# Islamaphobiaphobia in Britain...?



## billc (May 24, 2012)

An interesting article on islamaphobiaphobia and the British police...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/muhammad_raped_while_bobby_stayed_mum.html



> However, it is the delayed response by police and civil service in the area that is the national scandal.  In August of 2008, one of the victims, then 15 years old, went to police and social workers; she provided the police with [COLOR=#009900 !important]DNA evidence[/COLOR] ...Twice the police refused to prosecute.





> Former Labour MP Ann Cryer said the silence of the Manchester Bobbies is due to the fact that they were "petrified of being called racists."  The Manchester police and Rochdale social services publicly apologized, but their fears of being given the scarlet "R" were not in vain.
> The accusation of racism can end public servants' careers, so oftentimes they must revert to political correctness.
> Political correctness was also the fallback for most of the politicians in the House of Commons.  Leading MP Keith Vaz stated...but that it was important not to "stigmatize an entire community."  He later stated, "I don't think this has anything to do with race."


----------



## Jenna (May 25, 2012)

Yes this is another group of disgusting people to do these things and but there are many others if you are making the point that they are mostly Pakistan / Afghan then unfortunately there is not just these groups trafficking people.. there is a great deal of trafficking from Lithuania and western soviet nations to here also.. and from SE Asia they had trafficked even children! to work on cannabis factories here it is horrific.. it is a very terrible problem I have seen it first hand here in my borough.. It is not a problem isolated to one religious grouping if that is the point Bill.. these are men that happen to be from one religious grouping there are other men (and women) from others who treat a person as a commodity.. it is disgusting to me..


----------



## Tez3 (May 25, 2012)

Islamaphobia is the fear and hatred of Islam, what your article is saying is that the police etc are scared of looking as if they are being Islamaphobic so aren't chasing down people they should be. You have got this all back to front. The accusations are that the police are being too politically correct not that they hate Muslims, quite the opposite, they were letting them get away with crimes.You can't post up a nonsense word and expect people to actually think you are serious. It's also a very narrow and rather biased account of what actually happened but hey thats what happens when you let the conservatives in government.
You really ought to read and comprehend before posting Bili.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2012)

I do have to say that there is indeed a public perception, gathered from the news reporting, that this appalling problem is primarily one that affects a certain sub-set of the Asian immigrant population. How accurate that perception is is hard to say of course, for we are all shaped by the news we have access to.

This quote is very telling, however:

*However, Equalities and Human Rights Commission chief Trevor Phillips said, "I think anybody who says that the fact that most of the men are Asian and most of the children are white is not relevant, I mean that's just fatuous." Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor, who himself is a Muslim, stated that some immigrants bring "cultural baggage" with them from misogynistic societies.*

Here is a link to some BBC coverage of the case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17989463


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2012)

Equally affecting are crimes like this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18161063

This particular case has a special resonance for me in that, altho' it was nothing more than a passing recognition in the street, I knew this family as they lived nearby a girl-friend of mine. It is an odd quirk of human nature that the very fact that I saw this girl when she was still a baby in a pushchair makes it that much more of an emotional reaction over and above the revulsion that such a crime evokes.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2012)

A further recent example is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-17829627


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2012)

Now it would be easy to conclude from these news stories that not only is this criminal exploitation common-place but that it is the province of the Muslim immigrants who do not share our values and come from a society wherein the abuse of women is the norm. Sadly, to an extent, there is some truth in that, as there is in the fact that these men see British women as even more worthless than those of their own ethnicity.

But it is not the whole of the picture. It is a highly visible and easily pointed to part of the picture, it is true but, as Jenna mentioned above, there are equally terrible 'commercial' prostitution rings being run from Eastern Europe through to Western Europe. It's just not so easy to isolate them for villification as they are not so visibly different from 'us'.

What to do about it, I don't know. For me, sad to say, I have become more 'racist' (aka pro-British) as the mix of my society is distrubed too quickly by politically motivated immigration policies made by those that do not have to live in the communities disrupted by them. If someone like me, well educated, fair minded and essentially Liberal, can start to think so, then what do you think those who are in their heart supporters of such organisations as the BNP are going to feel and act on?


----------



## Tez3 (May 25, 2012)

The problem too is in the 'care system', the fact that the girls were white is less relevant than that they were in care homes..the old orphanages. Many of the girls were troubled and problematic, their needs were totally overlooked by the authorities which allowed them to be preyed on by these man, a couple of whom btw were white. there have been other problems with children who are taken in care, the system is broken and needs fixing something I fear will be overlooked when people look at these cases seeing only that a gang of men used these girls. these girls should not have been there in the first place for anyone to use, they have been badly let down all round.


----------



## billc (May 25, 2012)

Jenna, I also recognize that other groups commit the same crimes as these men, but the article was about the police hesitating because of the religious/ethnic/national background of this particular group of monsters.  Do the police hesitate when the former soviet block criminals are brought to their attention?   In the article, it was a labour MP who brought up the issue of possible allegations of racism that delayed the police in helping these girls.  A labour MP is hardly a political soul mate of mine.

I think the term islamaphobiaphobia is quite accurate for what is happening in some of these cases.  Here, across the pond, we had Major hassan shoot over 30 people in an act of islamic jihad and our islamaphobiaphobics called it work place violence, to avoid addressing his radical religious ties.


----------



## Big Don (May 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Islamaphobia is the fear and hatred of Islam, what your article is saying is that the police etc are scared of looking as if they are being Islamaphobic so aren't chasing down people they should be.


