The moral equivalence crowd, the one that says all cultures are created equal, except that non-Western cultures are better than others, is going to have to pretzel itself severely to deal with this one:

Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learnt.

Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality after a spate of reports that gay youths were being hanged.

President Ahmadinejad, questioned by students in New York two months ago about the executions, dodged the issue by suggesting that there were no gays in his country.

***

[Some examples of] Sharia’s victims

2005

— Homosexuals Farbod Mostaar and Ahmad Chooka sentenced to death. Iran said Chooka had kidnapped, knifed and raped a student

— A woman called Soghra was sentenced to stoning for adultery and being an accomplice to her husband’s murder

— Two men executed in public after being found guilty of a homosexual relationship. A newspaper said they were convicted of sodomy, rape and kidnapping

— Zhila Izadi, 13, sentenced to stoning after becoming pregnant with her brother’s child

2006

— Malek Ghorbany sentenced to stoning for adultery

— Leila Qomi sentenced to stoning for adultery and assisting a man who killed her husband. He received 100 lashes

2007

— Jafar Kiana stoned for adultery. His female lover Mokarrameh Ebrahimi sentenced to the same fate

Right now, even faced with this stark admission about Iran’s genocidal approach towards homosexuals, the multi-culti governments in Europe are in denial. Even as England is happy to ban Israelis who note, accurately, that Muslims are out to kill Israelis, and to welcome terrorists with open arms, and even as Holland is sending into hiding yet another person who has offended Islam, both England and Holland are working hard to send a teenager back to Iran, where it is almost certain that he will be hanged, as his gay friend and compatriot was last year:

A gay teenager who faces being hanged if sent back to Iran is a step closer to being forced to return today, after the Netherlands followed Britain in refusing his appeal for asylum.

Mehdi Kazemi, 19, came to London to study English in 2005 but says he later discovered that his boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian police, charged with sodomy and hanged.

He claimed asylum in Britain, saying that he feared for his life if he returned. However, his case was refused late last year, so he fled to the Netherlands.

A Dutch court today, however, ordered him to return to Britain, leaving the teenager once again facing deportation.

According to Iranian human rights campaigners, more than 4,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979.

Borg Palm, his lawyer, said today that the Dutch court had ruled he could only claim asylum in the UK - but that it was not “totally sure” he would be forced to return to Britain immediately as a European court could temporarily halt the move.

The British and Dutch stance is not surprising. In the world of cognitive dissonance, if you’ve hung your hat on the multi-culti tree, and proudly proclaimed that “they are just like us, only better,” then the fact that contradictory information comes along showing that they are not just like us but are, in fact, cruel and bestial, must be disregarded — and damn the consequences for the innocent.

Multiculturalism — you’ve got to love it, since it takes false facts and erroneous principles, and out of all those falsities manages to create real death and pain.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

A year or two ago, the press reported on a rather charming religion called the Sky Kingdom cult that had popped up in Malaysia. The worshippers had built a Disney-esque little temple that centered on a giant teapot that symbolized the beneficence of love and the purity of water pouring from heaven. As is typical for a religion that always seems to operate from the paranoid viewpoint, the Malaysian government (which is Islamic), declared the little shrine heretical and leveled it. While regretting the destruction of this charming site, I thought that was the end of it. I was wrong. The Muslim government is also working hard on leveling the worshippers as well:

A sharia court in Malaysia jailed a woman for joining a “tea-pot worshipping” cult.

Kamariah Ali, a 57 year old former teacher, was arrested in 2005 when the government of the Muslim majority country demolished the two storey high sacred tea pot and other infrastructure of the “heretical” Sky Kingdom cult.

For the eccentric sect, which emphasised ecumenical dialogue between religions, the tea pot symbolized the purity of water and “love pouring from heaven”.

But in Malaysia, despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, born Muslims such as Mrs Ali are forbidden from converting to other religions. (Emphasis mine.)

Passing sentence, the Sharia judge Mohammed Abdullah said: “The court is not convinced that the accused has repented and is willing to abandon any teachings contrary to Islam. I pray God will open the doors of your heart, Kamariah.”

