Think Tank Report Merges Racism With Criticism of Islam To Achieve ‘Islamophobia Crisis’ Numbers

BBC-Demos-3-640x480Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, Aug. 19, 2016:

The BBC has seized upon a report by a left-wing think tank, which openly conflates criticism of Islam with racism, to claim “islamophobia” on social media has “peaked” and imply more censorship is needed.

Demos, whose Chief Executive is Claudia Wood, who joined the think tank from Tony Blair’s strategy unit, developed a method of supposedly automatically identifying Tweets that are “hateful, derogatory, and anti-Islamic”.

They claimed that over 5,000 “Islamophobic” tweets are sent every day and that the number “peaked” after a number of Islamist terror attacks rocked Europe this July.

“Over July, we identified 215,247 Tweets, sent in English and from around the world… On average, this is 289 per hour, or 6,943 per day”, the report claims.

“Islamophobic tweets ‘peaked in July’”, claimed a BBC article and extended segment on the BBC News Channel, after they were given “exclusive access” the report which they published alongside a series of emotive and subjective interviews with “offended” and aggrieved British Muslims.

These “possibly socially problematic and damaging” online utterances were said to “contain one of a number of specified keywords”.

However, the National Secular Society (NSS) labelled the report “an accidental case-study in why we should all stop using the meaningless and sinister word ‘Islamophobia’”, and identified some serious methodological flaws.

Benjamin Jones, the communications officer of the NSS, explained in a blog post:

“In their report Demos selects some tweets it included in the study, which they presumably think are good examples of their methodology in action. A tweet stating “Morocco deletes a whole section of the Koran from school curriculum as it’s full of jihad incitement and violence The Religion of peace” is treated the same way as a tweet saying “I fucking hate pakis” in their methodology.

“One of these tweets criticises an idea. The other is racist. One describes and mocks a belief system, the other (verbally) attacks people. Demos’ methodology treats both of these tweets in the same way.

“I have read (an English translation of) the Koran. Saying it contains violence (it does) is in no way comparable to using racist language.

“This is an appalling conflation, which creates a false moral equivalence between racism and criticising a set of ideas.

“Another tweet Demos offer as an example reads: “Priest killed in #Normandy today by a Radical Islamic Terrorist yet Hillary says that Islam is peaceful! 1274 attacks this year=peaceful? Ok.”

“Is asserting that Islam doesn’t seem to be conducive to peace really ‘Islamophobic’? The BBC apes Demos’ dangerous line, referring not to anti-Muslim, but explicitly to “anti-Islamic” tweets as ‘Islamophobic’.

“… Wanting to jail homosexuals might also be “socially problematic”, but pointing out that half of British Muslims do want to criminalise homosexuality and most think it is immoral would have me labelled an ‘Islamophobe’ under Demos’ methodology.”

The report’s authors claim that “we believe it is important that the principle of internet freedom should be maintained… However, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic abuse can curtail freedom…”

In the methodology section of their paper, they write that “An Islamophobic expression was defined as the illegitimate and prejudicial dislike of Muslims because of their faith”, but conceded that, “Islamophobia can take on a very large number of different forms, and its identification, especially within Twitter research, was often challenging.”

“Ultimately, this research comes down to the judgement of the researchers involved”, they add.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-19-at-13.56.03

According to NSS, Demos clearly failed to successfully identify bigotry, and by conflating it with legitimate criticism Islam and Islamism, they and the BBC have damaged people’s ability to speak freely on the subject.

An example of this conflation came within the BBC’s own report, when a man interrupted one of the Muslim interviewees to say that “there is no sharia law here” and “we’re losing our freedom of speech”.

The man was immediately castigated by the Muslim interviewee, and the BBC ran a second article titled: “BBC Islamophobia discussion interrupted by Islamophobia”, implying that stating Sharia law isn’t part of UK law is itself Islamophobic.

Convictions for crimes under Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, a law increasingly used to prosecute “internet trolls”, have increased ten-fold in a decade.

Earlier this week, the office of London’s first Muslim mayor announced they had secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.”

And in May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Also see:

Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total Confrontation”. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the West for ten years.

