The Madness of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Where is Henry II when you need him? The mad Archbishop of Canterbury has called for enactment of parts of Sharia law in Britain.





A few weeks ago, the head of the Anglican Church in Britain, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Cantebury, went off the deep end, decrying American imperealism to a Muslim audience. Now we know that was just a warm up for his main act of insanity. The Archbishop has today come out in support of allowing Sharia law in Britain. Now, admittedly, he has only followed the lead of the socialist Labour government who took the first step down the road towards recognizing Sharia law last week. The government decided to allow welfare payments to spouses in a polygamous marriage. The primary beneficiaries of that law are Muslims who are allowed, under Sharia law, to have up to four wives. This today from the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has sparked a political storm by calling for aspects of Sharia law to be adopted in Britain.

Dr Williams said it "seems inevitable" that elements of Islamic law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British law.

Inevitable? Is the spirit of Britain and their belief in their own laws, customs and traditions so rotted that the march of Islam over their lands is a foregone conclusion?

That this is coming from the senior religious figure in the Anglican Church is an obscentity. It is irrational multiculturalism on steroids.

"Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states," he told the BBC's World at One programme.

"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them."

To note the obvious, one, this promotes separatism and tribalism rather than integration. Two, this is a step precisely towards the inhumanity the Archbisop sees in Islamic states. Three, Sharia family law includes such goodies as stoning for adultery - something for which the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has already publicly called. Four, the Centre For Social Cohesion just released a lengthy report on forced marriage and honor violence - and found a part of the problem relating to these scourges was how Muslims were operating Sharia law courts unofficially in Britain. So why on earth would the Archbishop make such an idiotic suggestion?

Dr. Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some citizens do not relate to the British legal system, and argued that officially sanctioning Sharia law would improve community relations.

Wow. Does this stunning idiot understand that the only way to improve community relations with those Muslims who dissaprove of British law is for everyone to convert to Islam? Does he understand that the squeaky wheels are those who want to see Sharia law imposed on all of Britain?

What really is amazing is that, not only does reality zip by the archbishop's head without so much as a pit stop, but the Archbishop is equally as clueless as to the damage he is doing to Muslims who want to live under British law, not the Sharia law of rural Pakistan. And if the Archbishop wants to see community relations in action, he need only look to see how Christians and Jews are treated in those places that apply Sharia law.

But the insanity was not quite over for the Archbishop. He also had to work in a bit of moral relativism with his multiculturalism.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said last month that non-Muslims faced a hostile reception in places dominated by the ideology of Islamic radicals. He has since faced death threats.

Dr Williams said the use of the phrase "no go areas" had sparked controversy because it reminded people of Northern Ireland.

"I don't think that was at all what was intended; I think it was meant to point to the silo problem, the sense of communities not communicating with each other," he said.

"Many Muslims would say that they feel bits of British society are no-go areas for them."

You have to laugh at this one. I think that we can safely assume that the death threats that Bishop Nazir-Ali is receiving are not from anyone named Paddy O'Toole who is pissed that the Bishop is dredging up thoughts of Northern Ireland. There are, as Bishop Nazir-Ali has pointed out, areas where a non-Muslim faces physical violence if they enter. Its those places with street signs in Arabic, not Celtic or English. No need to believe me, however. Just read this from Manzoor Moghal, or the comments to the Bishop Nazir-Ali's piece. As to no-go areas for Muslims, name one.

Okay. Now for a test. Is there anyone in Britain whom you think might have applauded the Archbishop's statements?

Dr Williams's comments were welcomed by Mohammed Shafiq, the director of the Ramadhan Foundation, who said: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success."

Read the entire article. You just know the Queen must be asking about now, "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Update: Much more on the issue here, including the BBC asking whether the reaction condemning the Archbishop is Islamophobia?

Update2: More here, including discussion of a court case in the UK seeking to hold a forced marriage null as violating the public policy of Britain.

Read More...

Summary only...

