It takes a nation to protect the nation
I'd discussed this with several people in the last few days, and would have loved to have written down my thoughts and observations over the Jubilee weekend. Thankfully someone over at Gates of Vienna has written down my thoughts, and far better than I could.
Whilst the BBC (and those who staged the Jubilee celebrations) made sure some non-white faces were highlighted at various events, those non-white faces were the exception rather than the rule. When the Royal Barge docked near HMS Belfast, the nearest boroughs to that location are all majority non-white boroughs. Yet there was barely a non-white face to be seen in the crowds. (Places like The City and the City of Westminster do not count as "real" boroughs, since most Londoners, and most people in any borough in Britain, do not live in such bizarre conditions of wealth and transience.)
And if one walked north east from Tower Bridge (which abuts the borough of Tower Hamlets), into the almost entirely Bangladeshi Whitechapel, there was barely even a union flag to be seen, let alone a street party. I came across one street party in a rich, white enclave (Narrow Street). And even there, the union flag was probably out-numbered by the variety of flags from other nations.
The future of the UK looks grim.
“Unity through Diversity”?
by Pierre Picaud
A casual observer opening up the current pages of Britain’s anaemic right-wing press is greeted by an unprecedented expression of optimism and positivity.
The source of all this rapture is the jubilee celebrations presently underway, which mark the diamond anniversary of the ascension of the United Kingdom’s most dutiful long-suffering monarch: Elizabeth II.
From Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, to Ed West in the Daily Telegraph, to Fraser Nelsonin The Spectator, there is a palpable sense of relief, joy even, at what is deemed to represent an unparalleled display of patriotism and national loyalty, the likes of which have not been witnessed in Britain for a generation.
As a feast for the eyes and an amazing technical accomplishment, the still on-going celebrations which began with a mesmerising pageant on the River Thames in London and continued last night with a gala concert on The Mall in front of Buckingham Palace, the events are a wonderful success.
(This essay’s title is drawn from the very moving speech given by Prince Charles, in recognition of his mother’s tireless service, at the conclusion of last night’s performance.)
The numbers attending have been dizzying to an extent beyond normal human comprehension: with as many as 1.2 million people lining the riverbank for Sunday’s pageant, mostly in the pouring rain.
The whole spectacle has spawned a new and surprising narrative of national unity and togetherness, which has come as a surprise and a relief to those commentators who had previously found themselves perturbed by and decrying the perceived fragmentation of British society.
Here were the public in central London, in their millions no less, unabashedly displaying and celebrating Britain and Britishness; with a Union flag hanging from every lamppost and waving from every hand, and not a sight of that hated blue-and-yellow EU monstrosityanywhere…
What a relief!
There is, however, one slight problem with this picture that no one is mentioning. A small boy tugging at his mother’s coat at the Emperor’s parade, aching to express a truth that can perhaps only find the light of day at somewhere like Gates of Vienna.
With the exception of very small numbers — that are in essence statistically irrelevant — whether you like it or not, pretty much everybody you see in the multitude gathered in London is white.
To understand the significance of this, one needs to know the demographics of the city.
Greater London, the largest conurbation in Europe, is usually divided into two geographic zones: the suburban ‘outer ring’, and the metropolitan ‘inner city’. London’s inner portion has been majority immigrant territory for some time, and as the years progress even the outer ring is approaching parity between immigrants and native inhabitants.
Thanks to publicly subsidised housing, with the exception of a few isolated pockets the centre of the city is mainly immigrant-dominated.
A visitor to the majority of the primary schools of the boroughs which lined the river down which Sunday’s pageant rowed, would see that the ethnicity which formed 98% plus of the audience for the jubilee, is represented as a rule in less than 10% (in many cases less than 5%) of the demographic makeup of the pupils of those schools.
Where then, one is forced to ask, were the parents of the rest of all these children, presumably a convenient short stroll away from demonstrating and celebrating their “Britishness”?
Why did they not seize this simple and convenient opportunity to declare themselves full, happy, and enthusiastic members of our grand multicultural society, when the vast majority of attendees had largely travelled much great distances in order to do so (according to train company reports)?
The cameras of the BBC, usually anxious to present a picture of multiracial harmony, and whose coverage of the events has been broadly panned as inane, clearly struggled in desperation to find non-white faces in the crowds.