The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization — the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less violent but parallel way.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states) proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).

Criminalizing Islamophobia[1] was the OIC’s major initiative since 1999, at which time it began pushing for a blasphemy-against-Islam UN resolution. That resolution finally passed in 2011 as UN Resolution 16/18 — the underpadding of which is to establish a global Islamic hegemony or caliphate that subjugates the entire world to Sharia. UN Resolution 16/18 and the hate-speech laws that it gave rise to simply facilitate the Islamization of the West.

Both timelines are influencing, guiding, and mobilizing jihadists worldwide to launch attacks that are gaining momentum throughout the West. All-out war has begun with more and more Islamic terrorist attacks launching worldwide, including now in the U.S.

Video: Islamic State’s Most Wanted

_89335169_89335168BBC, April 20, 2016:

A group of Syrian teenagers decided to resist when the so-called Islamic State group took control of their city. They became citizen journalists and used the internet to show the reality of life in Raqqa.

***

On BBC Radio Chloe Hadjimatheou tells the astonishing story of a group of young men from Raqqa, Syria, who chose to resist the so-called Islamic State, which occupied their city in 2014 and made it the capital of their ‘Caliphate’. These extraordinary activists have risked everything to oppose ISIS; several have been killed, or had family members murdered. ISIS has put a bounty on the resistance leaders’ heads forcing them to go into hiding. But the group continues its work, under the banner Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. Chloe meets the group’s founders, who are now organising undercover activists in Raqqa from the relative safety of other countries.

***

Playlist (5 videos)

***

Also see:

World’s Richest Terror Army – BBC Documentary 2015

isis-flag (2)

Published on Apr 22, 2015 by b7

This World World’s Richest Terror Army BBC Documentary 2015
The inside story of how a small band of fanatical jihadi fighters became the world’s richest terror army ever. Featuring the first major TV interview with an imprisoned senior leader of the so-called Islamic State, Peter Taylor looks behind its medieval savagery and investigates how it became so fabulously rich and resilient. Part of a season of films on BBC Two about the Islamic State.

Surrender: BBC Arabic and Al Jazeera English want to ban the word “terrorist” from reporting

Slide111-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 28, 2015

Is anyone still talking about Charlie Hebdo? I wondered how long the response would last. We saw world leaders come together – well, one was missing — to denounce the violence and stand for free speech.

Everyone was saying this would be the turning point and perhaps finally there would be global and widespread condemnation of militant Islamic jihadism.

Well, the only sustained response has come from the Islamic terrorists themselves– from the Philippines, to Yemen, to Kabul, and just recently in Tripoli. And all you have to do is listen to the words of Turkish President Erdogan, who blamed the cartoonists and the violent protests from across the Islamic world — because you’re not allowed to “mock” Muhammad. And if you didn’t know, that’s one of the traditions of Muhammad, since he killed those who mocked him.

So here we are, what — two, three weeks later after the horrific massacre in Paris? And what is the response from Western media?

Surrender.

As reported by the UK Telegraph, a senior executive at the BBC said “the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris should be not be described as “terrorists” by the BBC as the term is too “loaded.”

“Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services, said the term “terrorist” was seen as “value-laden” and should not be used to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on the French satirical magazine.”

“We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist,” Mr Kafala told The Independent.“What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.” He added: “Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to.”

The BBC is not alone. The Washington Times reports that “Al Jazeera English executive Carlos van Meek banned his news employees from using words like “terrorist,” “Islamist” and “jihad,” explaining that it’s important to realize that some might take offense — that one person’s idea of terrorism is simply another person’s fight for freedom.”

Yes, one person’s savage beheading of a civilian, is just…well, a savage beheading – but it’s ok, because it’s in the fight for freedom.

It just never ceases to amaze me how the Islamapologists will just break their necks to play nice and not offend the enemy. They’ll come up with the most inane excuses to basically say there’s no reason to refer to the enemy in the manner in which they refer to themselves.

Not only are Islamic terrorists killing us, they’re making us too scared to even call them who they are — the ultimate in forced censorship. How could this happen?

