TheOPINIONATOR

MOSQUE COSTS RUB SALT IN TAXPAYER'S "WOUNDS"

Talk about adding insult to injury!!! After more than 23,000 people signed a petition in opposition to the building of mosque in Dudley, taxpayer now get to pay $200,000 (100,000 pounds) for the hearing & other costs that were needed for the Dudley Council to vote to overturn their original decision to ban the mosque.

Clearly the inspector, who ruled on the matter, doesn't believe in listening to the citizens of Britain but prefers to pander to muslims and build yet another mosquetrosity - he is another example of a dictatorial NuLabour minion who is (purposely) out of touch with the British people (in addition to being a pompous wanker).

There is a small glimmer of hope that the mosque - with its Christianity domineering 65' minaret that will undoubtedly blast the 5 times a day "screech to prayer" - will not be built as there is some question that the building must be completed by year's end - which is extremely unlikely.  But, you can count on groups of whinging muslims shouting "Islamophobia" and "racism" seeking said term be extended and that the city dhimmis will comply.

It is high time for British citizens to vote for politicians who will not only listen to and act upon the wishes of the British people but also - when required -appoint others to do so.  "Democracy be damned" NuLabour is clearly out to decimate the indigenous non-muslim British population and place us/them in a permanent position of submission to Islam. These quislings need to GO!

entire article:

Mosque inquiry will cost taxpayers £100k

Taxpayers will pick up a £100,000 bill for the planning inquiry which resurrected plans for a Black Country mosque, it has been revealed.

The cost of the four-day hearing will be met by Dudley Council after the Government’s planning inspectorate overturned its decision to reject the £18 million proposal.

The authority was forced to hire security staff to police the summit at the inspector’s request - but will not receive a penny from Whitehall to cover costs.

The decision to allow the appeal for the project in Hall Street, Dudley, was this week announced after the public inquiry in June.

Dudley Council boss David Caunt described the decision as a “sad day” for local democracy saying it ignored the 22,000 people who signed a petition in opposition.

And Councillor Caunt said that the £100,000 bill rubbed salt in the wound.

“I’m very frustrated that a one man government-appointed judge and jury can turn up, listen to the arguments for four days and drive around the borough before coming to the conclusion that he knows better than the locals. The councillor added: “And then we have to pick up the bill for it.

“The security was requested by the inspector himself, but we have to pay,” he went on to say.

The council chief warned the price of the inquiry could even run over the authority’s initial £100,000 estimate because of the tight security measures.

Work on the mosque, featuring a 65-feet minaret, could start before Christmas. However the plans could yet be scuppered by a land-swap deal which states that the building must be “substantially” built by the end of the year.

Dudley Muslim Association now has outline planning permission for the scheme, but still needs to submit a detailed application which the council has up to 13 weeks to determine.

When the site was transferred to the association in 2003 there was a legal agreement that if the project was not “substantially” completed by the end of this year the land would be returned to the council. Muslim leaders have called for an extension to the deadline.

Mushtaq Hussain, secretary of Dudley Muslim Association, said: “We always maintained the condition was subject to us getting planning permission and having a reasonable and realistic time to get the project completed.”

THE MUSLIM RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE OF BRITISH GIRLS

Yet again comes another tragic incidence of a muslim man raping a young British girl - this time a 14 year old girl, innocently walking her dog, was raped by a man "described as Asian, in his early twenties..." Of course the politically correct media-speak word "Asian" consistently means Muslim.

This latest crime leads one to wonder just how many rapes of British girls and women, by muslim men, have recently occurred in the UK. Below are some VERY recent incidents of muslim rape in the UK:

The one noted above - Girl -14  -raped while out walking her dog

Man jailed for committing more rapes while on bail for rape

Sex Attack by mosque leader "Changed my girl" says Mum

Muslim man kidnaps 14 yr old school girl for sex

Muslim Men rape four British School Girls at Amusement Park

UK Muslim preacher jailed for rape

Accounts of the above rapes made the pages of British newspapers in the past few months. Clearly not all rapes, in the UK, are perpetrated by muslims but considering that muslims currently only account for approximately 3% of the British population - with muslim men being an even smaller percentage - one must be alarmed at the high rate of rape crime caused by so small a group. (For more on the relationship between Islam and rape go here ) Also note that muslim leaders or holy men have been found guilty of rape.

