Hypocrisy

There are those who cry at being called Islamophobe yet think nothing of calling others anti-Semitic.  These people sometimes threaten to sue for libel if called ‘racist’, while accusing others of being anti-Semitic often merely because they choose not to stand with Israel on every issue.

Most of the people on the right applaud and cheer when I speak the truth about Islam and the many harmful practices that occur in the Muslim communities. Yet many of these very same people are shocked and disgusted if I mention the Jews or Judaism in anything other than positive terms.

Why?  Why is it okay to criticise one and not the other.  When did this protection occur and when did we become so scared to say anything for fear of being labelled a Nazi or an anti-Semite.

The first known use of the word ‘anti-Semitism’ was in 1860 and originated primarily because one group of people thought that they were superior to another.

This very thing is happening right now with any criticism of Islam, as high-profile Muslims are trying to change the law in order to make criticising Islam a criminal offence.  Some political parties and groups are accepting definitions of Islamophobia that don’t even make sense.  What is ‘expressing Muslimness’?

Islamophobia is a made up word created, some say, by the Muslim Brotherhood to protect Islam from scrutiny.

Where is the protection for Christians from both Muslims and Jews? Are they not afforded the same protection from ‘Christianphobia’ by ‘anti-Christianites’?

When we discuss the paedophilia, which is all too common in the Catholic Church, no one accuses us of being a racist or a “Catholicphobic”. Nobody tries to silence us or smear us, and all discussions and criticisms are allowed.

Try to get into a discussion about the rabbis who suck the circumcised penis of an eight-day-old baby boy and just you wait for the accusations of anti-Semite.  The more ‘open-minded’ people will tell you it is their culture and who are we to interfere.

Where are the feminists protesting about the femicide of Muslim women? When is the Women’s March going to take place in solidarity for all the women murdered for being women and not behaving quite as the men wanted them to? Smash the patriarchy but not the Islamic one? And again the ‘hush now its part of their culture’ excuse is given. We are supposed to be in a post-enlightenment world!

Draw a cartoon of Mohammed and then watch as the Muslims in Islamic countries, Pakistan especially, riot and burn effigies of whoever organised it while calling for the death of all those who insult Islam and Mohammed. This behaviour is rightly criticised by those ‘on the right’.

But draw a cartoon of Trump walking Benjamin Netanyahu on a leash and watch how they call it ‘deeply anti-Semitic’ and are disgusted by it.

Draw a cartoon of Jesus smoking a spliff or cross-dressing and there is a deafening silence and lack of concern and manufactured outrage.  I remember singing ‘Jesus Christ Superstar, wears frilly knickers and a Wonderbra, the bra’s too big so he wears a wig and that’s why we call him a sexy pig,’ in the school playground.

So why can we mock and ridicule Christianity yet Islam and Judaism are protected, or at least treated very differently?

We live in a world where you can be jailed for denouncing Islam and for saying the Holocaust was fake or that you doubt the numbers of deaths, yet we can have total freedom of speech for mocking Jesus and Christianity. Who is setting the ‘freedom of speech’ rules?

Muslims and Jews are always portrayed as victims, even when we see that it is Christians who are being persecuted and massacred all over the world.

If Muslims kill in a terror attack, mosques are guarded for fear of a ‘far right’ backlash (that never happens).  On the rare occasion that Muslims are the victims of terror, then an attempt to crack down on the whole of the right wing happens as we saw after Christchurch.

If you don’t stand with Israel then you are an anti –Semite because according to the accusers, Israel is responsible for the stability in the Middle East.  Stability for whom?  The Middle East is always fighting; holy wars for oil and the accusers want us to believe there is stability.

The same accusers don’t call me Islamophobic for not standing with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

The same people who are outraged over sharia patrols in the UK are silent about Shomrim, an Orthodox Jewish neighbourhood watch group that patrols the streets of northeast London protecting the Jewish population.

Those same people have probably never even heard of Hatzola, a voluntary ambulance service funded by the Jewish community for the Jewish community.

Outraged over halal meat yet silent on kosher.  We have even incorporated kosher into every day language ‘ if it’s kosher it’s good.’

People allow them to get away with it because they are a small group and by doing so they allow others, who are a much larger group, to have free reign.

Both groups believe they are God’s chosen people and both groups call us kuffar or goyim.

Believing you are God’s chosen people must instil in you some sort of superiority complex.

Christianity is one of the biggest religions yet Christians are not given free rein and are held accountable for the crimes of their ancestors.

Christians in the Middle East or Pakistan trying to escape the brutality and oppression they are suffering are not given asylum in the UK.  Take Asia Bibi, for example, refused asylum in the UK for fear of upsetting Muslims.

Jews have a home to go too if they are being persecuted and Muslims too can go back to their ancestral homes.  Where can Christians go?  Where is their home?

And why am I an anti-Semite or Islamophobe to ask these questions?

Anti-Semitism means to be hostile or prejudiced against Jews and I am neither hostile nor prejudiced.

Islamophobe means a person with a dislike or prejudiced against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force, I loathe Islam with a passion because I have seen what it does first hand.

I believe that all religions, ideologies and people should be held to the same standard of scrutiny and that no one race or religion should be given a free pass.  Freedom of speech and freedom of thought is under threat when religions are protected by laws solely created to quell criticism.

We should all resist this before it is too late.

 

 

Reforming Islam

William Henry Quilliam was born on 10th April 1856 to a wealthy family in Liverpool. He was brought up as a Methodist and converted to Islam in 1887 after visiting Morocco. Quilliam opened Britain’s first mosque, on Christmas Day 1889, with funding he received from Nasrullah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan.

He changed his name from William to Abdullah after converting to Islam and he argued for a global caliphate and swore allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. Nice guy, clearly.

In 2007, three former members of Hizb-ut Tahrir established a “think tank” called The Quilliam Foundation. For those who don’t know, Hizb-ut Tahrir is an Islamic supremacist group operating in dozens of countries around the world, and banned in some. They employ subversive tactics to infiltrate governments and military institutions in order to bring about an Islamic revolution, with the express ambition of turning the entire globe into a totalitarian Islamic caliphate, ruled under Sharia law. Presumably, this is something that Mr Quilliam would have approved of.

One has to ask exactly what “thinking” was going on, if any, when the founders of The Quilliam Foundation stumbled upon the idea of naming their think tank after a man who wanted a global caliphate. Was it in homage to what Mr Quilliam advocated? Or did the founders merely like the name?

I first heard about The Quilliam Foundation through one of its founders, the former Muslim extremist Maajid Nawaz, who I followed on Twitter. I purchased his book ‘Radical’ as I was interested in reading about the experience of other Pakistanis who had grown up in Britain.

Although our upbringings were different, I learnt that we had both experienced racism from white people. Nawaz was lucky that he did not receive any racism from Pakistani people, whereas I did, simply for being the white woman’s daughter.

I was inspired by Nawaz and believed that he could help bring about change. Like many others who placed their hopes in him and his foundation, though, I have been sorely disappointed. I have even come to dislike them and – worse still – distrust them.