Muslim Organizations Call For The Resignation of Bishop Ali-Nazr After His Remarks on Muslim No-Go Areas

Comments made by Britain's Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, about the existance of Muslim areas in Britain that are no-go areas have set off a firestorm in Britain. At least one prominent Muslim leader, Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Muslim Forum in Britain, has confirmed the Bishops assertions. Writing in the Daily Mail, Moghal expressed his horror at the rise of radical Islam in Britain's Muslim population, and, in a stinging indictment, expressed his judgment that the U.K. socialist's policy of "multiculturalism has backfired spectacularly." Their beliefs would seem supported by a recent article in the Times, discussing how multiculturalist policies have fanned the flames of radicalism in Britain to the point where the majority strain of Deobandi Islam now present in Britain is more radical and militant than that to be found in Pakistan where it forms the core of the Taliban ideology. Just as a reminder of what that means, the Taliban are the fellows in the picture at the left, executing a burkah clad mother in Kabul's soccer stadium a few years ago.

Not surprisingly, today, we have various Muslim organizations in Britain calling for Bishop Nazir-Ali's resignation. And also not surprisingly, we have a supposedly conservative Tory party member coming down on the side of the Islamists. This today in the Telegraph:

Religious groups have demanded the resignation of the Bishop of Rochester after he claimed that Islamic radicals had turned parts of Britain into "no-go" areas for non-Muslims.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali wrote in The Sunday Telegraph that fundamentalism had made some communities hostile to Christians and those from other faiths.

But Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation, said: "Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign."

Ajmal Masroor, of the Islamic Society of Great Britain, said: "It's a distortion of reality. Our communities are far more integrated than they were 10 years ago.

"If the Church of England had an iota of fairness they would take serious action."

But senior figures from the Church of England have backed the Bishop of Rochester's remarks about faith and said Christians in predominantly Muslim areas could feel isolated and nervous about how to express their belief.

The Bishop of Burnley, the Rt Rev John Goddard, said his colleague had raised serious questions about the role of faith, race and culture in British society.

The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, said it was becoming difficult for Christians to share their faith in areas where there was a high proportion of other faiths.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "I don't think that view is factually correct. I'm not sure where these no-go areas are, I don't recognise that description."

But Bishop Goddard said that Christians, who are outnumbered in many parts of Blackburn, were frightened that their ideas could be misinterpreted by other faiths and seen as a form of oppression.

. . . Bishop Goddard said Christians in northern towns such as Blackburn and Burnley, where 95 per cent of the Asian population is Muslim, could find life difficult.

"I think they sometimes feel as though they are strangers," he said. "It is a question of how people of different beliefs work together. Of course, the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving."

Endorsing Bishop Nazir-Ali's comments, he said: "Bishop Michael has raised these issues as a start of a debate which has serious connotations.

"The seriousness is how do you enable people of different cultures, races and faiths to live together as one nation, that seems to be at the back of what he is saying." . . .

Read the article here. One wonders if the good Bishop might not receive a visit from the U.K.'s police, as has Lionheart for the audacity to question Islam in the UK.

As to the blanket statement by former Tory party leader and now shadow Foregin Secretary, William Hague, that he refuses to believe the Bishop's allegations, that goes to the heart of the rot in Britain today. The Tories sold their soul and have not been a conservative party since they got rid of Attila the Hen, Margert Thatcher - Britain's most successful PM since Churchill - because she opposed Britain's integration into the EU. Today, under the leadership of the boy wonder, David Cameron, the Tories are merely a lite version of the Labour Party. As evidenced by Mr. Hague, they are courting the Muslim vote irrespective of reality, just as Labour has done. They recently forced the resignation of one of their prospective candidates for office becasue of his "Enoch Powell" comments on how immigration is threatening Britain. And the Tories are playing games, refusing to state unequivocably that they hold a referendum on the transfer of British sovereignty to the EU once accomplished by the odious Gordon Brown. It is utterly horrifying. Britain cannot look for salvation today to the party of Churchill.

Britain's Independent Party seems to be picking up the mantle of conservatism, but you rarely hear of them. They get no play in the press because of what appears to be institutionalized bias. We are witnessing a great nation committing national suicide. My only thought is God save the Queen - because it would seem at this stage that her only hope is divine intervention.

Read More...

Summary only...

