To all in London and the U.K.

[Robert_]

I hope you and your loved ones are safe from harm. In these trying times, please accept our condolences. You are in our thoughts and prayers.

 

-Robert

[Robert_]

I hope you and your loved ones are safe from harm. In these trying times, please accept our condolences. You are in our thoughts and prayers.

 

-Robert

[HairBeThere]

yes, my condolences to all my UK buddies!!

 

Take care, you are all in my thoughts!

[terry mitchell]

Points well put by Robert and HBT. Let's not forget that there are our friends "out there" who need our support beyond this forum. Terry.

[Kez]

Thanks for your thoughts, fellas. Actually London suffered more in a single hour in 1940 at the hands of the Luftwaffe than anything the Islamo-fascists have come up with. Personally I feel we're at risk not so much because of the bombers, but from the English political and judicial elite, who seem to think that the "Human Rights" of extreme Muslim clerics preaching hatred in London mosques is more important than the right to life of our citizens.

 

The French, German, Egyptian, Saudi governments have, since 9/11 been exasperated at the UK governments refusal to extradite Muslim fanatics holed up in "Londonistan" as they witheringly call it.

 

In the last two years the French have come down hard on Islamic extremists in their midst, expelling 40, 14 of which were thrown out since 7/7.

 

They are subject to identical EU Human Rights laws as the British, yet the UK has thrown out NOT ONE of the hatred-mongers, who operate with impunity in the society they despise and terrorise. (One left the country voluntarily, & the UK has "courageously" banned his return )

 

Muslim lawyers make big bucks from taxpayer funded "legal aid" defending Muslim clients from police prosecutions, and advise their clients to give no information to the UK police about extremist activity in London.

 

One woman lawyer, Mudassar Arani, operating in Southall, West London, has made ??1 million from this scam & warns young Muslims that those who speak up against Muslim terrorism "are playing into the hands of the government".

[HairBeThere]

Kez, glad to see our politicians all practice the same guidlines.

 

Line the pockets first, and put the safety and welfare of the citizens last.

 

I do like the new law your government has passed. Speak up, and get booted out.

[Kez]

The one against "inciting religious hatred" you mean. Funny, during a thousand years of Christianity it wasn't needed, and people could insult the Church any way they wanted (and rightly so). Recently "Jerry Springer - The Movie" played in London, and again was basically sarcastic and derogatory about Christianity. Again, I have no problems with this ( I'm no Christian, but I DO believe in FREEDOM of sppech )

 

BUT, if you say anything against this new religion in our midst - Islam - you can be accused of this new sin "Islamophobia", and the new law is there to hit anyone criticisng Islam, not Christianity (othwerise, we'd have had it in place for centuries already)

 

So it's OK to criticise Christianity, but unacceptable to criticise Islam.

 

This is simple appeasement, and a betrayal of the British tradition of Freedom Of Speech.

..

[SorleyBoy]

Kes

"Law against inciting religious hatred" . . . "people could insult the church any way they wanted"? - Are you talking about heresy? The "thousand years of Christianity" as you put it, was responsible for enough judicial murder (of people insulting the Church) to put 'Christianity' in the same league as Mao, Uncle Joe, and Adolph! . . . no freedom of speech back then my son.

 

You have right to be critical of Islam (inciting violence is the 'sin' per se). You have to be above that - you wouldn't want to be like them. . . . it could potentially ruin your HT!

 

Sorleyboy.

[Kez]

The point I'm making is that Freedom of Speech has reigned unimpaired in Britain throughout my lifetime, and ridiculing the Church has been a part and parcel of British satire. The Church has had to take it on the chin, as in the "blashphemous" Jerry Springer musical last Christmas.

 

Now this has all changed, since it is impermissble to ridcule and satire Islam in Great Britain.

 

In case you have forgotten, Salman Rushdie did just this (actually, what he wrote was trivial compared with Jerry Springer..) and there were riots worldwide, and he was subjected to a death sentence.

 

This Islamic intolerance and paranoid sensitivity to "insult" has now resulted in the loss of our Freedom of Speech, since the new law has been drafted for the Islamic community, not the Christians.

