Germany.

In the UK, matters have not reached the pitch where the police and others dare not enter. But in some Muslim-dominated areas, non-Muslims may not be made welcome, especially women dressed “inappropriately.” According to the 2011 British census there are over 100 Muslim enclaves in the country. “The Muslim population exceeds 85% in some parts of Blackburn,” notes the scholar Soeren Kern, “and 70% in a half-dozen wards in Birmingham and Bradford.” There are similarly high figures for many other British cities.

Maajid Nawaz of the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation has spoken of the growing trend for some radical young Muslims to patrol their streets to impose a strict application of Islamic sharia law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, in direct breach of British legal standards.

In Britain “Muslims Against the Crusaders” have recently declared an Islamic Emirates Project, in which they are seeking to enforce their brand of sharia in 12 British cities. They have named two London boroughs, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets, among their targets. Little surprise then that in these two boroughs hooded “Muslim patrols” have taken to the streets and begun enforcing a strict view of sharia over unsuspecting locals. The “Muslim Patrols” warn that alcohol, “immodest” dress and homosexuality are now banned. To add to these threats, all this is filmed and uploaded onto the internet. Now, in East London, some shops no longer feel free to employ uncovered women or sell alcohol without fear of violent payback.

Nawaz goes on to write: “[T]he Muslim patrols could become a lot more dangerous and, perhaps willing to maim or kill if they are joined by battle-hardened jihadis.” Muslims have been beaten up for smoking during Ramadan; non-Muslims have been forced to leave for carrying alcohol on British streets.

A recent report by Raheem Kassam cites British police officers who admit that they often have to ask permission from Muslim leaders to enter certain areas, and that they are instructed not to travel to work or go into certain places wearing their uniforms.

Here is the fulcrum around which so much of the problem turns: the belief that Islamic law has every right to be put into practice in non-Muslim countries, and the insistence that a parallel, if unequal, legal system can function alongside civil and criminal law codes adhered to by a majority of a country’s citizens. More than one non-Muslim has been ordered to leave “Islamic territory,” and some radicals have attempted to set up “Shariah Controlled Zones,” where only Islamic rules are enforced. Stickers placed on lampposts and other structures declare: “You are entering a Shariah Controlled Zone,” where there can be no alcohol, no gambling, no drugs or smoking, no porn or prostitution, and even no music or concerts.

***

Matters are far from as simple as the government would like them to be. Sharia law is not a cut -and-dried system that can be easily blended with Western values and statutes. There is no problem when imams or councils hand out advice on the regulations governing obligatory prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, alms-giving, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of following this or that spiritual tradition, or even whether men and women may sit together in a hall or meet without a chaperone. For pious Muslims, those are things they need to know, and although the advice they may receive on some rulings will differ according to the school of law or the cultural practices of their specific community, that has no bearing whatever on British law.

But much more goes on beneath the surface. One problem is that it is difficult if not impossible to reform sharia. Legal rulings are fossilized within one tradition or another and given permanency because they are deemed to derive from a combination of verses from the Qur’an, the sacred Traditions, or the standard books of fiqh or jurisprudence. It is, therefore, hard to restate laws on just about anything in order to accommodate a need to bring things up-to-date within terms of modern Western human rights values. Many Muslims today may be uncomfortable about the use of jihad as a rallying cry for terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State, but no single scholar or group of scholars is entitled to abolish the long-standing law of jihad. Innovation (bid’a) is tantamount to heresy, and heresy leads to excommunication and hellfire, as has been stated for centuries. The growing influence of Salafi Islam is based precisely on the grounds that any revival of the faith means going back to the practices and words of Muhammad and his companions, not forwards via reform.

In the sharia councils there appears to be no formal method for keeping records of what is said and decided on. There is next to no room for non-Muslims to sit in on proceedings, and, as a result, neither the government nor the legal fraternity has any regular means of monitoring proceedings. Even Machteld Zee, whose forthcoming book, Choosing Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and British Sharia Councils, will be the first academic analysis of what happens in the councils, only spent two afternoons at a council in Leyton and an afternoon at one in Birmingham. Unannounced spot checks by qualified government-appointed personnel are not permitted. There is nothing remotely like the government schools inspection body, Ofsted, which has periodically (albeit not always correctly) gone into Muslim schools. So there is really no way of knowing just what happens, apart from the testimonies of women who have reported abusive or illegal practices.

