The Infidel

The Infidel (2010)

A family man, devoted father and "relaxed" Muslim fellow in the U.K. discovers:

a)  that he was adopted; and
b) that he's actually Jewish.

Hilarity ensues.

The trailer:



Who says there's no comedy in Islam?  Oh yeah, that was the Ayatollah Khomeni way back when.  Fatwa in 3 ...2 ...1.

Muslims Against the Crusades Dishonours Itself by Disrupting Solemn Remembrance Service

Shameful and disgusting.

Protesters from the militant Islamist cabal, Muslims Against the Crusades, disrupted this year's Armistice Day commemoration in the Kensington area of London.  As the two minutes of silence began at the eleventh hour, the bellicose MAC belligerents began hurling invective, shouting deeply insulting and hateful slogans, and burnt a large model poppy.  They held signs incribed with various threats including "Allah is our protector and you have no protector;" "British soldiers burn in hell;" "Afghanistan the graveyard of empires;" and "Islam will dominate."  Also conspicuous were those crypto-jihadists among them who brandished the black flag of the khalifah.

Muslims Against the Crusades appears to be the successor to the baleful Islam4UK (Anjem Choudary's previous militant hate group), proscribed by the British parliament in January 2010.  The demonstrators were led to their allocated protest zone through an underground connecting tunnel, and were later led back out the same way, by police escort.  (NB. you can't spell 'demonstrators' without 'demon' -- just saying.)

Not surprisingly, the khalifascists were met with opposition from the local chapter of the EDL.  Hilarity ensues, sort of.

For the full article click on the Daily Mail.

Happy St. George's Day

While this might not sit well with some of the more militant followers of [bleep] in a bear suit, happy St. George's Day.

While some English communities are mired in their own feckless dhimmitude, and others are beleaguered by militant sectarian grievance hustling, the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, is urging Britons to fly the flag of St. George and celebrate their English heritage. Well it's about time.  What's the English word for cajones?

U.K. Immigration Inquiry Demanded by Opposition

A few months ago, private government memoranda surfaced in the U.K. that seemed to indicate that the governing Labour party had deliberately accelerated the pace of immigration for the purposes of social engineering, with the intention of expanding Labour's voting base and marginalizing the Conservative party.

Now the Conservatives are demanding a formal inquiry into the matter, just months before the government of Gordon Brown must call a general election.

The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.

However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.

Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.

Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.

The irony is that if Labour were using mass immigration to cement a new and loyal voting base, the governing party seems to have all but alienated its traditional white working class voters. In some districts, this has created fertile ground for the emergence of the BNP. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

"The Supreme Court This Week Effectively Made the Jewish Religion Illegal"

In the Telegraph (U.K.), Charles Moore comments on the implications for religious freedom in the face of a daunting Human-Rights-addled legal orthodoxy. The case in question -- whether an orthodox Jewish school may exercise its discretion in determining, based on ancient Jewish law and custom, who does or does not qualify for admission.

Actually, it goes wider than that. The court is effectively saying that a religion's way of defining its own membership, practised over 3,500 years, is illegal. This is an acute problem for Jews, who are at great pains to maintain their own rules while respecting the law of the land. It will also be used by anti-Jewish groups, which are growing in strength, to bolster their argument that Judaism is racist and that the state of Israel is the equivalent of apartheid South Africa. So the Race Relations Act, set up to help minorities, ends up punishing them.

I would argue that the judgment goes wider still. It is part of a current idea of equality and of human rights which, in the name of freedom, is beginning to look like tyranny.

The whole article: Charles Moore, "Our human rights culture has now become a tyranny," Telegraph (U.K.), 18 December 2009.

*Related*

Christian Horizons, anyone?

Britain's Terror Threat Downgraded ...

... from 'severe' to 'substantial'. Welcome to life in the age of perma-crisis. It's a 'pins and needles' world. (But at least the threat levels aren't colour coded.)

Oh, and --

The threat level has been reduced twice in the weeks before major attacks.

