9 2 mins 14 yrs

Our wonderful Home Secretary and flyweight Foreign Secretary have conspired to ban the entry into Britain of Geert Wilders the Dutch M.P. becaue he planned to show FITNA in the House of Lords, a film he produced which tells the plain truth about islam, muslim beliefs and statements of the faithful. A film which, I hasten to add, has now been shown in that symbol of what used to be known as Democracy!

Now I have watched this film twice now, and although it may well be that I am hopelessly contaminated by scenes of muslim-inspired death, islamic terror attacks, hate-filled muslim preachers, long and portentous passages from their so-called holy book stating that we are all doomed to rule by a bunch of ideologues who believe that they alone know what is right, and the rest of us are for the slaughterhouse; I honestly don’t feel any different to how I felt before!

We allow scenes such as these, but do we allow them because they are muslims demonstrating against the West, while barring anything which comes from the other side of things?

The question which must be asked is simple; does the showing of a film which shows nothing but scenes, words and images already published and seen, invoke hatred against muslims and their religion? If you didn’t hate them before, I don’t think you’d hate them now. What I would say is that the film, as it brings a host of items together in a fairly graphic way, should work as a vivid and direct warning to Western minds of how the mindset of a bunch of middle-eastern wankers actually works!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

9 thoughts on “Fit? Nah!

  1. This story has been going on for days.Our dear and beloved Lord Ahmed threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House. Jackboot Jackie has just completed the job for him. Read the following from
    The Brussels Journal

    Muslims in the Lords
    From the desk of Thomas Landen on Mon, 2009-01-26 11:16
    The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in? This:

    A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Mr. Wilders’ opinions with him.

    Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.

    Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistani press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”

    A victory for the Muslim community, but a defeat for British democracy where topics to which Muslims object cannot even be debated. That, apparently, is what one gets when one accepts Muslims into the House of Lords.

    Lord Ahmed is considered to be a “moderate” Muslim. The Pakistani born Nazir Ahmed became the United Kingdom’s first Muslim life peer in 1998. He is a member of the Labour Party and was appointed to the Lords by Tony Blair. Lord Ahmed took his oath on the Koran. He led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia. In February 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. In 2007, he responded to the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie by stating that he was appalled, saying that Rushdie had “blood on his hands.”

    Lord Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up “to promote world peace in the aftermath of 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance.”

    What does “dialogue” mean to those who make discussion about controversial issues impossible? Thank you, Mr. Blair, for bringing “diversity” to the House of Lords.

    END QUOTE

  2. and then there’s woeful Miliband being interviewed on BBC HardTalk spouting on about this being a ‘hate film’.
    "Have you seen the film, Mr Miliband?"…"er, no"

  3. Why hasn’t this bloke been arrested?

    Dr Ijaz Mian, who preached as follows at the Ahl-e-Hadith mosque in Derby:

    "You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir. We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others… King, Queen, House of Commons: if you accept it, you are a part of it. If you don’t accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. From that White House to this Black House, we know we have to dismantle it. Muslims must grow in strength, then take over… You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state-within-a-state – until you take over".

    I’m getting pretty bored with all this ‘free speech’ belly-aching. That died over a decade ago.
    What’s happening now is pure repression, lockdown and physical threats against the populace both in the UK and in mainland Europe.
    If this recession bites even deeper and jobs/living standards tumble below a threshold of tolerance, then people will feel they have little to lose by exploding on to the streets.

    We’re all just waiting till the snow melts.(!)

  4. If Ahmed – awaiting sentence for killing another driver when sending text messages while driving on a motorway – did make that threat against Parliament, he must be tried for treason.

    The Treason Felony Act 1847 remains in full effect in the realm:

    It is treason felony to compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend:
    •to deprive the Queen of her crown,
    •to levy war against the Queen, or
    •to ‘move or stir’ any foreigner to invade the United Kingdom or any other country belonging to the Queen.
    If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom… order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament… and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing… or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable…to be transported beyond the seas for the term or his or her natural life.

  5. Free Speech –

    Interesting, if only to discover the Treason Felony Act isn’t quite as obscure as I thought!

    If His Grace intends to make an action against the ignoble Lord Ahmed I’ll be happy to chip in.

  6. We are in a period of appeasement.

    We know what the last appeasement did to Europe.

    Our leaders are betraying us with their stupidity and ignorance.

    Three cheers for Lord Pearson and Rev Jay Smith, I knew little of them before tonight but they spoke well at the press conference in the face of some pretty dumb questions

Comments are closed.