 

It's not a question of "being like them". It's a question of being intimidated by "them" into curtailing Freedom of Speech.

[SorleyBoy]

Kes

. . . Don't get too concerned about this - your freedom of speech has always been safe. Unless you are thinking about a massive leaflet campaign that results in a second 'Kristalnacht' - the law won't be picking you up for satire, jokes or critical debate. If you check out the Home Office guidelines on the new Bill

 

[link to outside website removed by forum moderator; contents transcribed below - Robert]

 

- I think you'll find that it's only the likes of extremist Nationalist parties that will have to be more careful. . . . (Go on! - tell me that you're a member of the BNP!) . . . and the law will even protect me - as a Godless heathen . . . ('ere, now where did I put that volume by Neitzche?)

 

Sorleyboy

[Robert_]

From homeoffice.gov.uk:

 

 

1. What is the Government doing?

 

* The Government is extending protection to prevent hatred being stirred up against people targeted because of their religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs, as well as people targeted because of their race.

* This is being done through the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Bill, by expanding the existing criminal offences of incitement to racial hatred contained in the Public Order Act 1986.

* The provisions make it an offence for a person to knowingly use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with the intention or likelihood that they will stir up hatred against a group of people based on their religious beliefs.

* It is about protecting people who might be the object of someone else's hatred because of their religion; not about protecting religion itself.

 

Back to top

 

2. Why is new legislation necessary?

 

* It is widely accepted that individuals in our society are stirring up hatred against particular religious groups. This may take the form of publications distributed by extremist groups which equate a particular religion with mass murder or rape, or speeches at public meetings that use inflammatory language and exhort people to make life unbearable for those of a certain religion.

* Although, the Government does not believe that incitement to religious hatred is commonplace, it does exist and where it exists it has a disproportionate and corrosive effect on communities, creating barriers between different groups and encouraging mistrust and suspicion. At an individual level this can lead to fear and intimidation and a sense of isolation.

* It can also indirectly lead to discrimination, abuse, harassment and ultimately crimes of violence against members of our communities. It is legitimate for the criminal law to protect citizens from such behaviour.

* These provisions are needed to close an unacceptable loophole where some religions (Jews and Sikhs) are protected and others such as Muslims and Christians are not. Jews and Sikhs are covered by existing incitement to racial hatred laws as a result of decisions made by the courts (Mandla vs Dowell Lee 1993). This is on the basis of those groups also having a distinct ethnic origin. The existing law does not protect other religions that do not have distinct ethnic origins (e.g. Christians or Muslims) as it is currently interpreted. This measure will end that anomaly. Since the introduction of the incitement to racial hatred offence, some extremists have exploited this loophole, using religious terms to identify victims whom they would have previously identified using racial terms.

 

Back to top

 

3. Why is this measure in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill?

 

The proposed offence of incitement to religious hatred is included alongside other offences, all of which the Home Secretary has said the Government will legislate for as soon as possible. The provision is within the scope of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill which provides this opportunity during this Parliamentary session.

 

Back to top

 

4. What would be caught by the new incitement offence?

 

* Individuals and members of extremist and racist organisations and parties who stir up hatred of groups defined by their religious beliefs. Also, religious extremists who stir up hatred against members of other religions.

* Both of these groups of extremists are very small in number and wholly unrepresentative of the communities they claim to speak for. The vast majority of British people, including British Muslims, are peaceful and law abiding and would not advocate hatred against people of other religions or races.

* The need to take into account all the circumstances of a case means that it is very difficult to give a yes/no answer to whether particular statements will be caught by the new offence. For example the context and audience of what is said are as critically important as the words themselves. The same series of critical statements might be more likely to stir up hatred in the backroom of a pub full of drunken men in area of deprivation and tension than said an in academic debate in a university.

* An example of what might be caught under a new incitement to religious hatred offence is an extreme racist organisation widely distributing material setting out a range of insulting and highly inflammatory reasons for hating Islam. Such reasons have included suggesting that Muslims are a threat to British people and liable to molest women and that they should be urgently driven out of Britain.

