« Britain needs Conservative social policies more than ever | Main | The Conservative Party's exit from the EPP would seem a step closer »


If I was to show up at a gay rights parade with a homophobic sign I would be promptly arrested for disturbing the peace. why then are these people allowed to carry out this when it leads to a breach of the peace. The officer who allowed this protest should resigPr

Iain Martin says it all


Just another example of leaning over backwards to appease a small group who know their "rights", demand them and get them.

This should have been banned: for it to be permitted and given police protection was disgraceful.

No doubt we can expect a much bigger demo next time, again with police protection. The precedent has been set.

It is evident by what you say that I am right when I say that there is an intolerance towards Muslims by those Conservative members and supporters who post on this site.

There is an underlying problem here which cannot be ignored. I meant to bring it up on a thread about education.

Western civilisation is defined by its rejection of Islam. It is defined in opposition to it. I simply do not understand how you can have, in a sustainable manner, Muslims living in large numbers in Western societies. How can it work? How can anybody be happy?

As long as Muslims are Muslims, and as long as we have freedom of speech, freedom to mock, deride, criticise and insult religion, as is our birthright as free born citizens, as long as they want polygamy and Sharia law, and as long as we have a secular law based on Christian principles and equality, how is it going to work?

Nobody seems to be able to answer this. I think I can - it can't. It just can't. I think the most compassionate thing to do for all concerned would be mass repatriation, so people can live in lands in which they can live under the beliefs they espouse.

Social experiments sometimes go wrong. Muslim immigration is an experiment that has gone badly wrong. There is only one way out, and that is back.

In reply to Hugh Oxford (13:47) I simply don't accept your comment that "Western civilisation is defined by its rejection of Islam. It is defined in opposition to it".

Where is your evidence for this?

I should also ask you to define 'Western Civilisation'.

Tom H @ 12.05 - 'It is not 'only' because of the armed forces that we live in a free society.' You have omitted to mention that our 'freedoms' have been steadily eroded over the last 12 years!

rare breed @ 12.26 - 'The police were right to arrest anyone assaulting another person exercising their individual rights of expression.'

'rare breed' what do you consider your/their/or anybody's 'individual rights of expression?? It/they are not set in stone! I might consider my individual right of expression might, to be - to take a gun and punish someone I thought had offended in some way! You see it is not quite as simple, as it at first appears. And would you have said the same if the police HAD arrested one of the . people hurling insults --- no I don't suppose you would!

I thoroughly agree with rugfish @ 12.49 --- double standards yet again.

Hugh Oxford, why do you believe that all Muslims are exactly the same? As a Christian you no doubt recognise the very obvious differences between a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, an Anglo-Catholic, a "Wee Free" or a "Born Again"! There are many differences and kinds of Islam (as you probably know well - you are just blurring the distinctions for your own reasons). I used to work with someone who was an Ismaili (the strand of Islam whose spiritual leader is the Aga Khan). She was extremely devout but very moderate in her views. She always wore western dress and I never saw her veiled (though I believe when she went to the Mosque she would cover her head with a chiffon scarf). I have other friends who are Sunni or Shia but again very moderate in their views. Only one of my Facebook friends wears hijab and I believe she may have bowed to her family's wishes in doing this. We have Muslims aplenty holding office in the Conservative Party - as councillors, PPCs and MEPs. All I think would regard themselves as fully compatible with our way of life here in Britain and indeed they are proud to play a full part in it.
I suggest that you look again at your knowledge of Islam and perhaps (as I have asked you to do so so many times before) practise a little tolerance!


Nobody seems to be able to answer this. I think I can - it can't. It just can't. I think the most compassionate thing to do for all concerned would be mass repatriation, so people can live in lands in which they can live under the beliefs they espouse."

Oh and by the way, Hugh Oxford - for people born in this country (as so many Muslims are), it would not be "mass repatriation" it would be "mass exile"!

Just thought I should point out the difference. You cannot "repatriate" someone to a place they did not originate from in the first place.

Must have been very tempting for the soliders to have opened fire of them...

"Western civilisation is defined by its rejection of Islam."

Not it is NOT, High Oxford. It IS defined by its Christian roots.

But British society, which never had to suffer the Inquisition or the more extreme Catholic vs Protestant wars, is defined by a benign tolerant strand of Protestant Christianity and by the experience of the Empire which introduced us to other cultures and societies with whom we had to find ways of getting along. Many of the Empire Builders married local girls (including Muslims!) and many British people (who Mr Oxford would regard as Anglo Saxon) have the genes of Imperial peoples in their make up.

So long live our tolerant society, including the sensible Muslims within it! However, the continuation of our tolerant society toleration does require us to take strong action against those who would fatally undermine it.

Just thought I should point out the difference. You cannot "repatriate" someone to a place they did not originate from in the first place.

If I take my family to Pakistan, live amongst British expats, speak English as my first language, import a wife from Britain, have children there, and bring them up in the same manner, then I and my children are British, not Pakistani.

The British men and women who built the empire in Africa and India did not become Africans or Indians. My uncle was born in Africa in 1933. His is not Tanzanian.