Think of the battles Western civilization has fought against Islamic jihadism. Charles Martel in 732 at the Battle of Tours. The Venetian fleet in 1571 at Lepanto. The Germanic and Polish Knights at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. Or how about a young America which crushed the Barbary pirates of North Africa in the early 1800s? When did we become so cowardly — and folks, that is exactly what this is. Oh, excuse me, not all of us — when did the leadership in the West become so doggone skittish?

“Of the Paris case, Mr Kafala said: “We avoid the word terrorists. It’s a terrorist attack, anti-terrorist police are deployed on the streets of Paris. Clearly all the officials and commentators are using the word so obviously we broadcast that.” Mr Kufala’s stance is in line with the BBC’s editorial guidelines on reporting “terrorism” which state: “[The BBC] does not ban the use of the word. “However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators.”

You gotta be kidding me. It appears the Patriots football team isn’t the only place you’ll find deflated balls.

Folks, if I were the Islamic terrorists, I’d press the attack as well. Weakness is so enticing and has a sweet aroma for those who sense fear. Can any of you imagine Sir Winston Churchill going on the air during the Battle of Britain and imploring the Brits not to speak ill of the Nazis?

“The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorist group’ can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality. “It may be better to talk about an apparent act of terror or terrorism than label individuals or a group.” When reporting an attack, the BBC guidelines say it should use words, which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper” or “militant.”

In other words, try to find anything to call the enemy something palatable — not to the enemy, but for us. This goes beyond PC, it is abject dismissal and reflects a cowardly reticence to confront the “boogeyman.”

Some say we don’t need to define the enemy. Then how do you defeat them when you refuse to acknowledge the ideology that fuels them and is the core of their belief system? When Western media outlets run away in fear and report in a fearful manner, we will never see the enemy for who they are – because the media reports are in effect censored.

What this means is that the Islamic jihadists are winning the propaganda and information war.

You want an example of how insidiously pandering we appear? Read this closing statement: “A BBC spokesman said: “There is no BBC ban on the word ‘terrorist’, as can be seen from our reporting of the terrorist attack in Paris, though we prefer a more precise description if possible – the Head of BBC Arabic was simply reflecting BBC editorial guidelines and making a general point about the nuances of broadcasting internationally.”

There is no nuance when someone is being beheaded — and there should be no nuance in reporting such savage and barbaric behavior.

BBC Asia interviews a Hamas leader on their ties with Iran and ambitions

By Vlad Tepes:

This is a significant interview and while it was supposed to be available in English by request, no request was answered by those who asked. Please download and spread this video by any and all means in case it is removed. It must be seen and understood. While it isn’t a ‘sexy’ video of psychos screaming, it is an extremely powerful person calmly discussing geopolitically significant matters such as nuclear weapons, genocide, strategic alliances and enmity as well as ambitions as well as the implementation of sharia in Gaza. Add to this recent demonstrations of Hamas’ alliance with Turkey and we see what could be a game changer in the region.

Islamic State: Young British Muslims debate Caliphate

BBC, Aug. 14, 2014: (h/t Cultural Jihad)

When the extremist group widely known as Isis (now renamed Islamic State) declared a Caliphate taking in parts of Syria and Iraq, they reignited a debate over the issue.

The Ottoman Empire was the last widely recognised Caliphate and most of those in the West have only the faintest, if any, idea of what the word means.

But for some Muslims it is what they are waiting for, whether they back Islamic State or not – a state to restore a sense of dignity that many feel has been lost.

BBC Asian Network reporter Catrin Nye gathered young British Muslims from different sects of Islam to hear about their views on the concept of a Caliphate and what it means to them.

UK Child Brides Victims of “Cultural Sensitivity”

 

Report: Saudis To Buy Pakistani A-Bomb if Iran Goes Nuclear

Kerry-saudiBY CLARE LOPEZ:

For a long time, when the Saudis talked about a “nuclear free zone” in the Middle East, it was understood they meant that Israel should be forced to admit it had a nuclear weapons capability and then be disarmed.

These days, though, while some of the language still sounds the same, as in the following statement from the Saudi Arabian Embassy in London, the real fear involves Iran far more than it does Israel.