Equally alarming is the fact that the same type of rapes of non-muslim girls and women appears to be escalating across Western Europe in direct proportion to muslim immigration and population increase. Well know blogger Fjordman has chronicled how authorities in both Sweden and Norway have purposely obfuscated the increasing numbers of violent "immigrant" rapes on non-muslim women.

From an Oslo, Norway newspaper Aftenposten = "Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily. The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.....Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments."

Obviously European government authorities do not want to besmirch their beloved quest for multiculturalism by tainting it with tales of rampant rapes by "Asian immigrants" as well their fear of the truth-strangling political correctness that threatens anyone with accusations of "racism" or "Islamophobia" if muslims are pointed out as being grossly over involved with crimes.

In the UK, muslim leaders have made it quite clear the they believe muslim men are entitled to rape non-muslim women: See LEADING ENGLISH MUSLIM LAWYER ENDORSES THE KILLING AND RAPE OF NON-MUSLIMS or MUSLIM CLERIC LIKENS WOMEN NOT WEARING VEILS TO "UNCOVERED MEAT".

Despite the facts has the UK fallen into lockstep with the castrated, dhimmi behaviour shown by most EU countries? When will this clear outrage of an epidemic of Rape Jihad against our women and young girls be publicly outed, condemned and ceased?

Will we as a thousands year old civilised society protect our British girls and women? --or will they be thrown upon the funeral pyre along with our British culture, laws, courage and humanity?

UK TAXPAYERS PROVIDE THE "GOOD LIFE" FOR CONVICTED TERRORIST

This is a follow-up on a blog I wrote a few weeks ago titled "Where Are Terrorists Safe?"  The answer of course is NuGreat Britain:

"The most recent case of  Abu Qatada, a convicted terrorist, whose rights to be free on bail and of avoiding deportation back to his homeland of Jordan on the CHANCE that he may receive punishment there, has clearly placed his comfort and safety as a higher priority than that of the British people. To add insult to injury the intended victims of his violence, the British people, are then forced to pay thousands of pounds for this man's food, shelter, and all living expenses - including a bonus for his "bad back........So how does Qatada show his gratitude for the hard working taxpayers generosity?  Why by immediately releasing a book telling muslims to commit terrorist attacks against the "non-believers"- Western nations. Thus is the sham of the ludicrous British judicial system which in conjunction with the EU Human Rights laws has placed the perpetrator (particularly if he/she is a muslim) with greater value than the victims. To add to the farce - Qatada was warned by judge to not meet with Osama Bin Laden."

What kind of additional punishment did Qatada receive for publishing a book inciting violence and hatred? Surely he should at least receive universal vocal condemnation on a par like the worldwide elites loaded upon the cartoonist and newpapers that published the Mo-cartoon or the international denouncing of Geert Wilders for have the audacity to expose Islam in his movie. But there was nothing but "cricket chirping" silence from the dhimmi British government, judiciary, law enforcement and world organizations.

So what kind of life does a Al Qaeda terrorist actually live post conviction-in the UK? What does the annual million pounds ($2,000,000 US dollars) the taxpayers are billed for keeping a "disabled" terrorist in their midst actually buy? One could only describe it as the "good life" - free from concerns of safety, hunger, and housing ---- all the worries that the law abiding British families feel - especially with the current bad economic conditions.

"On the day the nation mourned the 52 innocents massacred in the 2005 outrage, he had the nerve to flash a smug grin. Qatada managed to lug his shopping despite claiming £150 a week incapacity benefit for a BAD BACK...... He also had a rucksack on one shoulder. At one point on his trip, Qatada stroked his beard and shared a joke with a woman about his prayer beads.