Their failure to do so was even more stark as they linked to outside broadcasts of commemorative street parties up and down the country, particularly in places like Luton, where it was patently evident that wherever the English were in the minority only the English were doing any celebrating at all.
Where were the others? Our fellow “Britons”?
Those perfectly capable of coming out in their tens, even hundreds of thousands; for publicly funded Hindu Diwali celebrations in Trafalgar Square, or the Afro-Caribbean yearly carnivalin Notting Hill (policing cost to the British taxpayer: 34 million pounds a year), or Islamic Eid “festivals” in East London; were all conspicuous by their virtual absence.
This is not an Islamic issue, or even one truly of colour or race. It would have been surprising if any significant proportion of those celebrating this jubilee weekend were Poles, or any of the nearly two million Eastern Europeans who have come to the UK over the last decade, either.
The predominant skin colour of those attending the jubilee has merely provided visual confirmation of how comprehensively the social model into which decades worth of political and financial capital has been invested in Britain has failed.
To be clear: the English (unlike the Scots or Welsh to any similar degree) were told, not outright, but tacitly and subtly; through policy, policing, changes to educational syllabi, deliberate alterations to the cultural framework etc., that Englishness — their identity — would have to be subsumed, altered, diluted, undermined, even to the point of being questioned as having any true cohesive validity.
This was a necessary evil. It had to be done in order not to alienate or marginalise the millions of immigrants arriving mostly in the English portion of Britain, who “yearned to be part of our society” and to make a better life for themselves into the bargain.
Though awkward, this essential transformation would be worth it, and would in turn bring about a fresh paradigm of nationality.
Britishness would be elevated into a new and inclusive form of meta-identity that all could participate in and be welcomed by. A mélange-identity uniting and encompassing all comers.
This new paradigm in turn would have its own founding myths, as do all attempts to unite disparate ethno-religious communities. The myth that a person newly arrived from East Africa was “just as British” as any Englishwoman who might be able to trace her family back to the Norman conquest. The myth that one could achieve, “Strength through Diversity.”
Furthermore, these myths would be reinforced by numerous means.
Television “idents” and programs for example would subtly attempt to communicate harmonious multi-cultural unity, as in this collage. (Compare in particular the ethnic makeup of those attending the faux street party at the end of this BBC jubilee ident with those in thisCNN report of the genuine article.)
And thousands of farcical local council propaganda posters on buses and billboards would show a similar multitude of grinning multiracial faces, regardless of the theme. The golden rule of course being that the more outnumbered the actually English people in the photograph were, the more strained and enthusiastic their smiling had to be.
(This collection of picture exhibits shows the usual progression from the London boroughs of: Southwark, to Camden, to Newham, to Hackney, to Lewisham, to Tower Hamlets.)
This effort was so total and all-encompassing, that it was easy thoughtlessly to fall for it and assume it to be in part true. Particularly as every effort has been made, either by immigrants themselves or by positive discrimination, to advance newcomers through the professions so that they are now over-represented in medicine, media and the law.
Notwithstanding the fact, that the promotion of compulsory allegiance to this narrative has shifted over the decades from a gentle socio-political prodding, to a state of affairs where any who dare to forcibly question it in public face imprisonment.
But it was only required to force allegiance to this mind-set from natives… not, of course, from those who came; that would have been racially presumptuous and monstrously unfair. The one was supposed to magically facilitate the other.
But patriotism and national loyalty are based on the individual’s core willingness to sacrifice; and in modern Britain the balance of sacrificial expectation was set right from the start.
The state had to sacrifice to provide the benefits that would be received by the newcomer, while the immigrant was required to sacrifice and surrender, in exchange for the comforts and opportunities of their new life, well… what exactly?
In the interests of generating a nationally loyal harmony, every multicultural effort has been made to bend over backwards in the promotion of togetherness and inclusivity, up to and including the sacrifice of many essential characteristic elements of a thousand years of English and British history; right down to the abandonment of the most basic things like the promotion of our own language on the one hand, or judicial protections like double jeopardyon the other.