Citing Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal, the embassy statement of November 7, 2013 emphasized that

Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has signed a comprehensive safegurards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and has consistently supported the establishment of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East.

What apparently prompted this statement from the Saudis was aBBC report of the previous day that laid out in fairly stark language the prospects for nuclear proliferation in Saudi Arabia. Mark Urban, the BBC’s diplomatic and defense editor, wrote that

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will … 

According to the same BBC report, a month earlier, in October 2013, Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran were allowed to go nuclear,

…the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb; they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring. 

All of this is taking place against the backdrop of talks in Geneva over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. While talks broke off on November 9 with no agreement, they are scheduled to resume on November 20.

At issue is the Iranian ability to achieve nuclear breakout and construct a bomb—and efforts by the so-called P-5 + 1 powers (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council—France, Russia, UK, U.S., plus Germany) to forestall that eventuality.

A new report issued by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) on October 24, 2013 estimated that Iran might need as little as one month to enrich enough uranium to the Weapons Grade level needed to make one nuclear weapon.

Most analysts watching the current highly unstable security situation in the Middle East expect that once Iran demonstrates a nuclear weapons status, whatever remaining hold the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) may have over regional signatories (which include Iran and Saudi Arabia but not Israel) will disintegrate.

The intra-Islamic sectarian struggle between Shi’ite and Sunni forces playing out most savagely in Iraq and Syria would enter an ominous new phase, with Sunni powers such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps others moving openly to seek a nuclear weapons capability of their own.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

South African Radio Station Fined For Unflattering Mention Of Islam

microphone_matthew_keefe_flickr

Thus South African journalists mentioning in the future Islam and Muslims will have to consider not just professional censure, but also penalties if they indicate that Islamic belief is “more readily identifiable” with any harm.

by ANDREW E. HARROD:

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) fined in an August 29, 2013 judgment a South African radio broadcaster for making an “unjustifiable connection with Islam” during news reports.

This punitive second-guessing of journalistic conduct with respect to referencing background material such as a religion entails the most negative of consequences for a crucially important unhindered discussion of Islam.

BCCSA fined the public broadcaster SAfm R10,000 each for two violations of South Africa’sBroadcasting Code on May 24, 2013. The complainant, SAMNET (South African Muslim Network), charged in the first instance that a SAfm noon bulletin discussed “immigrants protesting in Switzerland about employment and other issues.” The clip stated that the “protesters were not linked to any religion even though some Muslims were present.” “By inference…members of other religious groups” unnamed were present. This “blatant prejudicial reporting…casts Muslims in a negative light.”

The second SAMNET accusation involved an afternoon news report of two men arrested for endangering a Pakistan-United Kingdom flight. Various news reports described “British nationals” involved in a “criminal offense” with no “terrorism angle.” Yet SAfm linked the flight with the May 22 London murder of British soldier Lee Rigby described by SAfm’s announcer as “perpetrated by two Islamic extremists.” SAMNET objected that no information tied the episode to terrorism or Islam, and thereby “adding to the already anger [sic] against Muslims…after the Boston and Woolwich incidents, SAFM news is perpetuating misconceptions and prejudice.”

SAfm responded to the first charge that the Switzerland clip came from the BBC already referencing Muslim protesters. Although SAfm has a policy “of not identifying anyone by race or religion unless it is critical to the story,” here this was “unfortunately…beyond our control.” SAfm, though, will “henceforth be carefully vetting any inputs from foreign news sources.”

With respect to the plane story also sourced from the BBC, SAfm observed that this “big scare…came shortly after” Rigby’s murder. SAfm cited “widespread reports on the two British nationals involved” in the killing referring “to their Muslim faith,” along with official British views of the “incident as an act of terrorism.” Yet SAfm conceded that a reference to “Islamic terrorists…might have been an unfair inference” and was an “unfortunate deviation” from a “policy of not making such references unless authoritatively confirmed.”

“It is of the utmost importance,” BCCSA concluded, “that the identification of a person on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or gender, to name but four prominent instances, should not take place unless absolutely necessary.” SAfm allegedly violated this journalistic policy as there was “no evidence that religion had anything to do with the news items.”