The last time the threat level was reduced to “substantial” was in May 2005 after the security services assessed that investigative leads from the Crevice plot to attack the Bluewater Shopping Centre and Ministry of Sound nightclub with a homemade fertilizer bomb had been “followed up and discounted.”

The assessment was criticised when it emerged that two of the bombers who struck two months later had been on the fringes of that plot.

The threat level went up to “critical” after the July 7 attacks but went back down to “severe” in the days before the failed attacks of July 21.

Mr. Chretien, I Can Smell Burnt Toast

Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien has been named by the Queen to the 'Order Of Merit'.

A letter to the National Post corrects the record of how many Canadians have preceded him to this honour.

Re: Chretien Surprised By Rare Royal Honour, July 14.

This article notes that former prime minister Jean Chretien is the third Canadian to be named to the Order of Merit. In fact, he is the fourth.

In addition to former prime ministers William Lyon Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson, who are named, Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield received the honour in 1953. He was the first person Her Majesty appointed to the Order.

U.K. : the General Synod Says Labour Government Understands Political Correctness, Discriminates Against Christians

According to a report penned by Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, and Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith for the Church of England, Christian Churches in the United Kingdom are "being starved of state funds to help the poor as a result of money being diverted to other faiths." In particular, the authors charge that there is a perception that more money is being channeled to Islamic groups, to the detriment of other faiths, in an attempt to appease or forestall militancy.

The report says that there is a "great deal of inconsistency in the way individual [Government] ministers deal with religious groups".

It continues: "Christian groups in particular have suffered irrational prejudice against their funding applications and a lack of understanding of the nature and sometimes fragility of the local church.

"There is a perception, perhaps justified, that it has been easier for Islamic groups to receive financial support than other faith groups."

Bishop Lowe claims that there have been numerous examples of local authorities inviting consultation with local faith groups and failing to invite any Christians.

The authors insist that there is "little doubt" that the government's anti-terrorism agenda is directly affecting the ability of churches and other faith groups to carry on their social service functions. As a result, Christian churches worry that they are losing their presence in some of the poorest parts of Britain. Philip Giddings, chairman of the Church's mission and public affairs division, even expressed concern that the Church is dealing with government representatives and Ministers who simply don't share, let alone understand, its values.

Welcome to post-Christian Britain.

Bishop Lowe admonishes Church leaders and lay members alike to be vigilant and persistent. "We must not become a comfortable Church for a comfortable nation, but a church totally committed to its continued presence in uncomfortable England,"

Amen.

Oh, Dhimmi Britain

The recent British government publication, Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism is generously peppered with all sorts of politically correct bromides, suggests political blogger A. Miller. In fact, the document asserts that "the fault for the contemporary worldwide jihad lies almost solely with the majority cultures of Western nations." The Home Office has developed a new 'counter-terrorism' strategy based on "the 4 Ps" called CONTEST -- a programme committed to "keeping human rights at the heart of all the counter-terrorism work in this country and overseas."

A. Miller dissects what he clearly sees as more Frankfurt School, post-colonial-theory-inspired rubbish for The Brussels Journal. (Here's a sample, but read the whole piece.)

I’m not sure what “evidence” of a “failure in western states to respect or understand Islam” the report alludes to, but lets not kid ourselves here. Religious authorities in Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have issued fatwas against the Japanese, children’s cartoon Pokemon, because they believe it to be a “a Jewish-Darwinist theory, that conflicts with the truth about humans and with Islamic principles.” The Pakistani film, Shadows in Motions, suggests that The Simpsons is part of an anarcho-Zionist-Masonic plot to destroy Islam. And in 2007, English teacher Gillian Gibbons was imprisoned by Sudanese authorities, and had angry mobs calling for her execution because she allowed her class to name a teddy bear ‘Mohammed.’

But it's all the West's fault for not understanding Islam, eh? Indeed. Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare ... and Prostrate.


