Category Archives: Britain
To be clear: I loathe all the British political parties equally. I break out in an allergic rash every time Gordon Brown appears on T.V. I can’t stand Nick Clegg, the tiny twit who would have us embrace Proportional Representation and thus make it far easier for parties such as the neo Nazi BNP to gain power. As for David Cameron…he didn’t come over brilliantly in the live debates and if anything, he’s probably just the best of a terrible bunch.
One thing is for sure though, the potential calamity that awaits us is a coalition government made up of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Yes, that’s right – the two parties who were categorically rejected by the British electorate could yet make some sort of deal and emerge as our new ‘government’. That is a nightmare scenario and one can only pray it doesn’t come to pass. As I write this, Labour heavyweights are lining up to choose a new leader, while Cameron & Clegg (I mean, come on, they even sound like some sort of comic duo) are desperately trying to thrash out some kind of deal that both can get their own parties to accept.
Only one phrase comes to mind that satisfactorily sums up my present feelings about the state of affairs in Britain – and that’s a loud, passionate and plaintive ‘Oy Vey…..!
Come on, say it with me: ‘Oh, he’s so cuuuuuuuuute……..!’ I refer of course, to Blue, the new born son of proud parents Prancer and Rudolph (what else?). Little Blue is thought to be the first reindeer born in England for 10,000 years.
The 8lb calf was born to a small herd in a 750-acre Cornwall estate.
Reindeer did exist in Britain during the last Ice Age, which was roughly 10,000 years ago. But they then headed north and vanished as the weather warmed up. Now they are only found in Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska, Canada and Greenland.
Reindeer handler Ellie Pearce said: ‘It was incredibly exciting waiting for the first birth. I arrived in one morning and there he was on the hay looking absolutely beautiful.
‘Since then he’s put on a pound a day and he’s become incredibly friendly and inquisitive.
‘He can actually outrun me already but he doesn’t tend to stray far from his mother as she is very protective.’
The calf, which currently stands at little over a 1ft tall, is being fed by his mother but is already developing a taste for grazing in a specially designed pen.
He will soon be introduced to the rest of the herd and allowed to gaze in front of visitors to the 750-acre estate which dates back to 1246 and houses 70 acres of historic gardens as well as the National Museum of Gardening.
Trevarno’s general manager Richard Cox said: ‘We’re obviously delighted with the new addition. He really is a gorgeous little fellow and everyone here has fallen in love with him.’
Makes a change from all the depressing stories about elections etc, doesn’t it…?
Time and time again in this country, doctors and various other ‘experts’ make decisions that are obvious lunacy to anyone with a normal, functioning brain. And inevitably, it’s never these morons who end up paying the price but rather, innocent members of the public.
In yet another such incident, a pregnant woman has been murdered by a psychiatric patient who was released after doctors decided he was ‘exaggerating’ his mental problems.
Alan McMullan, 54, stabbed 21-year-old Claire Wilson to death as she walked to work on a Sunday afternoon.
She screamed and collapsed as her attacker walked away, a jury has now heard.
And here’s the part that will make you seethe: one year earlier the killer had on not one, not two, but on three occasions handed himself into police while armed with a knife, claiming to hear voices commanding him to murder someone!
Each time he was admitted to hospital – and later released after treatment. On the third occasion doctors decided he was ‘exaggerating his symptoms to gain admission to hospital’, Hull Crown Court has heard.
After committing the murder, McMullan told police he was angry he had not been given ‘appropriate treatment’ by the authorities.
Miss Wilson, the victim, was six months pregnant, when she was stabbed to death on June 7 last year.
Personally, I think that every single ‘doctor’ who opted to release this man into the general community, should be struck off and then charged with reckless endangerment, if we have such a category of crime here in the UK.
Sequence of events:
McMullan went to the police on June 2, 2008.
He was carrying a knife, complained of feeling unwell and mentioned the possibility of killing somebody.
He was admitted under the Mental Health Act and seen by a consultant psychiatrist.