People “have the Constitutional right to be informed truthfully” and not to “be discriminated against unfairly.” The assumption that “members of the Islamic faith are more readily identifiable with crime or, at least certain crimes, is, clearly, blatantly unfair.” BCCSA, though, refrained from condemning SAfm for “Islamophobia,” a form of “persistent fear…not justified” on the basis of these two incidents.

Read more at Breitbart

Possible Suspect in Westgate Mall Al Shabaab Massacre sought by Norwegian Intelligence

Ikrima-Norway-thumb-560x314-2519(1)

Unidentified Norwegian woman and alleged Westgate Mall Al Shabaab commander Abdulkadir Mohamed Abdulkadir, aka Ikrima  Source:  TV2

By Jerry Gordon:

A hat tip to Fjordman blogger.

A suspect in the Nairobi Westgate Mall massacre may be a Norwegian Citizen of Somali origin and a possible acquaintance of   al Shabaab commander “Ikrima” sought in an unsuccessful US Navy Seal Team Six raid in Baarwe, Somalia last weekend.  BBC reported that Norwegian Intelligence (PST) is investigating that possibility.  Kenyan security authorities have also identified the remains of four of the Jihad perpetrators   Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta apologized in a  Star article in for the bungled operation that witnessed more than 62 civilians and six Kenyan security personnel killed, extensive damage and looting  to the upscale mall in Nairobi.  The Star report cited police allegations that the Westgate Mall attack may have been planned in both Norway and Somalia. These reports indicate the broad reach of Al Shabaab recruitment among disaffected Somali refugees and asylees in the West.  One of the major UNHCR Somali refugee camps in Kenya at Dadaab might have been a staging area for the Westgate Mall attack.

The Long War Journal has this updated report on these latest developments,“Norwegian authorities looking for Westgate massacre suspect”.

The Norwegian intelligence agency PST today announced the launch of an investigation into reports that a Norwegian was involved in the Shabaab massacre at the Westgate Mall in Kenya. The suspect is a Norwegian of Somali origin, and may be an acquaintance of the al Qaeda affiliate’s external operations chief, Abdulkadir Mohamed Abdulkadir, also known as Ikrima.

According to the BBC, the PST has dispatched investigators to Kenya to determine the extent of the Norwegian suspect’s involvement and to help prevent new terror threats. The inquiry also aims to see if the suspect is linked to Shabaab. PST section leader Jan Glent also said he could not rule out “more Norway-linked suspects,” Reuters reported.

The PST statement did not identify the suspect by name, but said he was a Norwegian citizen who had allegedly been involved in the planning and execution of the attack on Nairobi’s Westgate Mall last month. Over 62 people were killed in the four-day siege, which has been claimed by Shabaab, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia.

Norwegian press reports indicate that Shabaab external operations chief Ikrima spent time in Norway several years ago. He arrived in 2004 and applied for asylum there. Norway’s TV2 said he had stayed “at a reception center in Moelv in Hedmark from 2004” and for several years after that.

Hamisi Zahidi, a fellow asylum seeker who knew Ikrima at the time, told the Norwegian news outlet that Ikrima disliked Norwegians and Norwegian culture, and was known to be involved in terrorist recruitment in Norway and elsewhere. While in Norway, Ikrima lived in the Oslo area but also visited Somalia, TV2 said. Ikrima departed Norway in 2008 without having received a decision on his asylum application.

The US failed to capture Ikrima in a raid in Somalia on Oct. 5, but reportedly two Shabaab operatives during the raid, including a “Swedish Somali” said to be Abdi Qadar. The Department of Defense said that Ikrima is “a top commander in the terrorist group al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda affiliate,” who had been “closely associated” with two deceased senior al Qaeda and Shabaab leaders, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh al Saleh Nabhan.

Also on Oct. 5, Kenya named four of the Westgate Mall attackers: Abu Baara al-Sudani, a Sudanese; Omar Nabhan, a Kenyan; Khattab al-Kene, thought to be a Somali; and Umayr, whose surname and nationality were not disclosed. Shabaab has been known to use non-Somalis for attacks in the past, including American suicide bombers.