The children of the English, in the schools for which their parents pay through their taxes, are now compulsorily taught not the glories and accomplishments of their nation’s past, but primarily and chiefly its inequities, oppressions and “evils”.
This did not happen by chance. It was a transaction. A deal.
The accurate depiction of Britain’s majestic and impressive history for example, was to be abandoned in exchange for something. Deliberately disowning historical reality (like a thousand and one other such national cultural renunciations) was intended to provide an inclusivity that would in turn guarantee the delivery of an attached, benign and loyal immigrant population.
So where were they then: when a golden and simple opportunity presented itself for the demonstration of their new Britishness? Nothing jingoistic, or confrontational, but a four day series of events designed from the start to be achingly inclusive and multicultural.
Frankly? Our new fellow-Britons were nowhere to be seen.
When the chance arose to show how successful this theory of mutable national identity in fact was, in whose name so much has been forcibly lost, the results are startling — and, for those with an eye to the future, more than a little alarming.
The paradigm hasn’t changed. Our social engineers are either liars or fools.
People always only feel a genuine allegiance and loyalty to a place with which they have a pre-existing hereditary, historic or geographical investment.
The newcomers want no part of it, thank you very much.
Benefits? — “Yes.”
Sacrifices? — “Hmm. We’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you.”
And to be clear: the kind of sacrifice under discussion in this essay is not mounting the lip of a trench to advance into machine-gun fire in defence of your nation’s values or borders, but taking a couple of hours out your bank holiday weekend to stand in the rain for a bit with a flag.
This is the grim harvest we must expect from multiculturalism’s insistence that pre-existing identities should be encouraged to flourish rather than to adapt.
The British, and more chiefly the English, have received nothing in return for their sacrifice: of identity, of tradition, of heritage, and of culture.
They’ve been conned. Duped. The promised transaction hasn’t taken place: there will be no unity in the United Kingdom, and no guarantee of security as a result.
We will not see the likes of this weekend again.
Hi Steve, thanks for your cordial answers.
1) I think you're still misunderstanding my question. I'm asking: "Do you advocate that indigenous Europeans allow in so many Arabs, Asians, Sub-Saharan Africans and other foreigners that they become minorities in their own countries?" That is, should mass-immigration of non-Europeans continue until Europeans lose control of their own countries? As I mentioned earlier, I'm not concerned with moderate immigration. It doesn't bother me if a Chinese person moves in next door, of if there is an ethnic neighborhood somewhere, or foreigners come to work in hospitals etc. What I am opposed to is allowing so many foreigners into European countries that the foreigners become the majority and take political control. This would mean that Europeans lose all nations of their own, and thus lose their self-determination as a people. My question is: do you advocate Europeans making themselves subservient to foreigners in this way?
2) Again, I think you're misunderstanding the question. In your original post you said: "To have a stance which was anti-mass immigration, or even anti-immigration, would therefore not be particularly compliant with the main tenants of anti racism or anti-supremicists - is nationalism not a form of supremicism?" I interpreted that to mean that you believe any limits on immigration are a form of racism/supremacism. Can you explain to me why you believe that? I, for example, believe in slashing immigration of *everyone* into Europe, so I don't understand why you think that's racist.
Also, you say it is racist for me speak of indigenous Europeans and their ties to their ancestral lands, but would you also say it's racist to speak of Native Americans or Palestinians and their ties to their lands? Also, do you believe that the National Black Police Association (in the UK) is racist because they use the racial/ethnic term "black"?
3) Sorry for the bad links. Here they are again:
Strong opposition to mass immigration to the UK (various opinion polls):
Widespread agreement in Europe that there are too many immigrants (71% of Britons agree there are "too many immigrants")
My point is that the UK is a democratic society. Given the high level of public opposition to mass immigration, it seems very undemocratic to act against that will. Isn't democracy the foundation of the Western culture you wish to preserve?
4) "I am certainly against anyone coming to the UK seeking to change the laws and principles which have been built upon over the centuries of our history and democracy, and also against those who allow this."
Okay, but if you hand over political control of the country to Arabs, Africans and Asians etc., what makes you think they will uphold British traditions? Do they uphold European traditions in their own countries, like say Libya, Nigeria and Pakistan? You're using the word "our" as though you're referring to the indigenous British/European people, but immigrants don't owe any allegiance to "our" traditional Britain. If you allow them to become the majority through mass-immigration, Britain will become a blank slate for them to scribble on. They'll be able to advance their own agendas that have nothing to do with European freedoms and values.