It is not Nawaz’s fault that he is hated and loathed by his fellow Muslims and so I don’t dislike or distrust him for that reason; if anything I have sympathy with him on that front. It shows how difficult and futile his task is. No, I have come to question the priorities and even the motives of Nawaz and Quilliam.

To learn something of his background, let’s refer to a speech he gave on stage at Ted Talks.

“At the age of 16 I joined Hizb ut-Tahrir. At 17 I was recruiting people from Cambridge University to this organisation. At 19 I was on the national leadership of this organisation in the UK. At 21 I was co-founding this organisation in Pakistan. At 22 I was co-founding this organisation in Denmark. By the age of 24 I found myself convicted in prison in Egypt, being backlisted from three countries in the world for attempting to overthrow their governments, being subjected to torture in Egyptian jails and sentenced to five years as a prisoner of conscience.”

Prisoner of conscience?! What a pleasant, human rights-laden description of someone who sought to overthrow governments through coercion and espionage and usher in a global caliphate. How conscientious indeed. Describing his behaviour as a matter of conscience should tell you something of his character. How is that any different from terrorists sitting in prison cells right now? Perhaps we should sympathise with their predicament too?

His talk goes on:

“If we look at Islamists, if we look at the phenomenon of far right fascists, one thing they’ve been very good at is communicating across borders, using technologies to organise themselves, to propagate their message and to create a truly global phenomena.”

Although Quilliam’s focus is on “counter-extremism against Islamism”, strangely enough their most well-known and tangible “achievement” to date concerns Tommy Robinson, the founder and former leader of the English Defence League. Robinson established the English Defence League in response to the alarming Muslim extremism he witnessed in his hometown of Luton, England and many other areas.

Following a series of discussions with Robinson, in October of 2013 The Quilliam Foundation proudly boasted of its success in “decapitating” the English Defence League of its leader – which is a conspicuous choice of words considering only a few years previously Nawaz was devoted to implementing sharia which includes actual beheadings, and considering also that this “achievement” of Quilliam’s came shortly after the grisly, medieval butchering of the soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London. Robinson’s head is metaphorically sitting in Nawaz’s trophy cabinet.

A think tank tackling ‘Islamism’ yet they tackle the ‘far right?’ Makes sense I guess when you see the number of far right churches and organisations calling for the death of Muslims. I mean they are opening up all over the UK.

When they’re not “decapitating” the most vocal anti-Islam group the West has seen to date, in their spare time I am told Quilliam are also looking to “reform” Islam. A think tank named after a convert who wanted a caliphate are hoping to reform Islam?

Consider this during the four years he spent in an Egyptian prison, Nawaz committed half the Koran to memory. Imagine the devotion necessary to memorise 40,000 words! Following his release he was quoted as saying, “I can now say that the more I learn about Islam, the more tolerant I become.”

Does that sound like someone who believes Islam is in need of urgent reformation? Does that sound like someone who can say clearly, unapologetically and unequivocally that the problem we face today is Islam?

Quilliam ask us to accept their preordained language, consisting of a never-ending list of definitions, -isms and –isations, and replete with euphemism and vague platitudes about the ‘need to reform,’ labelling anyone who strays outside of these definitions or dares to question the feasibility of reformation as bigots, racists, populists, white supremacists, fascists, xenophobes and far right extremists – which coincidentally is the very thing they accuse the so-called ‘regressive left’ of doing to stifle debate. These labels marginalise and discredit anyone with the audacity to hold Muslims accountable for their beliefs and who wish to point the finger directly at Islam, and indeed these labels also marginalise and discredit anyone with the audacity to ask Quilliam questions beyond kindergarten levels of difficulty.

As a matter of fact Nawaz applied this very tactic while a member of Hizb-ut Tahrir at university in Britain, as the following quote from his book ‘Radical’ verifies:

“We knowingly presented political demands disguised as religion and multiculturalism, and deliberately labelled any objections to our demands as racism and bigotry.”

Ask Nawaz or Quilliam the mildest probing questions, or politely query whether a 1,400 year old religion of war and conquest can indeed “reform”, or at least reform in a reasonable timeframe, and you will be treated by Nawaz to a masterclass in aggressive, petulant, narcissistic behaviour. You will be guilt-tripped into a reminder that Nawaz and Quilliam staff face physical risks in what they do (as though they are the only ones – just ask Tommy Robinson, Anne Marie Waters, or Robert Spencer), and they will conveniently lump you into the same category as the “Far Right” and Muslim extremists. It’s safe to say that Nawaz and Quilliam don’t take very kindly to criticism no matter how delicately or constructively it is put to them. It doesn’t take much to stoke them into playing their Muslim Victim Card.

Non-Muslims look at Nawaz and see a smartly dressed, well-spoken man, not displaying any overt signs of his Muslim faith. They see him rubbing shoulders with the likes of Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray and a host of other notable and respected public figures. They hear him speaking out against the myriad of Islamic terrorist groups and simply assume that he must be a trusted voice in the fight against Islamic extremism. What’s concerning to me is that they also see him as the unquestionable reference point of acceptability in this debate: “Saint Maajid said X, so X must be the reasonable position”; “Saint Maajid approves/disapproves of person X and so I will approve/disapprove of person X too”.

When exactly did everyone start thinking it was a good idea to let former Muslim extremists set the terms of debate for combatting Muslim extremism or speaking about Islam? Shall we also let former rapists set the rules for discussing the problems of rape?

Like the spoilt kid in the playground who shouts “My ball, my rules”, with the threat of taking it away and sulking in the corner, Nawaz has set a rigid and uncompromising strategy which is entirely reliant on decoupling Islam from its evil “political” twin “Islamism”. Whether intentional on his part or not, this exploits western liberals’ desperation, ignorance and gullibility to believe that Islam is inherently good and is being “misinterpreted” or at the very least is benign and merely in need of some nips and tucks by way of “reformation”, and that instead all the nasty things are attributable to “Islamism”. The general public comes away a bit bamboozled and punch-drunk from definitions and post-modern language games, with some Z-list celebrity stardust sprinkled upon them, with a warm glow in their stomach that Nawaz and Quilliam have set western civilisation on the right path to save itself, and that “Islam good/ok, Islamism bad”. Again, whatever Nawaz’s intentions, this hapless army of anaesthetised, clueless and desperate non-Muslims then go on to misinform more non-Muslims. And all this is supposed to be a good thing?

There are many Muslims and non-Muslims who publicly speak out against ISIS, but who profess that ISIS and similar groups have “nothing to do with Islam”. Nawaz’s rhetoric is different, and better (which isn’t exactly difficult). In fairness to him he does acknowledge the link between the holy texts and the actions of terrorists groups. However, he immediately rows back and then attempts to balance with one toe on a pinhead: Muslim terrorism isn’t “nothing” to do with Islam; nor is it “everything” to do with Islam, he will plead. No, it’s merely “something” to do with Islam according to Nawaz. His explanation is that extremism is simply one of an infinite number of possible “interpretations” of Islam, and that Islam is a bit like a slinky spring or jelly: you can play around with it and come up with whatever “interpretation” you want. If you want to use Islam as the basis to cut off heads, or gang-rape girls, or give gay people flying lessons from rooftops, then sure, you can do that – it’s a “plausible” interpretation of the texts. But if you want to interpret Islam in such a way as to be totally compatible with the 21st century liberal secular democracy then hey you can do that too so stop being a racist and get out of my lane while I do this reform thing.