Read more

Radical Islamists “Control” Some Maximum Security Prisons in Britain

Prison guards are feared to have lost control at some jails (file image)

Prison guards are feared to have lost control at some jails (file image)

by IPT News  •  Mar 15, 2016

Islamist extremists are intimidating other inmates to convert to Islam and guards at Britain’s most secure jail have “lost control” over the situation, reports London’s Evening Standard.

Lawyer Rubert Pardoe recently told a judge at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales that Islamist bullying was so severe that some prisoners at Thamesmead jail are kept in “lockdown” to protect them from the Muslim inmates.

“There is a sense that the prison authorities have lost control. Many defendants in my client’s situation are in total lockdown. There’s a degree of fear as to the need to conform to certain religious views in Belmarsh (prison),” Pardoe said.

Prisoners, including Pardoe’s client, reportedly are scared of being transferred to Belmarsh due to the immense pressure emanating from a rising number of radical Muslim inmates.

Growing terrorism convictions have led to a significant increase of the Muslim inmate population at Belmarsh, who now represent more than a quarter of the total population.

“We have concerns that Islamist extremists are deliberately getting custodial sentences in order to target vulnerable prisoners. They are often clever and well educated and can brainwash young people,” assistant general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, Glyn Travis said in December.

Michael Adebolajo – one of two terrorists who brutally murdered British soldier Lee Rigby – was reportedly transferred from Belmarsh in 2014 to prevent him radicalizing other prisoners.

Adelbolajo – a convert to Islam – admitted to helping hack Rigby to death in a ruthless, daylight attack in London in 2013

“My religion is everything. When I came to Islam I realized that… real success is not just what you can acquire, but really is if you make it to paradise, because then you can relax,” testified Adelbolajo, acknowledging that radical Islamic beliefs motivated the attack.

Some lawyers have argued that prison security measures are so drastic that it can be impossible to meet with their clients. In light of the situation, senior judges forced Belmarsh officials to establish a video feed for defense teams in court to communicate with their clients.

These assertions corroborate growing concerns regarding widespread Islamic radicalization in jails. Justice Secretary Michael Gove has already ordered an inquiry to evaluate the impact of Islamist inmates on prisoner radicalization.

A Ministry of Justice official dismissed the concerns as “untrue. HMP Belmarsh is not in lockdown and continues to operate as normal,”

But challenges posed by imprisoned radical Islamists are “a global problem,” Patrick Dunleavy, former deputy inspector general for the New York State Department of Corrections and author of The Fertile Soil of Jihad told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Jihadists have an “uncanny ability” to flourish in prisons, he said.

“Until we acknowledge the threat and devise effective counter measures to address the problem the threat will continue to spread,” Dunleavy said.

TERROR WARNING: ISIS plotting ENORMOUS attack on Britain targeted at ‘Western lifestyles’

The top police officer said that ISIS was trying to smuggle jihadis into the UK Getty

The top police officer said that ISIS was trying to smuggle jihadis into the UK Getty

ISLAMIC State jihadists are planning “enormous and spectacular” terror attacks on British soil, the country’s head of counter-terrorism warned today.

Express, by Tom Batchelor, March 7, 2016:

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, the National Policing Lead for Counter Terrorism at Scotland Yard, said the extremist organisation was broadening its terror campaign to attack “Western lifestyle” targets.

He said: “In recent months we’ve seen a broadening of that, much more plans to attack Western lifestyle, and obviously the Paris attacks in November.

“Going from that narrow focus on police and military as symbols of the state to something much broader. And you see a terrorist group which has big ambitions for enormous and spectacular attacks, not just the types that we’ve seen foiled to date.

“You see a terrorist group that whilst on the one hand has been acting as a cult to use propaganda to radicalise people to act in their name … you also see them trying to build bigger attacks.”

The top police officer said that ISIS was trying to smuggle supporters who have received military training in Syria into northern Europe to stage attacks.

Mr Rowley also warned of a spike in the number of child and female terror suspects being arrested.

Armed police on duty in London Getty

Armed police on duty in London Getty

Met police during a training exercise in the capital last year Getty

Met police during a training exercise in the capital last year
Getty

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley speaking in Parliament Getty

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley speaking in Parliament
Getty

In the last three years the number of arrests of terrorist suspects has risen by 57 per cent compared to the previous three years, with just over three-quarters (77 per cent) of those arrested British nationals.