* The Muslim cleric el-Faisal gave lectures around the UK over a period of four years used threatening, abusive and insulting language against ??unbelievers', these lectures being recorded and subsequently put on sale. The inflammatory language was therefore deliberately designed to reach a wider audience. He said it is permissible to use chemical weapons to kill unbelievers and sanctioned the use of nuclear weapons "in that country which is 100% unbelievers". The jury found el-Faisal guilty of three counts of soliciting to murder and three of incitement to racial hatred for similar utterances against Jews. On 7 March 2003 he was sentenced to a total of nine years' imprisonment, seven years for the soliciting offences and two years for the incitement to racial hatred offences. Although el-Faisal was also sentenced for soliciting to murder, had the comments made about Jews been directed at another religious group (i.e. Christians), prosecution for incitement to racial hatred would not have been possible and he would not have been sentenced for this offence.

 

Back to top

 

5. What will the new offence not cover?

 

Of themselves, the following would not be caught by the offence:

 

* Criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; for example by claiming that they are false or harmful;

* Proselytising one's own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practising theirs; for example Christians claiming that Jesus Christ is the way the truth, the life and the only way to God, Muslims exhorting people to submit to the will of Allah, or Atheists claiming that there is no God;

* Telling jokes about religions;

* Publishing or reading from religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an.

* Of themselves these activities do not meet the criteria of the offences. However if a person were to use threatening, abusive or insulting words/actions with the intent or likely effect that hatred would be stirred up whilst undertaking the actions listed above, then by definition, they could rightly fall into the scope of the offence.

* In a presentation at the Houses of Parliament, Trevor Philips reminded us that Bernard Manning, Lenny Henry, Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown had not been prosecuted for any racial jokes under the existing offences. In particular there have been no prosecutions for jokes directed at the Jewish community, who are protected by the incitement to racial hatred provisions, regardless of whether jokes are racially or religiously motivated. If this protection of the Jewish community didn't penalise rabbi jokes, there are no grounds to believe that extending the protection to other faith communities will prevent jokes about them.

 

Back to top

 

6. Would the play "Behzti" by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti which was being shown in Birmingham or "Jerry Springer the Opera" which was broadcast by the BBC be covered by the new offence of incitement to religious hatred?

 

The Government upholds freedom of expression, provided this does not stir up hatred or violence. Neither "Behzti" nor "Jerry Springer the Opera" would fall foul of the proposed or existing incitement to hatred offences. Although it is clear that the opera and the play have caused offence, there is no evidence that they have stirred up hatred against any religious group and they would not be caught by the proposed incitement to religious offence. It is already an offence to stir up hatred against Sikhs, under the current incitement to racial hatred offences, whether because of their race or religion. The police have decided that there are no grounds for action against the play Behzti, which some Sikhs felt targeted their community. The proposed offence of stirring up religious hatred, which will extend the same legal protection to other faith communities, is not a blasphemy law and will not penalise criticising articles or symbols of faith or causing offence. It will not therefore interfere with freedom of expression any more than the existing offence on inciting racial hatred has done.

 

Back to top

 

7. Will the new legislation only protect Muslims? What about individuals with no religious beliefs? Are they protected?

 

The new legislation will protect people of all religious beliefs, applying equally to incited hatred against Muslims, or Christians, or any other religious group. It will also protect people targeted because of their lack of religious beliefs or because they do not share the religious beliefs of the perpetrator.

 

Back to top

 

8. Will religion be defined? Will the definition include cults?

 

In keeping with similar legislation, the proposals do not define the meaning of religion. "Religious hatred" is defined as "hatred against a group of people defined by their religious beliefs or lack of religious belief". Explanatory notes have been published which provide a non-exhaustive list of widely practised religions and clearly explain that the protection also covers people identified with a particular branch of a religion. They also stress that the protection of the offence covers Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics. When the circumstances are unclear, the courts will decide whether a particular group of people is protected, in the wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered. If the courts ruled that a new religious movement qualified as a religion for the purposes of the new offence, that would not prevent criticism of the practices of that movement.