*Related*

Harry Rosenfeld, for the Hamilton Spectator, reviews President Obama's recent Rainbow Tour, and the trail of apologies he left in his wake. He takes special notice of Obama's apologies to the Muslim world and his firm declaration that the U.S. is not (nor ever will be) at war with Islam. Looking at the 200 year history of American-Islamic relations, from the Barbary Coast pirates (who raided American vessels and enslaved their crews in the early 19th century) to the modern friction between a muscular American foreign policy and Islamic regional sensitivities, Rosenfeld wonders if there is any reciprocity to be expected in return for Obama's "olive branch".

Simply put, if America is not at war with Islam, does that necessarily mean that some crudely drawn swaths of Islamic civilization (from radical Wahabists, to Al Qaeda, to the Taliban, and all the way to the Muslim Brotherhood) are not at war with America -- waging a combination of "hard" and "soft" jihad?

Perhaps the Obama administration will ask the British for a copy of Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare. Then all will be well, right?

Mob Riots in London; Royal Bank of Scotland Offices Ransacked

A violent mob of anti-capitalist anarchists and climate-change hooligans descended upon London yesterday to riot in protest of the impending G-20 summit, being held in the city today. (Welcome to England, Mr. President. I assure you, it's only like this ... er ... sometimes.)

The Daily Mail is calling the play-by-play.

Hundreds of anarchists went on the rampage this afternoon as the G20 protests descended into violence.

Several police officers were injured and a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland targeted as drunken troublemakers brought chaos to London's Square Mile.

A violent mob with their faces covered by bandanas broke into the RBS building after windows at its entrance were smashed.

[...]

Around the bank, crowds charged police lines as officers hit back with baton charges.

City workers added to the febrile atmosphere by waving money from their office windows and shouting insults at the protesters.

[...]

Observers spotted many demonstrators drinking and smoking cannabis as they swarmed towards the City this morning.

[...]

Chants of 'f*** the police' and 'our street' were heard as police reinforcements were drafted in.

There were ugly scenes as the protesters refused to fall back and goaded officers. Eventually they surged forward, forcing police to draw their batons.

Protesters clutched horses heads' made from cloth and sticks and flags or figures of death and threw empty beers cans, fruit, flour and paint at officers.

Many suffered minor injuries and were seen bleeding from the head after police beat them back as they tried to force their way through.

Read the full colour commentary, complete with full colour photographs here.

How George Galloway Duped the "Intellectuals"

After an astonishing campaign of disinformation and obfuscation, the sorry Galloway saga is almost behind us. But what a bewildering ride.

Jason Kenney took the brunt of the abuse for the decision to exclude Mr. Galloway from entry into Canada. Yet it was not actually Minister Kenney's decision to make, and he did not actually make it. In fact, the decision rested with the Canada Border Services Agency, which is accountable not to the immigration minister but to the public safety minister -- not to Jason Kenney but to Peter Van Loan. Mr. Kenney, of course, had the prerogative to intervene, and chose not to.

At issue were allegations that Galloway had raised funds and handed over monies to groups in the middle east that are deemed terrorist organizations in Canada. It is illegal in Canada to raise funds for groups deemed to be terrorist organizations by the Canadian government. While Galloway has not done any fundraising in Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and Canadian Consular Services were sufficiently alarmed by his alleged activities abroad in support of groups such as Hamas.

So, Galloway was informed well in advance of his lecture tour that he would not likely be granted permission to enter Canada. Without missing a beat, the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, one of the chief organizers of the anti-war and pro-Palestinian rallies at which Galloway was to have spoken, launched into protest mode.

By now you will have heard that Jason Kenney, Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, has banned British MP George Galloway from entering Canada. Galloway is scheduled to speak in four cities during a pan-Canadian speaking tour from March 30 to April 2.

Kenney's decision to ban Galloway is an unprecedented attack on free speech and on the right to criticize our own government's foreign policy. Kenney's office has publicly stated that Galloway will be banned because of his views on the war in Afghanistan and because he represents a "threat to national security".