When the Indians kicked the British out after 1947, they were not kicking out fellow Indians. When they kicked out their children, even if they had been born in India, they were not kicking out fellow Indians.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it is a duck. If it doesn't it probably isn't. If it speaks Urdu, wears pyjamas in public, worships Mohammed, wants Sharia law then it isn't British. Doesn't matter where it was born.

As a second generation immigrant myself, I find it insulting that you consider these people British. Being British is not about where you're from, it's about where you're at.


Glad to see you are taking Hugh Oxford to task.

We cannot agree on the other matter. I have no objection to two adult men living together but neither do I want to know (and certainly I do not want to endorse), what, if anything, might occur behind the front door; certainly I do not want to raise the relationship between such people to the equivalent of marriage which I regard as the cement holding society together (whilst recognising that everyone can be blessed with a happy marriage and that we all, as individuals, should be treated equally).

I am digressing. Sorry Tim.

What Muslims have to realise is that this is a Christian country. We are quite happy for them to worship how and where they like BUT it must not interfere with our way of life.

So often it does and it is the Muslims (even moderate ones) that are whining every time they get a chance. They moan about their beards being made fun of, they don't like our crucifixes, they don't want boys and girls doing gymnastics together, they don't want fashion posters of half naked women in their sight, they want alcohol sales banned from near their schools, the list goes on...


I don't care if you were born in the UK or not, you fit in or ship out!

How does the lack of police action compare with that woman who wasn't allowed to read out the names of our war dead?

"If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it is a duck. If it doesn't it probably isn't. If it speaks Urdu, wears pyjamas in public, worships Mohammed, wants Sharia law then it isn't British. Doesn't matter where it was born"

Hear, Hear.. thank goodness for some sense, the righteous seem to forget about the whites in Zimbabwe who were born there and countless other places from where we were "repatriated".

" If it speaks Urdu, wears pyjamas in public, worships Mohammed, wants Sharia law then it isn't British. Doesn't matter where it was born."

Hugh Oxford, you really are quite unspeakable!

David_at_Home - thank you for your support on this thread and as you say, sadly, we cannot agree on the other matter - but we can at least agree to differ in a courteous and friendly manner! Would more people were like you...!

Sally Roberts, one of the righteous and the reason this country is in such a mess with it immigration and human rights policies.

Put a sock in it!

I am tempted to overwrite Hugh Oxford's comments but let him be judged by them. Mass deportation is the politics of Nazism.

"Mass deportation is the politics of Nazism."

Hear Hear, Tim!

Libbie - thank you for your kind remarks.

"Geert Wilders wasn't coming here to make public 'protest', he was coming here to speak to a few interested Lords in 'private'.
There is no comparison and no 'hypocrisy' to want public incitement and hatred banned."

It's all about the freedom to speak one's mind, whether by invitation in the House of Lords or on the streets of Luton. Actions speak louder than words. A few Islamist wackjobs ranting in public are neither here nor there; those who want to suppress their right to free speech in a free country (hah!) might better direct their energies to demanding - that's not asking politely, that's DEMANDING - answers from their MPs and/or HM Loyal Opposition why all Parties have connived to permit and encourage the presence in this country of an intimidatingly large community of people who fail fundamentally to share our values and who indeed appear contemptuous of us; they might ask further what efforts are being made to trace UK-domiciled people who are aiding & abetting international Islamism by fighting with the Taliban, and to have such folk charged with treason. Many of those shrieking hysterically on this thread about wanting to ban free speech should examine the record of the Conservative Party in contributing to the UK-Islamist problem... I always thought the Tories were in favour of free speech, among other things. Funny, that.

Surely it is time to say goodbye to these people and return them to a country where they would fit in better and be happier.
Why do they stay? They wear clothing unsuited to our weather, they wont accept our ways, if they are so against us and dislike it and us so much what are they doing staying here?

"They wear clothing unsuited to our weather"

So do the many teenage ladettes staggering out of bars and clubs in so many city and town centres on a Saturday night!!!

Tim - to be fair to Hugh Oxford, who often goes much too far, he did not call for mass deportation but mass repatriation.

Invoking Godwin's Law as you do, you perhaps forget Alec Douglas-Home's speech about the restrictions introduced under the 1962 Immigration Act in which he said:

although this considerably affected and arrested the flow, further action is now required. We believe that power should be taken to repatriate immigrants who come to this country illegally. We also believe that we should have the power to assist voluntary repatriation and that the dependants should must be counted against the limits on mumbers and that the total should be further reduced.

Oxford looks back to what was Tory policy for at least a decade.

Tim Montgomerie:
"I am tempted to overwrite Hugh Oxford's comments but let him be judged by them. Mass deportation is the politics of Nazism."
Further to my previous post, I suggest your words underline what I say about the Conservative Party's sorry record. Your tone is noble, lofty, seeks the moral high ground and all that, and you could even be right: leaving aside the morality, deportation isn't terribly practical and would undoubtedly cause a social schism to say the least.
But how about the real issues which Master Oxford raises? Eh? One doesn't have to be any sort of extremist to be concerned very deeply about fundamental incompatibilities between Western culture and that of Islam. But it's one of those issues that the current Tory front office boys find too uncomfortable to address...

