The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.

The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.”

The full wording is: Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.

You are probably thinking the same as me: why are Muslims wanting to make an international law that will criminalise more Muslims than anyone else? Which ‘religion’ is as intolerant towards others as Islam? Which ‘religion’ is responsible for the murders of thousands of people of other religions throughout the world every year? It’s Islam, of course. But this law won’t apply to Muslims, because only Islam can be disrespected.

I cannot see such an ‘international law’ being adhered to in countries like Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia, where Christians by the hundred have been murdered recently just for being Christians (there’s religious hatred for you), but I can envisage the trembling hands of the ‘infidels’ in the West signing up to this in order to criminalise their own people for speaking out against Sharia law, arranged marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killings, Muslim rape gangs, poppy-burners and the rest of the sickness that goes wherever Islam goes.

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step foward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.

The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.

As I have said so often before, the same agenda is being put in place all over the West.

The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.

They even want our ‘democratically elected politicians’ to be silenced (those few who still speak up). And the last thing the leaders of the Islamic world want is integration. That’s not how their global caliphate will come about. They must remain separate in order to dominate.

To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.

I am just going to reproduce these examples of what has already happening in Europe after people have done nothing more than told the truth about Islam…

In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.

In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.

Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.

Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.

Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.

In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.

In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting racial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.

Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.

Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.

In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.

In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.

But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason’ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

So, you would think that criticising Islam is already a crime in Europe without any further effort by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The United Nations is still seen as a highly reputable and invaluable organisation to most people, rather than what it really is. If our politicians lack the strength of character to deal with the EU on most matters, how do you think they will react when expected to adopt laws that try to prevent us saying things like, ‘Well, actually, I don’t think it’s right that Muslim girls should have their genitals mutilated’?

If this happens, what a devastating blow to freedom. We will literally become dhimmis in our own country. Even more so than we are already, with the halal food being dished up to an unsuspecting public and the dismantling of our Judeo-Christian values and culture.

If we don’t stand up for our country and our freedom and commit ourselves to the values of our fathers and grandfathers, we will fall to Islam. And soon. It doesn’t matter that Muslims are a minority in Europe; the powers that be have dealt them a winning hand. At least, this is what they want us to believe, but it will only be a winning hand if we fail to realise that they are bluffing, therefore we must not throw in our hand because this rotten game is there for the taking if we stand strong against this tide of insanity.

FURTHER READING: ‘Proud to be a British Muslim’ (a lesson in mind-control)

This video was uploaded to the Scottish Government’s YouTube channel the other day. It is an obvious piece of propaganda ahead of the ‘gay marriage’ consultation. Salmond’s first words are,

In Scotland, we want to celebrate the diverse communities that make our country great.

Firstly, is Scotland still great? Secondly, what made Scotland great was hard work, ambitious geniuses, being part of a strong and independent United Kingdom and having a broadly Judeo-Christian culture. Each of these has been on the way out for some time now, not just in Scotland, but throughout what was once called Christendom.

Now, apparently, what makes us “great” are “diverse communities”.

Of course, the SNP, in common with all the other main parties in Britain, wants us to celebrate homosexuality, Islam and being a member of the European Union. That’s about where diversity worth “celebrating” begins and ends for our politicians. Protestants and Catholics in Scotland are certainly not supposed to celebrate their own cultures. That’s “sectarianism” aka “Scotland’s Shame”. I don’t have any time for the chants at Old Firm matches, but now the SNP are starting to tread on very dangerous ground as they try to obliterate all signs of this “sectarianism” at football matches, which may include banning the sign of the cross from the Celtic End and the singing of “God Save The Queen” by Rangers fans.

I suppose congratulations are in order for Alex Salmond, as he has united Catholic and Protestant against him!

And leaders of the Catholic Church in Scotland have been speaking out against “gay marriage”. The Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, has said that a Scottish government which backed same-sex marriage did not deserve the support of the Catholic community.

Even the Free Church of Scotland has spoken out in praise of the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on homosexual ‘marriage’ – Proddy and Tim standing shoulder to shoulder to fight the evils of government. I could get to like this ‘diversity’ lark after all!

At the end of his little propaganda piece, I was left wondering how much Stonewall had paid Salmond, or if he was chasing the coveted Stonewall Politician of the Year Award at the annual ceremony in three weeks’ time. He isn’t short-listed, but after a speech like that, basically asking the rest of us to try to fit in around homosexuality, I’m sure he could be shoehorned in.

You would think that a Scottish bunch operating out of Edinburgh would be more sensible and independently-minded than Westminster and Brussels, but they share exactly the same agenda: pretending that unity can come from diversity. Even many on the ‘left’ now admit that multiculturalism has been a failure.

Salmond talks of independence and plans a referendum to try to achieve it – and will allow 16 year-olds to vote in it to give him a better chance of winning – but Scotland could never be free with him at the helm, because he complies with every politically correct agenda on the planet.

Perhaps Salmond has an even more sinister motivation? Should he be successful in securing an independent Scotland, we would probably not gain automatic membership to the European Union, so appearing more PC than Brussels would shower him in brownie points.