So, there it is in a nutshell: freedom of worship in a sharia country means freedom to worship as you please so long as you don’t have the misfortune to be born Muslim. (For the significance of this “being born or raised a Muslim” issue vis a vis Obama, check this out.) More interestingly, the judge genuinely seems to believe that tossing a person in prison is the way to reach that person spiritually. This is brute force conversion that doesn’t even pretend to enter the marketplace of ideas and explain why Islam is better than any alternatives. It’s tempting to say that this is because Muslim enforcers suspect that they can’t win in the marketplace of ideas, but I believe it probably simply has more to do with the culture of coercion that Muhammad built right into the religion.

As it is, I don’t think that Kamariah Ali is going to bend very far, even if placed in prison as part of of her constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. The same story reports that, back in 1992, she was already imprisoned for 20 months for the “sin” of rejecting Islam. If 20 months in an Indonesian prison doesn’t make you recant the first time, does this judge really think it’s going to make her recant the second time?

As for me, I keep my eye open for creeping sharia. For when it comes to a truly Muslim country, life is precisely the same as it is in a truly Communist country: outside of a select cadre of true believers who are then, ironically, relieved from the harsher burdens of their belief system (collectivism, renunciation of alcohol, etc.), life for everyone else is an always scintillating blend of bad and worse.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Warning: This article contains graphic language, reader discretion is advised.

Yesterday I read that Israel has once again found the need to put the military and her citizens on high alert. But let’s be honest here; can Israel ever really afford to go off of high alert? Anyhow, there is an official declaration of high alert after the death of Jihadist commander Imad Mughniyeh. Hezbollah has accused Israel of killing Mughniyeh and says that it will retaliate “against Israeli targets anywhere in the world”.

Israel ordered its military, embassies and Jewish institutions overseas to go on alert earlier in the day, fearing revenge attacks for the car bomb that killed Mughniyeh Tuesday night in Damascus. The former Hezbollah security chief was one of world’s most wanted fugitives, accused of masterminding attacks that killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Maybe Israel did it, maybe Israel didn’t, who knows? The point is how many more decades need to go by before Israel is allowed to really retaliate against those that not only intend on wiping her off the map? It can be done slowly or quickly but one can not deny that Israel is constantly in the cross hairs of those who mean to do it’s people harm. Yes, I think that Israel should strike hard and I think that all free nations around the world should support such actions until those who continually assault Israel are wiped out or stop the attacks. I know that innocent people will die but how many decades must the world sit by while innocents are killed repeatedly by terrorists? Don’t those innocents count?

It is time to stop screwing around. I can tell you that Radical Islam isn’t screwing around; they are training men and women everyday to end freedom and create tyranny.

Yesterday I heard that Muslim woman are making bomb apparatuses using a prosthetic pregnant belly to get past security. Woman Honor Thyself had the story:

That’s not a pregnant belly - that’s a bomb.

The NYPD is warning business owners to be on the lookout for female jiha–dists who can hide explosives by faking pregnancy or sweet-talk their way past security officers.

“The threat posed by women is real, and it can’t be overlooked,”.. an NYPD intelligence specialist, said at a security conference yesterday.

I am seriously at the point where 1) I honestly don’t care if it was the Israel took out one of the world’s most wanted terrorits. Clearly, Radical Muslims are nuts; c’mon already….and 2) When are we going to get rid of our bonehead politicians that are dicking around, exacerbating radicalism by using political correctness as the only tool in their arsenal.

I’m just waiting for political correctness to bite us on this fake Muslim pregnancy thing too. I predict that various security tactics will be attacked with the fake outrage of racial profiling. It will be turned into a politically correct attack on pregnant Muslim woman instead of being framed as the commonsensical “Don’t like it? Tough shit. We are profiling pregnant Muslim woman because it has come to our attention that Muslim women are using fake pregnancies as a means to kill innocent people”. As a result you can bet that the dumb ass policy makers will be cowed into searching non-Muslim pregnant woman; after all we can’t do a “profile” to catch the bad guys, or in this case girls, so let’s inconvenience everyone else who don’t actually fit the “profile”.