I thought it was mass murder.

At least I'm putting forward some constructive, peaceable suggestions to get us out of this mess, suggestions that will avoid a nightmare - if we're not in one already. I should point out that the British people have never consented to mass immigration from the second and third world, and so mass repatriation would only be the exercising of democracy.

So instead of sniping, what do you suggest? It's getting worse, and as long as the demographics remain as they are, it's going to get a lot worse, as the indigenous population shrinks, and the immigrant population grows, and as people start feeling their strength in numbers.

So, any suggestions? Platitudinous liberal initiatives? Concessions to Sharia law? Legalised polygamy? State funded Madrassas? Modifying our foreign policy? Imams in the House of Lords? More Community centres?


Incidentally Sally, the Conservative party is not about being all things to all men. If you try to be all things to all men, you end up being nothing to anyone. The Conservative party is for conservatives, for Britain and for the British. It is the party of patriots and tradition, wherever they come from, whatever their colour.

As I'm sure you are aware that there is a fifth column which claims to be Conservative but espouses no Conservative values at all, and presumes to tell others that they are out of step! Please, Sally, don't inadvertently give these people succour!

Hugh, you're quite right. Next it will be a mass amnesty (after all its a Tory that is suggesting this one), all those given an amnesty will bring their families over once they have their UK passports clutched in their hands. Then it will take a couple more year before another million illegal immigrants are in the country waiting for the same gracious gift of citizenship from the righteous.

Meanwhile, we are in a depression. There are no jobs, mass repossessions, high unemployment, all our public services are in a total mess and the benefits bill is getting bigger and bigger.

I am a taxpayer, I have been for 30 years. Nobody asked me if I wanted to support terrorists and their families, while I get up at 6 in the morning and work till 6 at night. No one asked me if these extremists and their families could come and live in MY country. Nobody asked me if it was OK to open the flood gates to millions of foreigners because I would have said NO!

Not all muslims are suicide bombers.
But all suicide bombers are muslims (nowadays)

Not all muslims are fanatical Jew-hating sharia law enthusiasts
But all jew hating, sharia law enthusiasts are mulsims

So when we meet a muslim, what else should we think but 'you might well be one of them or be willing to protect them'? And be cautious.

I understand that many such people carry 'British' passports. Perhaps it is time to review fundamentally what our citizenship means - and be prepared to reach difficult conclusions

I warmly welcome the homecoming parades of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. I long to see them all marching through the cheering crowds, having brought themselves home in accordance with their oaths to defend this Realm, thus causing, without the firing of a shot, the collapse of our rancid Political Class.

The demonstrations against them come from quarters with which I have no sympathy, and in any case they are counterproductive and aimed at the wrong target. The real Butcher of Fallujah is now a fabulously rich man as a result of his crimes.

And while the real Butcher of Basra is still a better Prime Minister than would be David Cameron (who was today pleased to tell the House of Commons that the demonstrations were only possible because of the Iraq War!), that is not saying anything, and does not alter the fact that we all know who the real Butcher of Basra is.

"Would we have let Hitler Youth march through the streets of London in 1941?"

Would your citizens ever imagine 68 years later having to seriously make the point?

"Remind me of your view on Geert Wilders, Tim?"

Has he finally made up his mind?

"The fact that there are so many comment`s overwritten on this thread shows that there is a intolerance at the heart of the Conservative Party that is distasteful to say the least."

Baloney hypocrite. Its the fact that Tim Montgomerie can't emotionally handle some expression of hate for unjust vile hate. But how many left-wing forums are filled with hate voicing similar sentiments with these Muslims yet censure or shout down all disagreeement.

"Every time I read that "Jack Stone" is upset by some posting on Conservative Home I have a little holiday in my heart."

He should consider himself fortunate. Someone on the right would never be tolerated in a left-wing forum.

In Reply to Michael Taylor (15:40);

"So when we meet a muslim, what else should we think but 'you might well be one of them or be willing to protect them'? And be cautious". I'll have to be very cautious of my wife from now on then. I hadn't realised that she was a danger to the state just because of her religion. How short-sighted and foolish of me.

Oh, and by the way, the Tamil Tigers are probably the most prolific suicide bombers and the last time I checked they were not Muslims.

I'm almost stunned at some of the stuff i'm reading.

sally Roberts: I don't see the connection. Were teenage girls demonstrating as well? I didn't notice any.

'When it turned predictably ugly, who did our brave bobbies arrest? Not the extremists who started the trouble, but a couple of locals who rallied to Our Boys’ defence.'

My blood is boiling after reading this story. The police are an absolute disgrace. Is it any wonder law abiding British people, who should be the natural supporters of the police, now hate them.

Oh please Sally civil war come off it.A complete over reaction. You can not look at this thread and draw any other conclussion but that there is a deep resentment and intolerance towards muslims on this site.