Here is the Consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’. The SNP have already said that they want it to happen, so let’s make it as difficult as possible for them to re-engineer society to the detriment of the vast majority. Salmond, like Stonewall, talks about bullying to try to persuade us to accept the homosexual agenda lock, stock and barrel. I don’t approve of bullying, period. Bullying is not the issue, so let us not be fooled or made to feel guilty.

And for the UK as a whole, there is another consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’. We can stop the rot, but time is running out and work needs to be done. Thankfully, there are some people in the SNP with their heads screwed on correctly.

MSP John Mason tabled a motion which was supported by three other SNP MSPs  and which stated that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved or to approve of same-sex marriage.

The former SNP leader Gordon Wilson has called for a referendum and warned that same-sex marriage could have “extremely destructive consequences” for Scotland. Mr Wilson, now chairman of the Christian faith group, Solas, co-wrote a nine-page submission to the Scottish Government’s public consultation with Solas director, the
Rev David Robertson, in which they accused Alex Salmond’s government of pursuing a “harmful” shake-up of the country’s marriage laws and warned that pressing ahead with the proposals could be a danger to Scotland and that the legalisation of same-sex marriages was “an assault on Christian values” and warned that it could lead to “social disintegration” and “sexual confusion.”

Mr Wilson went on to claim that MSPs backing gay marriage would be showing “cowardice, injustice and folly”.

He said: “This is of such a destructive nature to Scottish society that, rather than leaving the decision to a group of MSPs (who themselves are very susceptible to the threats to their careers and positions of political and media lobbying), this decision should be put to a referendum of the Scottish people.

“We are concerned at the way this issue is being used to demonise and attack Christianity, whilst at the same time being used to reshape and change society in a way which we believe is ultimately harmful.

There are other SNP politicians who have stood up and been shouted down by colleagues (in other parties too) who hate free speech. There is clearly a lot of opposition to the idea of marriage being so drastically redefined in Scotland, so nobody should feel afraid of the bullies who would silence us. Nobody.

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani could be martyred by Iran any time.

Cranmer writes,

It really is quite incredible. Last week, a convicted murderer, Troy Davis, was finally executed in the United States, and it seemed as though the entire British (and EU) Establishment arose to denounce the barbarism. Even Pope Benedict XVI appealed for clemency.

Yet today, Iran is scheduled to hang a Christian pastor for ‘apostasy’, and the collective silence from our scurvy politicians, trappist churchmen and hypocritical media is positively deafening.

Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani was found guilty two years ago of ‘apostasy’, even though he was never a practising Muslim. His guilt was determined because he ‘has Muslim ancestry’ (which is a kind of convenient catch-all in a place like Iran), and he was sentenced to death. That sentence may be suspended if he renounce his faith. This week, in court, he has twice refused to recant. A third refusal today will result in his execution.

It is after 7pm and the only mention of this pastor I have found in the British mainstream media is this post in The Telegraph. According to Google, the BBC haven’t seen fit to write about this latest development at all.

I called the Iranian Embassy earlier and I said I’m phoning about the pastor and they knew who I meant straight away. I spoke to a cheery Iranian who hopes and believes that the pastor won’t be killed.

Let’s hope and pray he is right. Maybe I am wrong, but Persia, that was, conjures up more noble images than this sort of cold-blooded butchering.

If you want to call in the morning, the Embassy switchboard number is 0207 225 3000.  Other contact details can be found on the Embassy’s website.

I thought I might give our Foreign Secretary a ring as well, so looked up his contact details, however I noticed that he has made a statement,

“I deplore reports that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, an Iranian Church leader, could be executed imminently after refusing an order by the Supreme Court of Iran to recant his faith. This demonstrates the Iranian regime’s continued unwillingness to abide by its constitutional and international obligations to respect religious freedom. I pay tribute to the courage shown by Pastor Nadarkhani who has no case to answer and call on the Iranian authorities to overturn his sentence.”

Time will tell.

The consultation paper can be downloaded from here (pdf). It is quite lengthy and the actual questionnaire starts at page 35. The consultation period ends early December, but if you have an interest in preserving some vestige of decency in our society, please don’t leave it too late to get involved. This won’t just affect Scotland; it will end up spreading to the rest of the UK (like the smoking ban did). We all ought to know by now that these things are part of a global agenda.

These are the two basic discussion points raised by Nicola Sturgeon MSP, who is Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy,

…on the possibility of allowing religious ceremonies for civil partnerships and the possible introduction of same sex marriage.

We are assured that,

This Government believes in religious tolerance and the freedom to worship. We also believe in equality and diversity.

Sounds nice and cosy, doesn’t it; like everyone is catered for? The reality is that the two are sometimes incompatible and friction is created and people are made to do things against their will or face the consequences, so that, for example, if a B&B owner’s conscience doesn’t permit him to rent double beds to a couple of homosexuals, instead of those people simply acknowledging that others have different beliefs (isn’t diversity supposed to be a good thing?) and booking into alternative accommodation, they take the hump at being ‘offended’ and cause trouble.