British "Multi-culturalism Has Backfired Spectacularly"

That British "multi-culturalism has backfired spectacularly" is the judgment today of Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Muslim Forum in Britain. Mr. Moghal has written in the Daily Mail, responding to Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, whose comments about the existance of Muslim areas in Britain that are no-go areas have set off a firestorm in Britain. This is particularly timely given the recent revelations that multiculturarism has allowed Britain's mosques to becoming increasingly radicalized and that the socialist Labor government of Britain is attempting to enforce its ethos of multicultuarlism on Britain's indigenous population through its outragous criminalization of free speech. The latter has most recently been manifested by an investigation begun of the blogger Lionheart for his criticism of radical Islam on which I posted here. Here is what Mr. Moghal had to say:

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's warning that Islamic extremism is creating 'no-go' areas in parts of Britain has provoked a predictable barrage of outrage.

He has been condemned for making 'inflammatory' remarks, distorting the truth about our inner cities and 'scaremongering' against the Muslim population.

But, paradoxically, this reaction from the politically-correct establishment is an indicator of the weight of his case. If our ruling elite were not so worried that his views would strike a chord with the public, it would not have been so anxious to condemn him.

His statement about the dangers of the rise of radical Islam matches the reality of what people see in our cities and towns, where the influence of hardliners is undermining harmony and promoting segregation.

As a Muslim community representative myself, I have often been concerned in the past about some of the comments of Bishop Nazir-Ali, who has built a reputation as one of the Anglican Church's few outspoken critics of Islam.

Yet in this case, I feel he is correct in highlighting the problem of cultural apartheid that is developing in some of our urban areas.

It is not good enough just to dismiss his opinions and hope that the whole issue will go away, for the failure to achieve real integration in our society is far too serious an issue to be ignored.

As he says, a key element of this failure is the sense of separatism that now grips too many Muslim communities.

However much his critics may sneer at his accusations, the fact is that the determination of some of my fellow Muslims to cling to certain lifestyles, customs, languages and practices has helped to create neighbourhoods where non-Muslims may feel uncomfortable, even intimidated.

Such anxieties can only be reinforced by the dominant influence of the mosques, which are often in the hands of fundamentalists and thereby promote a conscious rejection of Western values.

[So] pervasive is this radicalism that in some mosques worshippers feel uncomfortable if they enter wearing a suit rather than the more traditional Islamic dress.

As the bishop says, this can only be a recipe for more social exclusion. Anyone who lives in British society should be grateful for the freedom and tolerance they enjoy. They should not seek to exploit this by demanding the universal acceptance of fundamentalism in their own neighbourhoods.

The heavy Islamic influence in parts of Britain amounts to a severe indictment of the dogma of multi-culturalism, which held sway in our public institutions since the early eighties.

Instead of promoting a sense of mutual belonging and shared understanding, this doctrine has sown the seeds of division and suspicion by discouraging allegiance to a unified British identity.

Instead, people from ethnic minorities and non-Christian faiths were urged to cling to their own cultures. The differences between creeds and races were to be celebrated rather than bridged.

But, as the Bishop of Rochester has pointed out, the malign consequences of this ideology can now be seen not only in the spirit of separateness that hangs over some Muslim-dominated areas, but also in the more devastating arrival of home-grown terrorism, which feeds on an aggressive rejection of western values.

Multi-culturalism was meant to build a unified society. "Together in diversity" was one its slogans. But instead it has achieved the opposite-promoting division and distrust-which has been exacerbated by Islamic extremism.

The horrors of the London Tube bombings in 2005 and the attacks at Glasgow airport and a West End nightclub can be blamed directly on this perverted version of violent radicalism.

After all, France and Germany have just as large Muslim populations as Britain but have not had the same problems with terrorism, and that is because their governments have never pretended that tolerating extremism is a social virtue.

Yet still, even after all the lessons of recent years, the Labour government has refused to abandon multi-culturalism. Instead it has merely presented this outlook under a new name, describing it as "multi-faithism".

Again, this is supposed to be the ideology that will bring us all together and combat extremism. So the Government is now pouring money into 'multi-faith' schemes, promoting Muslim schools, projects and community centres.

Only yesterday, it was revealed that Communities Secretary Hazel Blears is planning to spend part of her £70million budget for antiextremism on "assertiveness training courses" for Muslim women, the idea being that women inculcated with western feminist values will be in a stronger position to challenge the young male zealots.

