Friday, 29 April 2011

The Hartlepool Mail believes that Muslims are a race





[Top: these Muslims probably do all belong to a single race/ethnic group - UK-born Pakistani Muslims. But many Muslims aren't Pakistani. In fact, if the above are mainly Pakistani, then they will have faced the racist imperialism of the religion of the desert Arabs - Islam (which will explain how many of them are dressed). The worst racists today are Arabic Muslims. They believe that Allah only speaks Arabic, and that non-Arabic Muslims, from the UK to Malaysia, should wear Arabic clothes, have Arabic names and even make their mosques in the Arabic style. On top of all this. Arab-Muslim racism explains the continued exitence of slavery - the slavery of mainly black Africans - in various Arab Muslim countries. Even Pakistani Muslims, like the ones above, get a hard time in places like Saudi Arabia. That doesn't seem to stop them from being wannabe Arabs.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can an attack on a mosque constitute something that is ‘racially aggravated’? Mosques are not black, white or brown. Islam is not black, white or brown. And Muslims do not constitute a single race. There are Arab, Pakistani, Malaysian, etc. Muslims. Some Muslims are even white. So where does ‘race’ come into all this?

I’ll tell you where it comes from.

Even though the Hartlepool Mail, or even the judges who have sentenced other EDL members in the past (in Carlisle!), may not themselves be Far Left (Commies or Trots), they have adopted the lingo of this ideological grouping.

The Far Left has systematically and cynically tried to ‘racialise’ all criticism of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims) in order to silence any debate about these things.

The term ‘hate crimes’ is also a far-left invention - even if regional papers and judges parrot these pseudo-technical terms. I can guarantee that the racialisation of all criticism of Islam and Muslims, as well as the terms ‘hate crimes’, etc., started life in Leftist journals, within Leftist groups, as well in Leftist academia.

Much of this has filtered down, from these fighters of the Culture War, to people who otherwise haven’t got the time or the inclination to question jargon which was actually created by the Far Left for their specific ideological ends.

The other term that’s often used, though not here, is ‘religious hatred’. Many EDL have denied religious hatred. I wouldn’t.

What’s wrong with hating a religion that is itself very hateful?


What's wrong with hating a religion that has not only practised violent jihad for over 1, 300 years, but which has justified and praised it (in the Koran, the Hadiths, etc.)?



What's wrong with hating a religion that not only accepts slavery, but also practised it for over a thousand years - right up until today in fact (as in the Sudan, and, to a lesser extent, in various other Arab countries)?

The list of Islamic sins, both past and present, is endless. That wouldn’t matter in itself except for that fact that the Koran justifies and extols all of them.

Why don’t the Hartlepool Mail, and the judges in similar cases, actually make an effort to read this despicable book instead of getting all their information second-hand from Muslims or from Leftist groups (such as Searchlight, UAF, etc. - the very same people who invented terms like ‘hate crimes’ and ‘religious hatred’)? If they did, then perhaps a real debate about the threat of Islamism, the many pernicious aspects of Islam, Islamoterrorism, etc. could be had without the fear of being shouted down with terms like ‘hate crime’, ‘religious hatred’, 'racist', 'fascist' and, in the Hartlepool case, ‘racially aggravated criminal damage’.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The news item, 'Accused of race crimes', from the Hartlepool Mail, 29th April, 2011:



Two men and one woman have been charged by police with conspiracy to commit racially aggravated criminal damage.

They are accused of being behind three spray paint attacks, which all are alleged to have happened on the same day last November.

One was at Nasir Mosque, in Brougham Terrace, Hartlepool.

The other addresses were the Albert Guest House and Milko store, both in Shotton Colliery.

A spokesman for Durham Police said: “At the time of the alleged offences all three people claimed membership of the English Defence League.”

A 24-year-old from Peterlee, a 31-year-old from High Pittington, County Durham and a 19-year-old woman from Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, have been bailed to appear at Peterlee Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, May 11.

1 comment:

  1. No one says a word about Bahraini authorities bulldozing a whole load of Shia mozlem mosques!!

    http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/04/27/u-s-urged-to-speak-out-in-aftermath-of-bahrain-mosque-burnings/

    ReplyDelete