And what exactly does it mean to ‘believe in diversity’? Obviously, it has to be an approved kind of diversity, as we have seen too many times already.

I haven’t read the whole document (yet), but here is a statement from Nicola Sturgeon which jumped out at me from the BBC’s article;

“However, we are aware that for religious reasons, some faith groups and celebrants may not want to solemnise same-sex marriages, and that is why we are making it clear that they should not be obliged to do so.”

An honest approach would have been to admit that many (not some) faith groups will not (not may not want to) solemnise these same-sex ‘marriages’.

But despite her insistence that they “should not be obliged to do so,” this question appears on the Consultation:

Question 14

Do you agree that religious bodies should not be required to solemnise same sex marriage?

In other words, mob rule may end up determining how groups and individuals are allowed to behave in matters of conscience. The logical conclusion is that this country will end up having a few state-registered churches (the ones that go along with the government) and all the others will be driven underground, just like in China.

That’s what will happen here if this agenda continues. In a sinister development, Tory MP (yes, Tory MP) Mike Weatherley has written to David Cameron and seems to be suggesting that churches that refuse to bless the union of man and man/woman and woman should forfeit the right to perform all marriages.

“Gay Rights” always was about changing the definition of marriage. Those early gay liberation militants knew this had to happen if their way of life was to have any chance of being considered equal to heterosexual unions. What is surprising is that so many people now support the obliteration of normality and destruction of society (destruction is inevitable if the basic building blocks – families – are weakened). That’s the power of an infiltrated media for you.

If same sex marriage goes ahead then schoolchildren will be subjected to even more propaganda from the likes of Stonewall, who are already encouraging youngsters to wear frocks to help them discover their ‘feminine side’.

How much worse are we going to let our society become just to allow homosexuals, a very small minority, to feel that their abnormal behaviour is normal?

That is all this is about, after all – but dressed up as some great crusade for equality.

That consultation paper lists the countries where same-sex marriage is already legal:

List of jurisdictions which have established same sex marriage

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Mexico (Mexico City only but recognised throughout Mexico)
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United States (some states only)

Each of these countries has very serious problems due to their increasingly liberal ‘values’ and multiculturalism.

The warning is there. Some people will laugh, of course. Some people will call me names, of course. Some people will ignore the warnings from history, of course.

To these people, all I can say is, “Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

Consider this. Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1990 which allowed two people of the same sex to get “married” and be legally recognised as such?

Were they all ‘homophobic’ or is there a very good reason for not accepting hedonistic, barren lifestyles as normal for the good of the tribe?

UPDATE 9.0PM – I had also intended to make this point – if same-sex “marriage” is approved, some people will be calling for civil partnerships to be extended to included heterosexual couples. Needless to say that this would weaken the institution of marriage, and therefore society, even further.

Doublethink works, and has been an effective weapon in the globalists’ success in changing the way people think and behave.

“WAR IS PEACE”

The war in Afghanistan is to make us safer from terrorists – at the same time as allowing an unknown number of them to live here and turn their taxpayer-funded houses into bomb factories.

“FREEDOM IS SLAVERY”

Let the Government control your life, so you don’t have to bother.

“IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”

State education and indoctrination by the BBC since birth equips people to be experts on everything – in their own mind.

“Equality” and “Human Rights” thrive on doublethink – and hypocrisy – and, of course, the downright illogical. This is because an agenda has been set and the rules must fit, but made to look impartial.

So, when Trevor Phillips says that his Equality and Human Rights Commission will stand up for believers, anyone who knows anything about the man and his Ministry will instantly shudder. Or just laugh uncontrollably.

Just go.

Phillips starts by talking sense – these people need to talk some sense to be believable to even the most dimwitted prole. He talks about “fashionable atheism” and that “people of belief” feel that they are “under siege, that they are often disadvantaged, that they are looked at and considered in some way different and their faith makes them less worthy of regard.”

This is true, but of course, it is largely down to organisations like his, which he somehow has the nerve to deny.

He adds that, “There is a view that says religion is a private matter and it’s entirely a choice. I think that’s entirely not right.

I believe that the Christ died for me and that means a) spreading the Good News and b) trying to live as He directed. This means that keeping my faith private is not an option.

And why should it be in a free country?

The equality watchdog chairman said it would support believers who suffer discrimination because of their faith, and conceded there was a perception it had not done so in the past.

“That is slap bang in the middle of our anti-discriminatory work,” he said.

Are those guffaws I can hear? The man’s being serious.

“Being an Anglican, being a Muslim or being a Methodist or being a Jew is just as much part of your identity and you should not be penalised or treated in a discriminatory way because of that. That’s part of the settlement of a liberal democracy.

Did someone tell him that the UK is a liberal democracy? The correct definition is “constitutional monarchy”.

“Our business is defending the believer. The law we’re here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It’s an essential element of being a fulfilled human being.

“My real worry is that there are people who may well feel they’re being treated unfairly because of their faith and who actually in fact may be being treated unfairly because of their faith but for some reason feel they can’t get our support in getting justice.”

