Why the Luton protestors were just a sign of things to come
Dear Inayat Bunglawala,
It was good to hear you, as a representative of the Muslim Council of Britain, come out against the disgusting protests from Muslims in Luton during the homecoming parade for the Royal Anglians. When Muslims cross the line, condemnation from groups that supposedly represent them is often notable by its absence. Nevertheless, I think you’ve been rather naive in how you viewed this situation. “The people who organised this protest are not representative of the town,” you insisted yesterday. “They are viewed with contempt within Luton and within the wider Muslim community. The best example of that is the fact that they handed out flyers across the town to try and get support for this march, yet only the same hardcore 20 people turned up. There were more Muslims in the crowd cheering the soldiers than in the protest jeering them. …They bring disgrace on the reputation of Luton and on other British Muslims but they seem to revel in it.”
Comforting remarks, but your claims appear to be wildly over-optimistic. Newspaper reports today suggest that opinion was in fact divided among Luton’s Muslims over whether the protest should have gone ahead and almost every Muslim was angry at the local authorities and the army for hosting a victory parade in a town with a large Muslim population. Abdullah a mobile phone shop owner, said he first noticed flyers encouraging Muslims to demonstrate against the parade a month ago. “I was busy with my work yesterday, but I was very angry that troops were parading through Luton so I support what the protesters did.” His friend Muhammad was equally critical of the parade. “They could have marched through somewhere like St Albans, where there are hardly any Muslims, but they chose Luton. It was a very provocative act. Luton’s Muslims are not radical but they do feel strongly about the war in Iraq. So why shit on their doorsteps and antagonise them like that?” Provocative? Excuse me? How can the British army marching in Britain be provocative? You see, inferring that only 20 people supported the protests because only 20 people turned up is totally incorrect. The arrogance on display here by Muslims is almost as bad as that displayed by the protestors. They believe that they are in control of Luton and are therefore the most important consideration. They have no concept of the ‘wider community’ involving people from all backgrounds and ethnicities and they are simply not interested in being part of this country and adhering to our values.
The literature being handed out to stir up protests was highly provocative in any case, with one leaflet speaking in favour of imposing sharia law in Britain. One of the protestors said that “there was also nothing illegal about our signs or chants. They broke no laws.” Not illegal, eh? As I understand it, the 1986 Public Order Act, section 4a prohibits “displaying any writing, sign, or other visible representation which is threatening abusive or insulting, with intent to cause a person harrassment, alarm or distress”, while section 5 prohibits “offensive conduct” e.g. using slogans or language that causes distress after a warning from a police officer. I also find it hard to believe that these protestors along with their disgusting banners were not at least ’breaching the peace’. To be fair, the police did make two arrests. The only problem is that they arrested people complaining about the protests rather than the protestors themselves. An 18-year-old man from Luton was charged with ‘racially aggravated harassment’ of the protestors (I hope the irony does not need explaining) while a man in his 40s was issued with a fixed penalty notice of £80. I cannot help but wonder how you would have reacted if the Muslims had been on the receiving end of a protest during, say, an important religious festival. Would you have stood there, done nothing and said nothing? If the BNP had mounted a protest and delivered leaflets to thousands of people demanding protests aimed at Muslims, I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t have been riots on the streets, yet you expect local non-Muslims to accept this sort of behaviour without question.
In all honesty, I’m furious at the police for their limp response to these protests. They were clearly illegal (although they fell short of inciting racial hatred) and were designed to provoke a response and disturb the peace. I’m sick and tired of seeing hateful banners being proudly displayed by Muslims who claim to be British and enjoy all the freedoms that this country has to offer while still despising our values, our beliefs and our heritage. Your assertion that every Muslim bar these protestors supports the army is painfully inaccurate and there is no doubt in my mind that these protestors in Luton were just a sign of things to come.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Luton is a war waiting to happen. I have lots of friends in and around Luton so I know the mood is very hostile. There’s an awful lot of resentment between muslims and whites.
The muslims that live there consider it to be a “muslim town”. A good friend of mine (she was born and bred there) was told by one of her neighbours that she ought to move somewhere else now as Luton belonged to muslims and would soon have its own Sharia Laws and separate itself from the rest of the country.
There are still quite a few “original Lutonians” there, many of them elderly and they are increasingly feeling more uncomfortable, but can’t just move.
If racial wars are to be avoided then these people have to integrate which means breaking up this very dense muslim community, it’s becoming dangerous.
there is no doubt in my mind that these protestors in Luton were just a sign of things to come
You are right. As is the fact that the Police had to stop these scumbags being lynched. You can see where this will end…
Look at the maths. UK population, c. 60m. Muslim population within that c. 2m. So its 29:1, numerically.
