Freedomwatch

Hypocrisy in action by the British State.

2010-11-12T02:59:00.000-08:00

And if British people burned something as sacred to the Muslims as the poppy is to us, you can bet your life their would be mass arrests and charges centred on 'hate crimes.' And yet the Muslims are allowed to get away with it.

The other question is why the BBC did not report this? They were quick enough to report on the US pastor who wanted to burn the Koran and they are quick enough to report on marches by the English Defence League, so why not Muslims burning poppies? With thanks to the Daily Telegraph.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslims clash with police after burning poppy in anti-Armistice Day protest

Muslims clashed with police after burning a large poppy in protest at Britain's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which was timed to coincide with Armistice Day's two-minute silence.

Image 1 of 2

Muslim protestors demonstrate near Hyde Park in London on Armistice Day Photo: AP

By Andy Bloxham 3:58PM GMT 11 Nov 2010

About 35 Islamic protesters, dressed in dark clothes and with many masking their faces, carried banners and chanted slogans such as "British soldiers: terrorists".

The group confronted police officers and briefly fought with them, leaving one officer with a head injury requiring hospital treatment, and three arrests were made.

Around 50 counter demonstrators from the far-right English Defence League gathered nearby but officers kept the two sides apart.

Mission to name war dead found in Flanders
11 Nov 2010
Amazon removes ‘paedophile guide’ from Kindle store
11 Nov 2010
Has Westminster Council fallen out of love with Chanel?
11 Nov 2010
NUS leader: student tuition fee protest 'undermined' by violence
11 Nov 2010
Students vow to continue rioting
11 Nov 2010
Cameron criticises police for not protecting Tory HQ
11 Nov 2010

The protesters said they were from a group called Muslims Against Crusades.

They gathered near Hyde Park in London before burning a model of a poppy on the stroke of 11am then marching along Exhibition Road and along an underpass, past the Victoria and Albert and Natural History Museums.

Asad Ullah, 23, a spokesman for the group who would only say he was from London, said: "The British soldiers you remember on this day are soldiers who have taken innocent lives in illegal occupations and unjust wars.

"Our aim is not violence but if people come to us with violence, Muslims will defend themselves."

He added: "We will do this again. Until the British people condemn the British Government for these illegal wars, we will not stop protesting."

Posters bore slogans including "Hands off Muslim lands" and "Islam will dominate", and flags bore Arabic writing with the words "There is no God but Allah".

The group went to South Kensington Tube station, roughly circled by about 20 police officers as they were from the start of the march, and rode it to Whitechapel, in east London, where the organisers collected the flags and high-visibility vests some were wearing and the group dispersed.

One of the passengers on the Tube was Sylvia Black, 61, a retired sub-postmistress from Yeovil, Somerset.

She was wearing a poppy in memory of her uncle, a corporal who was killed in the First World War.

Mrs Black said: "I disagree with what they're doing. They shouldn't be doing it and they shouldn't be allowed to do it."

Of the three arrests made, two were for public order offences and one was for assaulting a police officer.

The Muslims Against Crusades website includes graphic images of children wounded in warfare and the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Earlier this year members were involved in violent clashes with far-right groups during a troop march in Barking, east London.

There are suspicions Muslims Against Crusades is a splinter group of Islam4UK, founded by Anjem Choudary, a British Muslim extremist formerly a senior figure in the now banned Al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK groups.

Law and Order

Commonsense prevails.

2010-10-26T06:14:00.001-07:00

The television watchdog Ofcom has rejected complaints against an investigation into an Islamic group broadcast by Channel Four’s Dispatches earlier this year.

The programme, presented by journalist Andrew Gilligan, looked at the Islamic Forum for Europe which it described as a “fundamentalist” group that had “secretly infiltrated” the Labour party and was “exerting influence” over Tower Hamlets Council in East London.

In its latest bulletin, Ofcom said it had received 205 complaints variously alleging that the programme had been biased and misleading about the IFE or contributed to Islamophobia.

But the broadcast standards body concluded: “We considered that the programme included views to both support and reject the allegations made about the IFE in the programme, and any response or opposing views to the evidence gathered was appropriately presented during the course of the programme. Given this, Ofcom considered that the programme was a legitimate investigation into the activities of the IFE.”

While the programme had made some “controversial allegations,” these were supported by “recorded clips, or actual quotes” and there was “no evidence that viewers were materially misled,” Ofcom said.

Islamist radicalisation at British universities

2010-10-23T05:46:00.000-07:00

This is a press release from Peter Tatchell

The Quilliam Foundation’s latest briefing paper, Radicalisation on British University Campuses:

A case study, cites incidents at City University in London during the last academic year (September 09 – June 10) to show how a mainstream academic institution in the UK can become an incubator for extremist, intolerant and potentially violent forms of the political ideology of Islamism.

Links to an executive summary and the full report are listed below.

Responding to the Quilliam report, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, of the LGBT rights group OutRage! said:

“This report is a wake-up call to complacent university authorities and student unions. They too often look the other way while Islamists foment hatred and intolerance among the student population.

“It is a strong defence of the vast majority of Muslim students who do not share an extremist mindset and who frequently face ostracism and denunciation by fundamentalists.

“Quilliam have produced a thorough expose of the way Islamist extremists are bullying and threatening other students. It highlights sexist, homophobic and anti-Semitic intimidation, and the victimisation of Muslims and non-believers who do not adhere to hard-line fundamentalist Islam.