On Quilliam’s website they ask the question, “What is Islamism?” and provide the following answer: “It is the belief that Islam is a political ideology, as well as faith. It is a modernist claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that Shari’ah should be used as state law, that Muslims form a political rather than religious bloc around the world and that it is a religious duty for all Muslims to create a political entity that is governed as such.”

This isn’t an off the cuff remark. This is their official position. The premise of this definition is categorically false and misleading.

Everything about the words contained in the Koran and the example of Islam’s prophet Mohammed is the antithesis of free will, autonomy, freedom and democracy. If you sat down at a desk today to design an ideology with the express intention of being as hostile towards and incompatible with western civilisation as possible, you would produce Islam. The literal translation of the word Islam is “submission”.

Islam is a highly structured system of governance with roughly 6,000 sharia laws that dictate the actions and behaviours of its followers, both in public and private life. It’s a holistic system that commands Muslims to obey the will of Allah and follow the example of Mohammed as the path to eternal salvation.

Secularism is a betrayal of Islamic teachings, those teachings being unambiguously detailed in the Koran, Sura and Hadiths. Those instructions make clear that each and every Muslim should strive to live in accordance with Islamic law. To reject, criticise, or attempt to undo codified Islamic jurisprudence is considered highly blasphemous – a crime carrying the death penalty. This is the main reason the majority of Muslims are so hostile to any talk of reformation.

In essence Islamic “reformers” such as Nawaz are asking Muslims to denounce the life and teachings of the prophet of Islam and the words of the creator of the universe.

The Koran is believed to be the literal and perfect word of Allah. The text is said to be immutable (unchangeable), timeless.

Said to be God’s final messenger, Mohammed is revered by Muslims, and hailed as the exemplar for human behaviour. A man who coordinated 67 armed battles, beheaded 600 Jews in a single afternoon, raided towns and looted travelling caravans, raped the widows of his victims, had 15 wives in total, the youngest being six years old, sanctioned spousal necrophilia, and ordered the stoning to death of adulterers, apostates, homosexuals and blasphemers. This is the man Muslims are supposedly meant to emulate? This is the highest standard of human behaviour?

Mohammed is said to be an example for ALL times, not merely the pre-modern era. If his teachings aren’t fit for the 21st century and beyond, did Allah choose the wrong person?

This debate is far too important to concern ourselves with sparing Nawaz’s feelings. His proposals are counter productive and extremely dangerous. In effect we are being asked to place a huge bet: we are expected to bet western civilisation on the likelihood that a totalitarian ideology which has wrecked havoc for 1,400 years wherever it has gone and which has now positioned itself perfectly to conquer the West, will choose this moment in human history to “reform”. Nawaz in his narcissism believes he can bring this reformation about, and dumb desperate liberals are soothed into thinking that his plan will work because, well, Nawaz says so. These smug, dumb liberals will lecture you on the supposed differences between Islam and “Islamism” like a parrot sitting on Nawaz’s shoulder, while wearing Quilliam’s latest #solidarity t-shirt merchandise.

While Nawaz’s plans continue to fail spectacularly, thousand of sharia compliant Muslims flood into the West each week. Nawaz and Quilliam remain silent about and even hostile towards any de-Islamization policies, which might help stop the rot, such as restricting or stopping Muslim immigration to the West, or having a moratorium on the building of new mosques.

Using Nawaz’s definition “An Islamist is someone wanting to impose a version of Islam over society” would encompass anyone in favour of Sharia law. Polling data indicates two-thirds of Muslims globally want to live under Sharia law. This means there are roughly 1.1 billion Muslims who fall under Nawaz’s definition of an “Islamist”.

This idea that Muslims will quickly and en masse adopt Nawaz’s new age, spliff-smoking, liberal version of Islam is absurd – and dangerous. Considering the widespread hate and mistrust Muslims have for him and his organisation and the zero credibility he and Quilliam have amongst Muslims, unfortunately I have to reluctantly ask: who is his target audience?

Exactly what, or who, are you actually trying to reform, Mr Nawaz?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reforming Islam

William Henry Quilliam was born on 10th April 1856 to a wealthy family in Liverpool. He was brought up as a Methodist and converted to Islam in 1887 after visiting Morocco. Quilliam opened Britain’s first mosque, on Christmas Day 1889, with funding he received from Nasrullah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan.

He changed his name from William to Abdullah after converting to Islam and he argued for a global caliphate and swore allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. Nice guy, clearly.

In 2007, three former members of Hizb-ut Tahrir established a “think tank” called The Quilliam Foundation. For those who don’t know, Hizb-ut Tahrir is an Islamic supremacist group operating in dozens of countries around the world, and banned in some. They employ subversive tactics to infiltrate governments and military institutions in order to bring about an Islamic revolution, with the express ambition of turning the entire globe into a totalitarian Islamic caliphate, ruled under Sharia law. Presumably, this is something that Mr Quilliam would have approved of.

One has to ask exactly what “thinking” was going on, if any, when the founders of The Quilliam Foundation stumbled upon the idea of naming their think tank after a man who wanted a global caliphate. Was it in homage to what Mr Quilliam advocated? Or did the founders merely like the name?

I first heard about The Quilliam Foundation through one of its founders, the former Muslim extremist Maajid Nawaz, who I followed on Twitter. I purchased his book ‘Radical’ as I was interested in reading about the experience of other Pakistanis who had grown up in Britain.

Although our upbringings were different, I learnt that we had both experienced racism from white people. Nawaz was lucky that he did not receive any racism from Pakistani people, whereas I did, simply for being the white woman’s daughter.

I was inspired by Nawaz and believed that he could help bring about change. Like many others who placed their hopes in him and his foundation, though, I have been sorely disappointed. I have even come to dislike them and – worse still – distrust them.

It is not Nawaz’s fault that he is hated and loathed by his fellow Muslims and so I don’t dislike or distrust him for that reason; if anything I have sympathy with him on that front. It shows how difficult and futile his task is. No, I have come to question the priorities and even the motives of Nawaz and Quilliam.

To learn something of his background, let’s refer to a speech he gave on stage at Ted Talks.

“At the age of 16 I joined Hizb ut-Tahrir. At 17 I was recruiting people from Cambridge University to this organisation. At 19 I was on the national leadership of this organisation in the UK. At 21 I was co-founding this organisation in Pakistan. At 22 I was co-founding this organisation in Denmark. By the age of 24 I found myself convicted in prison in Egypt, being backlisted from three countries in the world for attempting to overthrow their governments, being subjected to torture in Egyptian jails and sentenced to five years as a prisoner of conscience.”

Prisoner of conscience?! What a pleasant, human rights-laden description of someone who sought to overthrow governments through coercion and espionage and usher in a global caliphate. How conscientious indeed. Describing his behaviour as a matter of conscience should tell you something of his character. How is that any different from terrorists sitting in prison cells right now? Perhaps we should sympathise with their predicament too?