McMullan was discharged from Diana Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby after 14 days, told to stop drinking, continue with his medication and attend an outpatient appointment.
On June 19 the same thing happened again. This time he was admitted for 21 days and released with medication.
The third time he was admitted to the psychiatric unit was July 21 and this time doctors decided he was ‘exaggerating’.
Jew With A View doesn’t usually blog about, well, trivia, but just this once… Great to see that the men of Great Britain recognise the beauty of The Brunette. With the media ever enthralled by bottle-blondes, a recent survey by lad’s mag FHM has voted brunette bombshell Cheryl Cole as ‘The World’s Sexiest Woman’ – for the second year running!
Other brunette beauties also featured in the magazine’s poll, including: actress Anne Hathaway, and former Commonweath Games champion Hayley Lewis, to name but two.
In an age where far too many women spend numerous hours with their heads covered in silver foil and dripping in peroxide, in a bid to go blonde, it’s good to have this reminder that – and yes, as one myself I’m biased – Brunettes Rule!
We may only do it once a year, but when Jews and Christians join forces to lobby government on behalf of Israel, we sure do it with passion.
I spent yesterday with the British Zionist Federation and Christian Friends Of Israel – two groups that work closely together to try and get Israel a fair hearing in Britain. For the past five years, these groups have spent a day every year meeting with various MPs and discussing the way the British media represents – or rather MISrepresents Israel.
Last year there were around three hundred of us. This year, even more people showed up and the atmosphere was one of genuine frustration with the BBC and also with various MPs who are openly hostile towards Israel.
One thing which struck me was that, for all the supposed ‘differences’ between Jews and Christians, we do share a good sense of humour. The two hosts, Eric Moonman(ZF) and Geoffrey Smith (CFI) are both wonderful and had us laughing at the start of the day with their irreverant and charming humour. Geoffrey Smith also reminded us of a vital point to convey to those who argue: why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons, since Israel does?
Smith pointed out: Israel has had nuclear weapons for several decades. Not once did any of the nearby Arab nations demand their own nuclear devices – because they’ve always trusted Israel. But since Iran has started enriching uranium and it’s become clear that Ahmadinejad has nuclear ambitions, several of those same Arab countries have stated that now they too want nuclear weapons.
This is an excellent point and one which we need to remind people of.
A lot of other interesting information was conveyed at the various sessions yesterday – I’m going to post something on them tomorrow so for those who may be interested, watch this space…!
Oh, and before anyone starts leaving stupid comments about Britain’s ‘israel lobby’, they might care to note: one of the MPs yesterday told us that British Muslims and several Muslim groups are ‘constantly throwing receptions and dinners’ for British politicians….
I sincerely wish Melanie Phillips was running this country. She remains one of the few, sane voices left in Britain right now.
Here she is on the difficulties facing British Christians of late:
Sleepwalking off the cultural cliff
Daily Mail, 14 December 2009
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, comes in for a lot of stick — not least from columnists like me.
But in the past few days, he has said something important. He has criticised Government ministers for thinking that Christian beliefs are no longer relevant in modern Britain, and for looking at religion as a ‘problem’.
Many Government faith initiatives, he observed, assumed that religion was an eccentricity practised by oddballs, foreigners and minorities.
This is not just a seasonal exercise in special pleading by a Church leader. Dr Williams has put his finger on what should be a cause of extreme disquiet — the war of attrition being waged against Christian beliefs.
In recent times, there has been a string of cases in which it is no exaggeration to say that British Christians have been persecuted for expressing their faith.
In July, Duke Amachree, a Christian who for 18 years had been a Homelessness Prevention Officer for Wandsworth Council, encouraged a client with an incurable medical condition to believe in God.
As a result, Mr Amachree was marched off the premises, suspended and then dismissed from his job. It was a similar case to the Christian nurse who was suspended after offering to pray for a patient’s recovery.
Christians are being removed from adoption panels if they refuse to endorse placing children for adoption with same-sex couples.