The ban follows Kenney's recent attacks on Canadian Arab and Muslim organizations and on Palestine solidarity campaigners for their criticism of Israel's war on Gaza and its treatment of Palestinians. In the last few days, Kenney unilaterally cut funding to the Canadian Arab Federation for its immigrant settlement program. Kenney also recently attacked students organizing Israeli Apartheid Week on campuses across Canada. [emphasis mine]

The organizers cast this as a "free speech" issue, "progressively" tarred Jason Kenney, and ignored the issue that impelled the Canada Border Services Agency (not Kenney) to bar Galloway in the first place.

Surely, it might have been preferable to grant Galloway permission to enter Canada from the start, and to speak at the events for which he was scheduled. I, for one, do firmly believe in free speech and, while I find Galloway's views repellent, I would support his right to speak those views, on Canadian soil. However, if it were found that his events were used for fundraising for Hamas or Hezbollah, and he was aware of this, I would also firmly support his arrest at Pearson Airport as he attempted to leave the country. However, the point is moot. It didn't work out that way.

Instead, Galloway received far more attention and publicity than he ever would have received of his own accord. And he and his supporters used it to their full advantage.

By playing the "free speech" card, the pro-Galloway folks were able to piggy-back onto an issue that is increasingly top-of-mind for a lot of Canadians these days, and certainly an issue that resonates deeply in the Canadian psyche. Free speech is fundamental. Free speech is fair play.

But in this instance, the "free speech card" was not only an obfuscation, but it was also more than a little bit disingenuous. Had the groups sponsoring Galloway's visit (the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, the Ottawa Peace Assembly, and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights) suddenly found "religion"? Where were they during the past year as Canadians such as Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Fr. Alphonse de Valk and Ron Gray defended free speech in their inquisitions before Canada's human rights commissions? Cue the crickets. Sure these groups believe in free speech, but apparently only for people they like.

And what of Galloway himself? In 2004, Galloway pressured Britain's Labour government to deny entry to the French right-wing politician Jean-Marie le Pen. And this year, he spoke approvingly of the Home Secretary's decision to block the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. So, what makes Canada's decision to block Galloway different? Well just this -- Galloway would support the banning of le Pen and Wilders because he hates their ideas, while Canada blocked Galloway not because of his words but because of his alleged deeds. As Bob Breakenridge wrote, "In fact, many of Galloway's supporters--including his biggest fan (himself) --ought to avoid the words "free speech" altogether, because we can easily see how spectacularly uncommitted they are to the very notion."

In an attempt to overturn the border ban, the pro-Galloway activists took their appeal to Federal Court, alleging "irreparable harm." Judge Martineau disagreed.

Judge Martineau noted that it was not for him to decide on the credibility of what he called "hearsay" evidence against Mr. Galloway. Instead, the judge explained he was ruling on whether there were grounds for an injunction.

The judge said that there was no "irreparable harm" for Mr. Galloway because he could address the rallies without being in Canada.

As well, the judge observed that the government had not made a final decision on the admissibility of Mr. Galloway, it had only advised him that it was unlikely he would be allowed into the country.

And indeed, Galloway did deliver his address, along with a few gratuitous pot-shots at Jason Kenney, Monday night via video-conference. Nobody tried to prevent him from speaking. Nobody could have. Free speech was alive and well after all -- as if that was truly what any of this was about in the first place.

So, what was it really all about?

Steve Janke weighs in and makes a clear and necessary distinction.

Again, and from the top. This has nothing to do with what George Galloway says. Jason Kenney has no interest whatsoever in what George Galloway says. Nor do most people.

If all George Galloway did was talk, he'd could be in Canada today.