 

Back to top

 

9. What about protection for other at risk groups such as those with disabilities or those who suffer because of their sexual orientation? Why isn't the incitement to racial hatred provisions being extended to protect those groups?

 

The extension of the incitement provisions to cover people identified by their religion as well as race, is the closing of an unacceptable loop-hole that mono-ethnic religious groups (such as Jews and Sikhs) are covered by the existing offence whereas multi-ethnic religious groups (such as Muslims and Hindus) are not. The Government keeps provisions under constant review and is open to considering whether further extensions are needed.

 

Back to top

 

10. What measures have been put in place to ensure that provisions for freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion will not be abused?

 

These measures accord with, and will operate in the light of, the guarantees afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. In fact in its latest report, published on 2 March, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has stated that it considers that the measures on incitement proposed in the SOCAP Bill are unlikely to give rise to any violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

 

The Government is determined to protect both the rights of free speech, which have been long respected in this country, and the right to lead a life in which one can peacefully practise one's own religion without fear. The Government is confident that this can be reconciled with protecting people against incited hatred. The new legislation will provide protection from the activities of extremists who stir up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs, whilst also safeguarding the right to engage in free and vigorous debate about religion, including the right to criticise religious beliefs and practices.

 

The proposed and existing offences both carry a high threshold in order to protect freedom of speech. Words, behaviour or material used must be threatening, abusive or insulting and must either be intended to or likely to stir up hatred. The hatred must be aimed at people who are members of that group, not ideologies. Hatred is a strong term; which goes beyond ridicule, prejudice, dislike, contempt, anger or offence. A further safeguard in the legislation is that a person who does not intend to stir up hatred is not guilty of an offence if they did not know that their words, behaviour, written material, recording or programmes were threatening, abusive or insulting. Furthermore the offences do not apply to anything that takes place in one's own home. All prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General, which will prevent the offences being misused through private prosecutions. We believe the wording of the offences, the public interest test applied by the CPS, and the veto of the Attorney General are sufficient to safeguard freedom of speech.

 

This provision will protect people's freedom to practise their religion without fear, not restrict it. Proselytism is recognised as an integral activity for many faith communities. The new provision would make it an offence to stir up hatred, not to practise one's religion or proselytise.

 

Jews and Sikhs are protected by the existing offences regardless of whether threats, abuse or insults made against them are religiously or racially motivated. This hasn't stopped people criticising Judaism or discussing alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by the Jewish community in Israel because this offence does not prohibit criticism of religious beliefs.

 

Article 9 of the European Convention states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and that this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. It also states that freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject to limitations prescribed by law and necessary in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order and the rights and freedoms of others.

 

Article 10 of the European Convention states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and that this includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. Similarly it also states that the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to restrictions prescribed by law that are necessary in the interests of public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the reputation or rights of others.

 

These offences are justifiable, necessary and proportionate measures for the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights of others; the need for which is reflected in these articles. Indeed because these provisions protect groups from hatred directed against them because of religious belief, they safeguard the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Writers are rightly concerned about freedom of expression. The government's prime concern is the safety and security of our communities. The aim of this legislation is to protect people from the hatred stirred up against them on the basis of their religious beliefs that prepares the ground for dangerous violence.

 

Our proposal puts boundaries on free speech that permits artists to offend, criticise or ridicule but which will protect people from the sort of hatred that has a very real and corrosive effect on our communities. We are confident that this offence places boundaries in the right place.

 

Back to top

 

11. What does the Government think about the case of two Australian pastors who have been found guilty of vilifying Islam?

 

There are a number of differences between section 8 of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, under which the defendants have been found guilty, and the incitement to religious hatred offence we propose.

 

Section 8 of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act makes it an offence for a person to engage in conduct which incites not only hatred against, but also serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, another person or class of persons on the ground of the religious belief or activity. The threshold for the incitement to religious hatred offence we propose is substantially higher and will only capture those who knowingly use words or behaviour or to publish or distribute material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention or likelihood that religious hatred would be stirred up.