"This was a "hate crime", for which they should have been arrested and deported. It was also treason, for which hanging is still within the law."

Sorry, not since Blair got his grubby hands on our legal system.

Why doesn't someone inform these idiots that the vast majority of deaths/killings are committed by their fellow Muslims and not British or American soldiers. They are the ignorant ones.

The real villans here are the police. How on earth could they have read those placards and thought it acceptable. Can you imagine American police allowing such a protest at a military parade in the US, I don't think so. And America is home of Freedom of Speech, much freer than we are in this country.

Further to Steve Foley's suggestion, might I propose an alternative to banning these protests? In the US, when the funerals of various (in many cases quite random) groups of people, including homosexuals and servicemen, were targeted by the insanely vile members of the Westboro Baptist Church (Google Fred Phelps if you're not familiar), groups of young people decided to hit back peacefully: they dressed themselves as angels, with huge wings, which they used at the events to surround and drown out the protesters, all whilst singing 'Amazing Grace'. Their efforts even inspired an excellent little play, The Laramie Project.

Might we attempt something similar over here, where volunteers could come together to drown out the voices of those seeking to protest against our troops?

I personally take a strong line on the freedom to offend but the current law, specifically as relating to public speech is clear - and is regularly used by the police in minor cases (anti-blair sweatshirts, Christians with issues about gays, etc).

As mentioned on the Iain Martin thread the behaviour in Luton was very clearly arrestable under sections 4a and 5 of the 1986 public order act (after a warning in the case of section 5).

That is the law. It was not enforced - and seemingly is enforced or not enforced in a partial manner. Deliberate disruption of a major community event with seeming clear intent to cause alarm/harassment/distress is a not debatable.

We don't need new laws. We just need the existing ones to be enforced with the same zeal as in other circumstances.

Formal complaints and police authority investigations coming up I hope...



Breach of the Peace

Source: Common law

Offence: When one or more persons conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges (other people).

Arrest: Common law powers of arrest.

This offence can take place anywhere i.e. a house, a public street or a private office.

Riotous: There is normally an element of noise, or 'rowdiness' or 'brawling' which is clearly causing concern to other members of the public e.g. swearing, challenging people to fight.

Disorderly: There is a more subtle element. The behaviour doesn't have to be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Examples include: 'Peeping Tom' type behaviour, persistently following someone, delivering 'threatening' letters and 'streaking' or 'mooning'.

To prove a Breach of the Peace the most important things to prove is that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident.

Can a qualified lawyer explain the differences between Hate Crime and Breach of the Peace .
Can they further explain why no arrests were made under "Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed "?

The Police are seen now as being partial to "Those will moan but not act so nick'em"
"Those will cost us munny in lawsuits, complaints , false allegations, cultural disturbances etc, so let's not nick'em"

What are the principles of Policing such incidents? Perhaps a serving Police Officer could explain why the inferences drawn above are incorrect?

One has to say that there is no other religious group (I use that term on purpose!) in the UK at least - and maybe elsewhere - that seems to be at the centre of such controversy and ill-feeling, one has to ask - WHY???

There are so many other religious minorities in this country, but they seem to be able to be law-abiding and relatively comfortable with the way they live here.

As a supporter of free speech, I deplored the ban on Geert Wilders and equally I believe the Muslim protesters have a right to express their views. If it had been any other group, however, the police would have insisted that the demo be in another place on another day.

As has been said, the police's double standards stink. I've just found this bit of detail from a news blog (not on the BBC natch):

"Bedfordshire Police said an 18-year-old man from Luton had been charged with Racially Aggravated Harassment, involving verbal abuse."

Knowing how politically correct magistrates seem to be these days, some poor sap could be facing a custodial sentence. But the people who provoked the anger by their abusive and possibly treasonous behaviour will get off scott-free.

"sally Roberts: I don't see the connection. Were teenage girls demonstrating as well? I didn't notice any."

Jack Iddon, if you didn't understand the point of my post then you really are not awfully bright, are you?

Jack Stone - Yes, Civil War - it is not over-reacting to think the unthinkable. Do you not realise how very angry people are and I am concerned that the innocent may bear the brunt of that anger along with the guilty. That is why it is so vital that moderate Muslims speak up before matters escalate.

I do not intend to respond any further to Hugh Oxford.

This demonstration by these Muslim fanatics, was nothing to do with free speech.This was purely and simply "Incitement to riot", and the Police at the very least should have removed these Offensive posters.I served Queen and Country for 24 years, why are we kowtowing to this Muslim minority.While in the Royal Navy, when we visited a predominately Muslim country,we were warned "When in Rome, do as the Romans do",meaning, obey the laws of the land you are visiting and do not insult their customs.These offending Muslims, should take a leaf out of the RN behaviour book. Nuff Said,fully disgusted with our frightened Police force.

I have no great love for Islam but feel I must correct a misconception which has been stated here.