The subject of the investigation is a Somali Norwegian who holds a Norwegian passport, according to an NRK report, and is not Ikrima.

Read more at New English Review

Kenyan Parliament Rethinking Somali Immigration after Bloody Mall Carnage

410958-nairobi-westgate-shopping-mall-siege-450x300By :

It’s something that we should be thinking seriously about as well. We’ve already had a major Somali attempted terror attack here. That one was intercepted and prevented, but we can only get lucky so many times before we have our own Westgate.

A Kenyan parliamentary committee is to call for camps for Somali refugees in the country to close in the wake of the Westgate mall attack, a senior MP says.

Ndung’u Gethenji, head of the defence committee, told the BBC he had reports that “some of these facilities are being used as a training ground”.

More than 500,000 Somalis have sought refuge from war and poverty in Kenya.

Mr Gethenji said that Kenya had to rethink “its hospitality in supporting refugee camps within our borders”.

Kenya is host to the largest refugee camp in the world, Dadaab – home to about half a million people – while it is believed that more than 30,000 Somali refugees live in Nairobi alone.

Somalia is violent and Islamist run. Importing large numbers of Somalis into your country is simply asking for trouble.

In the past decade, Burmese have been the largest group of refugees resettled to the United States with 88,348 (or 17 percent of the total 515,350 refugees) being resettled since 2002. The next two groups are Iraqis (12 percent, or 62,902) and Somalis (11 percent, or 58,050).

Or to put it another way, there are three times as many Somalis in America as there are in Nairobi. That’s far too many. And the consequences are already ugly.

Read more at Front Page

See also:

UK Taxi Rapes – “No Woman is Safe in a Cab”

by Soeren Kern:

Taxi rapes are rarely reported; apparently because the politically incorrect crimes are not deemed to be newsworthy. BBC radio host Sam Mason, a single mother, was fired after she called a taxi company and requested a “non-Asian” driver to take her 14-year-old daughter to her grandparents’ home; preferably a female driver. The operator refused, and said, “We would class that as being racist.” Mason responded, “It’s not your 14-year-old girl.” A BBC spokesman said, “[Mason’s] comments were completely unacceptable…she will no longer be working for the BBC.”

Great Britain is in the throes of a rape and pedophilia epidemic unlike anything the country has experienced in living memory.

Many of the sex crimes are being perpetrated by Muslim child grooming gangs responsible for drugging, raping and torturing hundreds and possibly thousands of British girls.

But another wave of sex crimes involves predatory Muslim taxi drivers who are raping female passengers. The number of so-called taxi rapes is snowballing to such an extent that a British judge has issued a warning that no woman can expect to be safe while traveling in a cab.

Reliable statistics on taxi rapes nationwide are difficult to obtain, and Freedom of Information requests seeking accurate data on cab-related sexual assaults are routinely denied (here and here).

 

A London taxicab. (Source: James Barrett)

However, a much acclaimed report produced by the London Metropolitan Police Service estimates that on average there are a total of 1,125 sexual assaults, including rapes, each year involving taxi drivers in just London; this works out to approximately 22 sexual assaults against women by taxi drivers each week in England’s capital city alone.

Moreover, according to a report entitled, “Ending Violence against Women and Girls in the UK,” published by the Home Office in March 2013, only around one in ten women who experience serious sexual assault report it to the police. As a result, one can infer that the actual number of taxi rapes across Britain as a whole is far greater than many are willing to admit.

Apart from a few high-profile cases, taxi rapes are rarely reported by national newspapers in Britain, apparently because the politically incorrect crimes are not deemed to be newsworthy.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

SHARIA COURTS IN BRITAIN: A HIDDEN CAMERA REPORT

muslim-arbitration-tribunal (1)Watchdog Wire, by Guy Rogers:

A BBC Panorama Documentary goes undercover in one of the eighty-five sharia courts operating as a parallel legal system in the UK, uncovering the extensive abuse of women, refusal to grant divorces, charging of the woman but not the man for divorce proceedings, and even the taking away of the woman’s children, and rulings contrary to British law.