 

Another difference is that, under our existing and proposed offences, prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General, which prevents the legislation being misused by feuding religious groups.

 

There is a distinction between criticising a religion and the inciting hatred against its followers. The Government is confident that the new legislation prohibits the latter without interfering with the former.

 

Back to top

 

12. Has the Government carried out a consultation on this issue?

 

The issue has been explored in depth by the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences in 2003 and has also been considered as part of the Strength in Diversity consultation in 2004. Following the then Home Secretary's announcement on this issue on 7 July, the Home Office undertook a further targeted consultation with a variety of organisations representing different religions and beliefs, civil liberties groups, trade unions, enforcement agencies and others.

 

Back to top

 

13. Will the government repeal/extend existing blasphemy laws?

 

* Some religious and non-religious groups have suggested that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous liable should be repealed. The Government has no immediate plans to amend the current law on blasphemy.

* We acknowledge that there are a wide variety of views on whether the blasphemy laws should be retained, repealed or extended. Indeed, the ICM poll for the Guardian found that 46% thought that blasphemy should be repealed, yet 38% believe that there is a case to keep it on the statute book.

* In light of the fact that there is no overall consensus on the issue we will keep this matter under close review, particularly as the benefits of the new provision against incitement to religious hatred are realised. We do not think that repealing blasphemy should be a condition of securing support for the incitement to hatred offence which, as the CRE have stated, is needed now to prevent real harm and should not be delayed until blasphemy laws are repealed.

 

Back to top

 

14. Will the government be doing anything to address the general issue of discrimination on religious grounds?

 

Yes. As the then Home Secretary outlined in his speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research on 7 July 2004, the Government knows that people can be and are discriminated against because of their religion, and that people of faith cannot have full access to jobs, careers and services if their religious needs are ignored or overridden..

 

In December 2003, the Government implemented the EU regulations against religious discrimination in employment and training. We have funded ACAS and community organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain to help employees as well as employers understand their rights and obligations

 

The Government has responded to calls from faith communities, as well as from BME and anti-racism organisations, for legislation to tackle religious discrimination in other areas. The Prime Minister announced the Government's intentions on this at the 2004 Labour Party Conference. The Equality Bill, introduced into Parliament in March 2005, includes provisions which will make unlawful discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, in the delivery of goods, facilities and services, and the exercising of public functions. This will afford all religious communities the protections currently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs, who are deemed ethnic groups under the Race Relations Act.

 

15. Are the incitement to religious hatred proposals the same as the religious discrimination proposals?

 

No. Stirring up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs is a criminal matter whereas religious discrimination comes under civil law. The Government's religious discrimination proposals are being taken forward as part of the Single Equality Commission Bill. They will afford protection from discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services or premises for followers of all religions. The new provisions on religious discrimination are intended to close a loophole where case-law has extended the protections of the Race Relations Act to followers of some religions, namely Jews and Sikhs, as they are recognised as mono-ethnic groups, but followers of other multi-ethnic religions are not equally protected.

 

16. How will the new provisions be enforced? Will there be a high number of convictions obtained?

 

The Government is working with the Police, the CPS and other key agencies, to ensure that the new provisions make a full and effective contribution to our work against hate crime.

 

We do not expect a large number of prosecutions, just as there have not been a large number of prosecutions under incitement to racial hatred.

 

* Between commencement of the Public Order Act on 1st April 1987 and 3rd February 2005 there have been 72 defendants prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred.

* The Attorney General has only used his veto on 3 occasions.

* Between 2001 and 2004 86 cases were referred to the CPS for consideration. As of the 2nd February 2005:

o 6 cases have been prosecuted (involving 12 defendants)

o 2 defendants have been convicted

o 1 case was dropped

o 3 cases are ongoing (involving 9 defendants)

 

The offence has however provided a powerful deterrent to the conduct of racist and other extremist organisations and individuals.

 

17. Why don't you extend the existing incitement to racial hatred offence to make clear that insults using religious words cannot be used as a proxy for racism?

 

* The Public Order Act does not specify that the words used when inciting racial hatred have to be specifically racist as long as the intention was to stir up racial hatred.