Islamics do not "Worship Mohammed", their name for God is Allah and that is who they worship as far as I am aware, just as one of the names we use for God is Jehovah. (We can never in life know the REAL name of God, all names are human constructs and there is but one God). Muslims hold Mohammed to be God's Prophet and show him the respect Christians such as myself would give to a Saint such as St Paul.

Like Sally Roberts I would implore Moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted and to disown the extremist Islamists as the Irish people have today publicly disowned the murderers of the two soldiers and the policeman who were done to death in Ulster over the last few days.

why bother even quoting the muslim council of britain- this is the same group who boycotts holocaust memorial week and as a bbc documentary 2 years ago showed has known links to the islamic extremist group the Muslim Brotherhood as well as supporting hamas- they are the reasons why a large minority of muslims hate this country our way of life and the people , and yet the government and indeed the tories treat them like moderates. Absolute madness.

look if muslims so hate it here then they can leave would they rather live in a place like saudi arabia or yemen who treat people despicably.

if you go to parts of northern england it is civil war between white bnp and al quaeda islamists -that is not an exaggeration . as for sayeeda warsi this supposed moderate gets her support from labour peer Lord Ahmed a known support of the Muslim Brotherhood who recently threatened geert wilders with death.

i genuinely want to believe islam is a peaceful religion but it's adherents and the moments seem to be trying to convince me to believe exactly the opposite.

Come off it, Tim.

You were all for the police allowing a demonstartion in favour of Israel's warcrimes in Gaza.

You can't tell me that your bunch of bloodthirsty nuts were any less offensive than these ones !

Personally, I take great pride in the way the police dealt with this.

It was a perfect example of how a free society values the rule of law over the rule of the mob.

Once again Sally Roberts 13.16 - There is no such thing as a 'moderate Muslim' that is the nub of the problem. They are a group continually vilified as they are controlled by their extremists and their Imams who are by definition controllers who use a false conception of their so called holy book - the Koran. Whilst they remain controlled by the nut brigade- they (and we) have no chance. Charge them with breaking the treason law and deport them pour encourager les autres. Some chance with this pathetic government. Move to OZ - at least they make it clear and are trying.

In reply to Victor M. (07:16) I have to say that your comment "There is no such thing as a 'moderate Muslim' " is both wrong and silly.

I also feel the need to restate a point made by many others that many people here are, for whatever reason, suggesting that Muslims should be deported as if all Muslims are foreigners - which is clearly not true.

I'll personally blame the media for what happened. If the TV cameras were not turned on this scum, allowing them air time and the only pictures were of people cheering the parade, nothing would know be said about this.
With the above if any BNP candidate gets elected this year to the European Parliment blame organisations like GMTV and their so called poll saying that the protest(93%) should have been banned.
As a libertarian the protest should not have been banned but also the media should have been more responble in allowing these people to hyjack the news headlines?

"In reply to Victor M. (07:16) I have to say that your comment "There is no such thing as a 'moderate Muslim' " is both wrong and silly."

Quite right, Walter.

And did the Polices let the two groups intermingle? This is a crux of the matter. The pro-Palestinian protesters were attacking Jew-like passers by and generally being thuggish, the pro-Israel protesters did not heap abuse upon the pro-Palestinian protesters. Yet the pro-Israeli protest was the one that was coralled and kept away. A very direct impression that that thuggishness and mob rule have sway.

As would have been desirable in previous such cases, let us hear fulsome, comprehensive and repeated denunciation of this unpleasant protest by 'moderate' Muslim groups.


Tim why was my comment overwritten because i said in an un pc way Choudary and his ilk to go home - It would be nice if not just in your blogs but in your deeds you supported free speech

was it because i rightly criticised the police for arresting the innocent whilst protecting the guilty.

In reply to stephen hoffman (17:06) I think it was your use of language.

Islam may have the British Government, its Dhimmi Ministers & our politicised Police Force at heel & under its thumb, but it will never be able to say the same of the British Army nor the British People.

A dark day - only brightened by the Dunkirk spirit of the true Luton Brits who refuse to be cowed or have their troops insulted by Islamofascists on English soil - even if those Islamofascists have the same Passports as them & have been afforded all the rights & priveliges that OUR forebears died to give them.

Keep repeating the mantra: Immigration is good, multi culturalism is the future face of Britain.....yeah, right....

I do not understand why the law cannot be used against such people as Anjem Choudhury! Surely at least one of his utterances must be legally treasonable?

"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].""

I would have thought that any good lawyer could plead the case that the "Ummah" or a "Worldwide Caliphate" could be treated as a "foreign government" for this purpose!


I am sure that the British treason laws have been usurped & superceded by some Euro babble.

Choudhury & his ilk get more Al_BBC_EERA airtime than most of the Tory front bench.

I think the time for vetting the political beliefs of all future prospective BBC employees is imperative if we are to get some balance.

Afterall, Conservatives are seriously under represented in the demographic make up of BBC employees, and only affirmative action will level the playing field.

Fairs fair.

In reply to albion (21:18) I would suggest that invoking Dunkirk isn't perhaps the most helpful thing to do to bolster your argument - Dunkirk was a dignified retreat!

