The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

At the end of December 2013, a host for Liberty GB radio was charged by West Midlands Police with "racially aggravated harassment". Tim Burton's supposed crime was a Twitter post in which he described Fiyaz Mughal (who runs an "anti-Islamophobia" website/organisation called Tell MAMA) as "a mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist".

Fiyaz Mughal's (or Tell MAMA's) latest claim (as of the 14th of January) is that Tim Burton has also been guilty of "racialising Muslims."

Now why did Tim Burton describe Fiyaz Mughal as a "a mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist"? He did so because it was revealed that Mughal had been deceiving the public about nonexistent "hate crimes" against Muslims (as first revealed by Telegraph journalist Andrew Gilligan). More specifically, Tell MAMA had published misleading statistics on "anti-Muslim incidents" in the wake of the Islamic murder of soldier Lee Rigby. In terms of detail, Mughal was publicly criticized by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

As a consequence of these lies (or at least these acts of dissimulation), Tell MAMA had its public/state funding withdrawn.

So what happened next? What happened next was a bizarre case of self-reference.

Because Tim Burton highlighted Fiyaz Mughal's bogus claims about nonexistent "Islamophobia" and "hate crimes" (against Muslims), Mughal decided to accuse Tim Burton himself of committing a hate crime for revealing such mendacity. Effectively Fiyaz Mughal is attempting to stop people pointing out his bogus hate-crime claims by saying that such criticisms are also, well, hate crimes.

So firstly, Fiyaz Mughal is attempting to stop all criticism of Muslims (as Muslims) and Islam itself. And now he's also trying to stop all criticisms of his publicly-known deceit.

As a result of all this, Tim Burton will be standing trial on the 18th February 2014 at Birmingham Magistrates' Court.

The very strange thing about all this is rather than it being the case that Tim Burton is "racialising Muslims", as Fiyaz Mughal claims, it's actually the case that Tell MAMA (or Fiyaz Mughal) and the Left are doing so. What Tell MAMA/Fiyaz Mughal and the Left are trying to do is convince everyone else that all criticisms of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims) are racist in nature. Why? Because if they can pull that off, then they can silence all such criticisms.

The extreme Left had already thoroughly and intentionally "racialised" Muslims and even the criticism of Islam itself. For example, the Guardian's resident Marxist and associate editor, Seumas Milne, has unequivocally stated the following:

"Islam has become a proxy for race, and Islamophobia [is] a form of ...."

In addition to that he also believes that those critics of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims) who don't see themselves as racists have simply "absolved themselves of racism." Apparently, all of us are "entirely oblivious to more than two decades of debates around race."

The UK's Islamophobia Watch and Loonwatch in the U.S. have also racialised Muslims and even Islam itself; as well as claimed that critics are "Islamophobes" or "fascists". Indeed, even those critics of Muslims and Islam they don't explicitly classify as "fascists" or "Islamophobes" are deemed to be "contributing to the rise of Islamophobia [fascism]."

In other words, Tell MAMA and the Left actually want -- or they politically require -- all critics of Islam and Muslims to be racist: all the easier and better to silence them. Fiyaz Mughal, just like the Left, is using race or racism as a tool to bring about his own little piece of sharia blasphemy law. More specifically, Fiyaz Mughal is trying to use the Religious and Racial Hatred Act of 2006 as a means to stop all criticism of Islam and Muslims.

The 2006 Act & the Racialisation of Muslims

The consequences of the initial Bill of 2005, and the reality of its wide scope, were captured very well by Lord Lester at the time of a main amendment:

"The new speech crimes are sweepingly broad. They apply to threatening abusive or insulting words, behavior, written material, recordings or programs intended or likely to stir up religious hatred. Unlike most other serious offenses they require no criminal intent. They apply not only to words spoken in public but in private. They cover the electronic media, plays, films, works of fiction, political argument, preaching by priests and clerics, comedians and politicians."

We are talking here about the possibility of people being sent to prison for up to seven years for saying such things as "the Koran is full of violence and aggression". We are talking about a law which seems intent on freeing Islam from all criticism, as has been the case in parts of the Muslim world for up to 1,400 years.

The 2006 law can be seen as an attempt by Muslims and their friends to racialise their religion -- Islam. What I mean by this is that Sikhs and Jews, in the UK, already had full protection from incitement because the courts regarded them as distinct races. They didn't see Muslims and Christians in the same light.

Here we come across a problem of Muslim hypocrisy. On the one hand all Muslims stress the fact that Muslims do not constitute a single race (as an argument against racists). They stress "Muslim universalism" and the fact that "Islam embraces all races". On the other hand, many Muslims want to be seen and treated as a race simply because, in legal terms, that would benefit Muslims as a whole.