Similarly, a Christian counsellor was sacked by the national counselling service Relate because he refused to give sex therapy sessions to gays.
What this amounts to is that for Christians, the freedom to live according to their religious beliefs — one of the most fundamental precepts of a liberal society — is fast becoming impossible. Indeed, merely professing traditional Christian beliefs can cause such offence that it is treated as a crime.
Take, for example, the case of Harry Hammond, an elderly and eccentric evangelical who was prosecuted for a public order offence after parading with a placard denouncing immorality and homosexuality — even though he was assaulted by the hostile crowd he was held to have offended.
Or look at the case of the Vogelenzangs, a hotelier couple from Merseyside, who last week were cleared of a ‘religiously aggravated’ public order offence after being prosecuted for insulting a Muslim guest.
While their behaviour may have been offensive and unwarranted, it is nevertheless a source of wonderment that for the police, ‘hate crime’ doesn’t seem to occur whenever Christianity is pilloried, mocked and insulted — as happens routinely — but only when a minority faith is in the frame.
Indeed, the Archbishop’s complaint echoed an earlier Church-backed report that accused the Government of merely paying lip service to Christianity while focusing support on Muslims.
The curious fact is that Labour’s hostility to faith is highly selective. It does everything it can to protect and support minority creeds while appearing to do everything it can to attack Christianity.
The root of this double standard is the unpleasant prejudice that minority faiths hail from cultures where people are less well-educated and so cannot be blamed for their beliefs. This, of course, is a deeply racist attitude, and is commonly found on the Left.
As Dr Williams observed, one of the effects of the modern hostility to religion is to give the impression that faith is not really very British. But on the contrary, it is part of the national psyche — even among people who don’t go to church.
To stop the denigration of religion, the Archbishop has called on government ministers to be more willing to talk about their own faith. But since this is seen as the province of cranks, politicians are reluctant to do so because of the risk of public ridicule.
This well-nigh insuperable difficulty was acknowledged yesterday by Tony Blair in an interview about his religious beliefs. As his former spin doctor Alastair Campbell once famously observed: ‘We don’t do God.’
This is because among the intelligentsia, the animosity to religion runs even deeper than the upside-down value system of the multicultural agenda. It springs from the fixed view that reason and religion are in diametrically opposite camps.
Anyone who prays to God must therefore be anti-reason, anti- science and antifreedom – in other words, an objectionable, obscurantist nutcase.
But this is the very opposite of the truth. Rationality is actually underpinned by Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Without the Biblical narrative, which gave the world the revolutionary idea of an orderly universe that could therefore be investigated by the use of reason, science would never have developed in the first place.
And it was the Judeo-Christian belief that all individuals are made equal in the image of God that gave rise to human rights and democracy.
Of course, terrible things have also been done in the name of religion. And equally, people without religious faith can believe in freedom and equality, and lead moral lives.
But that’s because they draw upon a culture that rests on religious foundations. Strip away those foundations and what’s left would be a brutalised and chaotic society.
You don’t have to be a religious believer to be mightily concerned by such a likely consequence. But anxiety over fundamentalism has resulted in rising hostility to all religion.
Notably, however, this is not the case in the U.S., which remains overwhelmingly an upfront Christian society. Its politicians are neither ashamed nor embarrassed to call upon God to bless America at every opportunity.
Unlike U.S. mainstream Churches which, as descendants from the English Puritans, remain deeply wedded to the Biblical tradition, the Church of England has always looked down on true Scriptural believers as half-wits.
With such a half-hearted foundation of religious belief, it has been more vulnerable than other Churches to the secular onslaught against religion.
Dr Williams exemplifies this weakness by trying to go with the flow of social change and is for ever apologising for Christianity.
Certainly, it did some terrible things in the past to people of other faiths. But it is also responsible for the astonishing achievements of western civilisation.
Rather than complaining about politicians, Dr Williams should use his office to teach the nation about the seminal importance of Christianity to this society. But to do that, he has to have faith in his own Church — a faith that too often appears to be lacking.
