The Wrong Sort Of Islam


I haven’t watched this yet:

Quitting the English Defence League: When Tommy Met Mo


…..but Douglas Murray has a write up in the Spectator:

‘When Tommy met Mo’ revealed how far we have to travel before Islamism is uprooted

Islamic extremism is not only a policing fault. It is also the fault of ‘Muslim leaders’ and others. It remains a melancholy fact that very few actual Muslim ‘leaders’ or individuals are willing to properly deal with the priorities we all face in the appropriate order. Many spend so much of their energies criticising ‘Islamophobia’ that they leave themselves only the occasional moment to nod to their disagreements with the fundamentalists in their own faith. If rather than spending 95 per cent of their time criticising the EDL and so-called ‘Islamophobes’ these people actually spent 95 per cent of their time not just criticising but actually stopping the extremists in their own religion and perhaps the remaining 5 per cent defending their religion against its perceived critics then not only might the primary problem be solved but we wouldn’t suffer such secondary problems either.



Murray notes this interesting reaction from a ‘moderate’ Muslim to a suggestion that the fundamental texts of Islam need to change:

There was a fascinating moment of congruence towards the end when Muslims and non-Muslims agreed on the need to tackle Islamic extremists. Then Robinson said that one of the things that Muslims must do is to tackle the problems in Islam’s foundational texts – at which point one of those Muslims who had previously been in agreement with him became furious with anger.



Which brings me onto this from the BBC:

Thinking Aloud and Muslim fundamentalism.

Muslims against Muslim Fundamentalism – Laurie Taylor talks to Karima Bennoune, US Professor of Law and author of a groundbreaking book which addresses resistance to religious extremism in Muslim majority contexts.


Once again the BBC discusses ‘Islam’ but practices a sleight of hand….redefining Islam as something not as it is actually described in the Koran and the Hadith but as whatever someone thinks it is….a spiritual religion of peace and tolerance….there is no single definition of Islam apparently.


If you know anything about Islam you will know that is impossible….there can be only one Islam.  That is the whole point of the religion (and why Sunnis attack Shias and Ahmadis etc who aren’t considered Muslims).  That was why it was revealed to Mohammed….because the Christians and Jews had corrupted their own scriptures and become divided into different sects worshipping God in many different ways….to his annoyance.

Therefore claiming Islam is whatever you want it to be, or that you can reform it, is nonsense.


Islam is what the Koran says it is.

Anything else isn’t Islam, and if you don’t follow the Koran you are not a Muslim.


Here is Karima Bennoune‘s lecture upon which the interview is based:

“Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here”: the human rights struggle against Muslim fundamentalism



It is interesting if you get over the obvious problem….as mentioned above…she claims to be a Muslim…but here denounces much of what makes Islam ‘Islam’.

First thing of note is in the introduction when Fundamentalist Islam is described as coming from the Muslim ‘Far Right’.

Bennoune herself uses this description and states that the Muslim Brotherhood are no different to the Greek ‘Golden Dawn’ party…except whilst the BBC issues ‘warnings from history’ about the Neo-Nazi Far Right in Europe they ignore or even cheerlead the Muslim Brotherhood’s extremism.


She claims that the Right in the West believe all Muslims support terrorism.

She claims that the Left think terrorism is blow back…a reflection of genuine Muslim grievances and is therefore acceptable.

But she says the real victims of that terrorism, the vast majority, are Muslims….and they are ignored by the West.

Is that true?  Are they ignored?  Not really…just look at the Left’s reaction to casualties in Iraq or caused by drone strikes….of course that is purely political point scoring rather than genuine concern for the actual victims…so perhaps she has a point.


She asks ‘why are all those Muslims who stand up to fundamentalism ignored by the West‘?

She says there is a failure in the West to understand what Islamism means for the human rights of other Muslims….and Islamism isn’t the same as Islam …of course!

That raises a question…..the Koran lays out the fundamentals of Islamic ideology….therefore is she saying the Koran and its teachings undermines human rights?

She must mean that….because she goes on to say that the problem is not just the violence but also the ‘moderate’ ideology being propagated.


She also lays into the West for supporting the Fundamentalists, in Afghanistan against the Soviets for example…but also for supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia which is spending huge amounts of money spreading fundamentalist Islam around the world…including of course the UK.


But of course she claims that Fundamentalist Islam is not the true Islam which is a religion of peace and tolerance.

And yet every word she utters denies that statement….she attacks what are established Islamic laws and values as ‘unIslamic’.

