web analytics

Khanistan….

By David Vance On May 14th, 2018

So I’ve spent the past few days in London, a city which is increasingly unBritish in my opinion. The contemporary nature of the UK Capital has been significantly changing over the past few decades and one measure of this is reflected in the simple fact that the most popular baby boy’s name is … Mohammad.

London elected Labour politician Sadiq Khan as Mayor back in 2016. London’s large Muslim vote was undoubtedly a factor although it is worth reflecting that only 25% of those eligible to vote actually supported him. He postured as being commited to “liberal social values” and so I think it’s worthwhile to consider how he has pursued these liberal values.

Here are a couple of examples of the sort of advertising of which Mayor Khan approves.

Both ads support “Islamic Relief” – a global “charity” which Israel and the UAE accuse of supporting terrorism.

Meanwhile, here are a few ads that Mayor Khan has banned/plans to ban.

It strikes me that Khan is banning certain aspects of popular western culture whilst approving of Islamic centred charity. One could argue that perhaps he is simply supporting charities but when a CHRISTIAN charity tried to advertise on TFL they were…banned.

An attempt by evangelical Christians to promote “gay cure” therapies on the sides of London buses was banned last night sparking an angry row over free speech. The adverts were meant to begin running next week and mimicked a recent campaign by the gay-rights group Stonewall which used the strapline “Some people are gay, get over it!”.

Now regardless of what one thinks of this “Gay cure” ad campaign, it had no overt links to terrorism, unlike Islamic Relief. Yet one gets the pass to advertise and one is shut up. It is perhaps not entirely coincidental that British muslims are hostile to homosexuality. 

Khan has also been consistently hostile to the idea of a visit by US President Trump to the UK, despite the fact that the US is our closest ally. He has seemed indifferent to the rise of knife-crime, gang warfare and acid attacks that disfigure the UK Capital. Recently, he used his public pulpit to attack ANM’s Shazia Hobbs, a prominent campaigner against FGM and Muslim rape gangs. It is estimated that THOUSANDS of young girls have their genitals mutilated in London and yet there has not been ONE succesful prosecution. Mayor Khan chooses to attack those like Shazia who raise the issue and that begs the question as to whose side is he on?

17 Responses to “Khanistan….”

  1. Mayor Khan, apart from being a total waste of space, and perfectly good oxygen, is a mini-me brown version of Justin Trudeau.

  2. London elected Labour politician Sadiq Khan as Mayor back in 2016. London’s large Muslim vote was undoubtedly a factor although it is worth reflecting that only 25% of those eligible to vote actually supported him

    The 2011 census recorded that 48.4% of Londoners considered themselves to be Christian, 12.39% considered themselves Muslim

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/london-population/

    According to that article there are 1,012,823 Muslims in London and if we take the ‘only’ 25% of voters that voted for Khan in the second round, (1,310,143), that was 56.8% of the votes. I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that Khan’s support was more than 25%, (he took more than 44.2% in the first round), and that they certainly weren’t all Muslim.

  3. //it had no overt links to terrorism, unlike Islamic Relief. //

    What are Islamic Relief’s “overt links” to terrorism, apart from Israel claiming it has?

    Islamic Relief has links to a primitive ideology that believes in penalties like limb amputation and physical punishment of “prostitutes, adulterers and pornographers” – much worse than some alleged links to Hamas.

    Speaking of severe penalties for pornography stars, I wonder will they soon be invited to the White House?

  4. and that they certainly weren’t all Muslim.

    No, the rest of them were cucks & dhimmis.

    😉

  5. I agree, although for different reasons than you David, that the London mayor should not be invoved in banning McDonald’s and weight loss advertisements. (Authough from what I can see, the advertising Standards authority had more to do with these adverts getting pulled than Sadiq Kahn.)
    I personally think this is less of a religious issue, I’m more of a ‘snowflake’ one. (To borrow an expression, loved by The Right Here on ATW.) It seems free speech is under threat by people who believe they have a right not to be offended. This type of censorship, is a worrying trend that seems to be on the rise.

    As for the Islamic charity, what’s the evidence that they are actually linked to terrorism other, than an accusation by the israelis? I agree that if this were the case these adverts should not be shown, but I’ve been unsuccessful in finding any compelling links to terrorism.

  6. No, the rest of them were cucks & dhimmis.

    Careful H, you might have some here accusing you of racism.

    The People Have Spoken, the Bastards!

    Democracy will do that sometimes.

  7. I’m sure there are some here that would move to the Khanistan alternate reality 🙂

    https://independent.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/croppedphotos/2016/11/14/Barney-566_t958.jpg?fef15e12b784e9bbb22bf3f2924819218cda3d1a

  8. I found this video about the rise in political correctness and censorship very interesting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kGBQSXX_GU

  9. and that’s your view of where Paul the US….?

  10. It’s not my view of anywhere Pat it’s a satirical political cartoon taken from an American newspaper.

    Dave, I can’t bloody stand right on trendies like this gulpin:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/permission-nappy-change-consent-sexuality-expert-deanne-carson-a8345581.html

    However ‘political correctness’ (whatever that means) seems to be a catch all expression used to describe just about anything that Rightworld disagrees with. If not deliberately using an insult to describe someone’s race, ethnicity or sexuality makes me ‘politically correct’ then I suppose I am, (as I know you are too).

  11. //If not deliberately using an insult to describe someone’s race, ethnicity or sexuality makes me ‘politically correct’//

    No, it doesn’t. But deliberately avoiding saying something negative about an individaul that could be taken as an insult of a entire race, ethnicity or sexuality does.

    Basically, political correctness focuses on the perceptions – or alleged perceptions – of people, rather than on an objective appraisal of what is said or done.

  12. No, it doesn’t.

    Yes it does Noel. As you say yourself, political correctness is subjectively based on alleged perception of people, rather than on an objective appraisal of what is said or done. That’s why I term it as a catch all expression above.

    I’d say referring to people on racial grounds as ‘groids’ the way Allan does here would be politically incorrect and if so the refusal of using such terms would then be the reverse terminology?

  13. Paul

    That permission to change a nappy story was insane mate. LOL.

    The definition of political correctness is definitely subjective. And to be honest, it’s been so misused and really hate hearing the term now.

  14. //I’d say referring to people on racial grounds as ‘groids’ the way Allan does here would be politically incorrect //

    Paul, the term obviously also includes comments etc that are objectively unacceptable, i.e. in this case deliberately insulting. But it also includes statements that are in themselves harmless, but that “could give rise to” feelings of insult.

    Anything that deliberately distorts reality by avoiding, discounraging or banning certain truths is the kind of PC that most people object to.

  15. I feel were are discussing at cross purposes here Noel.

    I largely agree with your comment above but would qualify it with the last paragraph of my 12.02.

  16. The baby name thing is skewed because Muslims tend to use Mohammed as opposed to choosing from the variety of names utilized by Christians, Secularists etc. As far as I recall Khan won fair and square even though I am not a big fan.

  17. I’d say referring to people on racial grounds as ‘groids’ the way Allan does here would be politically incorrect

    It’s merely an endearing truncation of ‘negroid’ which is a term specific to the race, very similar to the truncation of Australian to Aussie, Pakistani to Paki, Briton to Brit etc.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.