Around one in six of those (14 per cent) were female, he said, while 13 per cent were aged 20 and under.

The counter-terror boss said: “That would not have been the picture that one would have seen a few years ago. That is an indication of that radicalisation, the effect of the propaganda and the way the messages of Daesh (ISIS) are resonating with some individuals.”

Double Games Of The UK Muslim Brotherhood

IPT, by John Ware
Standpoint Magazine
March 2016

Last December, the British government published a summary of the findings of a classified Review of the Brotherhood both in Britain and abroad. The Review was ordered by Prime Minister David Cameron and was conducted by two of Britain’s most expert civil servants in the Arab world and Islamist ideology. They concluded that the Brotherhood was secretive, that its claim to have officially disowned violence was not credible and that aspects of its ideology and tactics both in the UK and abroad were “contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.” UK Brotherhood associates identified in the Review have responded angrily, denying they are “in any way linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.” British journalist John Ware examines their response in the latest edition of the British magazine Standpoint which describes as its core mission the “celebration of western civilisation.”

John Ware is a British journalist who was a senior correspondent for the BBC’s flagship investigative current affairs programme, Panorama, from 1986 to 2012. He has written extensively about the origins, growth and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood network in the UK which he says closely parallels its American counterpart.

Anas Altikriti (right) with Jeremy Corbyn at an anti-war event in 2003: Altikriti has said that Iraqis had the right to expel the "occupation" (©Sean Dempsey/PA Archive/Press Association Images)

Anas Altikriti (right) with Jeremy Corbyn at an anti-war event in 2003: Altikriti has said that Iraqis had the right to expel the “occupation” (©Sean Dempsey/PA Archive/Press Association Images)

The tone was plaintive, almost bewildered. “We work tirelessly for the good of British society on several fronts,” Anas Altikriti protested before calling a press conference to refute the government’s charge that he and other like-minded Muslim leaders are doing the opposite.

A classified government review by two of Britain’s leading civil servants, expert in the Arab world and Islamist ideology, has concluded that organisations like the one Altikriti heads are, in effect, fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood — a charge they categorically deny.

The Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, as it is known in Arabic, was established in 1928 in Egypt and its goal was — and remains — the step-by-step Islamisation of Muslim communities with the ultimate aim of creating a global Caliphate ruled by holy law. “Allah is our objective” is the Brotherhood’s motto, “The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our constitution. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

With Altikriti on the platform was Omer El-Hamdoon, president of the Muslim Association of Britain, and Mohammed Kozbar, chairman of the Finsbury Park Mosque, North London, where the press conference was held. “We are not enemies of the state,” said the gently-spoken Hamdoon. All three say they “totally reject the allegation” that they are “in any way linked to the Muslim Brotherhood”.

Altikriti, in particular, has emphasised that he has “absolutely no links” and on its face his denial would seem to be consistent with the values of “tolerance” and “positive co-existence” which he says he is devoted to promoting. It’s certainly a vision a world away from the Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al-Banna, who sought the moral purification of Muslims, because he regarded them as having been infected by Western decadence. That and his belief that Jews were a major source of the infection help explain why he was an admirer of Hitler and why he translated Mein Kampf into Arabic, calling it My Jihad.

Al-Banna’s legacy has bequeathed a virulent strain of anti-Semitism, homophobia, and disdain for the West and its pluralist values within the Brotherhood that survives to the present day. But no hint of that is to be found in the estimable “Vision” and “Values” section of Altikriti’s think-tank, the Cordoba Foundation, which he established so that Muslims and non-Muslims can “strive” to “understand each other.”

The Cordoba Foundation says it promotes “intercultural dialogue and positive coexistence among civilisations”; it puts a premium on “compassion, peace, justice” and is a “strong voice of tolerance and reason”. It asserts that its “independent” research is underpinned by “sound” academic authorities. What could be more in tune with those British values which the Prime Minister has done so much to promote over the last year as part of his counter-extremism strategy?

Nothing, according to Mohammed Kozbar, sitting alongside Altikriti. With the help of the Metropolitan Police, the Finsbury Park mosque was “liberated” in 2005 by Kozbar and his fellow trustees from the hook-handed demagogue Abu Hamza, now serving life in an American jail. Today, says Kozbar, the mosque serves as a “role model to other mosques and community centres”. In fact, he says, his mosque, together with the Muslim Association of Britain and “similar Muslim organisations”, could “teach” David Cameron “a thing or two about British values”.