I’m quite happy, on those numbers, for this to resolve itself organically at street level. No Gas Chambers required- remember that the Rwandans butchered eachother with machetes and small arms at a faster rate in their genocide than Hitler did in Jews.
Yes, afterwards, we, as a nation, *may* experience similar remorse as the Germans after exterminating 6m Jews but I for one could live with it.
So, really, its time for the ‘Muslim community’ to either get its house in order and settle down or man-up and come out walking the fighting walk that it is content for its gobbier elements to talk. As that eloquent monkey-boy once said, bring it on.
Can you take police to court over something this?a few prosecutions may see a more balanced approach.
I really do think it will come to fighting in the streets as the ordinary brit is sick of the preferential treatment and the islamification of his country.No help from the main political parties either,they all go for appeasment.The longer we wait to stand up to them the harder it will be and the more well armed they will be.
I always say fit in or get out but in all honesty I cannot see muslims becoming a part of british society.Time for them to go live with their own kind.
‘Fit it or get out’ is no doubt a mantra that the BNP will be using to good effect over the coming months.
I believe that anyone who comes to live and work in this country should be expected to integrate, which means speaking English, paying taxes and respecting OUR values and OUR heritage. Having a single person in this country who does not subscribe to this is unacceptable and the constant appeasement from political parties (bar the occasional finger wag) is pathetic.
When you consider how slavishly we follow America on everything from progressive teaching to financial meltdown, it seems odd that we never followed their line on immigration.
The land of the free welcomes {some} and as long as you realise that you are an American first. If you are prepared to fund your own way of life and not make too many demands on the country then you can do what you want.
But federal Law always comes first.
One of the problems is getting to realise the problem in the first place. The BBC and papers including the Mail have simply called them ‘anti-war’ protesters. These aren’t the same broad range of people who marched in London. It is clear this is coming from radical Islam (the protests – even though the sentiment is probably more widespread across Islam). I have no problem with the religious nature of the protest just like I’d have no problem if the Quakers decided to protest for peace and non-violence. But those Muslims were not calling for peace and certainly not non-violence.
I also found it deeply disturbing that women in the full top to bottom black garb were taking photos of the service personnel. it seems rather typical of the police nowadays who will snatch a camera for taking a photo of them but are quite happy to stand by as these people take photos of the Anglians which could be used for nefarious purposes. It’s also typical that these women were not challenged presumably because their dress is like a politically correct bulletproof vest that stops the police from doing their job for fear of upsetting Muslims.
I was saddened by the protests but not all that surprised. There’s a growing culture of hatred and anger across Britain in so many communities. http://blog.matthewcain.co.uk/why-are-we-so-angry/
Bill, I know what you mean. In the US, they don’t let people get away with not being ‘American’ and subscribing to their values – and good on them.
Doug, I also couldn’t care less who these people are, religious or otherwise. Check out this comment from Dave Osler on Liberal Conspiracy (cross posted from his blog):
“Yet give or take some changes of formulation, placards expressing more or less identical sentiments could easily have been carried by Luton’s remaining leftists. Come to that, many could happily have been brandished by those nice white-haired little old lady peaceniks from the local Quaker meeting.”
That is the scale of outrageous denial that the Left are placing themselves in to justify these appalling protests.
Matthew, you are right that there are growing undertones of resentment and they will only get worse until our government stands up for its own citizens and heritage.
From the ‘Independent’ today:
“Abdullah a mobile phone shop owner, said he first noticed flyers encouraging Muslims to demonstrate against the parade a month ago and had been deliberating whether to join them or not. “I knew the protest was going on but I decided not to go,” he said. “I was busy with my work yesterday, but I was very angry that troops were parading through Luton so I support what the protesters did.”
His friend Muhammad was equally critical of the parade. “They could have marched through somewhere like St Albans, where there are hardly any Muslims, but they chose Luton. It was a very provocative act. Luton’s Muslims are not radical but they do feel strongly about the war in Iraq. So why shit on their doorsteps and antagonise them like that?”"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/luton-the-enemy-within-1643089.html
Doug,if that’s correct they were taking photo’s I would ask why?.It sounds very ominous to me that they need photo’s of our soldiers.Notice the police let them take them too but your not allowed to photo police.So now women in burka’s are above the law.
Ive just read in the Telegraph online that one of the protesters is an on call baggage handler at luton airport so is allowed into sensative area’s.I wont be flying from there from now on.