Thus because the laws against racial incitement don't fully protect Islam and Muslims from criticism, it was seen to be necessary to racialise Muslims in legal terms. In that way they would gain the full protection which ethnic minorities receive from the state and the courts. Thus it was then hoped that it would come to pass that all criticism of Islam, the Koran and Muslims (as Muslims -- not as a race) would be seen as racist (or as "the last acceptable racism", as Baroness Sayeeda Warsi once described it). Only in that way would all criticism of Islam, the Koran, and Mohammed be stopped. And this is precisely what many Muslims, and their Leftist friends, are trying to do. This is what the initial law essentially attempted to bring about.

The thing is that adequate religious discrimination laws were already in existence before 2006. There were specific laws which banned religious discrimination in the workplace. This in itself shows us that many of those who originally brought about the 2006 law wanted to go beyond the mere protection of people from religious discrimination. In other words, people of various religions were already protected from bigots by older laws. In that sense, the 2006 law was simply not needed.

That was why the original 2005 Bill was subject to various amendments. More specifically, it was stressed, at the time, that "the freedom of speech must be insured just as much as the freedom from bigotry." Thus we are entering the world of semantics. A distinction was made between "threatening words and behaviour" and words which were merely "critical, abusive and insulting." Nonetheless, many Muslims tried, and are still trying, their hardest to close or even eliminate the gap between threatening words and behavior and mere criticism. They are attempting to criminalize the criticism of Islam, the Koran, and Mohammed.

One primary reason why this law didn't go completely down that route was because the law itself was turned against Islam, Muslims and even against the Koran itself (as, in the latter case, Christian groups did). If the 2005 Bill hadn't thrown up this self-referential problem for Muslims, God know how far down the banning, prosecuting and imprisoning route we would have gone by now.

The Labour Government of the day (in 2005/6) did try to defend itself and its new law. It argued that it was necessary because Jews and Sikhs were already protected by existing law, but Muslims weren't. This is argument is false. Jews and Sikhs are protected as ethnic or racial groups; not because of their religion. Muslims do not constitute a single race. Indeed there are Anglo-Saxon, Chinese, black, etc. Muslims (as Muslims themselves often stress in other contexts).

Racially speaking, there already existed laws which protected Asians or, more specifically in the case of the UK, Pakistanis, as racial or ethnic groups: even the Asians or Pakistanis who happen to be Christian or non-Muslim. Thus, again, the Government of the time, and many Muslims, wanted more than mere laws against racial discrimination or racist violence. They were and still are attempting to make it illegal to criticize Islam, the Koran, and Muslims (as Muslims) in any way.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/racialising_islam.html

Notes:

1) These quotes get to the heart of Mughal's campaign. It's clear how far he wants to go:

"Mughal asserted that tougher sentences were needed to tackle Islamophobic crime, noting that the guidelines by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to monitor social media were 'not fit for purpose'.

"They raised the bar of prosecution significantly.

"Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality.

"We also need more robust sentencing...."

Many people are saying that Mughal is "attempting to bring about sharia law in the UK". He's not. His specific job or aim is to bring about sharia blasphemy law in the UK. (The rest of sharia law is being dealt with by his fellow Muslims.) Sharia blasphemy law is Mughal's little area of sharia to deal with, as it is with the BBC's Mo Ansar.

2) Tell MAMA is at it again:

“These are the December 2013 Metropolitan Police Service Islamophobia hate crime reported figures. Compared to December 2012, there has been a 60% plus rise in anti-Muslim recorded hate crimes...”

“What is also concerning is the sharp rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes in Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Lambeth....” (Tell MAMA, 19th January.)

Tell MAMA has just published new figures on “anti-Muslim hate crimes”.

For a start, we're not going to get anywhere unless we know what constitutes a “hate crime”. As we already know, Tell MAMA, or Mughal, regards abusive or critical Internet remarks as “hate crimes”. That's funny because that means that I've been the victim of numerous hate crimes – usually from International Socialists, National Socialists and Muslims.

One statistic surprises me very much – the one about the rise of “hate crimes” in Tower Hamlets. For a start, on the last survey I think that Muslims make up 40% or more of the Tower Hamlets population. So the first thing I thought was this:

Are these hate crimes by Muslims against non-Muslims?