Been away for a couple of days and just heard about this. Disgraceful, I have not had time to read all the blogs but I will say this as someone who lives and works amongst the local muslim community in Dewsbury. The overwhelming majority are decent and law abiding but there is an element that is an enemy within. We are too soft and until we crack down we can expect more of this kind of behaviour. Attacking your own country, attacking your own people as was the case with 7/7 and other attempted terrorist activity, fighting and try to kill members of your own armed forces overseas IS NOT TERRORISM, IT IS NOT CONSPIRACY TO CAUSE AN EXPLOSION OR COMMIT AN ACT OF TERRORISM ITS TREASON!!! It is high time they were charged with Treason. There is nothing more anti-British than what these people did at this protest. Its time to act now and take it to them and put them in their place. These extreme elements belong to a community in our country that makes up less than 3% of the population they way they act, the way we as a nation pander excessively to their every whim is a national scandal. The definition of a democracy is the will of the majority must prevail. It is bloody time the 97% and the moderate elements within the 3% spoke out with one clear voice you are BRITISH first, second and last if you want to be anything above that then find somewhere else to live. If a dog is born in a stable it is not necessarily a horse! It makes my blood boil.



I should have reserved the Dunkirk "retreat" thought for the Dhimmi British Police when-ever they come up against Muslim anger anywhere in Great Britain these days.

Yes, that would probably have been more appropriate.

To the various people who say I'm silly for posting 'there is no such thing as a moderate Mulsim.' Obviously, some are much more militant than others - that goes without saying, BUT you will live to find out (and regret) that what I have said is basically right- "There is no such thing as a moderate Mulsim" - Where are the statements and demonstrations against the nut brigade then? I know where....nowhere, ever....they dare not.

In reply to Victor (07:56) I restate that my wife is a Muslim and the last time I checked she wasn't planning to overthrow the state. Your comment is simply untrue.

In any case, why on earth should she have to demonstrate against other Muslims who take a different view of their religion and of the UK to her? I wouldn't expect to have to constantly demonstrate every time any Atheist or anyone from the UK did anything I didn't agree with. To expect to have to do so would strike me as absurd.

What you appear to be doing is trying to say that because not all Muslims condemn what some Islamists do they must support them. There is a great big flaw in that argument - i.e. is it complete and utter tripe.

While I agree in the main with Walter West's points above, a problem still exists.
When racists etc go on the rampage, silence from the authorities is not considered acceptable behaviour. Some would argue that not keeping quiet is but to give the unacceptable the fuel of publicity, others argue that to stay quiet is to endorse.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It's an awkward area all round.


Perhaps you haven't heard of "Ed" Husain and the Quilliam Foundation? Perhaps you didn't read the Daily Mail yesterday (Shiraz Maher, p.14).

I look forward to your self-correction when you have investigated these matters.

Walter West,

So your wife is an apostate from Islam? - she must be, as it is Haram for a pious Muslim woman to marry a non Muslim man. Of course, a Muslim man can marry a non Muslim woman.

Please ask your wife to talk you through the contentious passages of the Hadith, the Sunnah & the Koran.

I remind you, there is only one Koran, only one Sunnah, only one Hadith - & only one Prophet Mohammed.

The Ummah may have its factionalism, but it is one entity & the days when Muslims will marcg condemning another Muslim is never going to happen in Britain.

But I think you secretly know that already.

The gentleman you remonstrated with is quite correct - there are no moderate Muslims, & if there were we would have seen the evidence already, given the carnage that happens daily all over the world in the name of the Religion of Peace (TM).

Super Blue, you are right.

Victor should read "The Islamist" by Ed Hussain before he goes any further. It is most illuminating.

The Quilliam Foundation also do excellent work in promoting moderation and tolerance. There are in addition various organisations such as the Three Faiths Forum which promote understanding between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Once upon a time, not so long ago. Our police would have dealt with these scoundrels. There would have been a scuffle and the protesters would have been given a good kicking. The Police would have rightly claimed that the Muslim extremists started the fight, and the papers would have confirmed the fact the next day. For the most part the public would have supported the police. I think we should give the power to deal with such offensive individuals back to the police. I find it unbelievable that these people are allowed to get away with their treasonous outbursts. Its little wonder that the public are sick of a government that allows such people to continue to wander our streets spreading their poison. We need to get tough with our enemies most especially those who have the honour of holding British nationality.

Posted by: Sally Roberts | March 13, 2009 at 10:01

Please Google the word Dhimmitude, then Google Religion of Peace website, then go to that website & learn something, then look in the mirror & ask yourself why you are acting on behalf of the insane liberal left & their naive & wilful indifference to the Islamification of Great Britain.

Just because we were stuck with an Islamochristian as Archdhimmi of Canterbury before Blair revealed he was a Catholic does not mean we all have to shut our eyes & free minds to the truth about Islam.

It is a dangerous cult that seeks to destroy all unbelief.

Their own scriptures - the Koran, the Sunnah the Hadith are all quite clear on this - why we refuse to believe their own holy books & their most significant preachers such as the Grand Mufti of Mecca is absolutely beyond me.