Julia, that’s where I got the quotes from for my letter. It was really difficult to read through those passages without losing my cool. Apparently Muslims have forgotten that this country does not belong to them.
DMC, I’m surprised about the photos but it’s not where most of my fury lies.
Much as I may not like the content of what the protesters were saying, I have to defend their right to actually do it. Free speech is something I find highly important, no matter how contemptible I find the the speaker of the speech.
Rather than see these placard-waving idiots prosecuted, it would be much more satisfying to see them blackballed – let society condemn and punish their behaviour, and leave the courts to the thieves, murderers and rapists.
As for Muslims deciding they own the place, well I have to say that is pretty British going off our history
Even that most English of phrases, “an Englishman’s home is his castle” is indebted to the Normans who built the castles… The British have always been something of a Mongrel breed, and after a period of awkwardness invaders find they’re no longer ‘them’, but instead ‘us’ – I can’t see anything different happening here, it’s just being slowed by the control-freaks of the left’s being unable to just let integration happen naturally.
Obsidian, as you will find on this blog, I fiercely defend freedom of speech when it is under attack. However, we have laws in this country to prevent this from being seriously abused. For example, I haven’t ever heard anyone question the fact that we have laws banning the incitement of racial hatred because from a civil order perspective there is no place in society for criticising people because of the colour of their skin.
As I said in my post, we have laws against public disorder which stop people from going around causing trouble just for the sake of it. The protest by these Muslims was certainly them expressing their opinions, which is what freedom of speech is all about, but the laws we already have in place prohibit people (and certainly groups of people) from deliberately seeking out trouble and causing distress – hence why these protests were illegal.
LFAT, I’m afraid we haven’t different definitions of freedom of speech – for me causing distress isn’t a reason to curtail what people say, or punish them for saying it – there should never, ever be any right to not be offended.
When you draw lines in the sand over what is, and isn’t, acceptable the tide of public opinion constantly redraws those lines, you find yourself skipping down the yellow brick road of statism.
Since you haven’t heard anyone question the laws of inciting racial hatred, allow me to be the first. These laws, whilst done for the best of reasons, do little to stop racism, instead it drives it underground. Genuine change comes not from the clumsy sledgehammer of the legislate, but from the more elegant tools of education and experience, married to the vice-like pressure of public opinion.
These laws haven’t stopped the whispering campaigns of the BNP, the dark mutterings of the NF and their affiliates in the corners of bars, and most assuredly didn’t stop rioting in the North West and Yorkshire some years back. They certainly don’t some of the occasional scuffles that still go on in these areas, or the undercurrent of tension that still exists in some places.
You’re correct that there is no place for insulting people based on skin colour in society, but I would say that is for society to determine, not legislature. When the law tries to shape society it is with vast effort for minimal return, with accompanying resentment, holdouts and claims of ’siding with them’.
Obsidian,Im not sure moslems will ever intergrate into a true british society or any western one.Firstly there are a lot more of them so no need to get to know your british neighbour,you have loads of your own kind to socialise with.Secondly islam and sharia are far too alien to western culture to integrate.The jews,hindus and buddhists have,but islam is far too authoritarian to allow any freedom to its followers.
It was almost working but the rise of militant islam has stopped it.It is too late.
“education and experience, married to the vice-like pressure of public opinion”
Errrr, I don’t think you can ‘educate’ people about sharia law not really being appropriate for this country, do you?
The Public Disorder Act is from the 1980s, meaning that the lines haven’t be redrawn for quite a while. It’s just that the police are too afraid to enforce the law for fear of politically correct idiots claiming that they’re being racist. The police would not have hesitated to arrest the BNP for similar behaviour. Laws against racial hatred can never and will never eliminate racism itself, who said that it would? The law is simply there to prevent tensions boiling over into public life and maintain order on the streets.
You can never legislate what people think (despite what Labour may believe) and British society should always remain a friend of peaceful protests, but as I keep saying this was not a peaceful protest nor was it ever intended to be. Of course you can offend people, but deliberately inciting public disorder is a long long long way away from expressing a controversial opinion.
Bringing up ‘the law’ or a specific section of it to claim that the protest was illegal is uterly emptyheaded of you. There are so many laws written down in so vague a manner that the police-men can pretty much pick up anyone for anything – see the first arrests under terror legislation composed mostly of grumpy pensioners with no bombs strapped to them, see the thousands of new laws introduced to criminalise people by new labour – if im not mistaken aremt the tories now formally opposed to mass vagueness in mass criminalisation!? You deviate from your parties line and common sense, what a days work for you!