* Because of this, this change would not provide the protections needed. For example, because Muslims are not associated with a single race a generalised anti-Muslim speech or poster would not stir up hatred against a particular racial group, and would therefore not be protected by the Public Order Act.

* It would not provide protection for Christians as it is impossible to identify Christians with a particular racial group and would fail to cover those with no religious beliefs.

* It would fail to tackle the issue of extremists from within faith communities who stir up hatred of others because they do not share their religious beliefs ??“ for example Muslim clerics who stir up hatred against kafirs/infidels.

* It would exacerbate the current loophole in the law as some faith groups would remain be unprotected by the law.

[Kez]

Well gentlemen, I am reassured. ( But they're still paranoid hypersensive loonies...)

[Skywalker]

Kez,

you should not be reassured, right now the Government is trying to pass a bill which means taking the mickey out a religion (even if what you are saying is true) will be against the law. Comedians such as Rowan Atkinson (hardly the most right wing people) are rising up to fight these new laws but the Government has yet to back down. It wants to keep the Muslim vote happy (we have been taking the piss out of Christians for years - nobody gets het up about it).

[HairBeThere]

All,

 

My problem with this is not freedom of speech, but the freedom to convict the practices of which the foundation of both, UK. and USA were founded on. Christiananity.

 

Remember, democracy in both countries were based on these religous beliefs. Which is why many nations citizens and religions are seeking a home, or refugee be it, into these two countries. Canada included.

 

I don't here of any mass rush into Africa, China, Japan, Russia, or especially Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

We have disney world folks!! You tell me!

[Kez]

You're both right. Freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy.

 

The Muslim community is not as innocent as people would have us believe. The so-called moderate Muslims in the UK are behind the sinister censorship that has now started:

 

1) Because of Muslim "sensitivity" Dudley city council has banned the use of Winnie the Pooh "Piglet" mugs by their staff. Because the pig is "unclean" in the Muslim religion. Strangely, although the pig is equally unclean to Jews, no council has ever suggested banning Piglet mugs in the last 100 years (or more) since a Jewish community has existed in Britain.

 

Apparently a Jew can walk by a Piglet mug nonchalantly, but when a Muslim walks by a Piglet mug, he shakes with a sense of being wronged, offended and insulted.

 

2) Piggy banks used to be displayed in East Lancashire branches of the Halifax Building Society (Credit Union / Savings & Loans) to encourage customers to save - Jewish customers included. In October, they were removed from all branches "because of Muslim sensibilities".

 

3) The Cross of St George is the English national flag ( waved with pride at all international sporting occasions by OUR loyal people) and a charity collecting funds among British prison staff gave out a lapel pin with this flag displayed on it. Her Majesty's Inspecor Of Prisons ( I forget the stupid biitch's name ) decided that The Cross of St George might be "misinterpreted" and so our national flag has been BANNED in British prisons because Muslims still feel aggrieved by wars (The Crusades) that took place 1000 years ago.

 

My uncle was killed by the Germans just SIXTY years ago, in a war which resulted in the death and maiming of millions of my countrymen, but I bear no ill-will towards today's Germans, and have German friends.

 

What is WRONG with

 

a) the people who are so hypersensitive to offence, real or imagined.

 

b) the spineless weak-kneed appeasers who take a backward step whenever the stupid demands of a) are raised...?

[SorleyBoy]

Kez

. . . Don't get too upset about this Piglet thing . . . The Councillor was a practicing Muslim anyway - in an area with a substantial Muslim presence.

 

The whole affair has (seemingly) been a cringeworthy embarrasment to Islamics nationwide . . . and it's easy to see why; if you turn the whole thing on it's head, you would piss yourself laughing at what has surely underscored and re-emphasised in the most tragi-comic fashion, the profound unworldliness and incomprehensible intellect of some elements of this sub-culture. . . would you want to be thought of as that stupid by the rest of the population?

 

They have to be pitied . . . but rumour has it that 2,700 'Mecca' Bingo Halls will shortly have to close!

 

Organised religion . . . die !!!