Really? It is true the Finsbury Park mosque does good by offering hot meals to the homeless. But since its “liberation” it might also benefit from a few lessons in British values. It has hosted speakers who are on the record as having said they were inspired by the books of Hassan al-Banna and by the Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who in 2009 thanked Hitler for having “managed to put Jews in their place”. Another speaker hosted by the mosque has described Jews as having “no conscience” and “having all the bad qualities: lies, jealousy, treachery, cowardice, aggression”; another has argued that apostates from Islam must be killed; and yet another has said, “We don’t need to go to the Christians, or the Jews, debating with them about the filth which they believe.”

Read more

Police in Rotherham Turned Blind Eye to Islamic Child Rape Ring

rotherham-sign-640x481Police protected the rapists, but they in return were protected from on high

Counter Jihad, Feb. 25, 2016:

The Times of London reports on new evidence of police complicity in a child rape ring being run by Pakistani Muslims in Rotherham, England.  The ring groomed and then raped children for a decade and a half before it was broken up.  The authorities were repeatedly informed, as early as 2002, but agents did not want to risk their careers in an environment of intense pressure not to seem racist or critical of Islam.  There was a Home Office investigation into charges that Tony Blair’s government had known of the ring as early as 2001, but did nothing because it conflicted with “his government’s efforts to pacify Muslim communities.”  Some 1,400 children were raped over the ensuing 16 years.

Now the Times tells us that the police hadn’t just been warned, they knew and were sometimes complicit.

“Corrupt police and an influential politician fuelled a culture of impunity that allowed three brothers to ‘own’ the town of Rotherham and abuse children until their crimes were exposed by The Times. One officer had sex with under-age girls, passed drugs to the sex-grooming gang and tipped them off when colleagues were searching for missing children, a court was told. Another helped to broker a deal in which one brother returned an abused girl to police after receiving an assurance that he ‘wouldn’t get done’. The jury was told that Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of Rotherham council, also took part in the handover at a petrol station. Mr Akhtar, the former deputy chairman of South Yorkshire police and crime panel, was a relative of Arshid, Basharat and Bannaras Hussain, who behaved for years ‘like a pack of animals’ to pursue dozens of young girls before demanding sex, often with threats of violence.”

This sounds like a story of intense local corruption, and it is.  It sounds like a story of the failure of the police to uphold their most basic oath, and it is that too.  But it is also a story of the ways in which these criminals could rely upon protection from the highest levels of the British government.

The former Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, is being investigated for having known about the ring as early as 2001.  Blair’s administration suppressed investigations into the ring because it would conflict with his Muslim outreach efforts — outreach efforts being advised by Muslim Brotherhood affiliate groups.  Even today, Tony Blair’s religious charity is accused of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  The culture of not questioning Islam or Muslims from on high made possible these corrupt police, who in turn made possible a child rape ring in the heart of England.

Follow the links.  They are links to the most famous newspapers in Britain:  the Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the Daily Mail.  Believe your eyes.

UK TERROR WARNING: ISIS threaten DOOMSDAY ATTACK on major tourist spots in London

ISIS featured the National Gallery and Tower Bridge (left) in a video that also targeted the PM

ISIS featured the National Gallery and Tower Bridge (left) in a video that also targeted the PM

Sunday Express, By KIERAN CORCORAN, Jan. 31, 2016:

Militants from the terror group, also known as Daesh, identified Britain as its number one terror target in the chilling message.

It said that the UK is due the “lion’s share” of ISIS’s wrath – in revenge for the RAF’s bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria.

The jihadis are thought to have their sights set on central London, after a recent video highlighted a string of potential targets.

The latest ISIS video flashed up Tower Bridge and other London landmarks - potential targets

The latest ISIS video flashed up Tower Bridge and other London landmarks – potential targets

Footage released last week includes frames of high-profile attractions which could be the site of an attack.

They include Buckingham Palace, Trafalgar Square, Tower Bridge and Big Ben.

It marks a change in focus from the Paris massacre, where gunmen shunned national monuments in favour of restaurants, bars and a music venue.

The ISIS message compared the coming strike to scenes of Armageddon in the Koran.

Organised campaign to hobble anti-terror fight

Ifhat Smith talks to Sky News

Ifhat Smith talks to Sky News

Telegraph, By Andrew Gilligan, Jan. 30 2016:

An organised campaign to undermine Britain’s fight against terrorism can be revealed today.

Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent.

Investigations by the Telegraph reveal that several widely reported recent stories about Prevent are false or exaggerated – and many of the supposedly “ordinary Muslim” victims are in fact activists in the campaign, known as Prevent Watch. The stories include a claim which became a cause célèbre for Prevent’s opponents – that a Muslim schoolboy from London was “interrogated like a criminal” for using the phrase “ecoterrorism” in class.

The boy’s mother, Ifhat Smith, who took the story to the media, presented herself as a traumatised ordinary Londoner. She is in fact an activist in the Prevent Watch campaign and a key figure in the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, which believes in replacing secular democratic government with Islamic government.

In a “scathing” court judgment to be published shortly, Mrs Smith’s legal claim against her son’s school and the Government has been dismissed as baseless and she has been ordered to pay £1,000 for wasting court time.

Jahangir Mohammed, a Cage activist

Jahangir Mohammed, a Cage activist

In November, the BBC reported that the east London council of Waltham Forest had mistakenly released the first names of some primary school pupils thought at risk of radicalisation.

The release came as the result of a parent’s Freedom of Information Act request for correspondence about Prevent. The parent concerned, Haras Ahmed, described Prevent as “a disaster from start to finish”, and said he was “appalled [that] children’s data, such sensitive data, are released.”

However, a council spokesman said that the names had been blocked out in the release sent to Mr Ahmed but that the information sent had been “manipulated by a third party to reveal the blocked-out names.”

In the coverage, Mr Ahmed presented himself as merely an ordinary parent. However, he is also an activist in Prevent Watch. An online search would have revealed that he was listed to speak at a meeting with the group only four days after the story aired.

Prevent Watch heavily promoted a BBC story about a Muslim boy in Accrington, Lancashire, whose family was supposedly visited by police under Prevent after he wrote at school that he lived in a “terrorist house,” a misspelling of terraced house.

Police said the visit had nothing to do with Prevent, terrorism, or the spelling mistake and was, in fact, carried out because the child also alleged that he was the victim of a violent assault. Clive Grunshaw, the Lancashire police and crime commissioner, has complained to the BBC about the story.

The corporation and other media outlets have issued corrections but Prevent Watch continues to promote the false story on its website and Twitter feed. “Extremists and terrorist sympathisers are using the media to make it harder for the authorities to fight terrorism,” said Hannah Stuart, research fellow at the counter-extremism think tank the Henry Jackson Society.

“Journalists need to check basic facts and ask simple questions about the identity and motivations of the people making these claims, otherwise Prevent Watch and Cage will be allowed to continue frightening and alienating Muslims with their campaign of lies.”

Prevent Watch’s website includes other cases which have nothing to do with Prevent. They include an account of how a female student, “HH,” felt offended when a lecturer made a joke about her joining Isil, and how a schoolgirl, “SA,” felt offended when her teacher posed questions to the class about democracy and British institutions. It also claims as “victimisation” a number of cases where a Prevent referral was clearly warranted, including that of a law student, “DF,” who was later convicted of terrorism offences.

Prevent Watch is linked to Cage, which notoriously defended “Jihadi John”, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant killer, and is described as an “apologist for terrorism” by Boris Johnson. Prevent Watch has links to Mend, an extremist front group which wants to let Muslims fight in Syria.

At a rally in Waltham Forest later this week, Mrs Smith and Mr Ahmed will share a platform with Jahangir Mohammed, a Cage activist, regular speaker at its events and co-author of at least three reports for Cage, one of which described Prevent as a “cradle-to-grave police state.”

Mr Mohammed wrote an article in the Socialist Worker for Cage, blaming the security services for the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby and saying that “if anyone radicalised [the killer Michael Adebolajo], it was them.” There is no suggestion that Mrs Smith or Mr Ahmed are supporters of terrorism.

Another speaker at Wednesday’s rally will be Weyman Bennett, a hard-Left activist who has falsely claimed that Prevent criminalises any opponent of the Government, stating that “if you question Cameron, you are a non-violent extremist.” Alex Kenny, an senior member of the National Union of Teachers (NUT), will also speak.

As The Telegraph revealed last week, Mr Kenny and other NUT leaders and activists in east London are working with Cage and Mend to undermine Prevent, even though teachers have a legal duty to safeguard pupils from extremism. Rob Ferguson, an NUT activist, orchestrated a statement which falsely claimed that Prevent has caused attempts to ban school prayers and targeted young people “for the views they hold on issues such as government foreign policy.” The NUT has refused to take action against him.

