It takes a nation to protect the nation
If ever there was an example of how focussed pressure groups can, with repeated efforts, push through absurd legislative changes, this is it. Please refer to the attached parliamentary document: Religious Hatred - Attempts to Legislate 2001-2005. I will paste a key section below, then comment in the following post.
Following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC in September 2001, David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, announced that “we do need specific and targeted measures, which is why I intend to introduce an emergency anti-terrorism Bill”.
He went on to say:
The events of 11 September have led to a new determination to co-operate at European and international level. Terrorists do not respect national boundaries. In line with the Europe-wide endeavour, I intend to include in the emergency Bill an enabling power to allow implementation by affirmative order of measures from the Justice and Home Affairs Council on police and judicial co-operation.
Regrettably, there are those who are prepared to exploit the tensions created by the global threat. Racists, bigots, and hotheads, as well as those associating with terrorists, are prepared to use the opportunity to stir up hate. It is therefore my intention to introduce new laws to ensure that incitement to religious, as well as racial, hatred will become a criminal offence. I also intend to increase the current two-year maximum penalty to seven years.1
David Blunkett’s concerns about the tensions appeared well-founded, as organisations such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission reported an “anti-Muslim backlash” in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001.2 The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia commented on the situation in the United Kingdom in a report covering the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Centre (to the end of 2001):
A significant rise in attacks on Muslims was reported across a range of media in the immediate aftermath of September 11. Numbers of incidents of violent assault, verbal abuse and attacks on property were noted, some of which were very serious.3
Even before David Blunkett’s statement it was reported that “the decision to widen the law on incitement to include religious as well as racial hatred comes in response to a request from Muslim leaders in Britain. They called for greater protection after attacks on Muslims”.4 On 14 September 2001, just three days after the attacks, the Muslim Council of Britain had expressed its concerns about the fear of reprisal among Muslims:
As the world grieves, British Muslims also worry about acts of reprisal and hatred directed against them, fuelled in some cases by irresponsible media reporting and commentary. At such a time it is essential that politicians of all parties provide responsible leadership, that they refrain from unsupported wild speculation, that they make clear the distinction between the guilty and the innocent. They must take the lead in denouncing the slur of guilt by imagined association where none exists. We must guard against glib rhetoric that exacerbates false animosity. To fail would create an awful void in mutual understanding and mutual respect that can only feed the very evil we all seek to eradicate.
The Muslim Council of Britain has also linked its calls for a change in the law to the activities of the British National Party. In July 2004, it argued that the BBC documentary Secret Agent, which infiltrated BNP meetings, underlined “the urgent need for the government to introduce legislation not only outlawing incitement to religious hatred but ensuring that it is unlawful to discriminate against anyone on religious grounds”.
Racists, bigots, and hotheads ... are prepared to use the opportunity to stir up hate.
So, if you feel upset and angry about 9/11, you are a 'Racist, bigot and hothead'? I guess London must have been full of those people during the blitz then, because their attitudes towards Germans weren't very nice. But of course, there's no connection. Or is there? We'll get on to that.
A significant rise in attacks on Muslims was reported across a range of media in the immediate aftermath of September 11. Numbers of incidents of violent assault, verbal abuse and attacks on property were noted, some of which were very serious.
Of course, some of those attacks were fake ones created by Muslims themselves, as has been shown by police convictions. Some of them were minor, like being given a dirty look, allegedly. But what about the attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims during that same period? Don't they count? Since there are 5 times as many Muslim criminals as non-Muslims, per head of population, shouldn't we be looking at that as a possible cause of resentment? Oh no, the Master Race is beyond criticism by the Kaffir, it says that in their Sharia Law.
On 14 September 2001, just three days after the attacks, the Muslim Council of Britain had expressed its concerns about the fear of reprisal among Muslims:
As the world grieves ...
Pardon? I didn't see Muslims grieving. I saw Muslims in Islamic countries rejoicing. I saw Islamists demonstrating in later years in Western countries. And I saw random Muslims shouting out during the 9/11 silence, to disrupt the proceedings. The Muslims didn't grieve, they either celebrated or remained silent, for the most part, ready at any moment to slip in the knife with "if you only stopped supporting Israel (or whatever) it wouldn't have happened".
But now the Muslim Council of Britain come to the crux of the matter I mentioned at the beginning:
it is essential that politicians of all parties provide responsible leadership, ... that they make clear the distinction between the guilty and the innocent. They must take the lead in denouncing the slur of guilt by imagined association where none exists.
And that is precisely the point. The association is not imagined. It is precisely delineated in texts in every Muslim home and mosque in Britain. Texts that say that you are dumb cattle, a pig and ape, that should be made to submit, or pay a special tax, or be killed. Texts that say Gays and Apostates should be killed. Texts that allow the execution of anyone that slanders or even disagrees with Islam. Texts that state clearly that a woman is worth 1/2 or less of a man, and may be raped during war.
The association is not imagined, it is real and concrete, and discoverable by the simplest of investigation. As if to drive the point home, the terrorist themselves will quote from those books to justify their actions. And since the connection is real, people are entitled to be angry, and ALL Muslims bear a partial responsibility for the acts of terror that are committed in their name, until they change their books to stop prescribing those very actions.
Of course, the Leftist cattle (thanks for the term, Islam), will now say that those "words don't matter", but nevertheless proceed to crush anyone else whose words they think do matter. The neo-Fascists will silence all opposition through "No Platform" and dirty tricks, then be strangely surprised when they find they've bred a thousand Breiviks.
Excellent comment Alan
more on the cattle connection here: