The British government will overhaul counterterrorism policy, sanctioning cutting funding to Mohammedan groups who don't work to combat extremism. The funds will instead be used to identify threats in universities, prisons and the health service in a serious revamp of Labour's four year old Prevent program. Twenty Mohammedan groups have previously been identified as targets.
Scrutinizing Pakistani doctors, perhaps? One hopes this will make a difference, but at least it's clear Tory politicians are aware that this is an issue on which they will be judged by a significant percentage of voters.
#1
Just a start, but targeting illegals and bogus Social Security claims would determine who they have in the country. BTW, they don't have a clue who is there. Thanks France, thank you Brussels. Given the history, I should rejoice in what is happening to the UK, let them get some Mugabe style sharia law, but as I have origins there, it is only frustration, so no Schadenfreude here. Hope they don't mess around and do it properly, deporting whole tribes/clans......but I doubt it. It's a multi-cultural world, dont you know.
#2
Anyway, any of the above is irelevant if the law of the land doesn't apply. That has already been given away to Brussels and Sharia law, until this is fixed to be independantly determined by the British voter voting for UKIP, short of shooting these traitorous decision-makers will change anything. And, no, I don't advocate that. Lawfare and illegal immigration, it is, then, but crux is the law.
#3
Only islamist threat in this country is from the Pakistani community.Stop funding these two faced creatues and offer them the choice of a free flight to a country with Sharia Law!
Its only the welfare state that keeps them here!
How many indian Muslims deny the chance to move to Pakistan says it all!
Posted by: Paul D ||
06/07/2011 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I disagree, Paul D! You saying there are no Somali, no Saudies, no Albanians, Kosovans, Iraquia, Iranians, etc, including homegrown Muslim radicals, in the UK, or are they not dangerous if left to their own devices? With the latest call to individual jihad, I don't think individual profiling should be a problem, so let's just profile them all and not say anything, to be on the safe side. We know the Paks in the UK are the problem, they are a problem wherever they go, but someone else is pushing their button because, in reality, all they have is some goats.
The British government will be forced to say whether it supports the rights of Christians to wear the cross and opt out of diversity legislation as part of a landmark legal case.
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have ordered ministers to make a formal statement on whether they believe Christians' rights have been infringed in British courts that have repeatedly dismissed their entitlement to dress and act according to their beliefs.
The court has selected the cases of four applicants it considers to be of such legal significance they should be examined further. Once ministers have responded the court will decide whether to have full hearings.
The cases could lead to a final legal answer on how religious beliefs must be balanced against equality laws designed to prohibit discrimination against minority religions and other groups such as homosexuals.
The applicants are: Nadia Eweida, a British Airways worker who was barred from wearing a cross; Lillian Ladele, a former registrar who objected to conducting homosexual civil partnership ceremonies because of her faith. This led to disciplinary action by the local council where she had worked for 17 years; Gary McFarlane, a Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked by Relate, a counselling service, for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples; Shirley Chaplin, a former nurse who was barred from her job for wearing a cross.
The founder and director of the Christian Legal Centre, Andrea Minichiello Williams, which is supporting two of the applicants, said: ''These cases are massively significant on every front. There seems to be a disproportionate animosity towards the Christian faith and the workings of the courts in the UK has led to deep injustice.
''If we are successful in Strasbourg I hope the Equalities Act and other diversity legislation will be overhauled so that Christians are free to work and act in accordance with their conscience. David Cameron [the Prime Minister] now needs to put his money where his mouth is.''
Of Mrs Eweida and Mrs Chaplin, the European Court asked the British government: ''In each case, did the restriction on visibly wearing a cross or crucifix at work amount to an interference with the applicant's right to manifest her religion or belief, as protected by article 9 [the right to freedom of religion] of the [European] Convention [of Human Rights]?''
Earlier this year the court ruled that schools have a right to display a crucifix in classrooms, after an application brought by Catholics in Italy. The decision appeared to set European human rights law at odds with British courts, where all four applicants in the new round of cases have lost on appeal.
Continued on Page 47
#2
I believe that an employer - public or private - should have the right to regulate things his employees do or wear when this interferes with your work duties.
IF he can prove that a little pendant does that, he should have the right to ban it. Good luck.
As much as I understand the refusal of "sex therapy for homosexual couples": If this is a legal and legit part of your job description you either comply or look for another job.
Next thing would be that a Muslim waiter refuses to serve pork and wine in a restaurant.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/07/2011 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
An Islamic preacher told students that it was difficult to argue with Bin Laden's views and said "terrorism works" during a speech at a university in London.
Not one of the poor and ignorant claimed to populate the ranks of the jihadi organizations, then.
Certainly not Harry Paget Flashman either...
claimed that a "permanent state of war exists between the people of Islam and the people who opposed Islam," while addressing students at University College London (UCL). He gave the speech to the university's Islamic society while Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab, the Detroit bomber, was a student there in 2005.
Quite some time ago. Still, nice to know.
Referring to Osama in his 2005 UCL speech, Green, who says he is not an extremist, said that it was difficult to argue with his views. Green said, "His rational [sic] is, we are going to keep on killing your women and children until you stop killing our women and children. How do you argue with that? The other thing is that it seems that terrorism works. We certainly have precedent."
Did he mean the 9/11 attacks? I'm not sure that in the end that's worked well for the group organizing the attack...
This disclosure follows a statement by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in which she said there had been "complacency" by universities about Islamism.
Qasim Rafiq, a spokesman for the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, invited Green to speak at UCL along with two speakers from Hizb ut-Tahrir and another who has supported the Taliban. Since then, Green has been invited to give lectures at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies, Queen Mary and Bart's and at UCL.
Has the government considered either jailing such speakers for incitement or something, or expelling them from the country for un-British activities? Defenestration works as a concept, too.
#1
It works to generate donations to the preachers who claim to support it, thereby letting them live in the style to which they have become accustomed. This is why imams in the West live lives of luxury, whereas the holy warriors are having to carry out kidnappings and bank robberies to support themselves.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The British government will be forced to say whether it supports the rights of Christians to wear the cross and opt out of diversity legislation as part of a landmark legal case.