Kevin Courtney, deputy general secretary of the NUT, said: “It is quite correct to raise any legitimate concerns about the Prevent strategy that could result in unintended negative consequences. To inoculate children against radicalisation, teachers need to encourage free-flowing debate inside schools, but one concern is that children will be reported over things they say which are not of an extremist nature.”

Prevent Watch’s website and Twitter feed quote many false and inflammatory statements about Prevent, including a claim that “a child simply praying has now become an act that requires state surveillance and intervention.” The group describes as “excellent” a guide by the National Union of Students which claims that even feeling “anxious or reserved in class,” having “a desire for political or moral change,” or “questioning western media reporting” makes students “liable to court-sanctioned accusations of radicalisation”.

None of these are grounds for intervention and few real Prevent interventions are directly police led. As with the child in the “eco-terrorist” incident, most incidents are resolved quickly and informally at school level. Others may involve a referral to Channel, a mentoring programme run by Muslim civilians in which participation is voluntary.

Prevent Watch claims that Prevent “singles out” Muslims because it is “racist”. Almost all terrorist plots and attacks in Great Britain over the last ten years have involved Muslims, and all those who have joined Isil are Muslim. However, only 56 per cent of those referred for Channel interventions are Muslim.

Trump: Banned in Britain?

re

Frontpage, by Deborah Weiss, Jan. 28, 2016:

Shortly after Britain celebrated the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta, which laid the foundation for human rights including free expression, the UK Parliament debated whether or not to ban U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump for “hateful comments.”

On January 18, 2016, Martin Luther King Day, the British Parliament took up a three hour debate, at taxpayer expense, discussing the merits of banning an American who may  potentially be the leader of the Free World come the next Inauguration day.

The debate was sparked by a petition to ban Trump, signed by approximately 575,000 Brits, likely comprised primarily of Muslims and liberals.

Attacking Trump as a bigoted Islamophobe, a racist, a fool, a buffoon and wazzok, Members of Parliament argued over whether or not it was a good idea to ban from entry, an American citizen, who was speaking to an American audience, using speech legally protected in America.

Members of the Labour Party and those representing the Scottish National Party were particularly harsh, claiming that Trump’s comments weren’t just “wrong” but “dangerous,” and don’t just “harm our values” but promote Daesh’s “twisted narrative” that “pits the West against the Muslim faith.”

Sparking the controversy was Trump’s announcement of support for a ban on Muslim immigration into America until “our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Steve Double, a conservative MP, noted the irony of a Parliament that seeks to ban Trump for his ideas, in reaction to Trump’s position seeking to ban people based on their ideas.

Yet others argued that Trump’s comments crossed the line from “hate speech” to “discrimination” or “incitement,” despite the fact Trump has said nothing to encourage others to be violent.  It is this conflation of language and the disintegration of values, including personal responsibility, which is at the root of political correctness that truly poses a danger to Western civilization.

Censorship is clearly on the rise throughout the West including Europe, Canada and even in America.  It takes place in many forms including, but not limited to, societal self-censorship, government condemnation of speech, and so-called “hate speech laws.”

Still, it is only “hate speech” against Muslims that appears to concern the British MP’s, who are pandering to their increasing Muslim constituency.  Muslims in the UK who preach “Death to the West,” hatred of infidels, and abhorrence of all things British, are not shouldering equal accusations of “hate speech.”

To the contrary, Britain has had a somewhat “hands off” attitude towards Muslims, whether jihadists entering from abroad or Islamists preaching hatred of infidels at home.  It has welcomed war criminals, rapists and “refugees,” sometimes with fake passports, so long as they claim Asylum, legitimately or not.

In 2013, Kuwaiti Sheik Yasser Al-Habib came to Britain specifically for the purpose of riling up ShiaMuslims against Sunnis.  He spent 2 million pounds buying a former church and converting it to a mosque and satellite TV channel, from which he broadcasts his fiery sermons.  Though he was formerly jailed in Kuwait for similar practices, complaints to the British Home Secretary fell on deaf ears.

Another case in point is Behar Kasemi, a Muslim refugee in Britain, who has been arrested for threatening to cut his wife’s heart out because she became “too British.” During his interview with police, he insisted that wives are supposed to obey their husbands.