His talk goes on:

“If we look at Islamists, if we look at the phenomenon of far right fascists, one thing they’ve been very good at is communicating across borders, using technologies to organise themselves, to propagate their message and to create a truly global phenomena.”

Although Quilliam’s focus is on “counter-extremism against Islamism”, strangely enough their most well-known and tangible “achievement” to date concerns Tommy Robinson, the founder and former leader of the English Defence League. Robinson established the English Defence League in response to the alarming Muslim extremism he witnessed in his hometown of Luton, England and many other areas.

Following a series of discussions with Robinson, in October of 2013 The Quilliam Foundation proudly boasted of its success in “decapitating” the English Defence League of its leader – which is a conspicuous choice of words considering only a few years previously Nawaz was devoted to implementing sharia which includes actual beheadings, and considering also that this “achievement” of Quilliam’s came shortly after the grisly, medieval butchering of the soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London. Robinson’s head is metaphorically sitting in Nawaz’s trophy cabinet.

A think tank tackling ‘Islamism’ yet they tackle the ‘far right?’ Makes sense I guess when you see the number of far right churches and organisations calling for the death of Muslims. I mean they are opening up all over the UK.

When they’re not “decapitating” the most vocal anti-Islam group the West has seen to date, in their spare time I am told Quilliam are also looking to “reform” Islam. A think tank named after a convert who wanted a caliphate are hoping to reform Islam?

Consider this during the four years he spent in an Egyptian prison, Nawaz committed half the Koran to memory. Imagine the devotion necessary to memorise 40,000 words! Following his release he was quoted as saying, “I can now say that the more I learn about Islam, the more tolerant I become.”

Does that sound like someone who believes Islam is in need of urgent reformation? Does that sound like someone who can say clearly, unapologetically and unequivocally that the problem we face today is Islam?

Quilliam ask us to accept their preordained language, consisting of a never-ending list of definitions, -isms and –isations, and replete with euphemism and vague platitudes about the ‘need to reform,’ labelling anyone who strays outside of these definitions or dares to question the feasibility of reformation as bigots, racists, populists, white supremacists, fascists, xenophobes and far right extremists – which coincidentally is the very thing they accuse the so-called ‘regressive left’ of doing to stifle debate. These labels marginalise and discredit anyone with the audacity to hold Muslims accountable for their beliefs and who wish to point the finger directly at Islam, and indeed these labels also marginalise and discredit anyone with the audacity to ask Quilliam questions beyond kindergarten levels of difficulty.

As a matter of fact Nawaz applied this very tactic while a member of Hizb-ut Tahrir at university in Britain, as the following quote from his book ‘Radical’ verifies:

“We knowingly presented political demands disguised as religion and multiculturalism, and deliberately labelled any objections to our demands as racism and bigotry.”

Ask Nawaz or Quilliam the mildest probing questions, or politely query whether a 1,400 year old religion of war and conquest can indeed “reform”, or at least reform in a reasonable timeframe, and you will be treated by Nawaz to a masterclass in aggressive, petulant, narcissistic behaviour. You will be guilt-tripped into a reminder that Nawaz and Quilliam staff face physical risks in what they do (as though they are the only ones – just ask Tommy Robinson, Anne Marie Waters, or Robert Spencer), and they will conveniently lump you into the same category as the “Far Right” and Muslim extremists. It’s safe to say that Nawaz and Quilliam don’t take very kindly to criticism no matter how delicately or constructively it is put to them. It doesn’t take much to stoke them into playing their Muslim Victim Card.

Non-Muslims look at Nawaz and see a smartly dressed, well-spoken man, not displaying any overt signs of his Muslim faith. They see him rubbing shoulders with the likes of Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray and a host of other notable and respected public figures. They hear him speaking out against the myriad of Islamic terrorist groups and simply assume that he must be a trusted voice in the fight against Islamic extremism. What’s concerning to me is that they also see him as the unquestionable reference point of acceptability in this debate: “Saint Maajid said X, so X must be the reasonable position”; “Saint Maajid approves/disapproves of person X and so I will approve/disapprove of person X too”.

When exactly did everyone start thinking it was a good idea to let former Muslim extremists set the terms of debate for combatting Muslim extremism or speaking about Islam? Shall we also let former rapists set the rules for discussing the problems of rape?

Like the spoilt kid in the playground who shouts “My ball, my rules”, with the threat of taking it away and sulking in the corner, Nawaz has set a rigid and uncompromising strategy which is entirely reliant on decoupling Islam from its evil “political” twin “Islamism”. Whether intentional on his part or not, this exploits western liberals’ desperation, ignorance and gullibility to believe that Islam is inherently good and is being “misinterpreted” or at the very least is benign and merely in need of some nips and tucks by way of “reformation”, and that instead all the nasty things are attributable to “Islamism”. The general public comes away a bit bamboozled and punch-drunk from definitions and post-modern language games, with some Z-list celebrity stardust sprinkled upon them, with a warm glow in their stomach that Nawaz and Quilliam have set western civilisation on the right path to save itself, and that “Islam good/ok, Islamism bad”. Again, whatever Nawaz’s intentions, this hapless army of anaesthetised, clueless and desperate non-Muslims then go on to misinform more non-Muslims. And all this is supposed to be a good thing?

There are many Muslims and non-Muslims who publicly speak out against ISIS, but who profess that ISIS and similar groups have “nothing to do with Islam”. Nawaz’s rhetoric is different, and better (which isn’t exactly difficult). In fairness to him he does acknowledge the link between the holy texts and the actions of terrorists groups. However, he immediately rows back and then attempts to balance with one toe on a pinhead: Muslim terrorism isn’t “nothing” to do with Islam; nor is it “everything” to do with Islam, he will plead. No, it’s merely “something” to do with Islam according to Nawaz. His explanation is that extremism is simply one of an infinite number of possible “interpretations” of Islam, and that Islam is a bit like a slinky spring or jelly: you can play around with it and come up with whatever “interpretation” you want. If you want to use Islam as the basis to cut off heads, or gang-rape girls, or give gay people flying lessons from rooftops, then sure, you can do that – it’s a “plausible” interpretation of the texts. But if you want to interpret Islam in such a way as to be totally compatible with the 21st century liberal secular democracy then hey you can do that too so stop being a racist and get out of my lane while I do this reform thing.

On Quilliam’s website they ask the question, “What is Islamism?” and provide the following answer: “It is the belief that Islam is a political ideology, as well as faith. It is a modernist claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that Shari’ah should be used as state law, that Muslims form a political rather than religious bloc around the world and that it is a religious duty for all Muslims to create a political entity that is governed as such.”

This isn’t an off the cuff remark. This is their official position. The premise of this definition is categorically false and misleading.

Everything about the words contained in the Koran and the example of Islam’s prophet Mohammed is the antithesis of free will, autonomy, freedom and democracy. If you sat down at a desk today to design an ideology with the express intention of being as hostile towards and incompatible with western civilisation as possible, you would produce Islam. The literal translation of the word Islam is “submission”.

Islam is a highly structured system of governance with roughly 6,000 sharia laws that dictate the actions and behaviours of its followers, both in public and private life. It’s a holistic system that commands Muslims to obey the will of Allah and follow the example of Mohammed as the path to eternal salvation.