Between the apologists in America and England with its pro-Sharia F’in Archbishop Rowan Williams - What the hell?

Canadian blogger Right Girl said it best:

Our leaders - be they political or religious - are too wrapped up in politically-correct doublespeak to be able to defend us from this insidious evil. It saddens me that it’s up to a bunch of bloggers and cartoonists to save the world from the new Caliphate, but I have seen more guts come from Dutch filmmakers than I have from my own government, who no longer even believe in freedom of the press.

No truer words have ever been spoken. It is up to the bloggers and cartoonists because most of those who are in the position of power seemingly don’t give a shit and are comfortable with being pacifists.

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

A brilliant editorial by Londonistan author Melanie Phillips on the Sharia-loving head of the Church of England.

But Dr Williams doesn’t even seem to have the courage of his lack of convictions.

A statement on his website attempting to defend himself is disingenuous to the point of being downright misleading in trying to pretend he didn’t say what he actually had said.

It insists, for example, that he did not call for the introduction of Sharia as a parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

But in his lecture, he said in terms that the state should recognise sharia as a “supplementary jurisdiction”, and that individuals should be able to choose which system they wanted.

That means two parallel systems with equal status.

Worse still, he actually advocated that English and Islamic law would thus “be forced to compete for the loyalty” of British Muslims - who were faced with the “stark alternatives” of allegiance to their culture or their country.

Alas, it is indeed the case that, according to Lord Carey, up to fully 60 per cent of British Muslims want to live under Sharia.

This is something I’ve only recently come to understand. It used to be easy for me to say that if you want to live under 7th century Sharia, go back to Crapistan and do it there. After all, why come to the free West, right? But I now realize that the whole point of coming here was to take over. Our touchy-feely naiveté leads us to believe they are “escapees” and “refugees”, running from oppression. But in fact they have sought out free lands in order to spread that oppression in the name of the Allah.

Even up to very recently I believed that the women of Islam were oppressed and that they should be freed. This, I have come to learn, is utter hogwash. On more than one occasion we have seen the women take up arms, the women strap on explosives, the women preach Jihad to their sons and husbands. Enough is enough. Our leaders - be they political or religious - are too wrapped up in politically-correct doublespeak to be able to defend us from this insidious evil. It saddens me that it’s up to a bunch of bloggers and cartoonists to save the world from the new Caliphate, but I have seen more guts come from Dutch filmmakers than I have from my own government, who no longer even believe in freedom of the press.

I cannot advocate open season on Muslims in the street. But I think for our own sakes we make ready for the coming onslaught, and brace ourselves to fight them. Not in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in London and Toronto and Detroit. And the first way we can fight them - a way that will not cause bloodshed by any act of our own hands - is to say NO. No to Sharia. No to Islamic banking and trade. No to muzzeins screeching at dawn. No to polygamy and incestuous marriages. No to welfare for those perfectly capable of working - like our Khadr family here in Toronto. No to visas and citizenships for terrorists. No, no, no.

[Discuss this article with Right Girl over at Girl On The Right...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The most famous Archbishop of Canterbury was the martyred Thomas a Becket, a man who was ostensibly the victim of a political assassination, yet who essentially died for his faith. He’d been a hard living young man but, when his best friend Henry II invested him as Archbishop of Canterbury, the most important seat in the British religious hierarchy, he went through a profound change and began to take his religion seriously — so seriously that he took political stands antithetical to Henry’s interests, something that came as a great surprise to the latter, who had assumed that Becket’s would be “his man” in the Bishopric. Eventually, Becket’s attempts to defend the church’s integrity against Henry’s political desires irked the latter so much that he exclaimed “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” A handful of his loyalists, rather than viewing this as a purely rhetorical question, took it literally, and cut down Becket within the hallowed walls of his own church.

Thinking about Becket, I rather wonder what he would have made of the current occupier of his Bishopric, which is still the most important position in the Church of England:

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”.

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

An approach to law which simply said - there’s one law for everybody - I think that’s a bit of a danger
Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says “sensational reporting of opinion polls” clouds the issue.