As for the letter of the law ‘causing offence’ or whatever ,no doubt parading trained killers through the street who might have shot peoples relatives in the country (not to mention the active role of the British SAS in creating terrorist incidents in civilian areas, remeber they had to be busted out by a tank from an iraqi prison when caught red handed?) that is surely more offensive than some deluded armchair shariarists?
What about the depleted uranium babies being born? Shall we celebrate that in a parade?
for me causing distress isn’t a reason to curtail what people say, or punish them for saying it – there should never, ever be any right to not be offended.
Spot on – the corollary of the right to free speech is the duty to weather offence. That said, coded threats of violence and intimidatory statements and incitement to anything are all crimes and these Beardos should be prosecuted for them. A Jury may find them not guilty…
Bringing up ‘the law’ or a specific section of it to claim that the protest was illegal is uterly emptyheaded of you.
Indeed – but as I have said before, when an Islamist tells you to go to hell, its actually a coded threat/exhortation to the faithful to SEND that person to hell.
I have often argued that even thieves and robbers acknowledge that they live in a society of laws, they just break them. They don’t commit crime to deliberately undermine the free society that gives them criminal opportunity in the first place. Islamists want to destroy that society via any mode available and hide behind our niceties of criminal law to do so. Dealing with them through the courts and by legal means does nothing as then, rather than corrode our society from without, they seek to do it from within – challenging ZaNuLab’s badly drafted laws, peddling Islamism in prison and so on. Which is why I think they’d be much better dealt with off the books. Car accidents happen. Gas mains blow up.
We are only in this situation because, basically, we tolerate their deluded mindset and terrorist activity. The moment the gloves come off and we act *remotely* like the Nazis they claim we are, 2 million Muslims will find out how quickly we can make landfill. Fact.
If you think that should the British people feel that Muslims pose an existential threat, more akin to the Nazis that the IRA or Red Army Faction, then sorry, mate, its all over. And the same, btw, goes for Holland (where I know people in all strata of society, including the Cannabis growing game, and none of them will roll over for any Theocracy ever).
What about the depleted uranium babies being born? Shall we celebrate that in a parade?
They make babies now from DU? Feck, better tell the arms industry…
Seriously, though, while that’s nasty stuff, why is it any worse than lead pollution from bullets or any of the other 100s of toxins we use as part of warfare.
Fred,it is the “armchair shariarist”that is stirring up the militant moslems,but i quite agree we shouldn’t be there.Let them kill each other,the suicide bombers do a far better job even if they are gullible 12 year olds,and they have no concience about killing innocent moslems either.I cannot wait to be moslem free.
@dmc
Muslims aren’t some monobloc, some will not integrate, some will and already some are – believe it or not, some Muslims in the North West actually voted BNP as a protest on immigration. Only recently I encountered a Muslim shopkeeper muttering about a Polish immigrants grasp English. Those two examples are like something out of a comedy, yet actually happened.
Through employment, education and entertainment there is a drip-drip of Muslims becoming increasingly integrated, which, paradoxically, currently helps militant Islam as you have a pool of Muslims torn between tradition and the West desperately seeking guidance. One thing the Government does need to provide is a counterweight to those militants, and offer those torn between two worlds guidance away fundamental and militant Islam.
@LFAT
No, you educate people to integrate them. Shared experience is always the key.
As for Sharia not being suited for the UK, well for civil arbitration it is as long as all parties agree to it freely.
With the 1980’s Public Disorder Act, you contradict yourself – you state that the lines haven’t been redrawn, yet highlight the polices fear of implementing it. Would they have felt the same in the 80’s? Just because the law itself hasn’t altered, it’s implementation certainly has. And as for it preventing trouble spilling over, it certainly appears to have failed in that aspect. Riots and no-go areas make poor cheerleaders for its success.
I didn’t see this protest, but if the protesters initiated any violence or offered threats of a worldly nature, then they ought to be prosecuted, but if you define it as not being peaceful due to the type of language and phrases used I cannot agree. Turning the other cheek, and the well worn phrase about sticks and stones spring to mind. Certainly being insulted and provoked galls, but it only hurts if you can’t let go of it, and that’s a personal issue not a physical assault or a threat.
Shaun Pilkington: Beardos? I’ve got a beard. My nephew and niece like pulling it. Isn’t this outright barbarism – an irrational fear of beards?
@Trofim
I call them Beardos because all fundamentalist Abrahamic faiths seek to control the three Fs – Food (what you are allowed and disallowed to eat), Facial hair (Muslims *must* grow beards, for example) and F*cking. Through the three Fs they grope for absolute dominion over man.