Well, there is no evidence to support this idea. And in reality, it will only promote the feeling that Muslims receive special treatment, with the Government doling out cash because it is terrified of Islamic violence.

Home-grown terrorism seems to have its rewards.

[What is] particularly depressing is that the Church of England has gone along with this fashion-for multi-faithism, partly as a way of shoring up its own position, partly as a vehicle for compelling Islam into accepting the embrace of the British state machine.

But it did not work with multi-culturalism, which has proved a battering ram against Britain's Christian heritage, and this new version will be no more successful, not least because there is no monolithic Muslim establishment to be dragooned into service for the Government.

Multi-culturalism has backfired spectacularly. The disturbing rise of the political far Right has been a direct result and I predict that the new incarnation, multi-faithism, will be just as damaging.

What we really need is not special treatment for Muslims and endless appeasement, but genuine equality. That is supposed to be the bedrock of our modern democratic society.

We should turn it into a reality before our society fractures even more.

The original article from the Daily Mail is here. For the reader's on this side of the pond, the two finger salute being given by the burka clad female in the picture above is the equivalent of the single fingered salute in the states.

Read More...

Summary only...

Britain’s Prosecution of The Blogger Lionheart for Criticism of Islam

Freedom of speech is under assault today in Britain. A British blogger whom I have had occasion to read, Lionheart, has posted on his website that he expects to be arrested upon his return to the United Kingdom for things that he has posted on his blog. Likely as a result of his commentary on Islam, he will be charged with "stirring up racial hatred."

Lionheart is a modern pamphleteer. He uses his blog to shine a light on the evils of radical Islam, primarily within the borders of the UK. He sees the growth of radical Islam in his country as insidious and a threat to the very existence of British culture, if not Britain itself.

(Update) As to the foundation for Lionheart's belief, please see these recent revelations in the British press. The first, from the Telegaph, discusses the existance of Muslim 'no-go' areas in the UK where the indigenous population dare not tread. The day after that article was released, the allegations were confirmed by Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Muslim Forum in Britain, who, writing in the Daily Mail, expressed his horror at the rise of radical Islam in Britain's Muslim population, and, in a stinging indictment, expressed his judgment that the U.K. socialist's policy of "multiculturalism has backfired spectacularly." Not surprisingly, PM Gordon Brown denied that any major problem exists. And it is telling that all of the major British political parties, including the supposedly conservative Tory party, "have responded with knee-jerk predictability, desperate as ever not to offend Muslim sensibilities." Lastly, there is this from the Times, discussing how multiculturalist policies have fanned the flames of radicalism in Britain to the point where the majority strain of Deobandi Islam now present in Britain is more radical and militant than that to be found in Pakistan. To put that in some perspective, do recall that it is Pakistan's radical Deobandis that form the core of the Taliban.

With all of that in mind, do visit Lionhearts blog. Lionheart’s descriptions of what he sees in his own local community are dire. But while his language may be emotional, Lionheart ultimately is no different than thousands of bloggers in the U.S. who similarly note, deconstruct, and critically discuss radical Islam. He just happens to be living in Luton, ground zero for radical Islam in the UK. It is also important to note that Lionheart does not promote violence against Muslims. (Update: Phyllis Chessler provides more background and an interview here)

I contacted Lionheart to get additional information about his claim that he faced imminent arrest, and he put me in contact with the attorney whom he has retained, Anthony Bennett. I spoke with Mr. Bennett, who confirmed the following facts:

1. The Bedfordshire police have contacted Lionheart to arrange for him to submit to arrest.

2. Lionheart asked the police why he would to be arrested. A Bedfordshire police officer sent Lionheart an e-mail, forwarded to me by Mr. Bennett, which read in pertinent part:

The offence that I need to arrest you for is "Stir up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.

You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent.

3. Mr. Bennett adds "There are already a number of aspects about this case involving not only ‘Lionheart’ but concerning other friends of his which are almost certain to result in a complaint being made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission."

4. There has been nothing filed yet by the police that will tell us precisely what blog posts they will be using to prosecute Lionheart. That will only become known after his arrest. Further, we do not yet know who was responsible for making a complaint to the police.