The key point about the U.S. is that it still believes in itself as a nation and in its values, which are rooted in religion. Loyalty to their churches follows from loyalty to the nation in a kind of benign cycle.
In Britain, however, religion and nation have formed a vicious cycle in which hostility to the country’s identity and values reflects and feeds into hostility to the religion upon which they are based.
The Archbishop’s anguish at the onslaught upon Christian faith is very real. But unless he starts promoting the Church as the transcendental custodian of a civilisation rather than the Guardian newspaper at prayer, the society to which it gave rise will continue to sleepwalk off the edge of a religious and cultural cliff.
I’m not sure this is even news – given that most of us are painfully aware of the BBC bias towards leftist lunacy.
A senior BBC executive is being accused of political bias after calling for the corporation to promote ‘left of centre’ thinking. Ben Stephenson, controller of drama commissioning, made the comment on a blog for a left-wing newspaper.
The Conservatives have called for him to apologise and to retract the remarks. Trying desperately to neutralise his remarks, Stephenson has claimed he was just calling for more diverse opinions and out-of-the-box ideas: ‘We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.’
Sure. Oh my G-d – what was that big pink creature that just went diving past my window??? It was a kosher pig.
And Stephenson’s pitiful wriggling is fooling nobody. Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has stated that the comments were a ‘clear breach’ of the BBC’s impartiality obligations.
The BBC being impartial? Can anyone remember when this last happened…?
Fed up with reading about the ‘human rights’ of criminals who have denied their victims’ basic rights?
Well, here’s a news story guaranteed to make you see red. Here in the UK, the Parole Board has announced that human rights compensation claims by murderers, paedophiles and other serious criminals demanding their freedom has now reached ‘new heights’.
Specifically, this litigation is costing £100,000 – a month. The Parole Board’s annual report states: ‘This is extremely expensive for the public purse.’
And this news comes despite promises by politicians to deal with the compensation culture within British prisons.
I suspect that many decent Brits who saw this story in their newspapers will have shared the same sentiment. Namely, that if you violate someone else’s rights to safety and life, then you can damn well do your stint in prison and quit complaining. We’re not interested.
I’ve always been against faith schools. At age 11, I opted to go to a multi faith school rather than the popular Jewish school that many of my friends from junior high were heading for. Even back then, I didn’t get it: if you’re going to live in a multi-faith country, what on earth is the point of segregating children according to religion?
This morning on ‘The Big Questions’ this was the very point being debated. Rabbi Jonathan Romain put it exceptionally well. Explaining that even as a Rabbi, he’d sent his own children to a mixed faith school, he remarked:
“I want my children to sit next to a Christian in class, to do their homework with a Hindu, to play football with Muslims, and to walk home with an Atheist. How can we love our neighbours, if we don’t know our neighbours?”
Precisely. Now that’s my kind of Rabbi.
Islamophobia’ – Well, isn’t this word a wonderful little weapon for Islamists the world over?
Whoever thought of it must be laughing all the way to the Mosque. Go on. Try it. Next time you’re in any social situation, with any group of people, try challenging the violent ideology at the heart of Islam.
Chances are, faster than you can say ‘fatwah’ someone will give you a reproachful look and state: ‘You’re the one with the problem. You’re Islamophobic‘.
It shuts down all debate and leaves many decent folk feeling like racists – even when they’re not. So let’s just deconstruct the word ‘Islamophobia’ shall we?
Phobia = an extreme, irrational fear that interferes with everyday life. It is a psychological, clinical term, and this is the correct definition. We all know what a phobia looks like; most of us have seen grown adults collapse into quivering wrecks at the mere sight of a spider/wasp/snake. Above all, a phobia sufferer will go to great lengths to avoid the object of fear.
Now I don’t know about you, but I’m not aware of a single soul who is huddled at home, frozen with fear, refusing to leave their house because of the existence of Islam… Nor have I seen a single person jerking to a halt in the middle of a street, shrieking in terror ‘There’s a Muslim! There’s a Muslim! Save me! Save me! Aaaaghhhh!’ before sprinting across the road and into oncoming traffic, just to avoid said member of Islam.