Additionally, subsequent to the public launch of ISIS sex slave trade, approximately 1400 British girls were raped by Pakistani “British” Muslims.  Still, the government has failed to even initiate an inquiry or investigation.

ISIS has made no secret that it planned to smuggle jihadists into Europe through the refugee program in furtherance of its goal to conquer the West and expand its “Caliphate.” According to at least one ISIS operative, ISIS members have already successfully entered Western countries under the guise of Asylum-seeking.

To make matters worse, a Barnabus report indicates that Prime Minister David Cameron was warned prior to accepting the first wave of the 20,000 refugees scheduled to enter the U.K. that ISIS jihadists were among them. But that didn’t stop him from welcoming them with open arms.

The UK government’s previous standard to ban a person from entry was that such a ban would be “conducive to the public good.” It standard later expanded to “unacceptable behavior.”  Ostensibly, jihadi outrages, tirades and violence against infidels constitute acceptable behavior, while speech criticizing such hatred is simply unacceptable.

The British government is in full denial mode, suffering from Jihad Denial Syndrome.  British police denied that the 7/7 terrorist attacks were religiously motivated.  Imams caught on tape preaching venomous anti-infidel sermons have gone unprosecuted as have those who have desecrated Britain’s war memorials.

Although there has long been an unholy alliance between the far left and Islamists, this diseased mindset is spreading to “conservatives” such as David Cameron in Britain.  Whether due to fear, ignorance, spinelessness or Islamist sympathies, British politicians simply do not want to acknowledge that Islamicsupremacism is underlying motivation for the attacks on British citizens and British values.

It is unfortunate that the U.K., past known for its liberal democracy and a proud tradition of free expression has stooped to the level of this Parliamentary debate.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a 57-UN Member body, has long been on a mission at the head-of-state level, to persuade Western governments to penalize “defamation of Islam” with deterrent punishments, preferably criminal in nature.  Under the guise of “defamation”, “Islamophobia”, “racism”, “hate speech” and “incitement”, the OIC aspires to attain the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West.

The OIC and other Islamist organizations have also been promoting the false idea that “hate speech’causes terrorism.  As a case in point, it cites the riots subsequent to publication of the infamous Danish cartoons. The assumption is that these riots were inevitable, and their fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the cartoonists rather than those who committed violence.

Having bought into the notion that speech causes terrorism, politically correct politicians espouse the idea that the way to quell terrorism is to stifle speech.  Thus, the rising of speech restrictions regarding Islam are on the rise all across the West, not coincidentally concurrent with the rise of ISIS-inspired attacks and the influx of Muslim refugees.

Many Western politicians parrot stealth Islamist groups, insisting that we must de-link our association of Islam from Islamic terrorism “because that’s what groups like ISIL want.”  Yet, what ISIS does or does not want should not control us.  The Enemy Threat Doctrine mandates that if jihadists say they are religiously motivated, we should acknowledge this fact.  We must know our enemy and be able to name it by name in order to produce an effective strategy of defeat.

Denial of a problem does not make the problem disappear.  To the contrary, the first step in overcoming a threat is acknowledging both its existence and its nature.  Yet, jihadist ideology is only half the problem.  Political correctness, as exemplified by politicians more concerned about “offensive language” than the proliferation of jihadist ideology, constitutes a threat from within.

The U.K. parliamentary proceeding was largely for show. It ended without a vote, as only the Home Secretary has the authority to implement a ban.

Nevertheless, the debate was symbolic of the loss of the Judeo-Christian values of freedom of expression, human rights and personal responsibility, once cherished in the UK.

Donald Trump was merely stating a political position which acknowledged that the US government cannot decipher who is or is not adhering to an enemy ideology and that officials don’t yet have sufficient knowledge to make proper judgments regarding entry.  Apparently, this is an unpopular viewpoint among British MP’s.  And, the UK is increasingly using a ban from entry as a form of tyrannical censorship for those who merely express a dissenting political view or an unpalatable truth, so long as it doesn’t come from Muslims.

Demonstrating the height of British dhimmitude and hypocrisy regarding what is or is not “acceptable behavior,” is the UK’s past bans of Dutch MP Geert Wilders, talk radio show host Michael Savage, and Islamic scholar and author Robert Spencer.  None of them have ever encouraged violence or illegality.  To the contrary, each are on the front-lines in the fight for freedom, including freedom of speech.  If indeed, Donald Trump is banned from the UK, at least he will be in good company.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine.  She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.”  Her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.