Fear, as in fear of being targeted for being honest about the misdeeds of people who are Islamic is STILL Islamaphobia. You should read what Penn Jillette wrote about why they will criticize every other religion, but, not, and never, Islam.


----------



## billc (May 25, 2012)

Where do I find Penn talking about this?  He is a pretty well spoken guy, for a weird guy, and I heard him recently on Hannity's radio show.

Hmmm...I forgot to mention that I am not surprised that the state run "orphanages," failed these girls.


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 26, 2012)

Penn Gillette? You can YouTube it, I will see if i can find it. You might also want to look into Sam Harris's comments about Islam. I think you would appreciate them.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (May 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Where do I find Penn talking about this? He is a pretty well spoken guy, for a weird guy, and I heard him recently on Hannity's radio show.
> 
> Hmmm...I forgot to mention that I am not surprised that the state run "orphanages," failed these girls.




The care home the girls came from wasn't 'state' run it was a private one. Thatcher privatised most care and old people's homes.

http://www.healthinvestor.co.uk/(A(...ws.aspx?ID=2261&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1


----------



## Big Don (May 26, 2012)

Jillette:





> *Are there any groups you won't go after?* We haven't tackled Scientology because Showtime doesn't want us to. Maybe they have deals with individual Scientologists&#8212;I'm not sure. And we haven't tackled Islam because we have families.


----------



## Tez3 (May 26, 2012)

Don, which do you consider worse, censorship because there's money involved or for fear of reprisals? 

I don't think it's Islam as such they should be going after, it's the fundamentalist Muslims. As with all fundamentalists they are fanatics to the point almost of madness, they are what we have to fear not Islam. No belief system or religion is immune to having fundamentalists, we need to watch our own as well.


----------



## Big Don (May 26, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Don, which do you consider worse, censorship because there's money involved or for fear of reprisals?
> 
> I don't think it's Islam as such they should be going after, it's the fundamentalist Muslims. As with all fundamentalists they are fanatics to the point almost of madness, they are what we have to fear not Islam. No belief system or religion is immune to having fundamentalists, we need to watch our own as well.


I don't find any brand of cowardice particularly palatable, but, moral cowardice is, in my book, worse.
You can repeat that tripe about fundamentalists in every religion ad naseum, and you and others have... But, that doesn't change the fact that every other religion isn't exempted from criticism for fear of reprisals.
Allow me to again quote Jillette:





> *You do go after Christians, though ... Teller and I have been brutal to Christians, and their response shows that they&#8217;re good ****ing Americans who believe in freedom of speech. We attack them all the time, and we still get letters that say, &#8220;We appreciate your passion. Sincerely yours, in Christ.&#8221; Christians come to our show at the Rio and give us Bibles all the time. They&#8217;re incredibly kind to us. Sure, there are a couple of them who live in garages, give themselves titles and send out death threats to me and Bill Maher and Trey Parker. But the vast majority are polite, open-minded people, and I respect them for that.*


----------



## Jenna (May 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Jenna, I also recognize that other groups commit the same crimes as these men, but the article was about the police hesitating because of the religious/ethnic/national background of this particular group of monsters.  Do the police hesitate when the former soviet block criminals are brought to their attention?   In the article, it was a labour MP who brought up the issue of possible allegations of racism that delayed the police in helping these girls.  A labour MP is hardly a political soul mate of mine.
> 
> I think the term islamaphobiaphobia is quite accurate for what is happening in some of these cases.  Here, across the pond, we had Major hassan shoot over 30 people in an act of islamic jihad and our islamaphobiaphobics called it work place violence, to avoid addressing his radical religious ties.


Yes the CPS aplogised over not treating the first girls accusations with the seriousness due and but I do not know about potential allegations of racism delaying intervention that is speculation on this MPs part.. For me I would have said the delay was because police they have not much until now associated trafficking with Pakistan/Afghani interests.. it has mostly (here in London at least) been from baltic / former soviet bloc nations, from SE Asia and also I think from nations in Africa.. I think they were blind to this issue.. Here yes there was much made of the religious affiliations of these criminals.. by these criminals theirselves and by others with religious agendas of their own seeking to tar all with a single brush.. I think it is sad because that is to misdirect attention away from the horror of the crime.. 

I think Sukerkin had lifted the most pertinent quotation that *many immigrants bring unacceptable cultural baggage*.. the quote says baggage from misogynistic societies and but unfortunately there is trafficking in children of both genders.. Cultural baggage it is not simply religious..

I will say Bill you are correct in that those nations with the worst records of both misogyny and trafficking are identified Islamic nations.. Saudi Arabia and Yemen and kuwait.. Iran I think also?  I know Sudan in Africa and also Turkmenistan these all are the worst of all.. again though, I would only ask please to be careful not to draw a simplistic cause-and-effect conclusion as it is speculative and not evidence based.. 

And Hasan this was Fort hood yes?? he was not an army psychologist there?? You have a citation of these radical ties you are sayin?  I did not think American newspeople would have made this an evil-of-Islam thing as there are many American Muslim people that serve in all of the military branches I think it was 2 or 3000 were sent even to Iraq.. anyway I am interested in your thoughts Bill thank you..


----------



## billc (May 26, 2012)

Well, Penn and Teller have already done a show on the bible and taken on christianity, and I think everyone already knows that it is the radical muslims that are the problem, but notice, the fundamentalist christians aren't the people Penn and Teller are afraid of, it's the radical muslims who chop off heads.  If Showtime, a private company doesn't want their employees to do a show on scientology, it isn't a problem, they make decisions based on making money.  Their goal after all is to be profitable, and it is their company.   The problem with censorship is when the government does it.

