SHILLING FOR ISLAM
Here's a copy of a post I made over on Biased BBC today - some interesting comments over there so well worth a visit.
Sadiq Khan, the Muslim Labour MP, dominates the BBC news agenda this morning. Press reports suggest that Khan's conversation with his constituent (and long time friend) Babar Ahmad, were recorded twice in Milton Keynes's Woodhill Prison. The US is seeking to extradite Ahmad on suspicion of raising funds for the Taliban. The BBC fans a palpable sense of outrage that a Member of Parliament could have his conversations bugged. Personally, I would be outraged if Khan's conversations with an alleged Taliban fund-raiser were not bugged! Surely the safety of our fellow citizens is the primary concern here, not the tender sensitivites of Khan or any other MP?
The BBC then turns to... another Muslim MP for a reaction and bang on cue Khalid Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, declares that this bugging sends out a difficult message, not just for Muslim people but for British people. (I don't think so, the only "difficulties" remain with those who deny that a section of Muslims in Britain constitute a real and present danger to their fellow citizens) In Beeb world, the decision by anti-terrorist officers to bug Khan or indeed any other MP who seeks the release of this alleged terror-enabler Ahmad is always going to be wrong. Notice how they choose to only seek comment from a person that they know will fail to endorse the decision by our anti-terrorist police. Where's the balance?
Islam is always going to be the offended party through the Beeb prism - as this previous report on Khan's activities demonstrates. One year on from 7/7 Khan was declaring how "disappointed" many Muslims (ie he and his pals) were at the failure of government to engage "more constructively" with them. At the time, one year from that savage Jihad attack on our capital city, I was disappointed that more of those behind the plot had not been arrested. But hey, victimhood is not always reserved for victims, sometimes aggressors can have it bestowed upon them by a craven and gutless media which fails to understand the dangers that face our country from Islam and instead shills for the ROP.
David Vance
35 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (35)
David,
How does a chap do those sexy magenta hyperlinks?
Mo Mowlam admitted that she sanctioned the bugging of a car used Gerry Adams MP and Martin McGuinness MP while she was a Minister.
So where was the outrage then?
Depends on who authorised it?
Whether it was MI5/PM/Home Secretary/Justice Minister, was there American involvement? I really don't like the way Americans don't respect the fact that UK does not belong to them. If they organised this through MI5 there is huge potential for a scandal. Bugging a criminal is one thing, perhaps a mistake it was done with the MP, but constitutent rights should not be overturned to satisfy America.
They need to understand, they cannot kidnap people in Britain and take them to America, they have to go through a process. The rules shouldn't be changed to suit the Americans.
I agree with Iain Dale, there is a potential here for another scandal. As for the BBC, nearly everybody they asked was Muslim, even the representative from liberty.
More to the point, given how very untrustworthy the body politic has been proven to be of late, - just why do MP's assume that we should take their word, or trust them at all?
Not only an arrogant bunch, but also very presumptuous!
They should operate under exactly the same laws and conditions that the rest of us do, as it stands it seems they really do see themselves as something different - dare I say better? - than the rest of us...
Dawkins,
I'm in touch with my feminine side, what more can I say? It's a Biased BBC thing - default colour.
Henry,
As I said, I am delighted to hear he may have been bugged.
I know Dawkins, I'll tell you for a small fee;-)
Good point, Henry.
>>a Member of Parliament could have his conversations bugged. Personally, I would be outraged if Khan's conversations with an alleged Taliban fund-raiser were not bugged! Surely the safety of our fellow citizens is the primary concern here, not the tender sensitivites of Khan or any other MP?<<
The point is the tender sensitivites of the law.
Eavedropping on an MP's conversations is simply against the law in Britain.
Typhoo,
"The rules shouldn't be changed to suit the Americans."
They weren't - they were changed to suit our MP's by the odious Harold Wilson.
(I'm basing the above on what I read in the BBC site)
Typhoo,
Did you note that iberty's omnipresent Shami Chakrabati sister works for the BBC? Mmmmm..
So much for the personal-liberty-loving-right, LOL.
Big daddy state is their darlin' after all.
How long ago Ernest? Harold Wilson wasn't yesterday. There was enough time between Wilson and now to change things if any lobby group had thought otherwise. But to bug this MP, IF it was to suit America is wrong. It's also against the law. This chap in prison is only fighting extradition.