I know you are waiting for the “buts” and here they are.

The quid pro quo for standing up for individual believers is that churches and faith groups have to fall into line with the views of wider society to keep their charitable status, Mr Phillips signalled.

Yes, we must “fall in line” just like other dictatorships insist upon.

“People are being confused about the right of the individual to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression and the freedoms of particular institutions or organisations.

And of course, it’s our old friend, homosexuality, which is at the centre:

Mr Phillips says that the refusal to allow Catholic adoption agencies an exemption from laws stating homosexual couples could not be discriminated against was even more clear cut.

“Catholic care was a clearer and simpler case. You’re offering a public service and you’re a charity and there are rules about how charities behave. You have to play by the rules. We can’t have a set of rules that apply to one group of people simply because they happen to think it’s right.”

No, a corrupt and discredited government agency now decides right and wrong and our freedom only extends as far as the choices they allow us.

Equality laws should not impinge on the way that religious institutions are run, Mr Phillips said – meaning gay bishops and women priests are not a matter for his watchdog.

“It’s perfectly fair that you can’t be a Roman Catholic priest unless you’re a man,” he said.

“It seems right that the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque.

And yet it doesn’t. A church can get into trouble for not employing a homosexual as a youth leader.

Then Phillips starts losing the plot completely,

“At the moment the law says it [appointing openly gay bishops] is a matter for the Church of England. It’s probably right.

“I’m not keen on the idea of a church run by the state. I don’t think the law should run to telling churches how they should conduct their own affairs.”

A string of high-profile legal cases involving Christians who feel discriminated against because of objections to homosexuality may be fuelled by evangelical activists who are seeking political influence – not helping their religion – he warned.

“I think the most likely victim of actual religious discrimination in British society is a Muslim but the person who is most likely to feel slighted because of their religion is an evangelical Christian,” he said.

No, Phillips, it is about people who demand the right that others adhere to their standards on their property and the right to express their opinions without being arrested and to be able to adopt children without being forced to indoctrinate them with your PC garbage.

“There are a lot of Christian activist voices who appear bent on stressing the kind of persecution that I don’t think really exists in this country. There are some Christian organisations who basically want to have a fight and therefore they’re constantly defining the ground in such a way that anyone who doesn’t agree wholly agree with them about everything is essentially a messenger from Satan.

“I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on. I think that whole argument isn’t about the rights of Christians. It’s about politics. It’s about a group of people who really want to have weight and influence and they’ve chosen that particular ground.

Personally I don’t know why they don’t choose ground that really is defending Christian values. I wish they’d choose gambling or human trafficking or something.”

And we do, but we also defend other values, and our rights – including what we allow on our own property. That is a most essential part of liberty: for every citizen of this country.

in a highly provocative comment Mr Phillips said he believed Anglican and Catholic churches were seeing growing congregations from African and Carribean (sic) backgrounds with “old time” views which put them at odds with mainstream Britain.

“In the Christian and Muslim faiths migration has given some of the great faith institutions a massive shot in the arm,” he said.

“I come from that kind of community. We like our faith strong and pretty undiluted. If you come from an Afro-Caribbean Christian background the attitudes to homosexuality are unambiguous, they are undiluted, they are nasty and in some cases homicidal.

Now he is equating people who have traditional beliefs with murderers. YOU are the nasty one, Phillips, by a country mile. But I imagine that this is how you have kept your job for so long.

“I think there’s an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old time religion which in my view is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.

And multiculturalism has been dismissed as a failure by most commentators, including himself. And anyway, the point of multiculturalism was that every “community” could get on with living the way it wanted.

“Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they’re doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy.

40% of Muslim students want Sharia law in this country. I suggest that Phillips is confused and that they are actually more keen to integrate with Saudi Arabia or Iran. Everyone knows that Muslims are the least likely group to try to integrate. I don’t think it would be unfair at this stage to call Phillips an outrageous liar.

“One of the aspects of that is essentially saying ‘whatever we feel about matter of sexuality we’re going to have to deal with the fact that most of our neighbours, most of our children’s friends, most of our work mates have a broader, more liberal view and we just have to live with that’.

And we’re back to sexuality: where all roads seem to lead eventually and why I have written about it to such an extent. That is because the perceived rights of those who wish to live contrary to good morals and good health have been allowed to impinge upon the rights of everyone else in the name of “equality”.

“Integration is also about compromise and I think the reason you don’t hear a lot about that from Muslims is that they’re trying to find ways of being good Muslims in a way that is consistent with the society they’re living in.”

He is saying that Muslims are good and Christians are bad. Being willing to accept alternative sexualities seems to be his only yardstick to “integration” and he conveniently avoids the fact that Muslims generally are vehemently, sometimes violently, opposed to homosexual behaviour. Not only in traditional Muslim lands, but also in the UK, where whole areas have been declared “gay free zones“.

But they aren’t “old-time” traditional Christians, so he lets them off.

Because the Religion of Peace is beyond reproach. It’s all everyone else’s fault that they cannot get along like every other known group of people in this country.