As terrible as the truth is regarding Islam, it is the truth & we must all wake up now.

I remind you that there is only one Koran, only one Hadith, only one Sunnah - & only one Prophet Mohammed.

And the Ummah is a single entity, despite the factionalism within the cult itself.


Thank you "albion" for your advice. I am already familiar with the concept of "dhimmitude" - Non-Muslims living as second-class citizens in a Muslim land and paying a special tax for the privilege. I doubt whether it would get to that stage in this country - the angry people who remonstrated with the vile demonstrators in Luton would be replicated up and down our land long before then - and the Police would be hard-pushed to do anything about it!

I can assure you I am no apologist for the radical and fundamental "brand" of Islam - unlike you however I do not believe that Islam itself is a "dangerous cult" but a faith almost as old as Christianity (though far newer than Judaism) but has ties with its fellow faiths of "The Book" which we must nurture so that the fundamentalists can be marginalised.
I believe we need to give ample time for decent moderate Muslims to come forward; to stand up and proclaim that the radicals do not act or speak in their name. If after a considerable time this has not been done then I am afraid that (so to speak) the gloves come off and a far less conciliatory attitude has to be adopted.

""I believe we need to give ample time for decent moderate Muslims to come forward; to stand up and proclaim that the radicals do not act or speak in their name. If after a considerable time this has not been done then I am afraid that (so to speak) the gloves come off and a far less conciliatory attitude has to be adopted.""

Greetings Sally,

How many more innocent dead on the Tube would you tolerate whilst sitting on your hands waiting for the mythical moderates to actually speak up, let alone take action against the "mis undertanders of Islam" who are using scripture to slaughter all unbelief?

I am genuinely interested - there are many like you & I wonder what the body count would have to reach before you changed your opinion.

Please bare in mind the fact that for the best part of 1400 years Wahabism has been following the same path of infiltration, usurption & eventual control over non Muslim territory that we see so clearer as a pattern 7 consequence of our own immigration policies.


In reply to albion (10:00) ...

You seem to take the view that all Muslims believe in a very strict interpretation of the Koran - which, quite simply, they don't. Some do, some don't. It is a fact of life. Not all Christians share the same views as each other, the same is true of people who follow a variety of religions as well as those who follow none.

Some Muslims might regard it as Haram, but her family are, shall we say, fairly liberal on the matter. They interpret their own religion in their own way as is their right. I am sorry if that flies in the face of your belief that all Muslims must behave in the same way as each other but there we go. Sorry to put in a pin in your balloon.

They don't have a problem with anyone of any other religion or those with no religion at all.

People adapt and interpret their religions all the time as time passes - not all people who share a religion are the same and Islam is no different in this regard.

"How many more innocent dead on the Tube would you tolerate"

None, albion, obviously! As for the remainder of your post - Walter West has countered your arguments far better than I and I have nothing to add.

Sally / Walter,

I am sorry to say that you are both part of the problem, but thankfully more people are waking up to the basic & fundamental truth at the heart of the cult of Islam as the evidence unfolds on a daily basis from around the world.

Good luck both, - nay, good luck to all of us.


In reply to albion (14:24) ...

Why do you refer to Islam as a cult?


You asked why I consider Islam a cult.

The dictionary definitions fit Islam quite well;

"followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices"

"fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal"

"followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader"

I think all three definitions hit the proverbial heretic on the head.

Why do you ask with the evidence & clear definitions available to you?


"How many more innocent dead on the Tube would you tolerate"

None, albion, obviously! As for the remainder of your post - Walter West has countered your arguments far better than I and I have nothing to add.

Posted by: Sally Roberts | March 13, 2009 at 14:02

Sally / Walter,

I also dont buy the "good nazi, bad nazi" argument.

Whether they are "good Muslims" or those that are apparently "deliberately mis-understanding" the central tenets of the cult of Islam & slaughtering all & sundry in line with certain Sura's, if they both share the belief in the ideology & the written scripture then they are what they are;

Part of the same movement. The Ummah.


In reply to albion (14:53 and 15:49) ...

You say that "the dictionary definitions fit Islam quite well".

"followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices"
That could apply to pretty much any religion you care to name - it is a somewhat broad and vague definition.

"fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal"
Not all Muslims follow Islam with an exagerated zeal and not all religious people who follow their religion with an exagerated zeal are Muslims.

"followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader"
Islam doesn't have 'a leader' - unlike Cathololicism or Anglicanism. Not all Muslims 'live outside conventional society' & what is unorthodox about it that isn't unorthodox about other religions or none? As one of the Abrahamic religions it shares an awful lot in common with Christianity (in all its guises) and Judaism. One might also ask what makes it 'extreme' and what it is 'extreme' in relation to.

"Why do you ask with the evidence & clear definitions available to you?"
Because I think you are incorrect in your assertions.

Your decision to compare Islam to Nazism is just plain silly.

As regards the Ummah the word itself means 'community' or 'nation'. Those who want it to mean 'a movement' have attached their own interpretation to it and 'developed' the meaning of it.