The BBC coverage on this gets worse and worse. I just heard the closing headline "A Muslim MP's conversation with a constituent may have been bugged"
No mention that the "constituent" is in prison, wanted by the US for financing the Taliban,
Fair and balanced.
How about "German passes away in Bunker"?
Is it wrong to finance the Taliban?
"A Muslim MP's conversation with a constituent may have been bugged"
Whats wrong with that. O I see, have they sinned by ommission?
>>No mention that the "constituent" is in prison, wanted by the US for financing the Taliban,
Fair and balanced.<<
But I thought we just had this debate about Paul Quinn. You know, the one where some of us thought that the background of the victim of a criminal act should not be dragged into the spotlight...
Noel,
Don't be a prat all the time! - you know as well as anyone that some degree of surveillance is necessary in any civilised society. It isn't the necessary instances that are objectionable, it is the totally unecessary use of it for realtively trivial purposes.
I find it far more objectionable that MP's feel they should be treated any differently to the rest of us, after they are the ones sanctioning ever more surveillance, for evermore trivial purposes..
>>you know as well as anyone that some degree of surveillance is necessary in any civilised society. It isn't the necessary instances that are objectionable<<
Of course. But who decides what is necessary - the bodies set up under law or some zealous agent of the state acting on his own initiative?
And besides, who decides when we can break the law and when we can't?
Christ, and people here say the Left loves Big Brother!
Is it wrong to finance the Taliban?
Yes. But that is for the Americans to determine if and when they get him. He's in prison here fighting extradition charges.
How about my theory that given how devious they are, all MP's should be bugged. I mean, what would they have to hide?
Excellent post David. Of course the state was right to bug the MP's converstion in these circumstances.
The thing that annoys me is that the suspect can be extradited to the USA in circumstances where the reverse would not happen, because the UK has passed an extradition law that the USA has failed to recipoctate. So that being the case, the USA should be told to get stuffed until they agree to play ball with us.
How many IRA perps did they shelter? Was it dozens or hundreds? What goes round should come round.
Peter,
You make a good point.
Noel,
"And besides, who decides when we can break the law and when we can't?"
I'm sure there is a judge or a senior minister involved somewhere down the line, and isn't there an overide when there is a National Emergency or in times of war, and surely acts of terror fall into that category somewhere?
Typhoo,
"How long ago Ernest? Harold Wilson wasn't yesterday."
No he wasn't, but neither were terrorist attacks of the kind we have been having recently, and never before have we had MP's colluding with terrorists, so the need to challenge Wilson's pandering never arose before.
Peter,
The need for a reciprocal arrangement is a valid point, and I am sure the Americans would have complied with it long ago, - if it had been anyone other than Irishmen involved. The Kennedy influence still lingers in some quarters, making it political suicide to any administration seeking to change the staus quo.
David: You have over 70 replies to your BB post, and you want even MORE over on this one! Are you trying to corner the market? ;o)
I noticed you even rattled Guy Fawkes cage as well.
It's becoming an unholy alliance!
I think some ATW types are commenting over there under assumed names as well. The very idea.. :)
Hey Bernard,
This cross post was by ATW reader request!
David, you should always cross post. I saw today the posts you do there are interesting, and the stupid little boxes to read the comments are ugh!!
Post the Brit stuff here as well.
Presume you haven't been to Birmingham recently. If you had you wouldn't be surprised at the number of Muslim MPs
Hmph. I don't think a Muslim should even be allowed to be a politician in the UK, period. Their ultimate aims and goals are not in accordance with our national interest or security.
>>I don't think a Muslim should even be allowed to be a politician in the UK, period. Their ultimate aims and goals are not in accordance with our national interest or security<<
LOL Tom, the very same thing was said - in fact, almost word for word - about your co-religionists in your country until 1829.
...And perhaps (at that time), the people who said it were right.
See, I'm not offended just because the same quote can be attributed against my own church. The 'established' church here is the Anglican church and I have no wish to change that.
Time for the masochist side of your nature to come out again Tom?
But anyway, weren't you one of those who pour scorn on "relativists"?
Muslims do not all have a singular aim or ambition, any more than all Christians do. Muslim MPs are perfectly capable of practising their faith without weakening their acknowledgment or commitment to Britain's democratic traditions or secular freedoms
Sorry, but the masochist side of my nature is reserved for Friday nights at The Actress and Bishop club, Dean Street!
I notice you keep dropping these hints in Colm's presence, Tom ! :)