Watching this convicted BAD BACK terrorist freely walk around the streets of London lugging a rucksack, 6 large bottles of Coca Cola, and a mega package of toilet paper is enough to outrage any law abiding person. As Abu Qatada stands around chatting and joking with his friends the REAL joke is on the British people.

for article go to "Smirk of Hate"

Below is a picture of Osama bin Laden's #2 out for a stroll and some toilet rolls:

POLICE DOGS TO WEAR BOOTIES TO APPEASE MUSLIMS

Well well another ludicrous example of just how far the British government and/or police will stoop in order to pander to muslims.  This latest show of dhimmitude was most likely prompted by muslims declaring that airport police "sniffer" dogs are unclean and demanding that the dogs must not touch the robes of muslims - as described in a recent TheO post "Muslims Offended by Sniffer Dogs". - as well as the even more absurd muslim outrage over a police placard advertising a new non-emergency phone number - muslims were angry that an adorable German Shepherd puppy, a police dog in training, was pictured - the police response was an instant "dhimmi-apology"-of course. (TheO post explains all in Another Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog)

Now looks like the police have at least a semi-solution in their quest to appease muslim dog outrage. Police dogs are now being fitted with booties so those muslim perceived "unclean" police dogs will not leave dog footprints and scent when used to check for bombs, etc in mosques and muslim homes. 

Get that?? Dogs checking for BOMBS (one would believe that there has to be at least a suspicion that bombs are present) - and our police's top concern is all about appeasing muslims. To think that highly trained dogs, risking their lives to save people from being blown apart are "offensive" -as muslims do - is an insult to not only these hardworking animals but also against the majority of British people who reside in the most "dog friendly" country in the world - or at least it USED to be before muslim "offense" and appeasement became top priority.

Oh - by the way- looks like muslims, as with so many other "offenses", also pick and choose on the dog issue --- predominately muslim Egypt uses police sniffer dogs at their Cairo airport (presumably without booties) - recently one of these dogs sniffed out snakes and reptiles being illegally smuggled out of the country by--guess who. Read story here.

Entire article:

SNIFFER DOGS TO WEAR MUSLIM "BOOTIES"

BY STUART MacDonald

Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes of Muslims so as not to cause offence.

Guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) urge awareness of religious sensitivities when using dogs to search for drugs and explosives. The guidelines, to be published this year, were designed to cover mosques but have been extended to include other buildings.

Where Muslims object, officers will be obliged to use sniffer dogs only in exceptional cases. Where dogs are used, they will have to wear bootees with rubber soles. “We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people’s homes. It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it,” Acpo said.

Problems faced by the use of sniffer dogs were highlighted last week when Tayside police were forced to apologise for a crime prevention poster featuring a german shepherd puppy, in response to a complaint by a Muslim councillor.

Islamic injunctions warn Muslims against contact with dogs, which are regarded as “unclean”.

Police dogs at present are issued with footwear only at scenes of explosions to prevent them injuring their paws on broken glass.

Ibrahim Mogra, one of Britain’s leading imams, said the measures were unnecessary: “In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I think Acpo needs to consult better and more widely.

“I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but this is cultural. Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should do our bit to change our attitudes.”

John Midgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: “The police are in effect being overly sensitive to potential criminals and not being sensitive enough to the public at large who need to be protected. These sort of things have a counter-productive effect because they cause huge friction between different communities.”

Caroline Kisko, of the Kennel Club, said: “We would not condone any attempt to make search dogs wear special clothing, which could cause them distress.”

2 ENGLISH SCHOOLBOYS PUNISHED FOR NOT KNEELING & PRAYING TO ALLAH

One cannot open any hard copy newspaper or internet news site today without the blazing headling stating "BRITISH MUSLIMS FEEL LIKE THE JEWS OF EUROPE". Now anyone who reads TheOPINIONATOR or any of the MANY other blogs and websites that have chronicled what can only be described as the mass immigration/colonisation of Great Britain by muslims knows with great certainty that the exact opposite is occuring. We highlight the daily pandering and dhimmi behaviour shown to muslims by British government, police and other authorities thus this jawdropping headline is nothing more than claptrap used to abet the continuation of the muslim initiated exaggerated claims of victimisation and the myth of Islamophobia. For as long as muslims can be percieved as victims the longer they can reap the rewards of being seen as the "downtrodden"  and the subsequent sympathies of the multicultural gulping, heritage loathing European/British liberals. In turn, Muslims have used victimisation and "hurt feelings" as a shield to implement their culture and Sharia Law into Britain.

This brings me to a far more egregious example of the so called "victims"- who of course are not the muslims at all - but the children of Great Britain who are systematically being deprived of their heritage, being made to feel guilty for the heritage OR having muslim customs forced upon them. In this latest case - two schoolboys received punishment for not submitting to demands -BY THEIR TEACHER - that they dress up as muslims bow down and worship Allah- in Arabic - in their school classroom.

"Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights."

This brainwashing by the teacher (notice how the principal pleads ignorance)should cause more than just outrage - it should cause fear to grip the hearts of every true British man and woman as to how far their "leaders" are willing to go to sacrifice the thousands year old culture and customs of Great Britain on the altar of multiculturalism in order to muslmise the country and appease the muslim population. For that is EXACTLY what is happening.

The real victims are are our children and every single one of us is guilty of allowing their minds to be warped into believing that British pride is wrong and that other imported cultures are not just equal to(that was never the goal of multiculturalism) but superior to Britain. In every country where multiculturalism has taken hold the indigenous people and culture has suffered. Thus multiculturaliam has opened the British and European door to Islamic domination. Islam does not reciprocate as one mother noted:

"But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

She's right. Now we must ask ourselves - just what will it take for us to say NO to the stealth implementation of Islam/Sharia Law and the consequential deterioration of our Western culture?

Will we allow our children to be punished for NOT bowing to Islam?

Entire article:

Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:30 AM on 04th July 2008

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

Alsager School, near Stoke, has received furious complaints from parents after two Year 7 boys were punished for refusing to kneel to Allah during a religious studies class

One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right, it's taking things too far.

"I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer.

"Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.

"I don't want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it."

Another parent Karen Williams said: "I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable.

"I haven't got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn't do any harm.

"But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Allah'.

"Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshment break because of the teacher.

"Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.

"They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

"My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson." The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: "It's absolutely disgusting, there's no other way of putting it.

"My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn't do it they were given detention.

"I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I've also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.

"But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

Parents said that their children were made to bend down on their knees on prayer mats which the RE teacher had got out of her cupboard and they were also told to wear Islamic headgear during the lesson on Tuesday afternoon.

Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: "It's difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.

"At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.

"The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn't around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.

"I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment."

A statement from Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school read: "The headteacher David Black contacted this authority immediately complaints were received.

"Enquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency and all parents will be informed accordingly.

"Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.

"We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity."

ANOTHER CASE OF THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG

Undoubtedly I am far from the only one who is absoutely SICK & TIRED of the muslim minority, in the UK, thinking that every bit of their culture should be implemented in Great Britain with NO regard to the thousands year old culture that the British people themselves have achieved and lived for millenia. (We could take this worldwide - but that is for a future blog) Let's face it - no one dragged these muslims, kicking and screaming into the UK. No one is forcing them to stay. Even more sickening is the British police and government who (for what appears to be on a daily basis) twist and turn themselves into apologetic dhimmi pretzels (let's emphasize that to DHIMMI PRETZELS) trying to appease bleating, whining and constantly "offended" muslims - offended by the same culture that THEY have chosen avail themselves - the same country that provides so many of those generous financial and physical benefits.  This isn't just insidious multiculturalism -  this is British cultural apartheid.

The muslim daily whinge and moan today - is none other than a picture of an adorable puppy sitting inside a police hat to advertise a new police non-emergency phone number. (I have written extensively about muslims & dogs - to read a few go here and here.) You would think, based on the muslim indignation, granted it is far short of that shown regarding the Danish MO-Cartoons or the Teddy Bear Teacher, but nevertheless defiant in its demands that the puppy poster not be used and vowing that, regardless of its importance, it will not be displayed in muslim businesses, etc.

Of course, based on past acrobatics used by politicians and police to instantly react to publicly appease the muslim community - local Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif immediatly contacted Tayside Police Chief Constable John Vine to discuss the "offence".  Asif said: 'My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards. It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities....'People who have shops just won't put up the postcard. Apparently the "expected" apologetic statement, from the Chief Constable came forthwith: 'This was an oversight and did not seek to offend or upset.'

Oversight? Why is it that the muslims think that every niche and cranny of British life, culture, mores, etc must first be approved by muslims? (Is it because the constant drumbeat of government and police appeasement?) Yet when it comes to muslims and the stealth implementation of Sharia Law into the UK or its customs -some of which are untenable and barbaric -- the British people (and everyone else) are immediately labeled as Islamophobic if great respect and subservience is not immediately shown. This is exactly what muslims want, expect and unfortunately have so far succeeded in establishing not only in the UK but most of Europe.

I'd like to think that the "Puppy Incident" will help to wake up the nation that has always loved it's dogs. In fact a huge number of dog breeds originated in the British Isles - more than anywhere else in the world.  Are we going to let the Islamic spurred hatred and disgust of our cherished "best friends" dictate to us? It is time to stop letting the tail wag the dog - and high time for the dog to start biting back-

WHAT DO YOU FIND OFFENSIVE?

Article in full:

MUSLIMS OUTRAGED AT POLICE ADVERT FEATURING CUTE PUPPY SITTING IN A POLICEMAN'S HAT

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman's hat advertising a Scottish police force's new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.   

Tayside Police's new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.

The choice of image on the Tayside Police cards - a black dog sitting in a police officer's hat - has now been raised with Chief Constable John Vine.

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: 'My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.

'It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities.

'They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they'd seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn't have done it.' 

Councillor Asif, who is a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board, said that the force had a diversity adviser and was generally very aware of such issues.

He raised the matter with Mr Vine at a meeting of the board.   

Tayside Police Chief Constable John Vine said the advert was not intended to cause any offence

The chief constable said he was unaware of the concerns and that the force had not sought to cause any upset but added he would look into the matter.

Councillor Asif said: 'People who have shops just won't put up the postcard. But the police have said to me that it was simply an oversight and they did not seek to offend or upset.'

Cards featuring police dog-in-training Rebel have been distributed to communities throughout the area to advertise the single number point of contact for non-emergency calls to the police.

Rebel has proved a popular recruit for Tayside Police after coming through the very first Lothian and Borders Police dog-breeding programme in February.   

One of seven German Shepherd pups born in early December, he has now completed his course of inoculations, and is free to venture out onto the streets of Tayside.

A spokesman for Tayside Police said: 'Trainee police dog Rebel has proved extremely popular with children and adults since being introduced to the public, aged six weeks old, as Tayside Police's newest canine recruit.

'His incredible world-wide popularity - he has attracted record visitor numbers to our website - led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number.

'We did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.'

ST GEORGE'S DAY PARADE AXED FOR SECOND TIME

It should come as no surprise that after previously dashing months of preparation and disappointing hundreds of local children and adults who had prepared to be in the "first" planned St George's Day Parade, axed last April by the city council- that the post-dated parade has also been cancelled. The first parade, scheduled to appropriately occur on St George's Day, was stopped by hugely suspicious "official" excuses of "health and safety" concerns when in actuality it was concern for the muslim community that was placed at a higher priority, by Bradford city officials, than the traditional English parade.  But an even more precise reason was soon apparent = muslim violence = " because the authorities fear it could spark race riots...... council bosses in Bradford, West Yorks, have ditched the event over concerns it could upset the Asian community, many of them Muslim."

I wrote about this travesty - you can read it here: UK ST GEORGE PARADE SCRAPPED

So why is the 2nd promised post-dated parade now defunct? According to the article:

"The announcement was met with anger and disbelief, and in a bid to pour oil over troubled waters an alternate date of July 1 was proposed. Now this second choice has also been pulled.

Vicar of Girlington, Reverend Tony Tooby, said: “They told us they were going to hold it on July 1 instead, but they have cancelled that.

“I thought they would cancel it, they just held it out as an olive branch to try and shut us up. The reality is the support for the event had gone because the sponsors lost interest.”

Guess the "powers that be" think that having a St. George's Day Parade on a date other than St. George's Day is rather silly - but wasn't that the point of moving the date -to begin with? Regardless of the latest faux reason yet another show of English pride has been banned from the streets of Great Britain. Guess dhimmi officials feel far safer with the March for Mohammed.

Notice how latest story has "rewritten history" - go to NOW SECOND PARADE IS ABANDONED

ISLAM & THE MYTH OF MULTICULTURALISM

Clearly the European Union and more specifically the UK government have for decades proceeded on a course of social engineering and indigenous cultural suicide through multiculturalism. This has been done through no democratic vote of the British people but by the stealth elitists changing laws, discouraging British ethic pride,  encouraging rampant immigration into and across UK/European countries and by embellishing the immigrant cultures. Also used as a tool is vehemently enforced political correctness which greatly punishes anyone who voices or writes their disagreement with multiculturalism OR expressed overt pride in their British history and culture. The anti-thesis of multiculturalism is moral, religous and cultural solidarity.

It is hard to say if multiculturalism is the tool that has caused the imposition of the muslim culture on the British people OR if the proponents of Islam played a major role in the root cause or impetus of and behind the derisive multiculturalism - regardless the end effect has often proven deleterious to the British people and culture. One only has to read their daily newspaper to see constant changes in British society to embrace - in fact - to embellish the muslim culture over that of the British heritage. Yet, though said with bold "forked tongue" the UK politicians still tell us that they want enculturation or assimilation of the muslim population into the Western world. They spout rhetoric telling us that second and third generations will become more British and less "muslim" citing "Britishness" is to be re-emphasized to fit the Nu Great Britain. Yet the exact opposite is occurring.  Islam refuses to change and its youth often face death for turning to western ways. The government in turn have chosen to act more like dhimmis.

Now comes yet another of what is really going on in the muslim community. Muslims imams are adding roadblocks to the westernization of muslim women. These women are now being told that they must NOT marry non-muslim Western men. Obviously the imams want to keep their women for muslim-only procreation and thus the progeny of these marriages will remain under the control of Islam and Sharia law not western/British governments. Yet another fact showing us that what is occurring in Great Britain and Europe is muslim colonization NOT the assimilation of the rapidly growing muslim population.

For article go to here

WHERE ARE TERRRORISTS SAFE?

As we approach the third anniversary of the 7/7/05 bombings and reflect upon the security changes that (should) make Britain an even safer place to live - one is startled by the daily news articles that speak to the opposite occurring. In fact one could say that terrorists could and do live quite safely in the Nu-UK.

The British people feel that whilst they are being monitored by CCTV cameras  -seemingly invading nearly every facet of daily life- that the real threats - the muslim terrorists/prisoners are being handled with kid gloves and given preferential treatments. The most recent case of  Abu Qatada, a convicted terrorist, whose rights to be free on bail and of avoiding deportation back to his homeland of Jordan on the CHANCE that he may receive punishment there, has clearly placed his comfort and safety as a higher priority than that of the British people. To add insult to injury the intended victims of his violence, the British people, are then forced to pay thousands of pounds for this man's food, shelter, and all living expenses - including a bonus for his "bad back":

"Abu Qatada is to receive almost £8,000 a year in benefits because he has a bad back. The fanatical cleric, said to be Osama Bin Laden’s ambassador in Europe, will get £150 a week of taxpayer’s cash after being released from jail last week. He was granted the incapacity benefit because his condition makes him unfit to work – even though a curfew allows him out of his home for only two hours a day, meaning it would be almost impossible for him to get a job. Qatada left Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire after the Appeal Court blocked his deportation to Jordan. He is now living in an £800,000 four-bedroom Edwardian semi in a tree-lined street in West London. His incapacity allowance will push the family’s total annual handouts to more than £50,000. His wife has been claiming £45,000 a year in child benefit, income support, housing benefit and council tax credit for the past four years.....Taxpayers are also footing an estimated £500,000 a year bill to provide round-the-clock surveillance on Qatada, who has been described by a judges as a ‘truly dangerous individual’.
He arrived in Britain 14 years ago on a forged passport and was granted asylum the following year."

So how does Qatada show his gratitude for the hard working taxpayers generosity?  Why by immediately releasing a book telling muslims to commit terrorist attacks against the "non-believers"- Western nations. Thus is the sham of the ludicrous British judicial system which in conjunction with the EU Human Rights laws has placed the perpetrator (particularly if he/she is a muslim) with greater value than the victims. To add to the farce - Qatada was warned by judge to not meet with Osama Bin Laden.

That brings us to the next question.  What IF Osama bin Laden were to be found in Great Britain - what kind of life and punishment would he receive? The below article, though a bit "tongue in cheek" aptly spells out Osama's likely fate in the UK:

ENTIRE ARTICLE:

OSAMA WOULD BE SAFE IN THE UK

Published: 24 Jun 2008

POOR old Osama bin Laden, scuttling around the war-torn Afghan mountains to avoid death or capture.

He must find those stinking caves bad for his health. And where does a chap go for a beard trim or a clean set of robes?

But hope is on the horizon for the world’s most wanted terrorist.

There’s one place on Earth where he would be perfectly safe. Britain.

Here, in the land where we throw nobody out, Bin Laden has every chance of ending his days amid peace and plenty.

His mate and fellow 9/11 monster Abu Qatada has been freed from detention by our judges on human rights grounds. He spent his time behind bars writing a book calling for British troops to be killed.

One of Qatada’s bail conditions is that he must not meet Bin Laden.

Comfy

But suppose Osama slipped in through Heathrow, as many do, without being spotted?

Suppose cops find him paying a visit to his old chum Qatada

We could hold him without charge for 42 days, yes.

But what hard evidence could we produce to put him in court and convict him?

Can we really prove it is him on those grainy videos ranting against the West?

When his 42-day detention ended, the Human Rights Act would stop us deporting him to the United States, or his native Saudi Arabia, or even Pakistan, as they all have the death penalty.

Pesky human rights campaigner Shami Chakrabarti would doubtless be on the case. Bin Laden would demand as his brief Abu Hamza’s Muslim lady lawyer Mudassar Arani, whose firm has pocketed £3.5million from the taxpayer to defend terror suspects.

In no time Osama would be installed in a large and comfy free house and showered with benefits.

Taxpayers would have to provide him with round-the-clock protection.

The NHS would turf some poor old chap out of his hospital bed to make way for sickly Bin Laden to be given priority treatment.

Vast compensation for unlawful arrest would set him up nicely for a life of leisure.

He’d end up on Question Time. He could try his luck as another dancing Muslim on Britain’s Got Talent.

Maybe Celebrity Big Brother would beckon.

Perhaps tea at No10. Or a peerage.

Pray silence for Lord Bin Laden of Tora Bora.

You think I’m joking?

Abu Qatada, a dangerous enemy of our nation, is living in luxury in an £800,000 house paid for by you and me.

He is being given £150 a week sick benefit because he says he can’t work because of a bad back. How did he injure it? Hauling explosives around?