The Public Order Act of 1986 makes it an offense to "stir up racial hatred." The act defines "racial hatred" as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins." The law does not define the word "hatred." The specific provisions of the Public Order Act of 1986 mentioned by the police in their e-mail to Lionheart are:

18 (1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

27 (3) A person guilty of an offence under this Part is liable— (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine or both;

To call this law a gross assault on freedom of speech would be the height of understatement. It criminalizes the content of speech and it applies a wholly subjective threshold – "hatred" – for finding guilt. There is no question that this law would be unconstitutional in the U.S. This is ironic because our 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and the press derive from British common law as it existed in 1776. Yet Britain never adopted a written Constitution, thus setting the stage for the modern day socialists to silence and stifle free speech by merely passing laws through Parliament.

To put this in the broader context, socialists in Britain and throughout Europe, are using their laws to protect Islam from substantive criticism as part of a suicidal marriage of convenience. That marriage combines the socialist's core ethos of multiculturalism with the creation of a reliable, and increasingly critical, Muslim electoral bloc. As Bret Stephen wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

For Muslim voters in Europe, the attractions of the Socialists are several. Socialists have traditionally taken a more accommodating approach to immigrants and asylum-seekers than their conservative rivals. They have championed the welfare state and the benefits it offers poor newcomers. They have promoted a multiculturalist ethos, which in practice has meant respecting Muslim traditions even when they conflict with Western values. In foreign policy, Socialists have often been anti-American and, by extension, hostile to Israel. That hostility has only increased as Muslim candidates have joined the Socialists' electoral slates and as the Muslim vote has become ever more crucial to the Socialists' electoral margin.

The mere existence of the hate speech laws on the books is chilling to freedom of speech as the potential penalties are severe. And there is a mountain of evidence beyond the prospective arrest of Lionheart that the socialist Labour Party in Britain are using their hate speech laws to stifle speech and proscribe certain thoughts.

Perhaps the most infamous example of the misuse of hate speech laws by the socialist Labour Government comes out of the BNP prosecutions and, in particular, statements made by then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

In 2004, the BBC surreptitiously filmed a speech by members of the British Nationalist Party (BNP). Caught on film were BNP members who described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and who said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole". The Crown used the Public Order Act of 1986 to prosecute the BNP members for stirring up racial hatred. After two lengthy trials, the first of which ended in a partial hung jury, the BNP members were acquitted. Their attorney argued at both trials that the speech was a part of legitimate political discourse. Gordon Brown commented after the trial:

Laws protecting Britain's ethnic and religious minorities may be tightened after the leader of the British National Party was cleared of trying to stir up racial hatred, Chancellor Gordon Brown said last night.

The Chancellor promised a fresh look at the law in the light of the decision of a jury at Leeds Crown Court yesterday to clear BNP leader Nick Griffin and his fellow activist

. . . Mr Brown said: "Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made. Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country. And I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes."

Does that take your breath away - trying to convict someone and sentincing them for up to seven years in prison for "offending" "mainstream opinion?" PM Gordon Brown will never be confused in the history books with Voltaire. It is both amazing and telling that Brown's statement raised not a hue and cry in Britain.

Regardless of how one feels about the BNP, there is a reason to protect their free speech rights that goes to the very heart of a liberal democracy. As George Washington once said "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." And there is no doubt that the people of Britain today are being led by their socialist government like sheep to the slaughter. Freedom of speech is stifled, criminalized or manipulated by the socialists on all of the major challenges Britain faces today, be it open borders immigration that threatens to swamp the country’s infrastructure, the surrender of sovereignty to the EU, or the challenge of Europe’s most radicalized Islamic population. More particularly, the socialists are using the hate speech laws to enforce their brand of politically correct multiculturalism on Britain.

Another example is also illuminating. On January 15, 2007, Britain’s Channel 4 broadcast Undercover Mosque, an expose of the hatred and violence being preached in Britain’s mosques. Here is part 1 of that program. It clearly exposes the type of radicalization going on in Britain’s mosques – and indeed, it is precisely the type of things shown in this video that Lionheart rails against in his blog. Parts 2 through 6 are embedded at the end of this post.