This is about what George Galloway has done. What George Galloway did was raise money for Hamas, and then personally deliver the funds and support to Hamas representatives in Gaza. The Canadian government has designated Hamas a terrorist organization. Foreigners who provide material support for terrorists are not allowed to cross the border. [Emphasis mine]

And for good measure, Terry Glavin cuts through the crap with near surgical precision--

Galloway hasn't even tried to enter Canada, remember. Instead, he has taken the opportunity to combine with his Canadian admirers to exploit the gullibility and general slovenliness of the press in order to tell a pack of lies, monger a lurid conspiracy theory about a secret plot hatched in Ottawa to silence critics of Canada’s engagements in Afghanistan, fabricate a free-speech controversy, and blame it all on the Jews. [emphasis mine]

Yes. That pretty much sums up this sorry affair.

*Update*

Terry Glavin has left a very thoughtful addendum/corrective in the comments. All points well-taken. My sincerest thanks for that, Terry.

*Update 2*

Welcome Blazing Catfur readers.

New Labour in the U.K.: Millions of Shillings, Shilling for Votes

Ed West posits, in The Telegraph blogs, "How the Government Pays Muslims to Vote Labour":

Admittedly, £90 million is like money down the back of a sofa to a Government as prolifigerate as ours, compared to the £3 billion it has wasted trying to tackle obesity, but it is more important. The state has an undisputed responsibility to protect us from terrorism; protecting us from pies is more of a debatable area. But government spending in this area, which one would have thought would be controlled carefully, has been handled with all care of a drunk putting his card behind the bar. I read on Harry's Place, home of Britain's last remaining pro-Israeli Lefties who believe that bearded brown-skinned fascists are as bad as clean shaven white ones, that shadow "communities minister" Paul Goodman has asked the Government where £70 million given to fight extremism had gone, and it appears the Government does not know. "We gave it to some bearded chap," they might as well have shrugged. "Seemed like a good egg. Kept on saying something about jihad".

Canada likewise has gone down the road of partisan political coalition building through strategic disbursement of multicultural funding to "favoured" groups. At least now we've got somebody doing something to correct this sort of nonsense. Way to go, Jason Kenney.

The U.K. Today -- More Chamberlain Than Churchill

The National Post tosses a dart at the British Home Office, and "the new British appeasement." Somebody had to say it.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP deported from Britain last week, may be as much a spotlight hog as he is a freedom fighter. He is never happier than when he is at the eye of a storm over his controversial views on Islam; and where no storm exists, he is only too happy to stir one up.

Nonetheless, the British government was wrong to deny him entry based on his political opinions, particularly when it frequently admits Muslim clerics with far more violent views than Mr. Wilders'. By its disproportionate actions, the Home Office seems more concerned about sparing radical Muslims offence than defending Britain's centuries-old traditions of free speech.

A very good editorial. Read the rest here.

If you find Wilders' views odious, then he may be tough to defend. But he's far less odious than some of the Radical Islamist apologists that Britain regularly admits without so much as a meek squeak from the Home Office. The Home Secretary says she was concerned that Wilders' visit would have potentially been a disruption to public order. That's bureaucratic weasel-speak for "potential for violence." Well, I'm sure that the Home Secretary was not envisioning Wilders throwing a lit Molotov cocktail in the vicinity of the House of Lords. So who then? Hmm.

Geert Wilders Denied Entry to Britain

In a surprise reversal, the controversial film Fitna, which starkly criticizes the Koranic justifications of Radical Islam, will now be screened for the peers in the British House of Lords. The screening had initially been cancelled owing to some not-so-veiled threats and intimidation by Lord Nazir Ahmed.

However, while the 15 minute film will now be screened, the government of the United Kingdom has decided to refuse entry to the film's creator, Geert Wilders. This decision, of course, flies in the face of diplomatic and EU convention -- Wilders is an elected M.P. in the Dutch parliament and the leader of the PVV (the Netherlands' third largest political party). The government of the Netherlands is protesting the decision.

NIS has the story.

THE HAGUE, 11/02/09 - The United Kingdom has denied MP Geert Wilders entry to the country. Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen phoned his UK counterpart David Miliband yesterday to express his dissatisfaction.