And that is the same position that the BBC takes.

Which is ironic because she does exactly what she accuses others of doing…by ignoring the true cause of the violence and intolerance.


It is curious that Tommy Robinson, who was basically reading from the same script as Bennoune, was denounced as an extremist…..and even now when he has said his marching days are over he is criticised for not renouncing his anti-Islamic fundamentalist beliefs…and yet they are the same beliefs as many of those held by those the BBC present as respectable, spiritual, true representatives of Islam… Douglas Murray noted…the reaction of a ‘moderate ‘ Muslim was ‘furious anger’ to suggestions of any fault with the Koran’s teachings.


The BBC wants to have it both ways…..’respecting’ what are essentially fundamentalist Muslims and their religion (whilst presenting them as moderate, normal, everyday Muslims) and attacking those like Robinson who criticise their beliefs, whilst at the same time bringing on other Muslims whom the BBC also claims are the true Muslims who wish to reform Islam…..some like Bennoune who are better described as ‘cultural Muslims’ and those conversely like Tariq Ramadan and Mehdi Hasan who are in fact fundamentalists posing as moderates and reformers in order to gain credibility and respectability in the West and be allowed a constant platform on the Media to win influence and spread their message.


So who are the True Muslims?  Those in the everyday community who react with ‘furious anger’ to any criticism of the Koran, or those like Bennoune who are looking to strip the heart out of Islam?

The BBC will have to make its mind up one day and choose….is the Koran ‘Islamic’ or a fundamentalist Far Right text as Churchill claimed…not much different to ‘Mein Kampf’?…“the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Does the Koran hold within its pages the values and beliefs of the Islamic ideology or not?

The BBC seems confused about that.


Finally she states that she has no truck with the term ‘Islamophobia’...criticism of ‘fundamentalist’ Islam is essential if extremism is to be tackled……hope the BBC are listening.



Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to The Wrong Sort Of Islam

  1. George R says:

    INBBC’s ‘Tommy and Mo’ show.

    I think that Douglas Murray underestimates the pro-Islamic bias of this INBBC show in several respects.

    1.) The word ‘Islamophobic’ was used as ‘fact,’ not as the Islamic propaganda it is.

    2.) Muslims predominated the show in numbers.

    3.) The pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, and until recently Hizb ut-Tahrir jihad supporting group, which is the publicly subsidised Muslim-run Quilliam, got a free political pass on the show.

    4.) Muslim INBBC commissioner Aaqil Ahmed set the political agenda. The show gave the feel of severe political editing.

    5.) Non-Muslim criticism of Islam as an ideology was sidelined. What INBBC allows on air by way of criticism of Christianity, is totally censored in relation to Islam.

    6.) The overall political impression of the INBBC show was to propagandise for Islam in all its forms, and even trying to spread the utopian notion that Islam is reformable after over 1,500 years of repression and violence.


    • noggin says:

      “When Tommy met Mo
      Biased Broad Cresent in full effect, a fair degree of “Kitman” by al bbc on that show last night!

      Did anyone note that on the section about Paedostani
      Muslim child rape gangs, and the Islamic imperative for doing it?.
      The enormous burkha d “elephant in the room” was missing?
      Where was Mohamhead? … he who himself raped children, even married one at 6, and just like all
      “nonce s” swore he didn t do anything for 3 years?

      Not in the conversation at all? … surely that can t be so?

      This “excellent example of conduct” for all Muslims?
      I note that Mo Shafiq was immediately trying to distance Islam from it all? …
      and no one bought this glaring example up?
      hmm editing bbc? ”
      now why was that?

      “with, the totally impartial list of
      Dr Usama Hasan,
      and Mo Ansar,
      and Mo Shafiq
      and Selma Yaqoob,
      and the MCB,
      and assorted Imams
      and Sheik Ibrahim Mogra ,
      and Majid Nawaz
      and “offence retraction expert” – Tom Holland.
      sheesh! … only a little bit more biased than QT

      and it did not include in any depth :-
      planned attacks in prison?
      the filmed muslim attack on him?
      the muslims attempted mass murder bombing?,
      the muslims threatening to behead him?,”
      now why was that?

      why did the bbc give Mo Ansar a gauling, extended
      “platform” to spout his usual diatribe on bbc 5live
      about the show, and yet Mr Robinson in contact with the show at the time, was sidelined?
      now why was that? … especially as Ansar s apologetics were clearly shown to be a big part of the problem.