If the orphanages are privately run, then I would think that some people who are in charge should be going to jail.   Although they are privately run, do they get money from the government to operate?   That would make a big difference in how the problem is created.


----------



## billc (May 26, 2012)

Here is a quick article on Major hassan...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146001069880040.html



> In this report, titled "A Ticking Time Bomb" and put out by the Senate
> Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, there is a detail as
> dazzling in its bleak way as all the glowing misrepresentations of Dr. Hasan's
> skills and character, which his superiors poured into their evaluations of him.
> ...





> There would be more of the same to come. One classmate witness told
> investigators that Hasan sought every possible opportunity to share his radical
> Islamist sympathies. His highest obligation, he told classmates, wasn't to the
> Constitution, which he had sworn to protect and defend, but to his
> ...



So, as you can see, islamaphobiaphobia is a problem over here as well.


----------



## billc (May 26, 2012)

For a bit of humor, here is a clip on this very subject from a short lived comedy show "The Half hour news hour,"...


----------



## Jenna (May 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here is a quick article on Major hassan...
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146001069880040.html
> 
> ...



Yes it is an opinion piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz and so perhaps is adulterated with her own imprint of a certain anti-Islam school of thought and but I take your point and would not argue thank you Bill.


----------



## billc (May 26, 2012)

Here is a piece from the New York Times, although you can't trust the reporting from this paper...

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/nidal_malik_hasan/index.html



> The conclusions of the report echoed a Pentagon review released in 2010 that detailed a systemic breakdown within the military that permitted Major Hasan to advance through the ranks despite concerns that he embraced violent Islamic extremism.
> Among the findings, the senators said, was that government officials knew Major Hasan had communicated with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric and terrorism suspect now residing in Yemen, but failed to alert the Army of this fact; that from 2003 to 2009, when he was a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, he openly suggested that revenge might be a defense for the Sept. 11 attacks; and that he spoke defensively about Osama bin Laden.



The following quote from the article is why you can't trust the NYT as a paper...



> Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 26, 2012)

> *Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma. *No emotion or hint of the defendant&#8217;s thoughts flickered across his pale features, as more than two dozen other soldiers and civilians spoke under oath about their struggle to survive in the terrifying minutes after he yelled &#8220;Allahu akbar!&#8221; &mdash; &#8220;God is great&#8221; in Arabic &mdash; and started shooting.



Context is important, Bill. So are word meanings. An enigma is something hard to understand or explain. That doesn't mean said something is unknown. Big difference there.  

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (May 26, 2012)

Bug difference?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 26, 2012)

It's an entomology thing ...  see what I did there? :lol:  Yeah, double word-play attack!


----------



## WC_lun (May 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here is a piece from the New York Times, although you can't trust the reporting from this paper...



ROFL  This bit of advice from the person who uses Brietbart's web site as a source for so much of his information.  Thanks for the laugh, Billi


----------



## Josh Oakley (May 26, 2012)

granfire said:


> Bug difference?



LOL!! Fixed. Now reads, "Big difference"


----------



## granfire (May 26, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/kansas-governor-signs-bil_n_1547145.html

this is phobia.


----------



## billc (May 26, 2012)

Actually, that was probably a reaction to this...

http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21551/



> *O'CONNOR: U.S. MUST RELY ON FOREIGN LAW*
> 
> *Justice says, 'The impressions we create in this world are important'*





> American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad, said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O&#8217;Connor at an awards dinner in Atlanta.
> 
> he 73-year-old justice and some of her high court colleagues have made similar appeals to foreign law, not only in speeches and interviews, but in some of their legal opinions. Her most recent public remarks came at a dinner Tuesday sponsored by the Atlanta-based Southern Center for International Studies.
> The occasion was the center&#8217;s presentation to her of its World Justice Award.
> ...



The steps taken may have been premature but it is obvious that some judges don't get the whole U.S. constitution as the supreme law of the land.  If representatives or senators want to make a foreign law legitimate here, they can submit it through the legislative process.  Judges aren't supposed to use foreign laws to make their decisions, even and especially shariah.  This step merely goes there to make it clear to judges before they start acting silly.


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

granfire said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/kansas-governor-signs-bil_n_1547145.html
> 
> this is phobia.



It is and one wonders what the time and money spent on that could have been used for in this time of recession.


----------



## Big Don (May 27, 2012)

granfire said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/kansas-governor-signs-bil_n_1547145.html
> 
> this is phobia.





> Sherriene Jones-Sontag, a spokeswoman for the governor,   said in an  e-mail that the bill "makes it clear that Kansas  courts will rely  exclusively on the laws of our state and our  nation when deciding cases  and will not consider the laws of  foreign jurisdictions."


The nerve of some people, demanding our citizens be held to our laws...


----------



## Sukerkin (May 28, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18117529

Interesting and refreshing to hear such relatively straight talking from a politician - being in the Lords helps in shaking off the party shackles and speaking more plainly of course.


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18117529
> 
> Interesting and refreshing to hear such relatively straight talking from a politician - being in the Lords helps in shaking off the party shackles and speaking more plainly of course.



It _is_ good to hear someone speaking plainly. The whole situation needs to be looked at not just a bit here, a bit there. Focusing _only_ on the race issue clouds the care issue and vice versa. There needs to be a proper inquiry with a remit to look at *every* factor without any hysteria, bias or preconceived ideas.


----------



## WC_lun (May 28, 2012)

Big Don said:


> The nerve of some people, demanding our citizens be held to our laws...



Umm religious law has never been used instead of civil law.  In fact, this is one of the reasons so many are wondering why our government is using religious belief to decide who can marry.  No one is trying to replace our civil law with Sharia law.  This is a fake issue, used to frighten men and women who can't think critically and to play to a minority of the Kansas Republican base that is anti-Islam.  This is just fear mongering.

It is also lawmakers wasting time and tax dollars.  There is no need for this law at all, but Kansas does need to balance its' budget, repair infrastructure, hire teachers, etc.  Instead of taking care of the things they need to take care of, they are debating and passing useless bills that aren't needed.

Sharia law is used by many Muslims in Kansas and elsewhere as a way to live thier life.  If they have a dispute, they use Sharia law and an Imam to settle the dispute.  You know, trying to settle it before going to court spending more tax payer dollars.  You'd think conservatives would be all about Muslims trying to settle thier differences through thier mosque, instead of wasting tax dollars, but I guess the Islamaphobe has a greater hold on a few of them.

By the way, other religions also have mechanisms in place to mediate disputes using thier own laws and religious beliefs, like Judaism or Catholism.  Why are those religions not being talked about as wanting to take over America's civil law code?


----------



## billc (May 28, 2012)

Just to remind you that it was actual judges, at the Supreme Court no less, who believe they should be able to base their rulings on foriegn law instead of the United States constitution, the supreme law of the land...

Actually, that was probably a reaction to this...

http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21551/




> *O'CONNOR: U.S. MUST RELY ON FOREIGN LAW*
> 
> *Justice says, 'The impressions we create in this world are important'*
> 
> ...



So...it isn't unreasonble to think that if American Supreme court justices are not going to do their job properly, that some action needed to be taken at the local level to head off any future problem.  The idea of previous "precedent" in law makes it important to get ahead of the curve on any new trend in the law.  That is all this state did, and it isn't unreasonable.  The islamaphobiaphobics aren't the best judges of what should or shouldn't be done to safeguard our legal institutions from judges who don't respect the U.S. constititution.


----------



## WC_lun (May 28, 2012)

I must admitt an error.  Religion has replaced much of our civil law...Judeo-Christian religion.  I have to wonder what would happen if legislatures started fixing that?

This Sharia law is a non-issue.  There is no need for it.  The use is just more fear tactics.  Pointing out that a judge has ruled in a way you don't like just makes you like everyone else in the country.  Stop using it to support more fear mongering please.


----------



## elder999 (May 28, 2012)

Yes. How ironic that a state that has banned Sharia law  banned gay-marriageon the basis of Levitic law....


----------



## granfire (May 28, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Yes. How ironic that a state that has banned Sharia law  banned gay-marriageon the basis of Levitic law....



Nah, you just reading things into it.....


----------



## Carol (May 28, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Umm religious law has never been used instead of civil law.



Incorrect.  That was one of the many lessons learned from the sex scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston.  The abusing priests were shuffled around from place to place and never prosecuted.  The ringleader, Bernard Cardinal Law, a man with deeper political connections than the Mayor of Boston, was never prosecuted and simply whisked away to a posh job at the Vatican...Safely outside the jurisdiction of state and federal Law Enforcement. 

Now in Philadelphia there is a case where a TSA agent is a former priest, dismissed for molesting children.  Because the matter was handled by the church and not prosecuted by the local law, he passed the background check required for TSA agents.  TSA says he is primarily checking baggage and won't usually be touching children, so that makes it OK, right?


----------



## WC_lun (May 29, 2012)

Carol, that was NOT a case of religious law superseding civil law.  Where in the Catholic cannons is child molestation approved?  It was a case of men with too much power getting away with criminal behaviour because other people did not want to take them on.  Happens a lot and has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Carol (May 29, 2012)

Ahhhh....you missed my point entirely.  Child molestation is not approved, and canon law states what to do with an offender...none of the steps include calling the police.  There have been MA instructors abusing kids in the news, why weren't there organizations stepping forward and saying we will punish them our way?  Is it because MA instructors have to follow the same laws as everyone else?

There are people that come to the U.S. and embrace Sharia as part of their way of living a productive, moral life.  There are also those who wish to escape it.  If I am not mistaken, it is a Sharia governing body, not an individual, who decides who Sharia applies to....even former Muslims who have left the community.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## WC_lun (May 29, 2012)

Sharia law cannot be applied to a Muslim that refuses to recognize it.  Where in the US is there any threat of Sharia law becomming civil law?  Anywhere? Detroit MI has the highest percentage of Muslim population in the US.  I don't see either Detroit or MI adopting Sharia as the base for the laws, do you?  So why is this an issue that needs addressed, in Kansas of all places?  A state that has a relatively low Muslim population.  It isn't the need to protect the law from Sharia corruption.  Sure, if Muslims in Kansas where substituting Sharia for Kansas law, I could see enacting such legislation.  I live on the Kansas Missouri border, so it would be local news if there were.  There haven't been.

I also find Kansan republican legilators to be hypocritical as hell, since they have passed many laws based on thier own Evangical Christian faith that citizens must follow whether they are part of the same faith or not.  They pass a law saying Sharia law has no part in Kansas society since religion and state are to be seperated, yet the same people create laws opposing gay marriage, severely limiting abortion rights, and women's health.  Remember these are the same people that a few years ago also insisted that creationism be taught in public schools.  Seperation of church and state is not a real concern for these men and women.  So why make a law addressing a non-issue of Sharia law?