If you are wondering who was investigated for violation of the Hate Speech laws as a result of this program, it was none of the Wahhabi and Deobandi clerics who appeared therein preaching violence, hatred and seperatism. It was Channel 4 for broadcasting the show.

In another recent incident, a Reverend was investigated by police for a hate crime for merely making an innocuous posting about Islam on his website. In commenting upon that situation, Simon Davis, a British subject, said:

Clearly, this is no longer a free country. Expressions of opinion, taste and preference are now heavily policed - but not in every case. Oh, no. Take for starters the case of the Channel Four documentary which exposed the genuine religious hatred given voice by certain Islamic preachers. Instead of acting against the guilty, the police investigated the programme makers! What, I wonder, would their order of priorities have been had the preachers been Christian? Or white?

Again, when Islamic extremists were giving utterance to death threats outside the Danish Embassy some months ago, the only people arrested or stopped were those white persons foolhardy enough to object. A Christian who distributed leaflets bearing Biblical texts hostile to homosexuality was subjected to all sorts official enquiry. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, meanwhile, airs his anti-gay opinions on national radio and nothing is done.

Once we did not police thoughts and subjected utterance to minimal restraint. Our target was action - violent action and it was punished with swift severity. The result was a lively, stimulating and peaceful environment. Now the courts act on the assumption that most violent action can be excused, whilst crusading against any defendant whose motives might appear on the list of proscribed opinions.

The second truth to emerge is that if any group in British society is now subject to prejudice and de facto legal disability it is the idigenous, white population. This is the logical outcome of so-called "positive" discrimination. It is the end result of a world-view which portrays the ills of the world as issuing from the culture of Europe. Not only does the present generation of Europeans have to expiate the sins of its forefathers but they are denied any sense of having forefathers at all.

No wonder we are all so demoralised as to have given up the business of "generation" altogether. The monstrous but influential web of hard left opinion - which has come to oppose reason and objectivity themselves as merely "western" and therefore false concepts - is now threatening to asphyxiate our culture. The case of the bullied clergyman is now sadly typical of life in this country.

That explains the why of what is happening to Lionheart. Britain of course has the right to commit national suicide. What they should not have the right to do is convict a blogger for merely contesting the suicide. Lionheart deserves our support. And that support is not given wholly out of charity. Britain is the lynchpin of democracy and western values in Europe. If Britain should ever lose its character, which appears well on its way to happening, our own country would increasingly be isolated.

As Instapundit put it:

FREE SPEECH? WHAT'S THAT? British blogger to be arrested for inciting racial hatred. What, are they channeling the Saudis in Britain? If you're interested in supporting free speech rights, the British Embassy's contact page is here. As with the Saudi case I don't know much about the blogger, but I don't need to -- people shouldn't be arrested merely for blogging things that the powers-that-be don't like. . .

I concur. My suggestion is that we need to do all we can to publicize this case through our blogs, to write letters to our Congress, and attempt to get the MSM involved. The case of Lionheart needs as much light shined on it as possible – for his sake and ours.

Addendum: There is some significance to the fact that Lionheart is being prosecuted for stirring up racial hatred under the Public Order Act of 1986 and not being prosecuted, at least as of yet, under the new Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006. To the extent that Lionheart’s arrows are pointed anywhere, they are being pointed at radical Islam irrespective of nationality.

The new law, which just came into effect on Oct. 1, provides:

29A Meaning of "religious hatred:" In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

29B (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

29J Protection of freedom of expression. Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Amazingly, this bill to criminalize "religious hate" was first introduced without Article 29J after the attacks of 9-11, with politically correct cries of Islamaphobia filling the air waves in Britain. It did not get through the House of Lords. However, the socialist Labour government continuously pushed this legislation at the urging of such groups as the Muslim Council of Britain. The House of Lords eventually agreed to a watered down version with protections for freedom of expression in Article 29J. There are no such provisions protecting freedom of expression in the Public Order Act of 1986.

Article 29J likely applies to virtually everything about which Lionheart blogs. Thus, it would seem that the government is attempting to silence Lionheart’s speech by portraying his criticism of Islam as racial rather than religious in nature. The problem with that of course is that Islam is not a race.

Undercover Mosque:

Part II




Part III




Part IV




Part V




Part VI

Read More...

Summary only...