Secularism is a betrayal of Islamic teachings, those teachings being unambiguously detailed in the Koran, Sura and Hadiths. Those instructions make clear that each and every Muslim should strive to live in accordance with Islamic law. To reject, criticise, or attempt to undo codified Islamic jurisprudence is considered highly blasphemous – a crime carrying the death penalty. This is the main reason the majority of Muslims are so hostile to any talk of reformation.

In essence Islamic “reformers” such as Nawaz are asking Muslims to denounce the life and teachings of the prophet of Islam and the words of the creator of the universe.

The Koran is believed to be the literal and perfect word of Allah. The text is said to be immutable (unchangeable), timeless.

Said to be God’s final messenger, Mohammed is revered by Muslims, and hailed as the exemplar for human behaviour. A man who coordinated 67 armed battles, beheaded 600 Jews in a single afternoon, raided towns and looted travelling caravans, raped the widows of his victims, had 15 wives in total, the youngest being six years old, sanctioned spousal necrophilia, and ordered the stoning to death of adulterers, apostates, homosexuals and blasphemers. This is the man Muslims are supposedly meant to emulate? This is the highest standard of human behaviour?

Mohammed is said to be an example for ALL times, not merely the pre-modern era. If his teachings aren’t fit for the 21st century and beyond, did Allah choose the wrong person?

This debate is far too important to concern ourselves with sparing Nawaz’s feelings. His proposals are counter productive and extremely dangerous. In effect we are being asked to place a huge bet: we are expected to bet western civilisation on the likelihood that a totalitarian ideology which has wrecked havoc for 1,400 years wherever it has gone and which has now positioned itself perfectly to conquer the West, will choose this moment in human history to “reform”. Nawaz in his narcissism believes he can bring this reformation about, and dumb desperate liberals are soothed into thinking that his plan will work because, well, Nawaz says so. These smug, dumb liberals will lecture you on the supposed differences between Islam and “Islamism” like a parrot sitting on Nawaz’s shoulder, while wearing Quilliam’s latest #solidarity t-shirt merchandise.

While Nawaz’s plans continue to fail spectacularly, thousand of sharia compliant Muslims flood into the West each week. Nawaz and Quilliam remain silent about and even hostile towards any de-Islamization policies, which might help stop the rot, such as restricting or stopping Muslim immigration to the West, or having a moratorium on the building of new mosques.

Using Nawaz’s definition “An Islamist is someone wanting to impose a version of Islam over society” would encompass anyone in favour of Sharia law. Polling data indicates two-thirds of Muslims globally want to live under Sharia law. This means there are roughly 1.1 billion Muslims who fall under Nawaz’s definition of an “Islamist”.

This idea that Muslims will quickly and en masse adopt Nawaz’s new age, spliff-smoking, liberal version of Islam is absurd – and dangerous. Considering the widespread hate and mistrust Muslims have for him and his organisation and the zero credibility he and Quilliam have amongst Muslims, unfortunately I have to reluctantly ask: who is his target audience?

Exactly what, or who, are you actually trying to reform, Mr Nawaz?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why I believe Tommy Robinson is a working class hero

Shame on everyone who has smeared Tommy Robinson – and made us feel too ashamed to listen to his warnings about grooming gangs. Yes, I believe he should be applauded for taking a stand against the grooming gangs when everyone else was silent. In a society where political correctness has gone mental, and we are all scared of being labelled racist or Far Right, for daring to have an opinion on Islam or mass immigration nobody else was speaking up.

The name Tommy Robinson for me has always conjured up images of skinheads, swastikas and Dr Marten boots. The EDL – I was led to believe – were similar to the BNP, and the BNP put the fear of god into me.

I am the child of an interfaith relationship, the daughter of an immigrant. I grew up with racism from both my Pakistani side and my white Scottish side. The racism from the Pakistani side was less frightening than the white, because it was verbal. On the white side it got physical. I remember occasions when I was out with my white mother. I remember being spat on with screams of ‘fucking paki lover’ at us. At school I fought the boys who dared call me and my siblings ‘smelly pakis.’ At home we had our windows smashed and graffiti painted on the garden walls saying ‘Niggers Out’ and ‘BNP.’

So you can see why the BNP scared me and why the EDL would scare me, given that I assumed they were just a new incarnation of the BNP. The EDL undoubtedly attracted some unsavoury characters with roots in the BNP, the National Front, Combat 18 and skinhead football casuals, even though Robinson repeatedly made it clear that he didn’t want them in any way associated with the EDL (he even received death threats from neo-Nazis). These EDL “supporters” were scary and frightening people, for those of us with brown skin. Unless you have grown up with racism then you cannot understand the fear of being picked on purely for the colour of your skin. You get used to the looks and you get used to subtle (and not so subtle) racial prejudice. You never get used to the fear though.

I have been told I am a whistle blower for writing my debut novel, The Gori’s Daughter, because the book exposes the flaws in the Pakistani community. Many in the community are not happy with my book but thankfully many more applaud me for having the courage to write about the community honestly.

Some in my community have also said said that I am a BNP/EDL dream, which filled me with self-loathing. How anyone could suggest that the BNP would love me when I had grown up being hated by these very people was strange and horrifying.

This is the reason I gave Tommy Robinson such a wide berth, and why I couldn’t even bring myself to follow him on Twitter – even though he was being retweeted onto my timeline on a daily basis often by people I felt were my allies. I was too scared to even read his tweets or watch any of the videos that he featured in. I didn’t follow him because I didn’t want to be labelled a white supremacist, bigot, racist or even patronising racist terms such as coconut. This is Twitter peer pressure at its strongest and its most pathetic.

I started researching him though and I started clicking on links to form my own opinion of him. But still I refrained from clicking on that dreaded “Follow” button on his profile. I viewed videos of him from as far back as 2007, in which he raised concerns about the Muslim street grooming gangs preying on vulnerable British girls.

And it was when I started watching these videos, that, I started to change my view of Tommy Robinson. Here he was, talking about the rape of vulnerable young girls and yet nobody was listening to him. On the contrary, all they were doing was calling him racist and trying to silence him.

Well, we now know there has been a huge cover up by politicians, police and the agencies who were responsible for the safety of the young girls. Today, many continue to call Tommy Robinson a racist instead of listening to his concerns – and his facts. He was talking about (or trying to anyway)

grooming gangs long before anybody else was. It feels more appropriate that we should be thanking him and acknowledging his bravery and honesty, rather than smearing him.

Maybe if Tommy Robinson was from a middle class background, went to University, wore tweed and voiced his concerns with a posh accent he would be listened to. Katie Hopkins is another who is hated as much as Robinson, if not more, for having similar views but being middle class and educated insulates her to an extent. She is given her own newspaper column and regularly appears on TV.

It’s the working class, “chav” and hooligan labels that make it so easy to call Robinson a racist, shut down any debate with him and refuse to give him any mainstream airtime. I have watched some videos where he is constantly called a racist but when he challenges his accusers to produce evidence, they are unable to.