I can’t figure out if Williams is naive, stupid or a genuine Fifth Column within the C of E. Aside from the peculiarity of a church leader arguing for the hegemony of another religion, his ignorance is scary. He doesn’t seem to understand that sharia is a package deal. Just today, I read a little bit about that package:

Two sisters – identified only as Zohreh and Azar – have been convicted of adultery in Iran.

They have now been sentenced to be stoned to death.

Adultery is a crime punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in accordance with the canons of Islamic Sharia law. The Iranian Supreme Court has upheld the stoning sentence.

Zohreh and Azar have already received 99 lashes for “illegal relations.” Yet they were tried again for the same crime, and convicted of adultery on the evidence of videotape that showed them in the presence of other men while their husbands were absent. The video does not show either of them engaging in any sexual activity at all.

Their crime is non-existent, their trials a miscarriage of justice, and their sentencing a barbarity.

All those who believe in human rights and human dignity should protest against this sentence.

Proponents of sharia law in the West like to point out that it’s just a little thing that helps neighbors mediate fights, or husband and wife avoid (or, if need be, embrace) divorce. They willfully ignore the fact that sharia law is the single most misogynistic law in the world and, perhaps, in history. They — the same people who quiver at the mention of waterboarding — also turn a blind eye to sharia’s demands for whipping, dis-limbing, hanging and beheading. If we in the West let this camel’s innocuous little nose into the tent, if we just look to it just as a mediator of little neighbor disputes, I can assure you that very quickly that whole camel, beheading and all, will have nosed its way into the center of the Western criminal and judicial system, with horrific effects on all, especially women.

Hat tip: JL

UPDATE: Hot Air also caught and commented on this story.

UPDATE II: Another glimpse at the sharia law Williams finds so innocuous.

UPDATE III: Considering Britain’s problem with alcoholism, this little riff on sharia attitudes towards drinking alcohol (a 22 year old being hanged for drinking alcohol four times), might actually be a good thing. (And yes, that was sarcasm.)

See Also: Captains Quarters, The Anchoress
[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Now that Sharia law seems to be influencing what our “free” press can and can’t say about Islam, this is something future Ezra Levants and Mark Steyns can look forward to:

Afghan journalist sentenced to death

An Afghan court on Tuesday sentenced a 23-year-old journalism student to death for distributing a paper he printed off the Internet that three judges said violated the tenets of Islam, an official said.

The three-judge panel sentenced Sayad Parwez Kambaksh to death for distributing a paper that humiliated Islam

Don’t think it could happen in Canada?

What if I’d asked you twenty years ago whether you thought journalists in the country my grandfathers went to war for would ever have to sit in front of “human rights” interrogators? What would you have said then?

[Discuss this post with Right Girl over at Girl on the Right...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

I firmly believe that military force should be the last option in dealing with Iran. But I also believe that, whether we talk with the Iranians, enact embargoes against the Iranians, threaten the Iranians, or whatever else the heck we decide to do vis a vis the Iranians (including an Osirak or Syria approach), we ought to understand that we’re dealing with 7th Century people who are on the verge of possessing 21st Century WMDs:

Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learned.

Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality after a spate of reports that gay youths were being hanged.

***

The latest row involves a woman hanged this June in the town of Gorgan after becoming pregnant by her brother. He was absolved after expressing his remorse. Britain said that this demonstrated the unequal treatment of men and women in law and breached Iran’s pledge to restrict the death penalty to the most serious crimes.

A series of reported executions of gays, including two underage boys whose public hanging was posted on the internet, has alarmed human rights campaigners.

***

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the FCO released papers to The Times about the death penalty being used in Iran for homosexuality, adultery and sex outside marriage.

Minutes taken by an official describe a meeting between British and Iranian MPs at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a peace body, in May. When the Britons raised the hangings of Asqari and Marhouni, the leader of the Iranian delegation, Mr Yahyavi, a member of his parliament’s energy committee, was unflinching. He “explained that according to Islam gays and lesbianism were not permitted,” the record states. “He said that if homosexual activity is in private there is no problem, but those in overt activity should be executed [he initially said tortured but changed it to executed]. He argued that homosexuality is against human nature and that humans are here to reproduce. Homosexuals do not reproduce.”