Wilders, admired and loathed for his Islam criticisms, was due to visit London on Thursday at the invitation of a British Senate member. But he received a letter yesterday from the British ambassador to the Netherlands telling him he was not welcome. Reportedly his visit would constitute a threat to public order.

[...]

Wilders told reporters he would not be discouraged by the "scandalous" decision of a "bunch of cowards". He added he may still travel to London. "I am serious considering boarding the plane. Than I will just see what happens at the border," stated the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), currently the third biggest party in the polls.

[...]

"The United Kingdom is sacrificing freedom of speech. One might expect this in Saudi Arabia but not in the UK," said Wilders. He added his film would be shown "in the Italian parliament next week" and "in the United States in a couple of weeks". Wilders earlier showed Fitna in Israel.

Meanwhile, Wilders still faces prosecution in the Netherlands for the sundry thought crimes and hate speech allegations surrounding the film -- all predictably generated by the predictably aggrieved to be prosecuted by the predictably compliant.

A Word of Advice to Doctoral Students Who Are Writing Faeces Theses

Don't leave your shit lying around.

Daniel Bennett had been studying the butaan lizard for more than five years in the Philippines and was working towards a doctorate.

He had built up a large collection of faeces samples which were stored at Leeds University and then disposed of.

The university said Mr Bennett was still due to finish his PhD this year.

Unfortunately he will now have to pass his oral defense without the benefit of key visual aids for show-and-tell.

Mr Bennett said he spent seven years of painstaking work searching the rainforest to find the faeces of the large and mysterious lizard.

He said the reptile was so shy that he studied what it ate through its droppings, rather than trapping or disturbing it.

The university said: "The loss of these samples was an unfortunate mistake.

"They were thrown away in error because they were in an unmarked bag.

Leeds University has offered to compensate him 500 pounds (about $750) for his loss. Mr. Bennett thought that was crap, declined the offer, and will take the matter to court.

He may also be harbouring dark fantasies about what he would like to do with "an unmarked bag" of shit, some citronella oil and a barbecue lighter right about now.

from the files of the Institute for Redundancy Institute

Responding to fears that the global recession may deepen, the British parliament is planning to increase the statutory severance that employers must pay staff who are declared redundant.

At present, statutory redundancy pay is based on a week's pay for each full year's service between the ages of 22 and 41, and one-and-a-half week's pay for older workers. Total payouts are capped at £7,000 and £10,500 respectively because wages above £350 a week and service of more than 20 years are ignored. Some 46 per cent of the workforce earns more than £350 a week. But Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, plans to propose a more generous scheme in his submission to the Chancellor Alistair Darling ahead of the Budget this spring.

Although no decision has been made, a big one-off rise in the £350-a-week limit is under consideration.

This idea is being championed by some Labour M.P.s, with union backing. However, it is generally panned by employers who caution "that at a time when many firms are desperate to keep costs down, bigger payouts could result in more job cuts."

At first blush, it would appear to be an odd strategy for a "stimulus package" to cobble the nation's employers with significantly more onerous severance liabilities at a time of economic instability and uncertainty. But there is an additional wrinkle.

So far Lord Mandelson has failed to win extra funds for the scheme from the Treasury, which says he should find the money from his department's budget. While redundancy costs are normally met by the employer, the Government foots the bill when a firm goes bust.

So, this would seem to be a disincentive for parliament to hasten the rate at which companies "go bust," wouldn't it?

Scottish Parliament in Row over Haggisgate

Priorities. Priorities.

Political rivals are demanding the resignation of Scotland's justice minister after he decided to skip a major national conference on knife crime in favour of a trip to Canada to attend a series of haggis suppers celebrating the birthday of the famed 18th-century Scottish poet Robbie Burns.

So, without even a hint of irony, the opposition knives are out for the justice minister.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Cabinet Secretary of Justice in the Scottish parliament, Kenny MacAskill --



In the previous parliament, didn't he serve for a time as the Minister of Silly Walks?