I call for the sacking of Trevor Phillips. It should have happened years ago.

The only way that 89 year-old Harold Camping will be correct in his timing is coincidence. Consider this,

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Even Christ doesn’t know the day, but Harold Camping does?!

That would make him God the Father. I doubt he realises that he could be accused of blasphemy. But it gets even worse, Camping has already predicted the Second Coming – that was in 1994 and I can reveal to you that he got it wrong. Even he must see that he is no prophet, but he’s having another stab in the dark anyway (even if he is convinced it is all mathematical).

But, the head of the Christian radio network Family Stations Inc has said that he is sure an earthquake will hit on May 21, sweeping true believers to heaven and leaving others behind to be engulfed in the world’s destruction over a few months.

“We know without any shadow of a doubt it is going to happen,” he said.

I am not laughing. I hope his followers haven’t given away all their worldly goods, as can happen when people fall hook, line and sinker for such characters.

But atheists are not convinced.

No! Really?

Some of you will know, and if you didn’t it may shock you, that I was a Mormon for a short time. I met a lot of very nice and kind people and if any of them are reading this I am not trying to be mean, but stating the facts as I see them.

I won’t go into the circumstances now, but when I started inviting the missionaries into my flat, I was of very low spirit (if you exclude all the alcohol I was consuming). I did believe that the Mormon “prophets” really were what they claimed to be, but fairly soon I started to wake up to reality.

I was given a thick tome about the “prophet” Joseph Fielding Smith by a missionary I got on well with. This particular Smith was the grandson of the brother of the church’s founder, Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith was the Mormon President from 1970 until his death in 1972, aged 95. In those days black people were not permitted to enter the “priesthood” and JFS wrote in the 1950s that they would never be allowed unless perhaps in the far distant future or on another planet.

It happened in 1978. On Earth.

I have just come across this interesting “prophecy,” which Joseph Fielding Smith announced to stake conference in Honolulu in 1961:

We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.

The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

I don’t remember any Mormon telling me that they doubted that men have walked on the moon, so it is illogical for them to believe both this “prophet” and NASA.

Of course, most Mormons will neither know nor care about old prophecies which have been proven to be false, despite the Bible warning about false prophets many times. This is because they believe that whatever the “living prophet” says supersedes the errors of past “prophets.”

And if that sounds crazy, it’s because it is. But don’t laugh too hard, especially if you are a LibLabCon voter, as you are enticed by charlatans of the political variety!

If stories of the Second Coming serve any purpose, they remind us (if we need reminding) that we never know when that day will be and to be ready for it. The evil upon the earth today seems to be increasing all the time and the former civilised countries of the West are decaying badly. Satan seems to be making his final big push. He has plenty of willing angels in the filth-spewing media and politically correct governments.

Another thing to ponder upon is the question posed in the title of this post:

Is Christ really coming back later today?

One day, people will be saying. “Christ came back today, but I wasn’t ready.”

Colin Atkinson is a 64 year-old former soldier who works for Wakefield and District Housing (WDH) and has kept a palm cross on his company van’s dashboard.

WDH said he failed to comply with company policy which prohibits employees from displaying personal items in vehicles.

The company said it had started an investigation into the incident which could result in disciplinary action.

So, if someone puts, say, a cuddly toy beside the windscreen or displays a small plastic Homer Simpson on the dashboard, or for that matter, hangs up a novelty air freshener then they will be subject to an investigation?

Can you imagine the news story?: “A Yorkshire housing association has suspended one of its employees after a Homer Simpson toy was found in his van. A spokesman for the company said that they didn’t want to give anyone the impression that they had a sense of humour.”

It doesn’t happen, does it? It happens when it’s a cross, whether worn by a BA employee or an NHS nurse.

Mr Atkinson said of his case:

“I’m really shocked and surprised by all of this. I have always had that cross in my van. It’s a symbol of my personal faith. It’s not offensive. It’s in a discreet place and I am acting lawfully.”

Sounds reasonable in a fair and free society, yes? But…

WDH, where Mr Atkinson has worked for 15 years, asked him to remove the 8ins (23cm) cross and started an investigation after a tenant complained about it.

I never know whether to believe this excuse. Did a tenant really complain, or does someone want Mr Atkinson out? Maybe at 64 he isn’t as quick as he once was and they can’t sack him because of his age.

Or maybe someone really did complain. What was the person’s problem? I know that a few people out there have as serious a reaction to seeing a cross as Dracula in the noonday sun.

I knew a man who delivered those teensy Bible tracts round this area. You’ve probably seen the type. Maybe even benefited from them. These ones were A7 size, so an eighth of A4. He was telling me that he was popping these through the letterboxes in a village up the road when a man he had just delivered to chased after him, shouting all sorts of obscenities and warning him to stay away.

A short time later, this old friend of mine was enjoying a well-earned cuppa in the village cafe when the other fella walked in. My friend asked him if he could buy him a cup of tea, to which the reply was, “[Bleep] off!”