***

Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Nigeria apply the death penalty for homosexuality, according to the International Lesbian and Gay Association.

The same article concludes with a helpful list of some of the victim so Sharia law, a law that, when originally enacted, was probably consistent with the law in Western countries as well, during the 7th through 16th Centuries. The problem is that we in the West have moved on, while those in Iran and other Islamist nations, have not:

2005

— Homosexuals Farbod Mostaar and Ahmad Chooka sentenced to death. Iran said Chooka had kidnapped, knifed and raped a student

— A woman called Soghra was sentenced to stoning for adultery and being an accomplice to her husband’s murder

— Two men executed in public after being found guilty of a homosexual relationship. A newspaper said they were convicted of sodomy, rape and kidnapping

— Zhila Izadi, 13, sentenced to stoning after becoming pregnant with her brother’s child

2006

— Malek Ghorbany sentenced to stoning for adultery

— Leila Qomi sentenced to stoning for adultery and assisting a man who killed her husband. He received 100 lashes

2007

— Jafar Kiana stoned for adultery. His female lover Mokarrameh Ebrahimi sentenced to the same fate.

While I have absolutely no doubt that there are thousands, nay, tens of thousands or even millions of good, decent, humane Iranians, it is patently clear that the country as a whole has embraced a leadership that has no conception of human rights as we understand them in the West. Iran’s morality and belief systems are entirely different from ours, and we make a terrible mistake if we assume that they use the same decision-making algorithms we in the West do, whether we’re talking about women, gays, WMDs, or the destruction of nations.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

A school in the UK forced faculty and students to dress up as Muslims for a day to belatedly celebrate the Muslim holiday of Eid. Most of the students are Christians and only two teachers are Muslim but everyone was forced to dress as Muslims. There was also a gathering but men were not allowed there because Muslim men do not like their women mixing with other men. Many of the people involved are not happy about this but went along anyway to protect their jobs and keep from being labeled a racist.

News flash, Muslim is not a race; one should not be labeled a racist for not participating in this craziness. However, if it were factual they could call me anything they wanted because there is no way in hell I would have gone along with this. My children are grown and out of school but I can promise that my grandson will never participate in this kind of activity. Those who chose to do this rather than fight it have already indicated they are comfortable with being Dhimmis.

Imagine what the outcry would have been had a school full of Muslims been forced to dress as Jesus to celebrate Christmas? CAIR and every other group would be crying the blues about forcing a religion on other people and I would agree with them.

We have too many double standards in this world but I, for one, would never, ever, submit to this kind of stupidity. They could fire me, call me racist and say anything they wanted but there is no way I would submit.

The world as we know it is coming to a very abrupt end and the Dhimmis are helping it along.

Source:
The Sun UK

[Discuss this article with the Big Dog...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

I received a telephone call from The Intolerant Fox who said that she was traveling on I-294 through Illinois when she spotted a billboard promoting Islam from a group called the Islamic Circle of North America. She asked me if I had ever heard of the Islamic Circle of North America or ICNA. I told her I had but did not know much about the group. So I decided to do some research.

ICNA is an organization within America that calls itself a “grassroots” movement whose main goal “shall be to seek the pleasure of Allah (SWT) through the struggle of Iqamat-ud-Deen (establishment of the Islamic system of life) as spelled out in the Qur’an and the Sunnah of [Muhammad].”

In other words, the establishment of Islamic law with an all Islamic society.

During my research on ICNA, I came across an article written by The Pluralism Project, at Harvard University. They wrote on the ICNA’s July 4, 2006 convention. This piece focused on Muslims being positive, non-violent people who want to build bridges. For me it was nothing more than a red herring since the ICNA’s mission statement basically states that they want to impose Islam on free people around the world.

One of the speakers at this convention and many conventions held yearly was Imam Siraj Wahhaj. Imam Siraj Wahhaj is an African-American born Jeffrey Kearse who turned Muslim in the 1970’s through the Nation of Islam and then converted to Sunni Islam. The Pluralism Project outlines him as an American Muslim who loves America as demonstrated through his statement, “America’s greatest strength: its freedom” and that “American Muslims should manage this freedom and their Islamic identity by using their freedom for good rather than evil.” Sounds great, right? Wrong. A quick search of the great Imam shows that he not only is the Vice President of the ICNA, but was an unindicted co-conspirator of the first World Trade Center bombing. He has also written many books, one of which is titled “Are You Ready To Die?” Nice title, huh?