      On the show itself the bbc plays the victim card for Ansar anyway, showing him wandering off alone at the end – all that was needed was violin music
      Note too, when Mr Robinson said that one of the things that Muslims must do is to tackle the unacceptable verses in Islam’s foundational texts, used by mass murders, fanatics, and paedophiles … all, of a sudden one of those Muslims who had previously been in agreement with him became furious with anger? hmm

      Whats left on the cutting room floor for this programme would be very interesting indeed.
      now why is that? BBC?


      • noggin says:

        D Murray – Islamofauxbia?


        • noggin says:

          a daily politics –
          interview from Mr Robinson,
          today (no link yet) … this is the
          BBC, so it is precurs d of course
          by an Al Beeb segment and Mo Ansar


          • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

            Still awaited is the much promised islamist interview by @afneil.
            He boasted on twitter after attempting to demolish T Robinson he’d be happy to repeat it with an islamist.
            Tumbleweed blows left to right…


  2. Pounce says:

    The Wrong Sort Of Islam?

    There’s a right side?


    • DP111 says:

      The problem of delineating True Muslims from radicals leads to a kind of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle applied to such a matter.

      The more accurately one tries to delineate one, the other will slip through your fingers.

      What matters is the deadly effect Islam is having on our society.


  3. Dave s says:

    It would be as difficult for a Westerner to understand say the 12th century world of Europe where belief was near universal .
    That seems to be the situation in Islamic lands and amongst the Muslim population of Europe. Belief is almost universal .
    This universality of belief is completely alien to us. I do not begin to understand how a society can be so monolithic and unquestioning in it’s belief. And I am a conservative.
    A liberal is probably even more baffled which is why they take refuge in multiculturalism . And why the liberal is so reluctant to discuss Islam.
    It is the medieval world thrust into the 21st century. For all of us, Muslim and the other , it is looking an intractable situation. We cannot change for we are travelling into the future. The Muslim too cannot change for he is governed by the unchanging words of the Koran.
    The future looks bleak.


    • Kelestarian says:

      A great post. The future does indeed look bleak. The massive and intractable problems the West, and indeed the whole civilized world, now faces because of Islam has become a taboo, and indeed a dangerous subject. The debate is immediately closed down by the leftist/liberal media before it gets too near to the bone. Spurious charges of racism and “Islamophobia” are levelled at those who stray from the PC orthodoxy that Islam is anything other than a religion of peace. The BBC loves to use the term “far right” to stigmatize people such as Geert Wilders, or even the wonderful Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You’ll never see the likes of Pat Condell on Question Time.


  4. Chris says:

    I saw it. They cocked up. Robinson stole show and really showed up Mo Anwar. The part where Robinson referred to the Koran with regard to slaves, and made the link with the grooming gangs was pure gold.


  5. Bettyann says:

    Dave s, says it all best – to my ears, anyway. Let me fairyly add as my brothers and sisters over the pond always wish, that our quest for polite evolvement has been denied; the bomb somewhere awaits. We liken Islamists to 11th century barbaric (only to us) Christians because it’s polite and not rude of us to do so. Truly, however, crusaders and Islamists have not much in common beyond Madrid; this Islam has a neutral petri dish of socialism in which to foment. Actually, let me pinpoint it down to 4 wives four children each, on the dole. Pretty scary odds. It frightens me most to see Britons, the proud race that repelled Caesar, capitulate to it’s own need to vainly preen for Islam in order to not seem rude. You actually accept the premise of Islam. How polite, and suicidal of you. I speak this as an American, a Caradoc; harried in my own country and seeing you, looking back at the Home Country, The Motherland, it seems as if the devil is on our tail, does it not? For making human law out of 1066, the long enforcement and then bloated by vanity here we are ten centuries later, the same enemy challenging human made law? GET THEE UP ENGLAND. GET UP. GET THE F#CK UP.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Dear Bettyann, many on here will agree with you, but how in heaven’s name have you ended up with a muslim president?
      Wolf in sheeps clothing?


  6. David Brims says:

    Regarding Douglas Murray,There’s no right or wrong sort of islam, it’s just islam, and the end destination is sharia law.


    • joeb says:

      Despite Murray’s best efforts, he still continues to peddle the fantasy that there are people called Islamists and something called Islamism, when it is simply Muslims and Islam.