The International Policy Council (IPC) from the Gatestone Institute states, “The undercover investigation proves what has long been suspected: namely, that Sharia courts, which operate in mosques and houses across Britain, routinely issue rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Islamic Sharia law that are at odds with British law. Although Sharia rulings are not legally binding, those subject to the rulings often feel obliged to obey them as a matter of religious belief, or because of pressure from family and community members to do so.”

The IPC notes:

The documentary contends that the Sharia courts, run by Muslim judges known as qadi, are putting women at risk of violence from abusive husbands by pressuring them to stay in abusive marriages.

In one case, the BBC secretly filmed proceedings at the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, a heavily Islamized area in east London. While there, a BBC reporter met Sonia, a Muslim woman from Leeds who has suffered extreme physical abuse from her husband. When Sonia obtained a civil divorce, the courts allowed her husband only indirect access to the children.

Go inside a sharia court in Britain and ask yourself: Do we want this in the United States?

Hamas-connected CAIR claims that American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation is “anti-Muslim.” The attempt to pass ALAC in 2013 stalled in the Florida legislature when Democrats used a procedural maneuver to kill the bill.

When you watch this must see video below, you’ll see how dishonest that CAIR claim is. That’s because the Muslim women abused by the sharia court system in Britain would be protected under American Laws for American Courts.

“There are some who are putting women at risk. And doing so for ridiculous reasons, namely that they are somehow responsible for the abuse they are suffering.” — Nazir Afzal, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, northwest England.

Related articles

BREAKING NEWS: Egypt Prosecutor Orders Arrest of Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide

Note the swords of peace

Note the swords of peace

By :

Global media is reporting that Egypt’s prosecutor’s office has ordered the arrest of Mohammed Badie, the Supreme Guide of the  Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. According to a BBC report:

Egypt’s prosecutor’s office has ordered the arrest of the leader of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement, Mohammed Badie, state media report.

Mr Badie is accused of inciting the violence in Cairo on Monday in which at least 51 people were killed.

Several leading Brotherhood figures are already in detention and warrants have been issued for hundreds more.

It comes as the interim prime minister attempts to form a government after the overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which Mr Morsi comes from, say his ousting by the army amounts to a coup.

Its supporters have been staging large protests at the Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque in the capital, demanding his release from detention and reinstatement.

The movement’s political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), has said it will not accept an offer to join the cabinet being set up by Prime Minister Hazem al-Beblawi.

Spokesman Gehad El-Haddad told Reuters the charges against Mr Badie and other senior leaders were ‘nothing more than an attempt by the police state to dismantle the Rabaa protest’.

He said some of those wanted by the authorities were at the protest.

‘Remain peaceful’ There were conflicting reports about what happened in Monday’s violence.

The Brotherhood maintains that the army opened fire as protesters were holding dawn prayers outside the Presidential Guard barracks where they believe he is being held.

In January 2010, our predecessor publication reported that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood had selected Mohammed Badie as its new leader, replacing former Supreme Guide Mohammed Mahdi Akef. At the time, the election was considered a victory for the “conservative” wing of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

Read more at The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch

 

AWESOME: London Imam unable to refute Robert Spencer’s claims about Koran

downloadThe Right Scoop:

Robert Spencer was on the BBC Asian Public Radio this past Friday and at one point the host asked him to quote verses from the Koran or the Hadiths that he finds reprehensible. Robert quickly responded with several verses from the Koran and one from the Hadith. But what is hilarious about this is that when the host went to Imam to provide the proper ‘context’ for these verses, since he objected to them being out of context, he was unable to do so and when put on the spot he claimed that this is Robert Spencer’s field. What? The host quickly responded to the Imam telling him that Islam was his field, but the Imam was unable to provide any context.

Listen below to at least the first 6 minutes to hear the unprepared Imam. I let it run for a few more minutes so you could hear Robert smack down the Imam one more time after the Imam said there was nothing in the Koran that sanctioned wife beating.

If you want to listen to the full 44 minutes of Robert countering different callers with different accusations, you can do so here.