----------



## granfire (May 30, 2012)

Carol said:


> Ahhhh....you missed my point entirely.  Child molestation is not approved, and canon law states what to do with an offender...none of the steps include calling the police.  There have been MA instructors abusing kids in the news, why weren't there organizations stepping forward and saying we will punish them our way?  Is it because MA instructors have to follow the same laws as everyone else?
> 
> There are people that come to the U.S. and embrace Sharia as part of their way of living a productive, moral life.  There are also those who wish to escape it.  If I am not mistaken, it is a Sharia governing body, not an individual, who decides who Sharia applies to....even former Muslims who have left the community.
> 
> ...





I am afraid I am missing the point, too.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Islamaphobiaphobia in the U.S....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/under_allah_with_sharia_for_all.html



> Last  week, a white African-American friend and her husband returned to Los Angeles  International Airport (LAX) from a European trip and observed an American-Muslim  woman from their flight navigating U.S. Immigration and Customs.  The couple watched  attentively as the covered woman approached the immigration officer, who avoided  eye contact, glanced hastily at the woman's ID, and waved her heedlessly  through.  When it was their turn to be processed, the officer carefully  scrutinized their faces, studied their passport photos, and then repeated the  sequence a second time.
> While  shopping in a Washington, D.C. suburban supermarket, an Iranian-American human  rights activist, who fled Iran following the Khomeini-led revolution, spied a  woman in a multi-layered hijab shopping with her playful young daughter.   In the parking lot, the woman struck her meandering daughter as they passed by  the stunned Iranian woman.  The activist reprimanded the mother for hitting  her daughter and cried out, "And please don't force her to wear a headscarf when  she grows up."  Two hours later, two police  officers arrived at the Iranian woman's home to question her after the  irate Muslim mother, who had recorded the activist's license  plate number, summoned them.



And a dash of Fireman Bob from Britain (he is the character from British television isn't he?)



> In  February, David Jones, the creator of a popular British animated children's  television series, was interrogated for an hour by law enforcement at Gatwick  Airport near London following a matter-of-fact remark about a Muslim woman in a  head-covering who breezed through security without showing her face.  Jones  had a scarf amongst his belongings in his airport scanning tray and joked with a  security officer, "If I were wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what  would happen."  Jones was forced to defend himself against charges of  racism, although he uttered nothing about race, and was told to apologize to the  woman.  He maintained that he was referring to the lack of common sense  inherent in security procedures and his reasonable contention that everyone  should be treated equally.
> *Police & Islamophobia*
> As  for the second incident involving the Muslim woman who struck her daughter, it  is valid to consider whether police would have responded so rapidly and  dramatically had the complainant not been Muslim.  Would authorities have  been in such a rush to interrogate the Iranian activist at her residence, or  would they even have visited her home in the first place?  Did police even  consider whether the Muslim woman's act of striking her child was grounds for  investigation, as they very well might have for a non-Muslim?  Were their  judgment and line of questioning clouded by the fact that they were summoned to  provide a service for a Muslim woman and that, if they failed to act, problems  and false charges of Islamophobia could arise with Muslim ostensible civil  rights groups such as CAIR?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2012)

:lol:  I do so hate it when I find myself in agreement with the Far Right .

The cases that have been hitting the headlines here in Britain are very telling to my mind - or at least they are signifying a bit of social engineering via 'news shaping'.  

We have had quite a few stories of late showing a pretty disgusting section of the immigrant population getting caught in their illegal and immoral acts.  In these cases we are told that we should not judge an entire minority by the actions of a few.  I actually agree with that altho I would argue that there are some pretty serious 'cultural' issues we're going to have to deal with one day, whether we want to or not.

We have also had some other cases of violent public assault, leading to injury, accompanied by such racially sensitive comments as "Kill the white *****!".  What penalty did these fine immigrants from exotic shores receive?  A reprimand and a non-custodial sentence.

Then we have had some other cases of evil, Imperialist, White Supremacists ... aka drunk students or Tube passengers .. Tweeting racist remarks or having a full on 'had enough' rant in public.  In these cases, the perpetrators are sent to prison, their lives wrecked and are held up for public disapprobation - the clear message being not to dare say anything bad about those who are not white British ... or else.  

The true racists are going to have a field day with this sort of thing.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Sukerkin, take comfort in the fact that the "right," in America is not what is believed to be the right in Europe.  Here, the right stands for limited government, the rights of the individual, a colorblind society, freedom of speech, the press and of religion, and the rule of law that is represented by the blindfolded lady justice.  The myth of the "right" here in America is just that, a myth.  If you like equality and freedom for all people regardless of race, creed or color, then you would be a member of the "right," here in the states.  Welcome to the vast right wing conspiracy Sukerkin...at least the American version.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2012)

That sounds like a Liberal platform to me, Bill.  Without meaning to sound like I am trying to start a dispute, for I am not, if the American Right really stood for those things then I reckon you'd see a good deal less disagreement with you when you put up your infamously link-laden political posts.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

I can't explain it either Sukerkin.  Those are all things that I believe in and the reason I became a conservative "right winger."  The conservatives in America, leaving out the definitions from Europe, believe those things, other wise I wouldn't be one.  The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution are some of the most important documents to conservatives in this country.  I also believe in Legal immigration as opposed to Illegal immigration.  The conservative movement hasn't done a good job in explaining who we are, but that is changing.   I know you may not believe in liberal bias, but it does exist and it distorts the reality of the political parties over here.  Look at the reporting that elder did on the skin head elected in the political section of the study.  The guy was elected with three write in votes, himself and two others, for an uncontested seat, and it is being reported that this guy is a representative of republicanism.  That is the kind of reporting that we get over here.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Keep in mind as well Sukerkin, the reporting on the skin head, that tries to turn him into a republican, doesn't point out the seat he ran for was uncontested and that people had to right in his name.  It seems he wasn't even on the ballot.  If he had been then he would have had to go through a primary process where his skin head ties would have come out and he would more than likely been rejected out of hand.  Instead, he and two others wrote his name on the ballot, and he won.  three votes and they are trying to tie him to the republicans.