"And finally - no I certainly would not want a Muslim controlled UK, so on that we can certainly agree!!"
Glad to hear that, but I'm confused by your position. On the one hand, you don't want a Muslim controlled UK, but on the other hand you are in favor of mass immigration by Muslims. Do you see how those two goals conflict? If mass immigration of Muslims continues into the UK, it's a mathematical fact that the UK will eventually be controlled by Muslims.
Heres a couple of pieces of imformation.
The first is a summary by the Telegraph of the Ethnic make up of Britian, taken from the NOS as of 2001.
The second link just shows the names and the possible ethnicity of the people based on the names. This is not an attempt by me to blame any particular ethnic group for the riots. It is just to show how the conversation into showing a racial link to the riots is shut out.
I would just like to say ( and its going to be a long say) that it has been argued that the people most likely to not fill in the census are ethnic groups. (because they can't read, and write is one reason) And it goes with out saying illegals don't fill them in. So the census doesn't tell the whole story. There has been a discrepancy in the census numbers and those claiming benefits, and the numbers attending school that isn't being addressed. We are waiting for the release of the 2011 census figures so comparisons can be made.
People see with their own eyes an event. They then draw conclusions. If we can't debate an issue people will think something sinister is going on. If we can't discuss social issues about our countrys future now, while the white british are still in the majority. When can we.
People often say, they don't mind mass immigration, and it maybe they live in a nice country town with a small immigrant population. Others may be totally against immigration because they are a minority white person, living in Tottenham, having been a victim of the riots and seeing that the majority in the rioters were not white. Weather british born or not.
Peoples opinions are formed mainly by their experiances. If the understanding People of the far north east who have an immigrate ratio of about 2% were to experiance an influx that changed that figure to 15%, what would be the reaction? only by doing that would we find out, and once the numbers have been increased even if it was a total disaster for the area, the'd be no going back.
So i think it only reasonable that in a democratic country, where the people are supposed to be consulted. (After all the govenment is elected to carry out the wishes of the electorate) That the wish's of the people are heard and taken seriously.
We first need to define what the word mass means. Does this mean a totally unrestricted influx of people into Britian, who come from where ever, with or without an education. With or without comunical desease's, with or without the intent to intergrate, assimilate,or even co-operate with the host nation.
Britian is under strain. People are worried. People are registering their oppersition to the amount of immigration that is being allowed to continue. This dosn't make them racist.
People can only form opinions from their own experiances as i've said. People opinions are increasingly telling them something is wrong. If we don't get some honest debate, then people will become increasingly restless. Do the govenment think the british public are going to continually put up with being called racist, islamophobe, little Englanders.
I fully appreciate the benefits of immigration. We were ticking along nicely up untill a few years ago, then al of a sudden a people with no affiliation to this country started coming in and telling US how it was going to be. We have mosques poping up everywhere, halal food being introduced into the food chain, special concessions made to the followers of islam, and quite honestly nothing but bloody aggro everywhere theres an islamic presence. If this is just a simple mis-understanding, then all the more reason for debate.
The riots across england last year of cause were not muslim riots per se. although in a couple of instances it could gone that way. But there have been muslim riots in this country. So we have got problems. And these problems are being ignored. Not always intentionally. Some people don't see the problem.
But to deny theres a problem in the hope it'll sort it self out, is not a wise choice.
I have made it quite clear on where i stand on immigration, so don't anyone put words into my mouth, this post is about 'The Impending Disunity of the United Kingdom',
Is there disunity in the UK?. I believe there is. I believe its the whole concept of multi-culturism that has helped create the divisions. If anyone thinks thats not true then thats ok. time will tell.
When the 2011 census results are released, we'll see whats changed in ten years. Although i believe it will only confirm change is happening, its excelerating, and we can't stop it.
I will reply to this part of your comment.