Of course they're not! This is Tell MAMA, remember? But this is still strange because if a non-Muslim were to commit a hate crime against a Muslim in Tower Hamlets, he'd probably be on the wrong end of an even worse hate crime from Muslims – death, or at least severe violence. Most of the violence and hate I've heard about in the Tower Hamlets area is carried out by Muslims against non-Muslims. You'll have heard about the Islamic “street patrols” and the “gay-free areas” in Tower Hamlets, as well as the “white flight” from that area which has occurred over the last two decades. You will also have heard about Lutfar Rahman's Islamic fiefdom, the immense Muslim racism towards the remaining whites and the obvious and systematic favouritism shown by Muslim councillors towards, yes, Muslims..

http://tellmamauk.org/december...

Views: 350

Replies to This Discussion

Before it was hived off into a separate Bill, the provisions of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (RRHB) were an adjunct to a Terrorism Bill.  If they had not been separated out, it would have made clear that in muslims using islam as a justification to kill non-muslims in Britain, non-muslims might respond with violence or threatening words.  

Most people now forget that the prohibition of criticism of islam in the RRHB was instituted in direct response to muslims performing islamically-motivated murder in Britain.

Since the RRHB went on to protect all religions (and non-religious belief) from threatening behaviour, I see no reason why the koran itself and muslim gatherings are not subject to it (as your link to Stephen Green points out).  When the country decides it is time to start the process of banning islam, the application of the RRHA to muslims and islam will serve as the first step in that process.

I suggest you also look at the article on Faith Matters here: http://www.jdl-uk.org/2013/03/cst-is-betraying-jewish-community.html

I'm proud to say, I was drawing attention to Fiyaz Mughal's shenanigans back in 2010 (when he set up a do-nothing "Muslims Against Anti-semitism" group to appear to do something when Panorama exposed that 5000 muslim kids a week were being taught to kill gays and that jews were animals).  Nobody else appeared to be aware of what he was up to then, but in the following months I had evidence of exactly how he operated.  

I was also the first person to draw attention to the support of the media's go-to "moderate muslim" Mohammed Shafiq running an organisation whose "spiritual advisor" said that gays should be killed.   Direct attempts to get mainstream journalists like Andrew Gilligan to pay attention to the behaviour of Fiyaz Mughal and Mohammed Shafiq came to naught.  Journalists seemed to have zero interest in having the evidence given to them on a plate.  It was only by me drawing the Ramadhan Foundation to Tommy's attention and him tweeting it, that Mohammed Shafiq showed some embarrassment, and said that the "kill gays" cleric was no longer the spiritual advisor of the Ramadhan Foundation (they've now removed that man from their "Advisory Board": http://www.ramadhanfoundation.com/advisoryboard.htm

The court appearance of Tim Burton and Fiyaz Mughal has been put forward six weeks (from 18th Feb).
Also, Mughal's latest gimmick is that he claims to be too frightened to appear in person because of the Tweets from Tim Burton. None of those Tweets contained threats of violence and they were all aimed at Tell Mama, not Fiyaz Mughal. Thus he wants to appear at court via satellite link from an undisclosed location!
Fiyaz Mughal knows he'll fail face-to-face with his accusers. So he's trying to kill two birds with one stone: 1) pretend he's under physical threat. 2) Have an excuse to chicken out of a physical appearance at court.
Don't forget that the central charge against him is that he's a compulsive and systematic liar. This new announcement should be seen within that context: he's lying again!
The judge and your lawyers should be told that this is what he's doing. He believes that a satellite link will help him; whereas a court appearance in the flesh won't.

When the Home Affairs Select Committee investigated the grooming gangs, they asked why it was that the schoolgirls who had been brainwashed, raped, prostituted -- and who lived under threats of violence (and actual violence) to them and their families --  had NOT been granted facilities like appearing in court via video link or testifying by recorded cross-examination.

For decades, if those girls managed to get the police to listen to them, and it went to court, they would endure threats from the rapists/pimps for months, then have to face them in court, with the muslims' barristers basically implying that the schoolgirls were "lying sluts".  Because of these conditions, the CPS didn't expect the girls to be able to testify adequately.  But rather than change the trial conditions, the CPS just spend decades refusing to proceed with prosecutions.

So now we have a grown man, a graduate with an OBE, a councillor who wanted to be Mayor of London - a man who has had no threats from the accused - demanding to be given the kind of protection that was sysematically denied to the schoolgirl victims of the Muslim grooming gangs.

And did Fiyaz Mughal's "conflict resolution" organisation fund an investigation into the grooming gangs?  Did Faith Matters create a hotline so the victims of the grooming gangs could report their abuse?  No.  But on the week when the first truly major grooming trial started, Fiyaz Mughal launched "Tell Mama" - and the BBC ensured that during the first week of that grooming trial, Tell Mama got more news coverage than the grooming trial.  And at the conclusion of that grooming trial, did Faith Matters issue a statement expressing pity or outrage for the schoolgirl victims?  No, the "conflict resolution" organisation just bleated about how "the far right" was using such grooming trials to "attack" muslims.