We are quick, perhaps even desperate, to forgive terrorists who have turned their back on terror and they are often rewarded with jobs advising the government. They are flown all over the world meeting political leaders and they quickly find a home on the prestigious speaking circuits. It seems you can be forgiven quicker for being a terrorist than for being a football hooligan.

Anjem Choudary is allowed to vent his hatred for all things Western, on the streets of London, and there is less outrage at that than there is towards Tommy Robinson.  I have watched videos of Choudary demanding the death of non-Muslims, and British soldiers. I have watched as he has led marches calling for Sharia law. He did all this, for years, without any interruption from the police and without any fear of being arrested. Robinson, on the other hand, was arrested at Luton Airport on his way to give a talk on grooming gangs, long before the public was aware of the phenomenon. It is this double standard that seems unfair. This double standard where you can say whatever you like against the British but if you voice concerns about Sharia law or anything to do with Islam, you are shut down for being a racist, has to stop.

After much debating with myself I finally decided to click the ‘Follow’ button on Twitter and I joined the other 120,000+ followers of Tommy Robinson. He has more followers than UKIP and about the same as the Liberal Democrats. There are a number of his followers who are racist; you only have to read some of the comments his followers leave with regards to Pakistani people. It seems as though some of his followers are united in their hatred towards the Pakistani community because of the actions of some. The same can be said of many conservative Muslims though, and the way they speak to, and about, non-Muslims online. Aside from their derogatory attitude to non-Muslims they also speak to liberal Muslims in a sexist and vile manner and accuse them of not being ‘real’ Muslims. Yet there is an expectation that Robinson’s followers (whose behaviour he is not responsible for) have to be perfect and politically correct and that if they aren’t this is Robinson’s fault. The double standards at play over and over.

When Robinson formed the EDL, at the age of 21, within six months it had become the biggest street movement Europe had ever seen. If those in power had listened to his concerns then there would have been no need to form the EDL. Many of the people involved in the EDL were genuinely concerned about the issues affecting their towns and cities. Grooming gangs, forced marriages, FGM and Sharia law were issues concerning many of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike and as we now know there has been a huge cover up and silence on these issues, so yes it is understandable that they would join the EDL to make theses issues public knowledge. There were a number of people who joined the EDL who were racist; there is no doubt about that. Robinson was one young man, not a politician, trying to make a change and doing his best with nothing but his anger and frustration at what he was seeing happening in his hometown of Luton.

The reason Robinson gave for finally turning his back on the EDL was the racist following, which he was ultimately unable to control, but again nobody wants to listen to that because it does not fit with the preconceived ideas they have of him. Robinson’s life has been threatened and he has received five “Osman Warnings” – these are real and immediate threats to his life and his family which warrant the police making him aware of those threats – but sadly, still not serious enough to protect him. The Government should be doing more to protect him; Robinson himself has accepted that he will be killed, and that it’s just a matter of time. The consequences of such a thing happening will be immense.

There are so many labels being hurled out there that they don’t really mean anything now. So, I no longer care what I am called for following Tommy Robinson and for agreeing with some of what he has to say.

So go ahead: call me, a white supremacist, racist, bigot or whatever else. At least try and be original. I’m beyond caring. I’ll just laugh at you and I’ll carry on following who the hell I want on Twitter, and I’ll carry on agreeing with whoever the hell I want based on the arguments and the facts they present to me. And I’ll always care more about the rape of young girls (regardless of their skin colour), FGM, forced marriage and Sharia law than any stupid name you will ever call me.

 

 

 

The stupid it burns

I deactivated my Twitter account. The news I read depresses me and the comments people make on the depressing news some times depresses me even more. Social media really shows how depressingly stupid the majority of people who use it are.

Another terrorist attack in Berlin this time, killing 12 innocent people and injuring many others and media, BBC and Sky, to name two reported it as ‘a truck has crashed into a German Christmas market.’ A truck? A fucking truck?

Before the identity of the truck driver was revealed, social media had already decided he was of Muslim heritage. Many were outraged that Muslims were once again being blamed for this carnage. Never mind that it was similar to the terrorist attack in Niece carried out by another truck, killing 86 people, many of them children and injuring 434! The driver of that truck was a Muslim and ISIS claimed responsibility.

Many, it seems, are always outraged, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, at the fear of Islam, acts like this, instil in us. The Islamophobia card comes straight out and is waved by all and sundry. The innocents who have been butchered in cold blood, while the killers cried ‘Allah Akbar’ – Allah is great,’ have been forgotten already and it is the Muslims we need to feel sorry for, the backlash they will receive. A backlash that never really materialises.

Bristol city officials have upped their police presence in their city centre to tackle any Islamophobia as a result of this attack. I can understand why people are disgusted by this response. The way our government is dealing with the problem of Islam is a laughing joke on social media; the way Muslims and non-Muslims interact with each other on social media is frustrating. Facts no longer mean anything and if someone disagrees with you then you are a racist. I was told I was a racist and when I pointed out that my father was Pakistani, I was asked so what. I laugh at the accusations of ‘racist’ because I am the proud daughter of a white woman and a Pakistani man and I love both sides of my heritage. I am a racist in the eyes of some because I criticised Islam, a religion, not a people. But hey these days it is possible to be racist towards Islam.

Islam has many privileges here in the UK, we are not allowed to insult, we are not allowed to host ‘Draw Mo’ competitions, we are made to feel scared if we dare to offend this special religion and its followers. People have anonymous accounts to enable them to speak freely because if their identity was known then they might lose their jobs, they fear for their safety, or they are Muslim and do not wish to be alienated in their communities.

We give hate preachers, who are banned from preaching their hate in Pakistan, a visa and allow them to preach their hate to Muslims here. Yet we stop people who want to talk about the evils of Islam, from entering the UK. We refer to all who dare criticise Islam as the ‘far-right’ and liken them to Hitler.

Saying that Islam is evil doesn’t mean all followers of Islam are evil. Islam is an idea, a religion, a thing that has no feelings, cannot be offended. People have feelings and people can be offended. If insulting an idea causes you offence and makes you want to kill and silence those who are criticising then the problem lies with you.

Some Muslims follow Islam and they are loving and peaceful people, I shouldn’t even have to say this but say I must because instead of focusing on the problem people will say ‘Not all Muslims.’ As easy as that the debate shuts down and smearing tactics continue and any reasonable solution to the problem of Muslims killing in the name of Islam doesn’t happen.

It doesn’t happen for a number of reasons and one of them is that Muslims are unable to criticise their religion, their prophet and their Allah. Strangely though there are many Muslims who would kill you for insulting their prophet and not bother so much when you insult Allah. For these Muslims the prophet is given more respect than the creator who supposedly created him. Madness. But then again many of these Muslims are mad. You have to be mad to take a lorry and drive it into people, causing utter terror and carnage. You have to be mad to video yourself with your two young daughters who you have brainwashed into thinking that blowing themselves up in a crowded place killing innocent people is what Allah desires, what makes him happy. They see no irony in their claim that their religion is peaceful while sending their small daughter to be blown up.