At the crux of this, however, is your contention that all Muslims must, by definition, be the same. The evidence simply points in the other direction. As if having the main Sunni, Shi'a, Sufism and, to a lesser extent, Ibadism, forms of Islam (which clearly are not identical) didn't point to your central assumption having a few problems with it I return to the point that individual Muslims interpret their religion in their own ways in the same way that followers of any religion do and you can't just assert that 'they are all the same'.

You appear to have started from the view that since some Muslims are nutjobs the same must be true of all of them. That simply isn't a very good argument at all.

Haven't you noticed that all Muslims are allowed to do whatever they please and won't get arrested. They know that.

I recently met a policeman in a social enviroment and he was totally brainwashed that the police, government and the British public should allow the muslims to do whatever they wished and it wasn't a crime, I also felt if I dared to make a negative comment regarding muslims then I would be arrested.

In such a conflict I try to see the viewpoint of both sides and I suppose from their perspective the invasion of Iraq was an initiated war of aggression with pre-emptive attack that resulted in the death of too many Iraqi women and children and was to them an international crime committed by "the coalition of the willing", indeed for years they have been at the receiving end of cluster bombs that became child killing land mines, depleted uranium missiles that caused radioactive damage and cancer and deformed babies, far more than 17 million pounds of bombs including napalm dropped on the people of Iraq since 1991, in total more than a million of their people killed.

Denis Halliday, said of the Anglo-American embargo against Iraq, it will "slaughter them in the history books".

It was Mr Halliday who, as assistant secretary general of the United Nations, set up the "oil for food" programme in Iraq in 1996 he quickly realised that the UN had become an instrument of "a genocidal attack on a whole society". He resigned in protest, as did his successor, Hans von Sponeck, who described "the wanton and shaming punishment of a nation". Iraqi babies died by the thousands for the want of clean water, Iraq was the only Arab country with a 90 per cent clean water supply and free education. All this was destroyed by intense bombing and the Anglo-American embargo. "Embargo should not be imposed on any nation, it is a war against humanity, and children suffer the most."
Pope John Paul II

Is it therefore any wonder that they shouted things that shame us all, however nowadays, our troops are in Iraq to help protect and keep the peace and deserve respect and it’s not entirely their fault the horror of Iraq, it’s our politicians guilt we became part of the "coalition of the willing" and in doing so we became partly responsible for the unnecessary deaths, torture, concentration camps and the atrocities against the Iraqi people.

This I think is the protesters point of view the whys and the wherefores.

I cant believe the people here who blame "the media" for the outrageous actions of the islamiNAzis who have nothing for contempt for britain. FREE SPEECH? hahaa WHAT A JOKE !!

Anyone that threatens our troops, or protests against our armed forces, should not be protected by them. These people are living here, usually at the tax payer's expense, under the protection of the police and the military whilst still expecting the same protection as everyone else. They should be deported at once to their country of origin and if they are British born, use their parents country of origin, or grand parents. No one, including English subjects that oppose the military should be given protection by it. Even if that means sticking all the commies and anarchists on a timy fenced off island out of the way. I don't care where they go as long as it is somewhere else. If a country doesn't want its people back, too bad, we'll just air drop crates of them into their air space.

As for moderate versus extremist muslims, it is the terminology that is causing the problem. Extremists are not extreme, they are fundamentalist. There is a big difference. They are fundamentalist because they follow the fundamentals of their religion, they do not follow a warped version, they follow the real deal. Of course there is a majority of moderate muslims, but that term is also misleading. To be moderate, you have to follow only the parts of Islam that are nice and easy to do, the less offensive bits. That means ignoring the basis of the religion, the example of the founder, and the direct word of God.. But that is what the vast majority of those who call themselves muslims do. To be more accurate, they should be called faker muslims, or half-arsed muslims, but they and other sensitive folk wouldn't like that. This majority still wish to believe they are good muslims so they will not admit they are not following the Koran, instead they invoke unrealistic and extreme interpretations of the Koran to make it seem more poetic and less violent. They are not alone in this though because both the Christians and the Jews have a big head start on doing the same thing. The number of half-arsed Christians and Jews far outweigh those actually following the religion religiously. It is this half-arsed group that actually rules the western world, too non committal for fundamentalist belief, and too lazy for rational free thinking. The further you go from dogma, the more calm and peaceful things get. It is that simple. It doesn't matter if is is Islam, Christianity, Nazism, or communism, all dogma brings is trouble. The best thing to do is to simply abandon all of it completely, not just cut back, but leave it behind and instead advance using the brains we should all be making better use of. Islam is now and has always been a bad idea. It should not be encouraged. I don't suggest victimising muslims as a whole, we should accept there is a big diversity in the way people have gotten their view of the world wrong, but we should support different groups when they move away from dogma and condem them when they move towards it or stay with it. Though I realise many will see it as simply supporting the moderates and condeming the extremists, it should be done using objectives based on the terms I have outlined because there is a fundamental difference between the two approaches.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker