Human beings possess a limitless capacity for denial. Even while an attack upon them is well under way, many will resolutely insist that it’s not happening. They will continue to deny it until the battle is lost.
Human beings possess a limitless capacity for denial. Even while an attack upon them is well under way, many will resolutely insist that it’s not happening. They will continue to deny it until the battle is lost. Speaking out about the horrific aspects of the Islamic religion is like standing in front of a crowded room trying desperately to warn its inhabitants about the monster that has just entered via the back door. Instead of turning to face monster, the crowd attacks the one issuing the warning; they were much happier before you mentioned the monster. Ignorance is bliss. Besides, the warning was issued with the wrong accent, and to keep the class divide intact, that warning must be dismissed as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The Lancashire Telegraph recently published an article that has passed by without much comment. It states: Councils across the UK are starting to adopt an agreed list of examples of Islamophobia.
This followed the efforts of an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) to decide a definition of this apparent prejudice. The APPG has so far come up with this: "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."
Notice the matter-of-factness of the statement “Islamophobia is rooted in racism”. No it isn’t. It’s rooted in the monstrous cruelties to apostates, Jews, homosexuals, women, and anyone who isn’t a bearded Muslim male. It is also rooted in the fact that all of these cruelties are not merely sanctioned, but commanded, throughout Islamic scripture. Anyone can read it and learn this for themselves.
The agreed lists put together by councils however are a lot more specific than this. They are, quite literally, a demand to British non-Muslims directing us as to what we may or may not say about Islam.
Muslims are telling non-Muslims what we’re allowed to say. That is one of the major characteristics of an Islamic state, and we have assumed the position of dhimmi – the non-Muslim living under the jackboot of Islam.
Here are two of the dictats:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.
Pay special attention to this section: especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in to politics. This is truly astonishing. Muslim entryism in to politics is very real. In my book, Beyond Terror, I describe in detail what happens when some Muslims enter politics and then use their position to implement Islamic rules – exactly what these councils are attempting to do.
Here is another:
Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
This raises an important question – what if Islamic scripture demands that Muslims have greater loyalty to the ummah than to any nation? It does. Are we not allowed to talk about this? It seems not, and that’s largely because Islam disallows non-Muslims from speaking about Islam.
Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic.
This one suggests that there is no collective within Islam, and if you say otherwise, you’re Islamophobic. Muslims are all individuals yes, but they also share something in common, they’re all Muslims. Understanding that every individual Muslim doesn’t think the same way does not change the nature of Islamic scripture, or how it is put in to practice the world over. This particular injunction attempts to prevent us condemning Islamic states such as the Saudi Arabia or equally barbaric Iran (among others), and we certainly aren’t allowed to blame Islam for the barbarism, even if the country in question is constitutionally Islamic.
In other words, even if a country itself professes to be following Islam, while instituting its horrific aspects, we must never blame that on Islam itself.
Regardless of the details, what is happening here is that British people are being told what we may or may not say about a religion. That means that we can’t object while it stamps its feet all over our laws, our freedoms, and our rights. It is like the enlightenment never happened. We are once again restricted in our criticism of religion and we must once again bow down to clerical authority, this time imported from abroad. If you are wise enough to understand the significance of this, don’t expect a sympathetic audience – particularly if you have a certain kind of accent.
Tommy Robinson is about to expose the bias of the BBC. This should come as little surprise. But what may surprise some is the extent of the snobbery of the same organisation. Indeed, the extent of the snobbery of the mainstream media in general is about to be revealed to all.
In my own experience of dealing with MSM journalists, I can personally attest to this snobbery. They simply don’t listen. Journalists come to these discussions with an in-built anti-working class hatred that colours all they hear. Working class people can’t possibly have a well thought out argument, we can’t possibly be concerned about such lofty ideals as free speech, democracy, women’s rights, or secularism. No, our objections must all stem from “hate”. This was evident again in my recent appearance on BBC’s Big Questions. No matter what I said, it wasn’t heard. I pointed out the distinction between Islam and Muslims, it wasn’t heard. I pointed out the liberties I ought to enjoy in free post-enlightenment Europe, it wasn’t heard. I pointed out the immense threat to women and girls posed by the deliberate importation of a violently misogynistic ideology, it wasn’t heard. But when someone with plums lodged firmly in cheeks told the audience that I am an “opportunist” exploiting terrible crimes to justify my ‘hatred’, this was not only heard but accepted as fact.
The irony of it all is that those who hold this bias against me are the ones who lack the capacity to understand what I am saying. They look down on me, make assumptions about me, and they so for two reasons: their snobbery, and their inability to understand the case I put forward. It is they who lack the intelligence to absorb the arguments and debate them, all the while dismissing my points as ‘ignorance’.
There is still an enormous class problem in Britain, and it has resulted in the stifling of vital political discussion about free speech, secularism, and civil rights. Whether the snobbery emanates form the BBC or from Nigel Farage (who seems to think if a person has a tattoo they can rightly be dismissed as trash), the class-based bias that has silenced countless voices is about to be blown right open, thanks to Tommy Robinson.
How they must hate it – being brought to task by the working class they so despise and fear. Let’s hope it brings them down, nobody deserves it more.
Anne Marie Waters