Growing up in a Muslim home I never questioned any doubts I may have had about Islam and religion. As a child I was never really allowed to question anything and so I believed the stories I was told and heard about the prophet and life in the 7th century. I left Islam in my early 20s when I was disowned for leaving a forced marriage. I created a new life for myself amongst the white people as my Pakistani father and community had decided I was no longer welcome. I wore Western clothes, I went clubbing, I smoked and drank and I dated. I would still tell people I was a Muslim, just not a very good one.

When white people criticised Islam in front of me it annoyed me and I was ‘offended.’ Laughable I know but the indoctrination runs deep. I wonder if people from other faiths who have left their religion feel the effects of indoctrination in the same way? Do Catholics get offended when you mock their Saints? Do Jews get offended when you eat non-kosher meat in front of them?

As a Muslim your duty since you were old enough to understand was to defend Islam against insults, you may not have been told it directly but it was just something you knew, subconsciously perhaps. Those around you, family, friends and those in the wider community spoke highly and respectfully about the prophet and Islam. Growing up I never hear a bad word uttered about the prophet, no one ever discussed whether there were parts of Islam that could be reformed. It was perfect as it was and needed no altering or changing. That’s not to say all Muslim families were like my family and I know there are families that debate the tenets of Islam. What people sometimes forget is that Muslims are human and like all other humans are unique. Idiots and evil people exist in all of the races as does goodness and kindness, and the Muslim race is no different.

I stared questioning Islam a few years ago and became aware of people leaving Islam, Ex-Muslims is what they called themselves. I had never heard of this way of describing yourself. I started reading blogs and connecting with people on social media. Finding other people who had the same questions as me. ‘Why would Allah create us to make us suffer in the hell fire forever more? Replacing our scorched skin with new skin so we may feel the pain for eternity?’ ‘Why is hell fire full of women?’

When I asked that question the Muslims in my life would say ‘because women are responsible for seducing men and because they are bad for gossiping.’ Women are the naughty ones while the poor men can hardly control themselves. No wonder Allah has 72 virgins waiting in heaven for them.

Even though I no longer say I am a Muslim, good or bad, a tiny part of me still gets ‘offended’ when Islam is insulted. Blame it on the indoctrination. I did say it runs deep. So when I see people demanding that Muslims, in the public eye and the media, say Islam is bad and their prophet is not a good role model, I can understand why they won’t. Even if they secretly have doubts, they will never do this. To insult the religion means, for some, that they will no longer be welcome in their family, their friends may shun them and their community most certainly will no longer welcome them. In the Muslim community people don’t generally sit around discussing the flaws of Mohammed or the flaws in the Quran, they sit and praise him and pray five times a day. The religious scholars say without five times a day prayer you are not a good Muslim.

In Muslim majority countries those who insult Islam are jailed, flogged and killed. Raif Badawi is a Saudi writer known for his blog, ‘Free Saudi Liberals’ and I, as have thousands of others, have signed many petitions to free him from jail and weekly lashes. His crime is that of insulting Islam and apostasy charges. How many others have signed the petition yet still believe Islam is peaceful? If Islam cannot be shown to be peaceful in Muslim majority countries what makes these people think it will be peaceful in the western countries? You can cry that this is not Islam all you like but when Muslim majority countries dish out the same punishment for ‘crimes’ then Islam is the problem. The rulers in Saudi Arabia have jailed Raif Badwai, the rulers in Pakistan would have done the same, and the rulers in Iran would have done the same. In Iran they hang gays from cranes, ISIS throw them off tall buildings. The atrocities are never ending and yet it is Islamophobic to bring light to them.

To refuse to name Islam, as the problem for fear of offending your fellow Muslims is dangerous and just makes you look stupid and the stupid it burns.

 

Religion and the Politics of Distraction

 

“There is no significant far-right or nativist party in our politics; in January 2016, the noxious British National Party quietly slipped out of existence, crippled by internal feuding and financial debt (mostly brought about, I am pleased to say, by legal action I took as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission).” Trevor Philips – Race and Faith: The Deafening Silence.

I grew up in a home that was very much all about the Labour party, with political talk in the household dominated by the assumption of support for Labour and parents who attended the party’s events religiously. My father also hosted regular dinner parties where Labour party councillors would be invited, along with other men, to eat a variety of curries and to discuss politics.

There was a clear division at these parties: the women usually did the cooking and the men discussed politics. Maybe it was this that made me avoid politics. Maybe at some point I just accepted that all political discussions should be left to the men and that my role would be to attend to the chores, like life was back in the 70s and 80s for so many people.

Whatever the reason I am glad I didn’t waste my life following politics and watching as every political party lied and cheated its way through the latest scandals and accusations. Even if I had immersed myself in politics, though, I would still struggle, as I do now, to understand and keep up with all the labels that people give to themselves or to each other: left, right, far left, far right, progressive, (as though anyone would boast they’re not “progressive”), regressive, liberal (again who would boast they’re “illiberal?”), secular, moderate and extreme to name some of them. Having grown up with labels, such as ‘the gori’s daughter,’ ‘paki’, ‘coconut’ and ‘half caste,’ you can understand when I say the only labels I like these days are the ones of the designer variety. (Birkin is my favourite, if you must know.)

The Labour party have recently been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, with a number of councillors and MPs suspended for anti-Semitism. There are other councillors who make remarks that are quite clearly racist and if it had been a white councillor making these comments then cries of ‘racist’ would forever follow them around, but because it‘s, say, a Muslim woman then it seems everyone just moves on once that person has reeled off a formulaic and unconvincing apology in the face of public pressure.

The issue of gender segregation at Labour party meetings is also well documented, with non-Muslim members bending over backwards to accommodate the wishes of their fellow Muslim members, usually male. These wishes (actually they’re not wishes at all but demands) have no place in a secular society and any political party that has the cheek to call itself “progressive” should not indulge them.

The Labour party, we now know, have also been part of a mass cover-up going back thirty years, of vulnerable underage girls being raped by gangs of Muslim men, in towns and cities across the UK.

The Conservative party is not free from scandal and corruption either, and there are numerous stories surrounding them. Theresa May has promised an independent inquiry into the operation of Sharia courts in the UK; this came about after concerns were raised that these “courts” discriminate against women. There are an estimated 30 to 85 Sharia “courts” operating in the UK. It will be interesting to see what is uncovered, or more to the point, what action is actually taken if the enquiry uncovers what any decent person already knows. We shouldn’t hold out too much hope for this enquiry given that Theresa May has been known to cover her head with a scarf when meeting with self appointed Muslim community leaders. In doing so, she is actually obeying sharia law.

The Conservative party are also guilty, more indirectly, of the cover-up of the grooming gangs scandal for fear of being labelled racist, even though the areas in which grooming was taking place were Labour majority areas. They are guilty because someone in the party had to know what was going on.

Zac Goldsmith stood as the Tory candidate for Mayor of London and when he challenged Sadiq Khan on his links to extremism, the race card came out and Zac Goldsmith was instantly accused of running a “racist” campaign. Goldsmith challenging Khan on his links to extremism was more serious than Khan’s links to extremism.