Maybe this was the sort who complained about the cross in the van. Maybe staff were scared of him and thought they better “comply” with his demands. Or maybe the complainer was of a different faith and the staff felt that the easy option was to stick the knife into their colleague. Or maybe it was one of the army of the professionally offended, who on spotting the cross, nearly fainted at such an obvious display of homophobic and Islamophobic hatred!

Here is some more dramatic overreacting with Birmingham Cathedral’s decision to ban the public from taking pictures of the choir.

Birmingham Cathedral has erected a notice near its entrance saying that ‘for child protection purposes photography and videoing is not permitted during services and rehearsals’.

But a child protection charity called the ban ‘ludicrous and unenforceable’ and anti-censorship campaigners have accused the cathedral of ‘hysteria’.

But if you want to see overreaction at first hand, you could always burn a Koran and have someone video it. A BNP candidate for next month’s Welsh assembly elections, Sion Owens, was charged with a public order offence, after police were passed a video appearing to show him burning a copy of the Koran.

The case was withdrawn last week, but the inquiry continues.

Why? If religious things are so offensive, surely it’s good to get rid of them? You would think that the “authorities” would praise Mr Owens for disposing of something horrible and in a way that it couldn’t be used again.

Or is it just cross-shaped items which are offensive and must be got rid of?

It makes me wonder if I should carry a garlic bulb with me anytime I have contact with the local council or police. Vampirism seems to be on the increase among the powers that be.

The really ironic part is that the things people should be getting angry and upset about, like the loss of freedoms and soveriegnty and the re-engineering of our society are seen as mostly irrelevant to the majority. If they think about them at all.

I guess that’s the idea. To fill our minds with utter tosh to deflect our attention away from the important things. The things that really matter.

Everyone is now supposed to live in fear of terrorists and perverts and that means that the likes of Islamists and paedophiles are setting the agenda.

Not by their actions, but by our overreaction.

I wondered what the dynamic duo had been up to now to revive an interest in them.

It seems that they believed that the Cornwall B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull were let off lightly and had called for their £3,600 damages to be increased.

Taxpayer-funded lawyers for the gay couple then submitted documents to the Court of Appeal claiming the religious beliefs of Mr and Mrs Bull should have been disregarded, calling for the damages to be increased.

But today the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is representing Mr Preddy and Mr Hall said the cross appeal was an ‘error of judgment’ by its legal team and was being withdrawn.

I wonder when this error of judgment was noticed. After the negative publicity of the first case, no doubt.

Practically all of the 900 comments under the Mail’s article are scathing of the greedy Stonewall members. Jon from Torquay writes,

Amazing how a gentle and sincere Christian couple are able to be bullied by a couple of PC spiteful intolerant thugs who are using the law as a weapon. And……. for financial gain…. how spiteful and hateful.

It’s no longer amazing. Tragically.

I was wondering what B&B owners – all B&B owners – would do if this person asked for a room. Would a man who looks like a decomposing corpse – a walking Iron Maiden cover – be a welcome sight at breakfast? Could he sue for being turned away? Would he bother? He must have a thick skin to go around looking like that.

This bizarre story turned up yesterday: Squabbling gay lovers ’sparked Heathrow terror alert with hoax bomb call’

Two squabbling gay lovers sparked a terror alert in Heathrow Airport’s Terminal Five when one of them rang police and said the other was going to ‘blow something up’, it was revealed today.

Officers swooped on the 72-year-old man as he walked into the building – before realising the call was a hoax.

Today a man in his 30s was being questioned by Thames Valley Police officers on suspicion of dialling 999 yesterday and saying the pensioner was equipped with explosives. The pair are believed to be in a civil partnership.

It doesn’t sound like a very civil partnership to me (boom, boom!).

I wonder if the punishment will be anything like that handed to Paul Chambers, who last winter tweeted a blatantly obvious (attempted) joke: “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your sh** together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”

He was fined £3,000 in total.

How should this young “gay lover” be punished, considering that,

Officers had rushed to Oxford railway station as they launched a massive security operation to trace the ‘bomber’.

Officers from Thames Valley first responded to a 999 call saying the older man was on his way to Oxford railway station armed with a bomb.

Passengers and staff were evacuated from a section of the building and the terminal was closed for more than an hour at about 1pm yesterday while police searched the man’s bags.

The man was arrested before he had gone through security at Terminal 5 but some planes were delayed by the scare.

Heathrow luggage shop worker Sanju Ghale said stores were ordered to close and staff told to leave the building.

She added: ‘We didn’t know what was going on. We were so worried.’

If Paul Chambers’ joke was worth £3,000, what should this crazy charade cost the perpetrator?

Officers said the younger man faces prosecution for wasting police time and making false claims about a bomb.

Yes, a lot of police time and a lot of passengers’ time and producing fear in a lot of people, including the poor old sod he is in an uncivil partnership with.

Surely a spell in jail is the only option, as he is unlikely ever to be able to pay back the money that his nastiness cost.

I await the case with interest.