Have you ever read the history of the republican party in this country Sukerkin.  It would clear up much distortion about things.  I know you don't like her, but I am just finishing up Ann Coulter's most recent book Demonic.  I mention this as a starting point to clear up this republican thing.  If you have a chance, and happen to be in a bookstore, pick up a copy,( you don't have to even buy it) and look up the chapter on Racism.  Don't even take it for granted, just use it as a starting point to disprove what she says.  She documents the republican party, and Barry Goldwater and the record of Richard Nixoon on race and debunks the "southern strategy," myth.  Did you know Barry Goldwater founded the arizona chapter of the NAACP, or that he desegregated the Arizona national guard before Truman got around to desegregating the U.S. military, which he started but Eisenhower actually achieved.   Just take a glance at that chapter.  It might open things up about the republicans that you never hear about...


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Sukerkin, take comfort in the fact that the "right," in America is not what is believed to be the right in Europe.  Here, the right stands for limited government, the rights of the individual, a colorblind society, freedom of speech, the press and of religion, and the rule of law that is represented by the blindfolded lady justice.  The myth of the "right" here in America is just that, a myth.  If you like equality and freedom for all people regardless of race, creed or color, then you would be a member of the "right," here in the states.  Welcome to the vast right wing conspiracy Sukerkin...at least the American version.



Unfortunately that is not the far right, which seems to hold sway over the party right now.  They believe these things, but with caveats.  Limited government, unless it is something like abortion rights, the poor voting, birth control, the military, or marriage. The rights of the individual, unless the individual is different than normal, like gays.  A colorblind society, unless putting together a election strategy trading black votes for ultra right wing conservatives votes or in some cases removing people of color from voting rolls. Freedom of speech and press, unless you say things that the fringe right wing don't like even if true, then you are derided and called names (like slut), and if getting a government funding, you'll get that yanked (like NPR and Planned Parenthood).  Then there is Lady Justice, which right now she is seeming to have problems with her scales balancing due to corporations buying our government, but that is okay for fringe right, because they are the "job creators."


Yes, there are issues with far left democrats as well, but do not pretend like the Republican party is standing up whole heartedly for those things you mention while the Democrats represent the opposite of those things.  At the very least, that is not honest.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Where do you live WC lun.  This is the kind of distortion I'm talking about Sukerkin.  Voting for the poor.  He means the desire to have people show an I.D. before they vote.  Birth control, would be a debate on when abortions should be allowed, and wether is should be done by voting for laws or having unelected judges just make the decision for us.  The black voting thing is completely false and the latest attempt by democrats to scare african americans to vote democrat.  The republican party is the party of all those things I mentioned and it is why I said I don't know how the democrats keep getting away with the myth making that they do.  Much of it is due to the media and the education system.   Do you realize the democrats are against voter i.d. but not I.d. for union elections, so they can know who they have to intimidate to get their way.  The black panthers stand outside a polling place in fatigue uniforms and swinging nightsticks around, and obama let's them go, and yet the republicans get smeared as the ones denying the vote.  Read that Chapter in Demonic Sukerkin, look up those things mentioned and prove her, and me wrong.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Here is some about I.D and voting...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...d-ma-democrats-disenfranchise-their-delegates



> *In recent years, Democrats have argued that requiring voters to show photo IDs prior to voting is an egregious act of voter suppression. Ben Jealous, of the NAACP, has gone so far as to argue that such requirements are tantamount to modern-day Jim Crow laws. In the world they inhabit, lots of voters don't have access to photo IDs, so requiring voters to provide this will "disenfranchise" them and leave them out of the democratic process. Funny they don't feel that way for their own party conventions. *
> 
> On Saturday, Massachusetts delegates will meet in their state's Democrat party convention. The votes of these delegates will determine whether there are primary elections for their party nominations. With so much at state, Democrats have decided to implement Voter ID requirements:
> 
> ...



So the distortions about the real history of democrats and republicans continues.

And the Slut comment...I believe Rush apologized...and yet the long list of hate toward Conservative women by main stream democrat pundits and politicians goes on and on.  Remember Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the "C" word, and the "T" word and the still haven't given back his 1 million dollar donation.

Ann Coulter specifically addresses the so called Southern Strategy in her book Demonic.  I bring this up because I read that chapter today as I try to finish her book.  The democrat party has long been the party of racism and the republican party the party against racism.  Look at the history and how the magic trick was pulled in the sixties, where the democrats fooled everyone and rewrote history.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

This is an article that talks about why republicans support voter I.D. laws and the democrats do not...it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with cheating at the ballot box...

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/...lorida-to-keep-foreigners-on-the-voter-rolls/



> Yesterday, Eric Holder&#8217;s Voting Section ordered Florida to stop purging foreigners from the voter rolls.  Two weeks ago, Florida found 53,000 dead voters registered to vote.  Florida has also found non-citizens on the voter rolls and Secretary of State Ken Detzner has started the process of removing them.
> Not so fast, says Eric Holder&#8217;s DOJ.
> In a letter to Detzner, the DOJ says to stop removing foreigners from the rolls.  The Voting Section makes a dubious argument under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, a law the Obama administration hasrefused to enforce because of ideological opposition.  The letter notes that Elise Shore is the attorney behind the letter.