  7. stuart says:

    what i want the bbc to do now is this,lets have a follow up documentary called tommy robinson met anjem choudary,see here is the problem,hate him or despise him and i do both, anjem choudary is the most honest muslim in the uk and i will tell you why,anjem choudary has always said there is no such thing as a moderate muslim,either your a muslim or not a muslim he says,anjem choudary has always said that the majority of so called moderate muslims in the uk in private agree with his views but are to scared to admit it because of fear of being branded extremists.i tend to believe anjem choudary more than mohammed ansar to me is a charlatan who is trying to pull the blinds over everybodys eyes about his real views about this religion called islam he follows.tommy met anjem.lets get it on bbc.


  8. sirus says:… ansar is such a fake


  9. Bodo says:

    Any muslin interviewed by the media should be asked first of all to establish moderate credentials by stating whether they agree with the death sentence for apostasy.

    I remember a BBC documentary on Scientology. The BBC was appalled at the pressure put on members to remain in the “church” and challenged Scientologists very aggressively.

    I have never heard a Muslim condemn the death penalty. It’s difficult to come to any conclusions other than that Islam is an extreme and intolerant religion at its very core.

    The BBC never challenge muslims on the death penalty , I am sure that they would be appalled at the very idea that Muslims should be held to account anyway whatsoever.


    • Phil Ford says:

      “…Any muslin interviewed by the media should be asked first of all to establish moderate credentials by stating whether they agree with the death sentence for apostasy.”

      Personally, I’d set the bar a bit higher. I ‘d demand to know whether ‘moderate muslims’ here in the UK approve of the Sharia-sanctioned murder, abroad, of teenage boys for the ‘heinous crime’ of being gay – and if not, what are they prepared to do about it? Killing children because your religion tells you they have ‘offended’ some imaginary superman in the sky is, somehow, a crime against humanity nobody (apart from the EDL, it seems) wants to force ‘moderate Islam’ to answer to.

      I was impressed to see in that BBC documentary the young English lad at the EDL meeting (where they came face-to-face with ‘Mo’) wearing a T-shirt with the large, conspicuous photo of the young men executed (by hanging) under Sharia law for their ‘unforgivable crime’ of being homosexual. Even more impressed to see that he was part of the EDL – a group I’d been led to believe (by the BBC, of course) were or are ideologically opposed to ‘puffs’ and ‘queers’ (because the Nazis were, and the EDL are just latterday Nazis, right?).


      • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

        Phil., you are right to focus on the so called moderate muslims.
        The liberals here see the depraved and barbaric acts done by muslims, in the name of islam. Oh, they dont do it in the name of islam? Remember Woolwich anyone?
        They see the evidence, and eventually have to accept the facts. However, they pin their hopes on some kind of future reform of islam, hoping it will evolve into a western friendly benign belief system.
        Well, islam comes as a package. No-one gets to cherrypick the friendly cuddly bits and push away the barbarism. What’s more, those who follow it are unable to leave. A kind of tiger by the tail?
        So, the bottom line is, there ARE NO moderates at all. There never will be.


        • Llareggub says:

          “Oh, they dont do it in the name of islam? Remember Woolwich anyone?”

          Wait for the trial of those accused of the murder, scheduled for this November. Will the defendants claim to be acting according to their faith – as spoken in front of the cameras at the time of the killing? And if so will the BBC report this? Or will the BBC, as I predict, follow the Cameron/Clegg position stressing that whatever they say it has nothing to do with Islam.


  10. Guest Who says:

    “I remember a BBC documentary on Scientology”
    Was that the one where the reporter got a bit emotional, vocally?
    To an extent equating excesses of Scientology (more ‘management’ than flock) with radical Islam may be seen as legitimate if on a ‘two wrongs’ basis, but I’m not sure if I recall any benediction-preceded Mexican drug lord activity from Ron’s flock.
    So your point is a good one; the BBC’s sense of outrage on institutional practices can appear highly selective, and again they show the need to hold to account only in areas the fruit is low and the tangible consequences less extreme.


  11. London Calling says:

    BBC happy to mock American bible-bashers – Sarah Palin smears anyone? But mock Allah’s little helpers and they will come round to slit your throat. The BBC’s position is based on fear of Islamic extremism.
    Most media in Europe published the Danish “cartoons” but not the BBC. Wish not to offend, or fear of reprisal? Lord Ahmed threatening a thousand Muslims would descend on Parliament if they screened “Fitna”. It’s all threat of violence, one way, aimed at the infidels – us. Accompanied by silence from the Muslim community. May be they are afraid too.

    Let’s pretend it’s all about Islamophobia. Whenever there is another Islam-inspired atrocity (Woolwich), the BBC story is on autopilot: “Muslim community fears backlash”. Everything stood on its head.