Eunice and Owen Johns, the experienced foster parents from Derby, who had applied to the local council to offer respite care for children aged five to eight, were turned down because they refused to compromise their beliefs that homosexual behaviour is sinful.

Last week’s Question Time was from Derby and the question of the Johns was raised. I have imbedded the video below, as the discussion is quite interesting.

Margaret Beckett admits that the couple has done a lot of good for a lot of people in the past, BUT their attitude towards homosexual relationships should rule them out in the future. And like the experienced politician she is, compares apple and oranges by stating that racists shouldn’t be foster parents either.

So basically, Mrs Beckett thinks that Christians are as bad as racists. I guess that’s standard Labour issue. Next up is the homosexual historian David Starkey, who perhaps surprisingly says that,

Penalising Christians for their beliefs about homosexual behaviour is intolerant, oppressive and tyrannical.

He also mentions the Cornish B&B, suggesting that they should be allowed to put up “what seems to me a quite proper notice… that says, ‘We are Christians and this is what we believe’.”

Being a historian, he no doubt knows very well where such tyranny inevitably leads if it is not nipped in the bud.

A young lady in the audience is given her chance to opine. She says that “there are far worse parents out there than just Christians who don’t believe there should be gay people.” She also agrees with Mr Dimbleby that some parents hold the same views as the Johns, so why shouldn’t foster parents?

Of course, the more control that the State succeeds in taking from us, the likelier it will be that a couple won’t be permitted to take their own baby away from the maternity ward unless they sign an agreement promising to be politically correct in front of the child at all times.

Iain Duncan Smith is next to speak. He is a conservative who cares about family values. Or does he? He claims that foster parents should not be allowed to push their views on children in their care.

Everyone has “views”. Children will be exposed to all sorts of “views” whoever they are placed with. Perhaps the Johns should have promised not to utter a word and let the children get their morals from the telly instead. I’m sure that would have been an acceptable arrangement.

And another thing, a great many youngsters have homosexual feelings at some time – but they are not homosexual!

The Johns were expected to nurture these hormonal imbalances, or whatever causes temporary same-sex attraction, to become a full-time, full-blown homosexual lifestyle.

Now that is the real child abuse.

And the children they applied to foster were five to eight years old. I hope that even the biggest stickler for political correctness can see the sickness in this.

Liam Halligan of the Daily Telegraph, said the Johns should be the kind of people we are celebrating and giving MBEs and OBEs to. He added

I’m a tolerant guy, but sometimes if you absolutely push tolerant people they become intolerant because you go past the point of no return.

And this is a situation where the absolute letter of the law, which may have been drafted with good intentions, has completely blown away any proportion of common sense.

The final panellist to speak was Lord Malloch Brown, former UN Deputy Secretary General, who hummed and hawed a bit before coming down on the side of Messrs Starkey and Halligan.  He said,

We just have to be so careful to not let the state become the decider of morality and choice and freedoms.

The only two panellists who thought the council’s decision was the right one just happen to be the two members of parliament – ostensibly from different parties, but they follow the same agenda. It doesn’t seem to matter to Duncan Smith that this decision will increase the number of children who stay in care homes which “ultimately don’t do them any good at all,” because following this totalitarian PC agenda is more important to him.

When I read this headline: Cameron wades into Christian foster row, I thought, thank goodness; he is going to show there is still some sanity among politicians. What a fool I was to credit him with the measliest morsel of sense. He came out with:

Christians should be “tolerant, welcoming and broadminded”.

The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge responded:

The Prime Minister has waded in on one side of a deeply controversial case, and suggested that Christians who share the Johns’ beliefs are automatically intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded.

It would seem that many parents these days are far too tolerant and broadminded which has had the direct result of making the lives of young folk more problematic.

We can get an idea why it’s happening with this slip up.

The taxpayer-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission had warned that children could be “infected” by the moral views of Christian foster parents who oppose homosexual behaviour.

Black is the new white.

These people want us to move Beyond Tolerance. I expect that they realise that some of us will never renounce our faith and beliefs for thirty pieces of politically correct legislation or 3,000 pieces, therefore we need to have wholly inappropriate and discriminatory barriers put in our way, so for example, if you refuse to promote homosexuality to very young children, you don’t get to adopt or foster them.

Beyond tolerance? It’s beyond belief.

I see on the Pink News website that the Johns are looking for political intervention rather than take their case to the High Court because judges are having to interpret “bad law”.

Instead, they and Mr Diamond [their lawyer] are seeking a review of equality laws and will begin lobbying MPs and ministers to support their cause.

Last month, High Court judges Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beeston upheld the council’s decision and ruled that that the Johns’ views could harm foster children.

They also dismissed Mr Diamond’s claims as “a travesty of reality”.

Mr Diamond said in a Christian Legal Centre statement: “The courts are so set against religious freedom for Christians that an appeal is likely to only make matters worse.

“In recent years, there has been a combination of bad laws and a number of poor judicial appointments by the previous government.

“Where there are excellent judges they are restricted by bad laws. Unfortunately, there are also judges making law based on personal predilections. Parliament must remedy this situation as a matter of urgency.”