Eric holder is a democrat.  They want to cheat and voter i.d. gets in the way.

This is the original article on dead people on the voter rolls in florida, which is how the democrats claim that the poor are being denied the right to vote...

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/05/16/53000-dead-voters-found-in-florida/



> I have learned that Florida election officials are set to announce that the secretary of state has discovered and purged up to 53,000 dead voters from the voter rolls in Florida.
> How could 53,000 dead voters have sat on the polls for so long?  Simple. Because Florida hadn&#8217;t been using the best available data revealing which voters have died.  Florida is now using the nationwide Social Security Death Index for determining which voters should be purged because they have died.
> Here is the bad news.  Most states aren&#8217;t using the same database that Florida is.  In fact, I have heard reports that some election officials won&#8217;t even remove voters even when they are presented with a death certificate.  That means that voter rolls across the nation still are filled with dead voters, even if Florida is leading the way in detecting and removing them.
> ADVERTISEMENT​
> ...



Keep in mind that the Democrat attorney general is trying to keep dead people on the voter rolls in florida, not the republicans.  Dead people are the way the democrats achieve voter fraud and they aim to keep doing it.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Here is an article on how National Public Radio continues to spread the lies about voter I.D. laws and why so many americans support them...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...se-Claim-About-Black-Voters-and-Voter-ID-Laws



> Fessler does not cite numerous opinion polls showing that black Americans, like other Americans, favor voter ID laws to protect the integrity of the ballot. She ignores the fact that black and Hispanic turnout has _increased_ since voter ID laws were passed--even when controlling for Barack Obama&#8217;s historic 2008 candidacy. She does not even try to capture the views of ordinary voters in the black community on either side of the issue.
> Instead, Fessler quotes black _leaders_, not voters--including (above) Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) of &#8220;Tea Party N-word&#8221; infamy. These leaders are no more concerned about voting rights than is Attorney General Eric Holder, whose primary concern is shoring up turnout for Obama&#8217;s re-election campaign. That is because voting rights are not threatened in the least by voter ID laws. Fraud, not voter ID, is the only danger.
> If, as Fessler and Obama&#8217;s machine are to be believed, the lack of ID documents is a serious problem in the black community, then the administration ought to launch an urgent campaign to provide those documents. After all, it is almost impossible to carry out any form of economic activity--whether applying for a job or collecting government benefits--without proper ID. There is no possible reason for inaction (except racism?).
> But there is no such campaign, because there is no such problem--certainly not on the scale that Holder, the Democrats, and NPR suggest. The only problem--for Democrats--is that Obama&#8217;s core support is depressed, for reasons that have nothing to do with voter ID. As with the Trayvon Martin case, the Obama machine is fomenting outrage while sullying America&#8217;s civil rights history. And taxpayer-funded NPR is playing along.



An article on Why Americans actually do support voter I.D. laws...and it doesn't have anything to do with denying blacks and the poor the right to vote...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/27/why_americans_support_voter_id_laws_112546.html



> The state chairman of Indiana's Democratic Party resigned recently as a probe of election fraud in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary widened.
> State law requires a presidential candidate to gather 500 valid signatures in each county to qualify for the ballot. Barack Obama may not have met it. Investigators think 150 of the 534 signatures the Obama campaign turned in for St. Joseph County may have been forged.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Also from the article...



> You need a photo ID to get on an airplane or an Amtrak train; to open a bank account, withdraw money from it, or cash a check; to pick up movie and concert tickets; to go into a federal building; to buy alcohol and to apply for food stamps.
> Most Americans don't think it's a hardship to ask voters to produce one. A Rasmussen poll in June indicated 75 percent of respondents support photo ID requirements. Huge majorities of Hispanics support voter ID laws, according to a Resurgent Republic poll in September.
> This year there have been investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. In all but one case, the alleged fraudsters were Democrats.
> In none would the fraud alleged have altered a major election, Democrats note. But in the Illinois gubernatorial election in 1982, 100,000 votes cast in Chicago -- 10 percent of the total -- were fraudulent, the U.S. attorney there estimated.
> ...



The democrats are using, again, racism and denying poor people the right to vote to protect their ability to cheat in elections.  That is the real truth of the situation.  Why else would Attorney General Eric Holder, democrat, force Florida to keep 53,ooo dead people on their voter rolls.  If these assertions are true, and you can check them for yourself, especially you Sukerkin, then what else of what WC lun said is false or inaccurate?

And here is Thomas Sowell addressing Eric Holder (democrat) and his attempt to manipulate the african american vote through false charges of racism...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/01/holders_chutzpah_114340.html



> Attorney General Eric Holder recently told a group of black clergymen that the right to vote was being threatened by people who are seeking to block access to the ballot box by blacks and other minorities.
> This is truly world-class chutzpah, by an Attorney General who stopped attorneys in his own Department of Justice from completing the prosecution of black thugs who stationed themselves outside a Philadelphia voting site to harass and intimidate white voters.



Sowell brings up the video where a film maker went to Holders own home district...and told them that he was eric holder and could have voted for the attorney general since no I.D. was required...