    • Guest Who says:

      “Wish not to offend…”
      Given so many examples when offending seems deemed in the public interest (when not seems more narrowly defined), this would be hard to credit.
      I will be interested in revisiting FaceBook after a global night to ponder the BBC raising the extremes of social media outrage and censorship by citing the filmed and shared death of a bank robbery victim… By showing it.
      As an organisation seeking to have its cake and eat it, they are unrivalled.


    • ROBERT BROWN says:

      Actually, Ahmed threatened 10,000 not 1,000. He should be stripped of his dubious title. He is a freak, like all muslims.


    • Kelestarian says:

      The BBC’s position on Islam is craven, moral cowardice of the highest order. Their position is also disingenuous, as reflected by the silly comments of the twit in charge of the BBC’s religious broadcasting who claimed that people don’t make jokes about Islam because they don’t know enough about it. Well if that is the reason why people don’t make jokes (which of course it isn’t, as he full well knows) then why doesn’t the BBC educate the British public about Islam. Let’s have a documentary about Mohammed’s life, including details of his marriage to a child and all of his murderous, bloody escapades. Let’s see the example of this “perfect man”.


  12. Span Ows says:

    “That was why it was revealed to Mohammed”…

    Please edit this Alan or are now converted?


  13. “Islamophobia” is the liberal-left shutdown word for any one who is concerned about Islam. They do the same with anyone who questions the EU – “Little Englander” or “Anti-European” they bark. They liked to use “Racist” when any one questioned mass immigration though they seem less willing to use it now because many Brit’s wont be bullied by that term any more and therefore it doesn’t work. They have to debate and they don’t like that.

    That’s why immigration and Europe have become major issues at last. We were all worried by immigration and EU’s influence for decades but these slurs were shot at us and we chose not to say any thing and that’s essentially how the Beeb and the “big three” political parties rode rough shod over us and our concerns.
    Our fault (to a point) for being so damned meek for allowing our servants (the BBC and the politicians) to become our masters.

    If few continue to do be bullied by the Beeb, EU, Islam and our disgusting big three self serving politicians’ this country will unfortunately slip in to something so terribly fractured it will resemble the former Yugoslavia at it most terrible.

    Incidentally Peter Hitchin’s questioned the use of the word “islamophobia” on the Beeb a few weeks ago saying he was allowed to be concerned with Islam without being “islamophobic”.


  14. deegee says:

    Islam needs a Martin Luther – there doesn’t seem to be one on the horizon just now.


    • Rob says:

      An Islamic Martin Luther wouldn’t last five minutes. The Koran is the word of god, there is no room for doubt. Islam cannot be reformed, the concept makes no sense in this context. It is what it is, and it will not, and cannot, ever change.


  15. Mice Height says:

    Douglas Murray on form –


    • F*** the Beeb says:

      Too right – I’m tired of this notion that we ‘owe’ something to those who were wronged in the past. All we owe them now is that we live and let live. We are not indebted to the extent that we have to homogenise them into our cultures, and it’s only Anglo-Western or European countries that are expected to do this. Most of the biggest proponents of slavery and colonialism have come from Africa and Asia, yet there’s no suggestion they should change their ways to suit us. I don’t owe them anything and neither do the vast majority of white Britons alive today.


  16. jack de says:

    The following piece is well worth reading
    The Agenda of Islam – A War Between Civilizations
    The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations – between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.

    There is no fundamental Islam.
    “Fundamentalism” is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.

    All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.


    • noggin says:

      fundamentalist … nay even extremist …
      if your “faith” is truly peaceful, being extreme holds
      no threat to you, ie what are you – extremely peaceful


    • DP111 says:

      They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

      Or read the Koran and Hadiths, and the gruesome butchers yard of civilisations that Islam has left behind.


  17. Dick the Butcher says:

    Surely, a phobia is, by definition, irrational.
    I don’t believe there is anything irrational about my fear and loathing of Islam – a singularly unpleasant cult.


    • Teddy Bear says:

      The Religion of Peace website offers this definition which I like a lot:

      Islamophobe (is-slahm-o-fohb) – A non-Muslim who knows more than they are supposed to know about Islam. 🙄



      • London Calling says:

        I don’t feel obliged to tolerate the intolerant. I wonder how many of these (face-hiding) nutters are on Job-Seekers allowance (thank you PR-man Dave – now on your watch like the previous shower that couldn’t run a bath) How’s the job hunt going Anjem? Can no journalist do their job?

        Don’t worry about offending Muslims – you are offending ten times as many – us!


