The genie of life presented Britain with three difficult situations, and instead of choosing to man-up and take responsibility for their situation, the British have chosen to make three wishes (from Daniel Pipes):
Beneath the deceptively placid surface of everyday life, the British population is engaged in a momentous encounter with Islam. Three developments of the past week, each of them culminating years' long trend — and not just some odd occurrence — exemplify changes now underway.
First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term "war on terror" would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds "shared values as a means to counter terrorists." By early 2007, the European Union issued a classified handbook that banned jihad, Islamic, and fundamentalist in reference to terrorism, offering instead some "non-offensive" phrases. Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with terrorism. In January, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went further, actually describing terrorism as "anti-Islamic." And last week the Home Office completed the obfuscation by issuing a counter-terrorism phrasebook that instructs civil servants to refer only to violent extremism and criminal murderers, not Islamist extremism and jihadi-fundamentalists.
Second, and again culminating several years of evolution, the British government now recognizes polygamous marriages. It changed the rules in the "Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003": previously, only one wife could inherit assets tax-free from a deceased husband; this legislation permits multiple wives to inherit tax-free, so long as the marriage had been contracted where polygamy is legal, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, or India. In a related matter, the Department for Work and Pensions began issuing extra payments to harems for such benefits as jobseeker allowances, housing subventions, and council tax relief. Last week came news that, after a year-long review, four government departments (Work and Pensions, Treasury, Revenue and Customs, Home Office) concluded that formal recognition of polygamy is "the best possible" option for Her Majesty's Government.
Third, the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, endorsed applying portions of the Islamic law (the Shari'a) in Great Britain. Adopting its civil elements, he explained, "seems unavoidable" because not all British Muslims relate to the existing legal system and applying the Shari'a would help with their social cohesion. When Muslims can go to an Islamic civil court, they need not face "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." Continuing to insist on the "legal monopoly" of British common law rather than permit Shari'a, Williams warned, would bring on "a bit of a danger" for the country.
These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life.
Go read the whole thing.
Beneath the deceptively placid surface of everyday life, the British population is engaged in a momentous encounter with Islam. Three developments of the past week, each of them culminating years' long trend — and not just some odd occurrence — exemplify changes now underway.
First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term "war on terror" would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds "shared values as a means to counter terrorists." By early 2007, the European Union issued a classified handbook that banned jihad, Islamic, and fundamentalist in reference to terrorism, offering instead some "non-offensive" phrases. Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with terrorism. In January, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went further, actually describing terrorism as "anti-Islamic." And last week the Home Office completed the obfuscation by issuing a counter-terrorism phrasebook that instructs civil servants to refer only to violent extremism and criminal murderers, not Islamist extremism and jihadi-fundamentalists.
Second, and again culminating several years of evolution, the British government now recognizes polygamous marriages. It changed the rules in the "Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003": previously, only one wife could inherit assets tax-free from a deceased husband; this legislation permits multiple wives to inherit tax-free, so long as the marriage had been contracted where polygamy is legal, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, or India. In a related matter, the Department for Work and Pensions began issuing extra payments to harems for such benefits as jobseeker allowances, housing subventions, and council tax relief. Last week came news that, after a year-long review, four government departments (Work and Pensions, Treasury, Revenue and Customs, Home Office) concluded that formal recognition of polygamy is "the best possible" option for Her Majesty's Government.
Third, the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, endorsed applying portions of the Islamic law (the Shari'a) in Great Britain. Adopting its civil elements, he explained, "seems unavoidable" because not all British Muslims relate to the existing legal system and applying the Shari'a would help with their social cohesion. When Muslims can go to an Islamic civil court, they need not face "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." Continuing to insist on the "legal monopoly" of British common law rather than permit Shari'a, Williams warned, would bring on "a bit of a danger" for the country.
These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life.
Go read the whole thing.
4 comments:
Amazing anti-dhimmitude from the British MSM
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/34658
a) Britain would be a better country if there were more Muslims living here.
b) There is the right number of Muslims in Britain to serve the country’s interests.
c) It would be preferable if Britain did not have a large Muslim population at all.
Got an answer yet? I bet it wasn’t A. The ferocity and extent of the backlash against Dr Williams demonstrates that the British people feel their hospitality has been abused and will brook no further compromise with radical Islam.
A profit-and-loss account of the impact of Islam on Britain will quickly demonstrate why.
On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim communities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation.
A report last year by the Left-wing Institute for Public Policy Research found that fewer than half of adults from four of the biggest Muslim groups here – Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis – are in employment.
And because of the high number of children in their families they also tend to be heavy users of expensive public services such as the NHS.
On a wider cultural basis, the impact of Islam on this country is also strongly negative in the eyes of the public.
Islam has repressed women in a way Britain has not tolerated for hundreds of years. Forced marriage, honour killing, female genital mutilation, enforced wearing of the veil – all are abominations present within British Muslim communities.
The repression of womenfolk has also led some Muslim men to view vulnerable young women from outside the faith as sub-human sexual fodder fit only to be used and abused. Freedom of speech has also been curtailed thanks to the sabre-rattling of angry Muslims. Not since the “fatwah” declared upon Salman Rushdie, forcing him into hiding, have even our most outspoken public figures felt free to fully express themselves.
Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life.
Other wider freedoms for the individual have had to be drastically curtailed in order to facilitate the fight against homegrown Islamist terrorism. The police and security services have been given all manner of sweeping new powers.
Over the weekend, Government minister Phil Woolas spoke of another repellent cultural practice prevalent among Muslims from Pakistan – the marrying of first cousins and an ensuing epidemic of health problems.
According to Labour MP Ann Cryer, more than 80 per cent of Pakistanis living in her Keighley constituency marry someone living in Pakistan, often a cousin. This facilitates “chain migration” by allowing more Pakistanis to come to Britain to live. It also prevents meaningful integration.
Yet the reaction to Mr Woolas from British Muslims has been hostile and paranoid. One representative group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, called for the minister to be sacked, accusing him of the catch-all sin of “Islamophobia”.
Najistani,
I agree. I saw that post up over at UP Pompeii, and I plan to put it up here later today when I have the time.
dhimmies no diff than the dhimmis in leb or any other muslim nation.
islam = depraved protection racket.
They make an offer you can't refuse.
Post a Comment