> Since millions of black Americans -- like millions of white Americans -- are confronted with demands for photo identification at airports, banks and innumerable other institutions, it is a little much to claim that requiring the same thing to vote is denying the right to vote. But Holder's chutzpah is up to the task.
> Attorney General Holder claims that the states' requirement of photo identification for voting, in order to prevent voter fraud, is just a pretext for discriminating against blacks and other minorities. He apparently sees no voter fraud, hears no voter fraud and speaks no voter fraud.
> Despite Holder's claim, a little experiment in his own home voting district showed how easy it is to commit voter fraud. An actor -- a white actor, at that -- went to a voting place where Eric Holder is registered to vote, and told them that he was Eric Holder.
> The actor had no identification at all with him, either with or without a photo. He told the voting official that he had forgotten and left his identification in his car. Instead of telling him to go back to the car and get some identification, the official said that that was all right, and offered him the ballot.



And from the Wall Street Journal on Eric Holder (democrat ) using false allegations of racism to scare african americans...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7438421678904222.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop



> The United States of America has a black President whose chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, is also black. They have a lot of political power. So how are they using it? Well, one way is to assert to black audiences that voter ID laws are really attempts to disenfranchise black Americans. And liberals think Donald Trump's birther fantasies are offensive?





> That's right. The two most powerful men in America are black, two of the last three Secretaries of State were black, numerous corporate CEOs and other executives are black, and minorities of many races now win state-wide elections in states that belonged to the Confederacy, but the AG implies that Jim Crow is on the cusp of a comeback.
> It's demeaning to have to dignify this argument with facts, but here goes. Voter ID laws have been found by the courts not to be an undue burden under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. The landmark Supreme Court opinion, upholding an Indiana law in 2008, was written for a six-member majority by that noted right-winger, John Paul Stevens.





> Black voter turnout _increased_ in Georgia and Indiana after voter ID laws passed. Georgia began implementing its law requiring one of six forms of voter ID in 2007. According to data from Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, the black vote increased by 42%, or 366,000 votes, in 2008 over 2004. The Latino vote grew by 140% or 25,000 votes in 2008, while the white vote increased by only 8% from four years earlier.
> No doubt Mr. Obama's presence on the ballot helped drive that turnout surge in 2008, but then the black vote in Georgia also increased by 44.2% during the midterm Congressional races of 2010 from 2006. The Hispanic vote grew by 66.5% in 2010 from four years earlier. Those vote totals certainly don't suggest that requiring an ID is a barrier to the ballot box.


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Keep in mind also WC lun that African Americans, and Latino Americans are in majority opposition to gay marriage and the other gay related issues and the last time I looked the African American community are more than a majority democrats and  voted close to 95% for Obama and are the ones who helped defeat the gay marriage proposal in both California and North Carolina.  So please, the myth of the oppressor Republicans is just that, a myth perpetuated by democrats in the main stream media and academia to further their political agenda and to support the politicians they agree with.  So Sukerkin, please look past the myth of conservatives and republicans and see that the reality is far different. 

This is a story from the main stream media on African Americans being against gay marriage...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ose-african-american-votes-over-gay-marriage/

And then there is prop. 8...



> Exit polls showed that a narrow majority of white voters voted against Proposition 8 (a vote in support of the legalization of gay marriage) &#8211; 51 percent voted against, while 49 percent voted to ban same-sex marriage in California. A majority of African-American and Latino voters supported Prop 8, however. Seventy percent of African-American voters voted for the measure, along with 53 percent of Latino voters.



Since the majority of African Americans and Latinos are democrats...isn't the ban on Gay marriage a Democrat problem...or it would be if it was reported fairly and accurately instead of as an attempt to smear the republicans as the sole reason gays can't marry...




> African Americans oppose gay marriage 55 percent to 41 percent, while all poll respondents support it 52 percent to 43 percent, according to an ABC News poll taken in March. While 94 percent of black voters in California supported Obama in 2008, 70 percent also supported the  Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, according to exit polls.
> Nationwide, 95 percent of African American voters supported Obama, according to exit polls, comprising 13 percent of the national electorate.



I repeat for the sake of clarity and to dispel some myths...



> While 94 percent of black voters in California supported Obama in 2008, 70 percent also supported the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, according to exit polls.


So, tell me again WC lun how it is the republicans problem that gay marriage isn't passing anywhere in 30 states...


As to NPr and planned parenthood, there funding is just a small portion of the federal government spending that conservatives would like to see cut to put the country back on some sort of fiscal responsibility.  NPR is unnecessary, it can just sell commercial time to make up for the small amount it gets from the government, and planned parenthood has again been caught advocating illegal activity.  It is long past time they lost their funding.  That is what a color blind, blindfolded lady justice would do anyway...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2012)

You have to understand that I do always try to be inquisitive and investigative about matters, Bill.  I very seldom leap to a conclusion and just stand on it from that point forwards.

Just because most of the time when we interact it is because I am disagreeing with something you posted does not mean that I have an automatic Anti-Republican reaction.  There are some things that are seen to be 'Republican' in their political colour that I agree with; there are other things that I do not.  As John (Twin Fist) and Don will tell you, I hope {:lol:}, I can be persuaded of the rightness of something if the evidence is good and the argument compelling.

But the thing that I do always react badly to is fanaticism; even if it is about something that I judge to be positive or beneficial and from a trustworthy source I will become suspicious and averse to discussing it.  That, of course, me being human and not Vulcan, does not mean that I do not have issues and topics upon which I may be viewed to be somewhat fanatical myself - the trick, for me, is recognising what those areas are and either keeping quiet about them altogether or reining in my 'enthusiasm' if I do speak about them .


----------



## billc (Jun 2, 2012)

Yeah, I posted that long bit because it specifically dealt with issues WC Lun brought up.  Other wise, have a nice weekend.  I hope you Iaido is going well.


----------