      • ROBERT BROWN says:

        Hmmm….and where was plod? Some of those were holding placards that incited violence. Show a George Cross, and plod will collar you. The police have failed us.


  18. Arthur Penney says:

    “One man’s religion is another man’s belly-laugh”.

    Unfortunately it appears that the best cure for belly laugh is a knife applied to the problem area.


  19. ember2013 says:

    One of the dilemmas facing anyone wishing to debate, rationally, with people throwing accusations of Islamophobia at them is that nothing changes. You can argue as logically and erudite as possible but the people slinging mud will leave the debating arena and continue believing in the same old nonsense.

    Murray does an excellent job though, in that clip.


    • noggin says:

      debating any
      Muslim is like playing chess with a pigeon, you can show them the move, explain it, tell them why theirs was incorrect … the pigeon will just make noise, knock everything over, sh-t on the board –
      then claim victory … sadly I speak from experience.


      • Demon says:

        sadly I speak from experience

        No wonder, you should have played with rooks instead.


    • Arthur Penney says:

      They are lefties – it is a well-known symptom of the condition.


    • Dr Spock says:

      fear of islam isnt a phobia, its logic


  20. George R says:

    Tunisia: Islamikaze.

    Two reports:-

    1.)’Atlas Shrugs’-


    2.) INBBC:-

    “Suicide blast in Tunisian resort of Sousse”


  21. Teddy Bear says:

    I must confess I never watched this documentary, but Douglas Murray appears to do an excellent job of relating its main content.

    I can see just why Douglas would find the BBC choice of ‘moderate’ Muslim rather suspect, and not for the first time, as we saw for so long by them with Omar Bakri and Anjem Choudary.

    I would only take issue with this sentence in his article:

    ‘Had the police dealt with Islamic extremists with less lenience we would probably never have heard of Tommy Robinson or the EDL.’

    Without a doubt, the police were told how to respond to Islamic extremists by powers higher than themselves – the government.

    Since any government depends on peoples votes to stay in power, we have to look at what influences the public, and therefore the government to move a particular way or other.

    So we come to the most powerful media source, who by virtue of the licence fee they receive can masquerade as fair, impartial and balanced, and are therefore most responsible for twisting the debate – the Brainwashing British Citizens organisation or BBC.

    Until we stop allowing the self-serving BBC to continue with the facade it has by virtue of the licence fee, this country is going to continue to disintegrate.


  22. Alex says:

    Islam poses the greatest threat to world peace, in my opinion. By and large, Muslims don’t integrate, they think they’re better than us and hold our values in utter contempt. Struggling to find any positives to be honest.


  23. Corran Horn says:

    Have people heard about this? If so it’s time to start worrying.

    The European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance. Which was drafted by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, its an NGO based in Paris, and they presented it to the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties committee last month and is thought to be on the verge of implementation.

    If ratified and implemented by the European Parliament it would direct governments to monitor citizens deemed “intolerant” and could even lead to a ban on all criticism of Islam, feminism, the EU and a load of other things that could be declared intolerant behaviour.

    But I bet you’ll not find a trace or peep about it on the BBC be it broadcast or website.

    This links to the proposal in PDF form;<

    A quck search for it on the BBC;


    • London Calling says:

      This could be a big problem. I am intolerant of burglars and rapists, muggers, not to mention Islamofacists, Ecofacists, Socialists, and do-gooders of every description. I see the EU now have a line that dislike of Roma living in squats, treating our parks as toilets, begging and stealing, bringing up children with no education… is “racist”.
      When will anyone tell all these people to go FCuk themselves?


    • ember2013 says:

      It’s scary stuff and I believe it was proposed by the Green Party. Let’s hope our MEPs see sense not to enact it as law. (Lawd help us)


  24. George R says:

    What INBBC (including Muslim Aaqil Ahmed, and Muslim Mishal Husain) are aligned to, and defend:-

    “Cultural psychology: How Islam managed to stay medieval for 1,400 years”


  25. frk says:…flipping heck,the jihad virus has spread to china


  26. George R says:

    Over the many years of reporting Afghanistan, has INBBC explicitly reported this widespread practice among the Muslim men of Afghanistan? If not, why not?:-
    “An Afghan Tragedy: The Pashtun practice of having sex with young boys.
    “Afghanistan’s subculture of paedophilia is one of the country’s untold shames.”


  27. George R says:

    Robert Spencer (‘Jihad Watch’): latest assessment of Tommy Robinson situation:-

    “Tommy Robinson reconsidered”