Joe,

So what do you think he's playing at with the satellite link? My theory may be wrong, of course.

You could do with passing all this stuff onto Tim Burton; though I suppose he won't want to be burdened down with too much info. You have been aware of FM since 2010. I think that Tim only became aware of FM just before he reported him - which is a good intro.

I think he's playing the victim.  It's all in The Life of Mohammed.  Mohammed was passive-aggressive par excellence.  

Islam encourages muslims to play the victim, even when they are the aggressor.  Muslims blaspheme against other religions, then demand that no-one hurts their feelings by blaspheming against islam.

Bruce Bawer has a story about how he and his boyfriend were abused and than assaulted by a muslim man. After they'd pulled themselves together, they went to the police to report it.  Only the muslim got there first, and claimed they'd abused him.  The police told Bawer, "they do this all the time".

When people know the tricks and turns of Mohammed's life, all these things become predictable. Muslims are told to emulate Mohammed - and that doesn't mean just "pray like he did", it means "follow all the deceit and violence he did".



Paul Austin Murphy said:

Joe,

So what do you think he's playing at with the satellite link? My theory may be wrong, of course.

You could do with passing all this stuff onto Tim Burton; though I suppose he won't want to be burdened down with too much info. You have been aware of FM since 2010. I think that Tim only became aware of FM just before he reported him - which is a good intro.

"Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS [Crown Prosecution Sevice] will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality."

This quote from Fiyaz Mughal is incredible. This is a clear admittance that he wants sharia blasphemy law. Here he openly admits that he's not talking about violence or even "direct threats to somebody". He is talking about criticism of Islam and the criticism of Muslims (as Muslims).

Even the Ahmadis, who Tommy Robinson talks up as "moderates, the kind of muslims we want", even they demand that non-muslims stop criticising blaspheming islam.  Meanwhile, the Ahmadis publish and distribute books where they say "Jesus is not the son of god" (thus saying that there is no religion called "christianity").

Muslims in Britain were pushing to make criticism of islam illegal for about 15 years before they finally got the 2006 Religious Hatred Act.  They know that they must stop the kafirs from being able to warn eachother (and future generations) about what islam has in store for non-muslims.

There are no "moderate muslims".  There are apostates, and there are ignorant muslims.  The rest are all "extremists", supremacists who "know" it is their "god-given" right to subjugate non-muslims.

A few years ago, Lord Ahmed stormed out of a meeting in Parliament, and as he left he said "if that's your definition of an islamist, then I am an islamist". http://www.israellycool.com/2012/04/16/if-thats-your-definition-of-...

There is no history of a doctrine of islamophobia, whose followers threaten to kill muslims, and then follow up on their threats.  But there is a history of muslims following up on their kuffarphobic threats to kill kafirs.  It is islam which should be banned, not people criticising islam/muslims on Twitter.

Remember the recent statement by the Muslim Council of Britain, who said if muslims are not treated better in Britain there will be 3 million muslim terrorists in Britain.

The Chasm is opening wider all the time.  People like Fiyaz Mughal must see this too.  I wish I could find a copy of that statement after 7/7, where our friend basically said that 7/7 was the fault of the British people for being racist towards muslims.

These muslims have had an easy ride for 20 years or more.  And it is clear in the last few years, that is coming to an end.  They managed to infiltrate so many institutions and bend them to their will.  But EDL has focused the views of millions of people in Britain.

Paul Austin Murphy said:

"Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS [Crown Prosecution Sevice] will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality."

This quote from Fiyaz Mughal is incredible. This is a clear admittance that he wants sharia blasphemy law. Here he openly admits that he's not talking about violence or even "direct threats to somebody". He is talking about criticism of Islam and the criticism of Muslims (as Muslims).

Blasphemy law is written into Islam. In a sense, Muslims can't do a thing about it. (I don't buy the Ahmadiyya anyway. They are using their minority status to sell.... yes, Islam from yet another angle.)

The other thing is that the truth about Islam would destroy it. Again, Muslims have no choice but to agitate for blasphemy law. Not to do so would be suicidal.

Islam could not have taken off, without Mohd killing those who criticised/mocked him.  Huge numbers of those he assassinated were satirical poets who made fun of him.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_...

Muslims have learned from this.  They know that what Mohd did worked, so they slavishly copy his example. 

Thus for muslims, criticism of islam/mohd = blasphemy, and must be stopped using murder until people are too terrified to criticise any more.

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service