He added: “The British people have reversed silly laws in the past; the time is ripe for a review of the equality laws. It is time for the ‘Big Society’ to become a reality and to re-strengthen the communitarian institutions such as the church and other such bodies that can build this.

“Finally, the absurd ‘human rights’ agenda needs to be re-visited including the Human Rights Act.”

Mr Diamond and the Johns are to ask MPs to sign an ‘Equalities and Conscience Petition’ which calls on prime minister David Cameron to ensure that laws allow Christians to act on their consciences.

Getting the law changed is something we can all engage in. They have come for the smokers; they are coming for the Christians; they will come for us all. They are against us all, even the homosexuals, who they are just using to change society to break us down in order to sell us off.

They are destroying the moral order and trying to force everyone to comply with their new version of what they say is right and wrong.

How much worse can it get? Much worse still, because when a government decides on morality, it can make up any new laws it chooses.

And don’t think it is just Christians who will be affected. Everyone has lines which they won’t cross and those lines are getting closer and closer to us all.

Jedi Sunday School Summer Camp

There seems to be a lot of discussion about how best to turn this year’s census into a farce by filling out false information on the forms. This happened last time:

It is believed the majority of self-reported Jedi claimed the religion for their own amusement, to poke fun at the government,[1] or as a protest against the inclusion of the religion question on the census form.

In England and Wales 390,127 people (almost 0.8%) stated their religion as Jedi on their 2001 Census forms, surpassing Sikhism, Judaism, and Buddhism, and making it the fourth largest reported religion in the countries.

A website registered on Thursday urged people not to put down their religion as “Jedi”.

If your religion is of low enough importance to you to that you are willing to put in a religion from 3 good sci-fi films from years ago, and 3 more recent rubbish ones,please consider ticking “No Religion” instead. Every tick towards any religion, no matter if it is real or a bit of a joke (or both for that matter), gets counted towards the figures of religious people in the UK.

The data gathered is used to inform government policy, and was used by the last government to justify funding of religious community bodies over secular ones.

If you don’t have an active faith, please make sure the government knows, You are our only hope.

Apparently, this isn’t true. The website now adds:

Since I wrote this, it has been repeatedly pointed out to me, that what I said was incorrect. Jedis are not counted as a religion by the statisticians. I only leave the error so the blogs that pointed it out still make sense

Gosh, what a surge of unexpected Stephen Fry instigated attention this afternoon, sorry for the down time.

I imagine Stephen was getting his frilly knickers in a twist at the thought of all those homophobic fundamentalist Jedi influencing government policy, but he needn’t have raised his blood pressure after all.

And anyway, last time, 70% of the country said they were “Christian” and it is clear how much that influenced the government.

It begs the questions: who has the right to determine what is a religion and what is not, and if we are supposed to be a secular society, why does the government request this information?

I want to expand this whole idea to encompass an entire country – how the beliefs and behaviour of a people determine the quality of life for everyone. Alex Jones pleaded with his audience on Monday’s show to try to reverse the degradation of American society or face the consequences.

Many people would think, “what degradation?” If you don’t have time to listen to this whole segment, slide forward to 12:18 and listen to 16.56.

He talks about the plan to give Obama the internet “kill switch” in case of a cyber attack. They just want the power to do the same as the tyrannical Egyptian regime has done, but under the pretext of keeping us safe from bearded men in caves with wi-fi access.

Historically, after a culture has peaked, the resulting hedonism and decadence have a destroying effect. Alex mentions our violent culture: the computer games and television, tens of millions of abortions and a million dead Iraqis.

“You think the Devil’s sexy,” he says.

They say that Satan’s greatest trick is convincing people that he doesn’t exist. Maybe he goes one better and convinces people that he does exist, but he’s sexy and fun. You wouldn’t want to spend eternity in Heaven with those stuck-up neighbours who go to church and listen to Cliff Richard in their car now, would you? Except, who says they are going in the “Up” elevator? You might just find you are chained to them in eternal torment. I expect the Devil has a “wicked” sense of humour. Not that you’ll be laughing.

I agree with Alex that we will be drinking from the cup of abomination and we have brought it on ourselves. He says,

The gates are now being opened. Everything that America wants, dearly in their Satanic heart, they will now get… because you hate yourselves deep down and you want to be punished and you will be.

He calls us to repent. He says, “You want Satanic government, you got it.”

He is right. Despite all his evil, Hosni Mubarak never implemented the globalists’ call for legalised abortion in his country.

What judgment awaits us in the west, who have allowed the genocide of the unborn and so much more intense evil?

I believe we all have a part to play, no matter how insignificant we might think we are, to try to reverse this situation that we are all in together.

And Alex Jones is usually right. That’s why I put my money where his mouth is and bought some gold coins in 2007 at less than half of today’s price.

I need a food storage as well. Sensible people have been doing this for a while since the writing has been on the wall. Poverty, slavery, starvation, treason from within and oppression from outsiders: this is the very near future of our dying society which needs to repent, because the only alternative is to drink from the cup of abomination.