I would give one example of how it is not just the elite who benefit from immigration. We are an ever ageing population, with more of us living to an age where we lose our mobility and our memory and suffer from dementia. Those providing care for the increasing numbers of frail elderly often with dementia (many of which are in the public or not-for-profit sectors, such as housing associations) could not operate without the siginificant proportions of staff who have come here to work from places such as SE Asia, Africa and Poland. Having worked in the sector myself I can tell you that 95% of applications for all vacancies come from not only non-indigenous people, but people who have arrived here in the last 10 years. White British people simply do not apply for these posts (in the main) so this would present a real issue should the gates to immigration be completely closed. I would be interested to hear alternatives to staffing in this area of ever increasing need.
I think it is a sad state of affairs that western society has developed, where the old are left to be taken care of by complete strangers, by this I mean people outside the family. Traditionaly it was the family that took care of its own, children and older members. Up until the sixties, a family could could get by with just the man working, and the wife taking care of the family. Since the mid sixties the family unit has be broken down, so today the family unit comprises of one for most british people. Before the "destructiive" sixties, families where closely knitted, and lived very close to each, thus making it easier for them to share the responsibility to take care of their older members, and keep an eye on their children of theirs, and the children of relatives living close by.
So due to social structuring, the need for immigrants to take care of the old was created.
I would not mind making a bet that if you looked at the Sikh families in Harrow or the muslim families in Tower Hamlets, they are all living close to relatives, and they are looking after their older members, and have a watchful eye on the children, not only their own but also the relatives.
Here in Indonesia, the families live very close to each other, and one of the main priorities is to look after the old. In some cases a member may go else where to work, and stay away for long periods. Should an older member become sick, they drop everything and on the bus home. The employer where they work accepts this and lets them go home without notice, and in many cases helps them with transport and some of the expenses, even though they are not obliged to.
Also in the case of women who have children, where the husbands have left, they sometimes have to leave so as to raise the money for the childs schooling and upbringing, instead of taking the children with her, the relatives take the child in. This saves the child from facing the trauma of moving, and being placed in the hands of strangers.
When I grew up, my grandmother lived in Barking, and so did my uncles and aunts, she had a washing tub and mangle, and all the aunts on washing day would go to her place to doing the weekly laundry, my mother used to drag me and our washing halfway across London, so as the catch up on the latest natter. This stopped when the washing machine came along, and my mother and aunts brought one.
When my grand father started getting old, and suffering from dementia, all the relatives chipped in to help my grandmother take care of him. A few years later after he died, my grand mother started to suffer old age all the relatives again chipped in, and during my school holidays my mother and I lived in at my grannie,s place so as to take care of her.
My other grandmother on my mothers side, lived in Devon, and had quite a few children taking care of her, but when my granny in Barking died, the one in Devon began to get ill, so my parents decided to live in Devon partly so as my mother could also be there to take hand on here. Now this was possible because my fathers income was still enough to be able to do this.
In the mid eighties, my father died, not of old age, but of alcohol ,and abuse of medical drug abuse issued to him by a reckless doctor. By this time the destruction of the family unit was in full swing, both my sisters could not assist my mother because they where working so as to maintain their own families, and to buy the latest toys that where thrown on the market, so as to keep up with the Jones. I was in Sweden with a well paid job, but all my money left over was used to get my wife at that time through university, so she did not have to get loans.
In the late nineties I was already living in Indonesia, and did not know about my mothers death, until the British embassy asked me for permission to give lawyers my address. who informed that my my had died after a long illness. Prior to this I had sent a few letters to both my sisters asking how things where back in the UK but they never replied. To this day I will never forgive them for not contacting me about my mothers illness.
So in my opinion if people in Britain took the responsibility of there older families like Indonesia,s do then there would be no need for immigrants in this area.
There is another negative effect of the destruction of the families by social structuring and that is the effect it has on children, especially problem children. Now this is where I come into an area that is taboo to discuss on many anti jihad sites, but I feel needs to be discussed.
With sex grooming there are several factors involved, the major two
#1 There are sexual deviants
#2 There are vulnerable children
As long as there a vulnerable children there will be gangs to prey on them.
With restrictive immigration there would have been far less sex deviants getting into Britain, and with restrictive immigration, it would have been more difficult for the elites to destroy family values, leaving our old and children vulnerable
Best to keep it cordial eh!