Just recently there have been serious concerns that a known terrorist sympathiser has been granted a visa to visit the UK from his home in Pakistan. If I, somebody with no real knowledge of politics, thinks that a terrorist sympathiser should be the last person to be given a visa then why are those in power allowing it? A terrorist sympathiser is being welcomed into this country and yet half a million signatures were gathered to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK. Trump holds some controversial views, there is no doubt about that, but it is because he challenges the ideology of Islam that he is smeared. Fear of being labelled racist shuts down debates amongst ‘normal people’ and the recent elections for the Mayor of London showed us how easy it is to silence people, and even to neuter the political process, with the word “racist.”

The Scottish National Party is Scotland’s largest political party and was formed in 1934, but it wasn’t until the 50s and 60s that their popularity started to grow thanks to resentment of Westminster’s control of Scottish affairs. In the late 90s the SNP ventured into the mainstream of Scottish politics and it was probably around this time that my staunch Labour supporting parents became SNP members, along with many other people living in Scotland, regardless of religious background. Like every other political party the SNP are not without their scandals and there have been stories involving finances, racism and marital affairs.

One of the differences between these three political parties is that the SNP have so far escaped a rape cover-up scandal. I say so far because I believe it is inevitable. We have seen the proof of the cover-up of grooming gangs which were operating in towns and cities in the UK, such as in Rotherham where at least 1,400 girls were raped because politicians, the police and everyone else with the responsibility for safeguarding children exchanged their moral and vocational obligations for a worthless badge proving they weren’t racist. To believe that Scotland has been immune from the Muslim grooming gangs phenomenon and that no such cover-up has taken place here is foolish and naïve in the extreme.

Then we have UKIP, a political party that I only heard about a few years ago. A party whose entire membership and voter base are racists and homophobes, every last one of them, according to mainstream media and therefore according to the general public who often believe whatever the media feed them. It makes no difference that UKIP have no actual racist policies and that they have members, supporters and elected officials from all ethnic backgrounds, gay and straight (how many people know that UKIP’s candidate for London Mayor, Peter Whittle, is openly gay?) If you even mention UKIP in conversation with friends instantly they will describe them as ‘racists and bigots and fascists.’ And don’t dare tell anyone you are voting for them because then you will be viewed as the lowest of the low. UKIP are deemed worse than the Labour and Conservative parties who turned a blind eye to the rape of children. Wanting to control immigration or even discuss immigration is a bigger crime than rape, for the deluded and virtue-signallers.

Also interesting to note is the treatment of UKIP’s Anne Marie Waters, who is the founder of Sharia Watch UK, (whose website is hacked on a regular basis). Many people smear Anne Marie as a racist or say she spends too much time criticising Islam, the same criticism Tommy Robinson receives. Anne Marie set up Sharia Watch to confront the growing influence of Sharia in the UK, such as Sharia Councils. Many women from Middle Eastern countries have emailed her and she has a huge support from women living in countries under Sharia law. These Muslim women do not care that Anne Marie is white, or that her party is UKIP. Living under barbaric, deathly rules with their every move controlled and perhaps every part of their bodies cloaked in black, they have slightly more important things to worry about. If anything should outrage them about the political behaviour in the UK, it should be the Labour party’s cowardly appeasement of the very ideology that makes these women’s lives so dreadful. For those that have witnessed the appalling smearing of Anne Marie, it should be very obvious that Sharia does not want to be watched in the UK.

For daring to discuss the problems with multiculturalism, Islam and mass immigration, Anne Marie is smeared as a racist and people, who may have otherwise listened to what she has to say, avoid her because, you know, she is racist – because she talks in actual facts.

I like facts and I like people who are honest and are not scared to tell the truth. Yes there is a problem with Islam, yes we have to talk about mass immigration and yes we need to look at the ways in which multiculturalism has failed and is still failing. Why are we so quick to say someone is a racist or holds bigoted views for wanting to discuss this? Anne Marie was an active member of the Labour party for 8 years before joining UKIP, at which point she realised very quickly how people who were once friends no longer wanted anything to do with her, all because of her new political leanings and mainly because she wanted to talk about immigration.

Anne Marie is also the Deputy Leader of Pegida UK, a street movement that is rarely given a fair hearing by the mainstream media with the result that Pegida is generally viewed as a nasty and thuggish organisation who hate Muslims. The fact that ex-Muslims and Muslims alike support what Pegida are trying to do makes no difference to those who have decided it is easier to call them racist than to admit that perhaps they have a point and are part of the solution rather than the problem.

“The Pegida UK event will be a peaceful, no-alcohol, silent march of protest. Families and people from all backgrounds are welcome to join patriots from all over the country in Rotherham on June 4th. Homophobes, Nazis, racists and anti-Semites, however, are not welcome. PEGIDA UK is in Rotherham to demand people’s rights are protected, that people receive justice, and that all are treated equally under one British law.”

When I first saw Pegida’s silent march for the raped and abused young girls of Rotherham advertised, I thought “I want to go, I want to march in silence for the girls but for the non-white girls.” Not because I didn’t care about the white girls who were undoubtedly the greatest victims of the grooming gangs – of course I do but perhaps I was just worried that people might overlook Muslim victims of these grooming gangs. I thought I would get up and join the speakers on stage and give a speech for the non-white girls and let them know they weren’t forgotten. I emailed Anne Marie and asked if it would be possible to give a speech for the girls nobody is speaking about, the forgotten victims of the grooming scandals, forgotten because the shame and honour surrounding rape in their community is placed higher than help and justice for the victims. She replied and said she would be marching for ALL the girls but that I was more than welcome to come along and march with her and also give a speech.

The date was changed from 28th May to 4th June but, sadly, having other commitments meant I could no longer attend. If I am honest I was somewhat pleased at the change of dates as the thought of publicly speaking, even for such an important cause, filled me with dread. But knowing that Anne Marie was going to be there for all the victims of the grooming gangs I didn’t feel too bad at letting them down.

We shouldn’t need Sharia Watch, UKIP or Pegida to tell us that many women are oppressed in the countries where Sharia is law, or in the UK where its influence is sadly growing.  It should be common knowledge and the only controversial thing should be failing to tackle it, rather than tackling it.

Yet when Anne Marie is vocal about these issues and writes about them she is a “racist” and if you associate with her in any way, then by default you too are a “racist”. Even if you’re Muslim. Go figure.

UKIP’s popularity has been increasing slowly over the years and the reasons for this are perhaps similar to the rise of the SNP’s popularity in the late 90s. With the SNP it was a desire to control Scottish affairs and with UKIP the desire is to keep Britain, British. Which means discussing immigration, discussing Islam, and discussing the real danger that Sharia law, one day, will be implemented into parts of Britain.

UKIP has its share of scandals involving racism, homophobia and sexism within the party and amongst its members, like every other political party. But because this particular party is willing to discuss taboo subjects such as immigration, Islam and British identity, that criticism lacks any sense of proportion, and often indeed any sense of truth, and so the one political party that is perhaps best placed to confront these crucial issues, and which is most willing to speak frankly, is constantly silenced and demonised – which means those crucial matters simply fester.

What happens after that? Well, if credible, mainstream organisations such as UKIP are not allowed to confront these issues then other organisations will, and they will not be pleasant. So, well done to all you ‘anti-racists’ for trying to silence and demonise UKIP. You’ve made it much more likely that actual racist organisations will flourish. What a wonderful achievement.