Qatada’s wife pockets £45,000 of our money every year in handouts.

The bill for keeping tabs on him now he’s free will be £500,000 a year.

While Labour have been strutting their stuff about 42-day detention, the reality of the situation could not be clearer. Our courts, our laws, our way of life have been reduced to a farce by Labour’s folly of embracing EU human rights legislation. The result is that Abu Qatada — and Bin Laden too, should he come here — have all the rights in the world. The rest of us can do nothing about it.

SCARF WEARING BUSHRA NOAH WINS PAYOUT FOR "HURT FEELINGS"

Being an "urban and funky" hair salon just doesn't cut it in Britain - neither does an employer hiring an employee who best fits into the business model. Thus is the case of Bushra Noah - who recently sued the new entreprenuer Sarah Desrosiers - owner of the Wedge Salon in North London. The nineteen year old headscarf wearing muslim, Ms Noah, had applied for a job at the trendy hairdressing salon but Ms Desrosiers expressed concern, during the subsequent in person interview, that as hair styling was her business that it made no sense to have a stylist whose hair could not be used as an advertisement for the salon. Apparently ALL the other employed stylists showcased various alternative haircuts with their own hair.

"But the devout Muslim insisted that wearing her headscarf was essential to her beliefs. Miss Noah, who has been rejected for 25 different hairdressing jobs after interviews, is suing Miss Desrosiers for more than £15,000 for injury to her feelings plus an unspecified sum for lost earnings."

At a hearing that just took place Ms Noah described how her "hurt feeling" caused her such distress - one wonders why the other 25 hairdresser's did not also get sued for Noah's supposed mental discomfort.

"During the hearing Ms Noah, who lives in Acton, west London, told the tribunal that she was "devastated" that she was not offered the job of assistant stylist "due to my headscarf". "

Whereas the salon owner, Ms Derosiers, gave several legitimate reasons why she did not hire Ms. Noah - to no surprise the tribunal decided to award Busrha Noah $8,000:

"The panel found that Ms Noah had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview . She was awarded £4,000 damages for "injury to feelings".

Ms Derosiers commented that : "I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don't feel I deserve it."

Well I don't feel that you deserve to be punished for deciding what is in the best interest of your business either!  Apparently the question of the 25 other hairdressing job denials never made it into the tribunal evidence. Isn't that an indication that Ms Noah may have been trolling for the right person to "set up" for a lawsuit? Or, are 25 other salon owners going to be sued by Ms Noah for hurt feelings? This tribunal decision clearly interferes with an owner being able to use good business judgement.

It also is yet another example where muslim's suing for "hurt feelings" always pays.

entire article:

Muslim stylist wins £4,000 payout

Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers of religious discrimination when she failed to offer her a job at her Wedge salon in King's Cross, central London.

An employment tribunal panel dismissed the 19-year-old's claim but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination.

Ms Desrosiers said she needed stylists to showcase alternative hairstyles.

During the hearing Ms Noah, who lives in Acton, west London, told the tribunal that she was "devastated" that she was not offered the job of assistant stylist "due to my headscarf".

Urban image

Ms Desrosiers, 32, told the panel that Ms Noah lived too far away, but was persuaded to give her an interview in May last year.

When the applicant arrived for the interview she claimed the Canadian salon owner was clearly shocked by the fact she wore a headscarf.

Ms Desrosiers told the tribunal she was surprised it had not been mentioned earlier and expected her staff to reflect the "funky, urban" image of her salon.

The panel found that Ms Noah had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview .

She was awarded £4,000 damages for "injury to feelings".

In its judgment, the panel stated: "We were satisfied by the respondent's evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at all times when at work."

It added: "There was no specific evidence before us as to what would (for sure) have been the actual impact of the claimant working in her salon with her head covered at all times."

Speaking after the ruling the salon owner said: "I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don't feel I deserve it."

Ms Noah refused to comment on the matter.