Is it not right to say that our biggest concern is about maintaining and protecting our traditions/cultures/values. Is it also not true to say that many foreigners who have come to live here have:
- come from lands whose cultures are not particularly at odds or differ to ours
- have assimilated to and absorbed our culture
- have continued their own cultures and beliefs but respected ours and not sort to alter our laws and traditions (Sikhs being an obvious example)
And people which fit in to these various categories have come from places all over the globe and have skin colours of all shades. The one category which does not fit into these categories are the significant numbers of certain Muslims who are coming here, are not assimilating, nor accepting our traditions and are seeking to alter our laws and traditions - Islamists.
Which is why my attention is focussed on Islamists in the UK, not immigrants per se. To me the issue is not of immigration but of Islamist presence - home grown or immigrant. I am so animated on this subject because I think focussing on immigration serves the anti-jihad cause no benefit at all and allows our opposition to say that we are all in fact xenophobic racists and former BNP members who have realised the cause of racial politics is dead and therefore re-focussed our hate towards muslims - as used to be the case with jews!
My cause is anti-jihad, and I would never feel comfortable talking about foreigners, non-indigenous, etc, etc. The ancient history of this island is riddled with immigration be it Viking, Roman, Pict, Celtic, Norman, etc, etc. Each group did not arrive with the same set of values, nor did it accept, tolerate or assimilate with the current incumbents - not in values, cultures or religion - so therefore discussions on indiginous I think are irrelevant.
If/when we end up with a black British Prime Minister or even Monarch - I do not think that will make the nation any less British. Britishness is an ever-evolving state. I dont really care how many people I am surrounded by came from other shores or forefathers came from other shores - which ultimately is everyone! What I do care about is that the values which are important to me are protected - pretty much the values sited on this site.
If your anti immigration stance is for everyone irrespectice of race/skin colour, ie you would be as unhappy with lots of French or Germans coming here as Thai's then yes i agree that is not racist - though not a view I would agree with. Yes if it was racist to talk of indigenous Brits then yes it would also be racist to discuss indigenous Palestinians or Native Americans. And yes - I definitely would say the Black Police Officers Association is a racist organisation (kind of says it on the tin really innit!) and should not be allowed, unless a white version was permitted which of course it never would! I do try to be consistent!
Finally, yes I am against a Muslim controlled UK, I am not against mass immigration - therefore I should be honest (with myself) and admit that yes, I am against "mass immigration of muslims" - there I said it!
Maybe They are 40 years ahead of us in the North, and they understand the invasive, destructive nature of islam better than the libral multi-culturaly brainwashed Politicaly opressed southeners.
This from the Canada free press.
Not about northeners as such. but maybe it will encourage them to keep resisting the spead of islam with a bit rudeness. Make islam unwelcome. The whole ideology makes everyone unwelcome. Even in your own country.
In 2010, former German Bundesbank-Vorstand and Ex-Senator of Berlin, Thilo Sarrazin, published his book “Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen.” The title translates, more or less, to “Germany does away with itself: how we gamble with our country.”
Sarrazin’s Core Message
Immigrants from Islamic countries fail to readily integrate with their adopted societies.
In turn, that failure includes the corollaries:
1.The rise of Islam within Europe
2.The current socialistic/Marxist path of Europe
My own perception is that most of the western world is going down the same path of slow but steady self-destruction.
The Rise of Islam
The rise of Islam in the western world has been well documented. Numerous articles by Daniel Greenspan and Alan Caruba published at Canada Free Press can serve as references. If I may summarize, the underlying tenet is the incompatibility of a religious belief (Islamic claims) with its secular desires (Islamic facts) to dominate the world.
Islam and Democracy are mutually incompatible
Islam and democracy are mutually incompatible. Despite all the claims to the contrary (by believers in Islam), Islam is NEITHER just a religion (as that term is understood by believers in any other faith the around the world), nor is it a secular set of ethnic principles. Islam is an all-encompassing set of commandments that proscribe not only a variety of faith rituals, but also a whole code of “secular” rules and prescribed activities. For example, such “secular” rules of Islam provide for an unequal (lower) status of any non-believer; Islam terms them “infidels.” Infidels are second-class citizens who have fewer “legal rights” compared to any believer. That fact is a basic Islamic principle—without exception.