Indeed, often the very people accused of ‘Islamophobia’ are those who are extremely interested in Islam! They talk about it, read about it, blog about it, and study it – in a bid to better understand it. Hardly ‘phobic’ behaviour, is it…?
So let’s be blunt. The term ‘Islamophobia’ is meaningless. It’s foolish. In short – it’s nothing more than a linguistic sham. Because nobody has an ‘irrational fear’ of Islam.
What many of us do have is a rational fear of what Muslim terrorists do in the name of Islam. We also fear the hatred that Islam inculcates in many of its followers. And who the hell can blame us?
If people with red hair continually sauntered onto buses and trains, into restaurants and schools the world over, with bombs strapped around their waists, before cheerfully blowing both themselves and any living soul around them into tiny bits, then I submit that many of us would develop a rational fear of red heads!
But ‘islamophobia’? Oh, purleease. It’s just a device used by *some* Muslims – and the PC-at-all-costs, liberal brigade – to shut down vital debate. And if we let them get away with it? Then shame on US.
While we’re on the topic, let’s just clarify what does and does not constitute ‘racism’: I could, if I wanted, criticise and challenge and yes, condemn Islam all day long – and it would not be ‘racism’. Islam is a faith and an ideology. And no ideology is exempt from scrutiny. Nor does anyone have the right to stop me from assessing an ideology – not as long as I live in a democratic society.
But, if I then begin making unfair, negative, nasty generalisations about ‘all muslims’ then this would be racism. See the difference?
Critiquing and challenging and condemning an ideology = not ‘racism’!
Condemning any group of people purely on the basis OF their religion = racism
Or to state it even more simply: ‘All Muslims are terrorists’ = racism
Clearly there are millions of peaceful Muslims.
‘Most terrorists are Muslim’ = not racism
Most terrorism is Islamic terrorism.
So just as I am free to condemn the beliefs of, say, the vile British National Party(BNP), or Scientologists, or the KKK, without anyone branding me a ‘racist’, so too am I free to condemn Islam.
Words have objective meanings. It’s time we remembered that, and worked to wipe out this lunacy which even now, is pushing for Islam to be legally ‘protected’ from criticism. So next time anyone tries to insist you are an ‘islamophobe’, shut them down. Fast.
As the star of the Harry Potter films, Daniel Radcliffe plays a boy who above all else, has integrity. A boy who loathes the bigotry of his enemies and is proud of his ‘mudblood’ friends.
What a pity that in real life, Radcliffe doesn’t embody those traits. For this week, in an interview with the Guardian Radcliffe shocked many by producing the type of anti semitic ‘joke’ that anyone with a functioning brain recognises as vile. He claimed, absurdly, that because his own mother is Jewish, he ‘is allowed’ to make ‘jewish jokes’.
His remarks are disingenuous in the extreme. Firstly, the ‘joke’ that Radcliffe offered does nothing but repeat the weary old stereotype of Jews being mean and caring only about money. Did it never occur to Radcliffe that the millions of youngsters who hang on his every word would be taking this, too, as gospel…?
Can he really be so naive as to think that what he says in a national newspaper won’t be read, remembered, and absorbed by his legions of young fans…?
Secondly, Radcliffe then tried to convince us, in this same article, that he is ‘proud’ of his Jewish heritage. Er, no, Daniel. You’re not, actually. If you were, you would be incapable of maligning Jews in this manner. Those of us who are truly proud of our heritage do everything we possibly can to counter the spiteful lies historically told about Jews – not promote them to the masses.
Radcliffe’s ‘jewish identity’ is interesting, in fact. He clearly feels it is something he can switch on and off when it suits him. Thus, for the most part, his heritage doesn’t get a mention – and that’s just fine. But when he does suddenly decide that ‘being jewish’ might make him more interesting, how does he reference his religion? With an anti semitic jibe. At the same time, another British newspaper has revealed that Radcliffe secretly writes poetry which he submits to an ‘underground’ publication under the name of – wait for it – Jacob Gershon.