It does not take much imagination to figure out what the title is all about. Daniel Pipes reports that ICNA VP Imam Wahhaj was also the first Muslim to deliver an opening prayer to the “U.S. House of Representatives. On that occasion he recited from the Qur’an and appealed to the Almighty to guide American leaders “and grant them righteousness and wisdom.”"

In the same article Daniel Pipes went on to say that:

A little over a year later, addressing an audience of New Jersey Muslims, the same Wahaj articulated a rather different vision from his mild and moderate invocation in the House. If only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. “If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. . . . [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.” In 1995, Wahaj served as a character witness for Omar Abdel Rahman in the trial that found that blind sheikh guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. More alarming still, the U.S. attorney for New York listed Wahaj as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the sheikh’s case.

The disparity between Wahaj’s good citizenship in the House and his militant forecast of a Muslim takeover—not to mention his association with violent felons—is only one example of a larger pattern common to the American Muslim scene.

To some this may not be alarming, but it should be alarming to all freedom-loving people. We are seeing movements and special concessions being made toward Muslims that are actually etching away American’s freedoms. The movement to over overthrow the United States government and form a caliphate state is just the end game. It is the smaller movements you have to watch because these are the stepping stones that radical Muslims need to form their Islamic nations.

Think about these examples of smaller movements that have surfaced:

• The Muslim cab drivers who refused to drive blind people who had guide dogs because dogs are “unclean”. They also refused people who had alcohol because they do not drink.
• The installation of foot washing stations at American taxpayers expense. This is the equivalent of a dhimmi tax.
• The removal of pork from public schools because pork is considered “unclean” to Muslims.
• The European ban on pig knick-knacks at the workplace because they are offensive to Muslims.

These are just a few of the subtle movements that are happening both here and in Europe. Some may think that these examples are not a big deal; but they are because they are eroding the very freedoms that we have built. Imagine for father’s day or mother’s day you received a gift from your child. The gift is a Winnie the Pooh Piglet frame with your child’s picture inserted. On the grounds of being “culturally sensitive” you are asked to remove the frame. Does this seem like it is freedom to or freedom from? I’ll tell you the answer, it is freedom from. This is bad.

The whole premise of the United States and other free nations is freedom to. Freedom to practice your religion out in the village square, freedom to eat pork in a public place, and freedom to have your child’s picture in a Piglet picture frame. Do you see where I am going with this?

These subtle movements are eroding the very things that have made free nations free. If we are not careful we are going to lose these freedoms at the hands of stupid politicians and organizations such as ICNA, CAIR, and others Muslim groups who think that it is their duty to install an all Islamic world.

| Trackback URL | Comments (6 Comments)

Scottish doctors won’t be eating at their desks during Ramadan.

DOCTORS and health workers have been banned from eating lunch at their desks - in case it offends their Muslim colleagues.

Health chiefs believe the sight of food will upset Muslim workers when they are celebrating the religious festival Ramadan.

The lunch trolley is also to be wheeled out of bounds as the 30-day fast begins next month.

Scottish. Doctors. What the hell is going on in this world? Muslim doctors try to blow up Glasgow International, and suddenly you can’t have a chopped egg sandwich at your desk between patients lest you offend them?? We have fallen through the looking glass, haven’t we?

He added: “The idea is to get faith in the workplace out in the open.”

OK, maybe I’ll try that. I’ll put up a great big bloody gruesome crucifix at my desk at the office and see how long it’s allowed to remain… Any bets?

Sooner or later, the Muslims will have their way in Scotland, and there will be casualties resulting from it. I only hope the doctors who have to treat those casualties had time to grab a bite to eat in secret, so they can focus on saving lives that the kith and kin of their coworkers (or in the case of the last attempt - actual coworkers) tried to destroy.

[Discuss your thoughts on this with Right Girl over at Girl on the Right...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)