The results of such Islamic definitions can be seen in many places. From Afghanistan to many countries in Africa, “infidels” are being marginalized, persecuted, driven out, or killed outright. Their places of worship (if permitted at all under the laws of such countries) are desecrated, burnt to the ground and so forth. In many of these “peace-loving” (Islamic) countries, even the simple possession of a bible is punishable by law. Nor are religious organizations, other than Islamic ones, even allowed to possess any land, etc.
One basic Tenet of Islam
One basic tenet of Islam is to present itself to non-believers solely as a religion. Most people of other faiths fall for that ruse. In the rare event that anyone asks some inconvenient questions they are quickly explained as ‘it’s all due to some erratic elements within the Islamic community, wrong interpretations of the Koran by some of its teachers, misunderstandings by outsiders, and so forth. ‘
In countries where Islam in considered a state religion, the secular-type commandments of Islam are commonly enshrined in the Sharia laws. That includes the automatic death penalty for any apostate (including non-citizens of such countries), death by stoning of adulterous women, beheadings and severing limbs for a variety of offenses, etc. For example, in September 2011, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was said to have pardoned a young woman caught driving a car, not permitted in that country. For that “offense” (by Islamic values), she was originally sentenced to 10 lashes before supposedly being pardoned. Still, her pardon had been claimed to be conditional upon her promise to never drive a car again. In December though, The Atlantic reported that the young lady may not have been pardoned after all. 
The Jakarta Globe reported very recently that “The fate of a gender equality bill pending in Indonesia’s parliament and aligned with the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) has become uncertain after falling afoul of powerful Islamist groups.” 
The Example of Turkey
Even in Turkey, a country which claims a strict separation of church and state affairs, no Christian religion is allowed to posses land, build or own a church. A good example of that is the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. That church, documented to have been a Christian place of worship several centuries before the birth of Mohammed, the prophet of the supposedly peace-loving and tolerant Islam, has officially been declared to be a “museum”, for the last 80 years. Furthermore, some Christians who were recently wishing to use one of its back rooms for worship were evicted by the state of Turkey.
That alone should create questions in the mind of anyone inclined to give Islam the “benefit of doubt” about its claimed intentions of peace, tolerance and coexistence. There is no evidence provided by its leaders—by affirmed and public declaration, or by deed—which would demonstrate that such claims of tolerance. To the contrary, Islam’s leaders only know how to portray their disciples as victims, never as oppressors.
Several of Islam’s religious teachers (“Imams”) in Canada recently spoke out and published declarations about ‘honour killings’  and ‘gender equity’ (not ‘equality’) . Such proclamations of good will or anything else are of little consequence to people in other jurisdictions. Unlike other religions, Islam does not have a supreme leader or council whose teachings “ex cathedra” are to be followed. Each of many thousands of Imams from any congregation around the world can make a pronouncement if he so wishes. Theoretically, all such pronouncements are binding to all believers, anywhere in the world. In practice though, such proclamations may as well be spoken into the wind. Unless re-iterated by many other, high-ranking leaders of Islam throughout the world, the proclaimed decrees by most Imams are of no consequence beyond the immediate parish.
Erosion of Culture
Islamic desires for more accommodation of their views in western countries are well known. Most western countries are based on traditions and laws which enshrine religious freedom and tolerance. Islam is always willing to take advantage of such, as much as possible. Even in areas of long-standing British/European culture, such as states and provinces in the North American north-east, Islam’s proponents are steadily pushing to erode both prevailing culture and traditions. For example, not very long ago, the government of Ontario was seriously considering giving the Islamic Sharia law legal force, over and above all other laws in the province. In the end, that proposal was nixed. Again, such proposals have nothing to do with lack of culture or lack of laws. They are based solely on the Koran’s self-proclaimed “superiority,” which requires any of its followers to spread Islam and its Sharia system by any means available, including sword and deceit.
The West needs vigilance to preserve its culture.
Dewsbury Race Attack ; http://www.thepressnews.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=3925
More reason for the EDL to be there.
Steve: "I am against "mass immigration of muslims" - there I said it!"