Thus in private, Radcliffe cheerfully uses a Jewish name for his poetic scribblings yet in public, where it counts, the only thing he offers is bigotry.
There’s a word for behaviour like that. It’s hypocrisy.
So here’s the thing, Daniel. Please feel free not to identify as Jewish, either in public or private. I promise – the rest of us don’t mind and won’t miss you.
Because frankly, with ‘jews’ like you, who needs enemies…?
Eighty-five Sharia Courts are issuing private rulings that contradict British law, claims a new report. Independent think tank Civitas has issued this warning with regard to the Muslim courts that rule on things including child custody, polygamy and marriage.
Given that under Islamic laws, women have few rights, there is rising concern about these Sharia Courts. They meet behind closed doors and apparently don’t maintain any form of records.
Sharia courts have existed in Britain since 2007, primarily in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester. The courts’ rulings are legally binding under the 1996 Arbitration Act, on condition that both parties are happy touse them, and as long as their decisions do not contradict British law.
But the Arbitration Act specifically excludes rulings on divorce and child-care cases. Now Civitas notes that many Sharia courts are exceeding the original mandate.
“Some of these courts are advising illegal actions,” said the report’s author, Denis MacEoin, a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic studies. “And others transgress human rights standards.”
Last year, the House Of Lords ruled in one case that Sharia law ‘is wholly incompatible’ with human rights legislation.
In this case, British law prevented the deportation of a woman whose child would have been removed and placed with an abusive father under sharia law in Lebanon.
As he could not gain access to the actual Sharia courts, MacEoin has had to examine online fatwas ( religious decrees) issued by websites run by British mosques. He says:
Among the rulings … we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.
Here are some examples: A Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman’s children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man.
Also, polygamous marriage ( two to four wives) is considered legal … a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce … sharia law must override the judgments of British courts …
…taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law … a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia …
a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden … a woman may not retain custody of her child after 7 (for a boy) or 9 (for a girl) …
fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty ….”
Neil Addison, an expert on the law as it applies to religion, says:
“About two thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal. A woman in this type of marriage would have to submit to sharia law for a divorce proceeding. But it’s not the way arbitration is supposed to work.”
Some people argue that Sharia courts are the same as the Jewish Rabbinical courts, the Beth Din.
But Addison begs to differ:
“The beth din acknowledge that ‘the law of the land is the law,’ and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law.”
Several newspapers have carried stories of how, for instance, Sharia courts have arranged for fees of up to ten thousand pounds to go to youths attacked by Muslims, to avoid any legal action on the part of the victim.
Now, I ask you: can you imagine the reaction if either Jews, or Christians or indeed any other religious group behaved in this manner?
Christians would be lambasted in the media if they ever sought to buy victims’ silence. Similarly, we all can envisage the slurs that would fly if the Jewish Rabbinical courts went around bribing people to avoid the courts!
But when it is the Muslim community doing it, well, that’s just fine, apparently.
It seems to me – and indeed to most sane people, I’m guessing – that the issue is a clear one. If a person – of any faith – wishes to live in Britain, they must abide by British law. It’s not complicated. It really isn’t.
Thus Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab or the burkha – in Muslim countries.
And if Muslim families wish to buy the silence of victims of their relatives’ aggression, then again – fine, in Muslim countries.
But here, in Britain, we already have an albeit flawed legal system and all people should be equal under the law. After all, isn’t this premise at the heart of democracy…?
Looks like here in the UK, even the prisons have turned dhimmi.
Muslim prisoners have been complaining at having to share cells. Result? Why, private cells for them of course! After all, we can’t have Muslims being unhappy now, can we?
The prison in question is Birmingham’s Winson Green Jail. Muslim prisoners have been complaining at having to pray and eat near non Muslims. What – mix with the infidels? Whatever were the prison authorities thinking of??!