I'm glad to see you admit that. However, now you're explicitly calling for discrimination against people based on their religion, and that is, at least in spirit, a violation of British Law (i.e., the Equality Act 2006), and a violation of human rights. Furthermore, although it is debatable whether your position can be called "racism", it is certainly a form of bigotry against Muslims, and as such is the moral equivalent of racism (or anti-semitism). You could claim that Islam is an ideology not a religion, but that's not going to persuade the public. It is almost universally conceded that Islam *is* indeed a religion, and large numbers of Muslims (judging from opinion polls) are opposed to political Islam.
So we've come full circle. You have admitted that my position of slashing immigration across the board is not racist, and makes no mention of race. Meanwhile, your position of stopping only Muslim immigration is explicitly bigoted and discriminatory (i.e., morally equivalent to racism). Therefore, wouldn't it be more reasonable for you to adopt my position? After all, a top priority for you is to avoid racism, or the appearance of racism. So shouldn't you choose the least racist/bigoted option to achieve your goal of slashing Muslim immigration?
You have expressed some worries that standing against immigration will get you labeled as a xenophobic racist and a BNP member etc. But, firstly, as you yourself admitted, there is nothing racist at all about slashing immigration across the board. And secondly, polls show that a large majority of the British public is demanding that immigration be slashed, as I showed with the links I posted earlier. I don't think we should shy away from expressing the actual will of the British people. It's a democratic country, and if the majority wants to slash immigration, then that is what should happen.
Finally, why should we be concerned about being called racist by the left, when they themselves are explicitly racist? – i.e., they talk of indigenous Palestinians or Native Americans; they support the Black Police Officers Association and other racist organizations; they support positive discrimination; they don't allow white people to have representation; they publicize anti-minority hate crimes while covering up anti-white hate crimes etc. etc. Isn't it rather silly to fear being called racist by people who are themselves dyed-in-the-wool racists?
Firstly - whilst I strongly support nearly all aspects of discrimination law in this country, the one aspect which I do not support is that against religious discrimination. All other areas of the Equality Act cover aspects of life over which we have absolutely no control - I do not choose to be male, white, heterosexual, or non-disabled - however, I do choose my religion/non-religion. And therefore in my view, religious faith should not enjoy the same rights and entitlements which accidents of birth should.
Secondly - as I am sure you agree, religion is not race. Taking Islam as an example, it is clear to see that people of all races are part of this cult - sorry religion. Therefore I sleep soundly knowing that my negative position towards Islam in no way makes me in any way what-so-ever racist. There are of course many on the left who do try and claim my position regarding islam does make me racist - I will give them the contempt they deserve.
If my intolerance of intolerance makes me a bigot then so be it - though of course it doesnt really does it!!
Of course, I do have concerns that my view of Islam could cause risk to my career. I am certain that my views are in no way racist, but recognise others will use this accusation to silence me. I am concerned that this "cause" attracts apart from 'normal' people such as myself (I'll stabnd back and wait the reaction to that claim!!), it also attracts the racist minority amongst the British population. It attracts those previously actively involved in the country's largest racist political party. Some of whom state they have rejected and moved away from their previous racist views, others who still maintain those views. Such people provide an easy target for the left and the MSM to say "look, we told you so, they are all racists".
1) Since you assert that religions should not enjoy protection against discrimination, would you agree then that it is legitimate to discriminate on Jews? Also, is it legitimate for Muslims to discriminate on non-Muslims (kuffar)?
2) "If my intolerance of intolerance makes me a bigot"... It's not your intolerance of intolerance that makes you a bigot, in my opinion. It's the fact that you classify all Muslims, regardless of their specific individual beliefs, as intolerant – i.e., that you don't treat them as *individuals*.
3) I'm still confused as to why you are opposed to slashing immigration. The reasons you gave for being against immigration control were: a) it would be racist to cut immigration, and b) you would be called a racist for trying to cut immigration. But since then you've conceded that: a) it is not racist to cut immigration, and b) you get called a racist anyway, because of your discriminatory views on Muslims. In other words, neither of your reasons stand up to scrutiny. Do you have some other reason for being against immigration? Surely you would agree that if 70+% of the British people want immigration to be slashed, the government should comply with their wishes?
Britain's population up 10% in 15 years ; http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2162396/Britain-bursting...