This does, in fact, seem to be something of a first for Britain. Never before have inmates been segregated according to faith. From now on, Muslim prisoners here will either share cells with their fellow Muslims, or they will be given private cells.
Amazing, isn’t it? Here we are in a country where we’re told, almost daily, that our prisons are overcrowded and that this is why rapists, paedophiles and burglars are merrily skipping out of court with fines and community service orders.
Yet when Muslims demand private cells – hey presto! More space becomes available! I guess the moral of this story is: what Muslims want, Muslims get.
One can’t help surmising as to how this is going down with the other 13,800 non Muslim prisoners…
‘So far around 15 Muslim inmates have been accommodated either by being moved to a cell with another Muslim or put on their own,’ said a prison source. ‘They initially asked for their own wing but this was turned down.’
But with dhimmi Judges, what can you expect? In June 2006, a High Court judge, Mr Justice Keith, called for a new concept of ‘institutional religious intolerance’ to combat prejudice against Muslim inmates.
Apparently, the menu at this particular prison is also not up to scratch:
One prison officer said: ‘
This has caused resentment because it is felt the Muslim inmates are getting special treatment.’
About ten per cent of the 80,000-strong jail population in England and Wales is Muslim. Shall we start taking bets on how long it is until:
a) other Muslims prisoners in other jails also demand, and get, private cells?
b) a Muslim wing is created in one or more British prisons?
The Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme fruitcake – sorry, leader - today voiced support for Ahmadinejad. His statement comes after a week of violent protests and accusations of election rigging.
Speaking at Tehran University today, the Ayatollah also lambasted the British government, calling it: ‘the most treacherous in the world.’
And responding to international concerns over the legitimacy of the vote, he added: ‘Some of our enemies in different parts of the world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definitive victory, as a doubtful victory.’
It seems that Khamenei’s attack on Britain was triggered by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, and their statements on Iran earlier in the week. Iran’s Ambassador to Britain Rasoul Movahedian has now been summoned to the Foreign Office where officials are expected to lodge a formal complaint about the Ayatollah’s remarks.
But today, thousands of Iranians attended the speech by the Ayatollah. The masses chanted ‘Death to the UK, American and Israel’.
Undeterred, Gordon Brown today criticised Iran further, condemning the violence and media blackout which occurred in the wake of the rioting over the election results. Mr Brown stated: “The eyes of the world are on Iran. It is for Iran now to show the world that the elections are fair.”
Iran’s president, Mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attended the Ayatollah’s speech today, as did his rival Mirhossein Mousavi.
Mousavi supporters have arranged another rally for tomorrow. But if they proceed in defiance of Khamenei’s warning, they risk a severe response from security forces.
Hopefully, Iran will be far too busy with its own problems to continue threatening to destroy Israel…
Feisty British journalist Julie Burchill is apparently considering becoming a member of the Jewish family. A staunch Israel supporter, she has now become a Friend Of Brighton and Hove Progressive Synagogue.
Ms Burchill has been enjoying Shabbat services there for a month, and has also started studying Hebrew.
The writer, known for her acerbic wit, says: “I first thought about converting when I was 25 . I will be 50 next month so it’s hardly a flash in the pan. At a time of rising and increasingly vicious antisemitism from both left and right, becoming Jewish especially appeals to me.
“Added to the fact that I admire Israel so much, it does seem to make sense — assuming of course that the Jews will have me!”
And she also added: ‘Jews rock!‘
Synagogue Chairperson Prue Baker says the congregation has welcomed Ms Burchill “…as we welcome all who share our approach to Judaism and wish to be associated with us. We are an inclusive community and have many Friends who may not be Jewish.”
Another congregant confided that “Julie has told several people that she’s enjoying the services. She’s amusing and fun to have around but she’s keeping a fairly low profile.”
Whether she convert or not, Julie Burchill is a wonderful ally to have; she is a forthright and perceptive observer and it’s great to know that she recognises Israel as being the only true democracy in the Middle East and a nation worthy of full support. So welcome to the tribe Julie, if you go for conversion – and if not, welcome as a good friend!