“Radicalisation often begins with the promotion of misogynistic, queer-baiting and anti-Jewish prejudice; together with the stirring up of hostility against Muslims who believe in other strands of Islam or have abandoned their faith. Such intolerance can be a gateway to Islamist extremism. That’s why it should never be ignored or tolerated. City University would never host white supremacists who incite racism and racial violence. Why the double standards?” queried Mr Tatchell.

Here are some examples of two Islamist extremists who have been hosted at City University:

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/kill-gays-preacher-hosted-by-london-universities.html

Kings College has also hosted extremist clerics. See here:

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/muslim-extremist-hosted-by-kings-college-london.html

A spokesperson the Quilliam Foundation said:

“University campuses have been recognised by policy-makers as key places where Islamist ideologies can spread, but the processes of radicalisation involved have often remained unclear. This paper seeks to address this knowledge gap by identifying the factors on a university campus that may contribute to radicalising an individual towards Islamist-inspired terrorism. Whilst the paper does not suggest that everyone exposed to these factors will become a terrorist, it shows how and why exposure to them can increase the risk of radicalisation towards terrorism as well as illustrating the considerable disruption that such radicalisation can have on campus life.

“The paper concludes with specific recommendations for universities, students’ unions and government to prevent similar situations from arising on other university campuses.

“Radicalisation on British University Campuses’ is the latest of Quilliam’s publications to deal with areas where the risk of radicalisation is either high or is poorly understood. Previous reports released in the last year include studies of radicalisation in prisons and on Arabic-language jihadist websites.”

An executive summary is available here.
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/radicalisation-on-british-university-campuses-executive-summary.pdf?dm_i=JI3,9VVO,2Q60WK,QMSG,1

A pdf of the full briefing paper can be downloaded here.
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/radicalisation-on-british-university-campuses.pdf?dm_i=JI3,9VVO,2Q60WK,QMSG,1

Quilliam Foundation: http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/

Is there such a thing as 'moderate' Islam?

2010-10-20T01:14:00.000-07:00

"The promise of moderate Islam is beginning to look decidedly unconvincing," says Janet Albrechtsen, and marshals a good deal of evidence for why that is the case. "The extremes of moderate Islam," by Janet Albrechtsen for The Australian, October 20:

EVEN for supposedly reasonable Muslims, accommodation is a one-way street.
PERCHED high in the verdant mountains of central Java recently, the rural silence was broken five times a day by the Muslim call to prayer. The chanting wafted up from loudspeakers in the local villages as Indonesian Muslims observed longer than usual prayers during Ramadan. I asked a cab driver if he was fasting until sunset during this Islamic month of reflection. Rules are made to be broken, he said with a smile. But not according to the government and police in Indonesia, a country hailed as the world's largest, most moderate Muslim nation.

Local newspapers report an American man being held on suspicion of blasphemy for pulling the plug on a loudspeaker at a local mosque. According to police, Luke Gregory Lloyd pulled out the loudspeaker's cable in Kuta village in central Lombok when he was woken by the Koranic reading.

So how is moderate Islam doing in Indonesia? Not so well if you're that American man facing five years in prison. Perhaps it's all relative. In Saudi Arabia, he may have faced more violent punishment for his cultural insensitivity. That said, the promise of moderate Islam is beginning to look decidedly unconvincing.

Certainly, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has made plenty of promises. In an address at Harvard last year, he described his country as a model for how Islam, modernity and democracy can go hand in hand. He said tolerance and respect for religious freedom forms part of Indonesia's "trans-generational DNA".

Back in Indonesia, the President is quiet about the fact that moderate Islam is not so respectful of religious freedom if you belong to the Ahmadiyah sect. As yet another daily call to prayer began, I read about the ban on this religious sect for propagating its beliefs, including the tenet that Mohammed was not the final prophet. Indonesia's Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali announced the Ahmadiyah congregation "must be disbanded immediately" for violating a 2008 decree prohibiting the group from spreading its teachings. If this "is considered as religious freedom, then I call it an excessive freedom", Ali said.

Moderate Islam is not so moderate if you are a Christian either. In August, 300 hardline Islamic protesters confronted Christians worshipping in an open field owned by the Christians. The Christians want to build a church. A leader of the hardline Islamic Defenders Front told reporters that the culture of the people will not allow a church. Earlier this year, thousands of Muslim extremists set fire to a Christian community centre in West Java when they suspected the local Christians planned to build a small chapel. According to the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace, there have been more than 28 attacks on churches since January, a substantial increase since last year.

And how is moderate Islam doing when it comes to freedom of speech? While President Yudhoyono boasts about his country's "increasingly incisive" free press, one the markers of moderate Islam's commitment to democracy, it's too bad if you're the editor of Playboy Indonesia, a magazine consciously remodelled for the local market with no nudity. After being tried and acquitted for public indecency in 2007, Erwin Arnada was found guilty of public indecency last month by a new Supreme Court ruling. Arnada was arrested last week and has commenced a two-year prison sentence. The Indonesian constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is no match for hardline Islamic groups baying for Arnada's blood. Is that moderation?

Move to New York and the fraught debate over the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Muslims demand the mosque be built. And their left-liberal supporters decry opponents of the mosque as bigots. They demonise and scold mainstream Americans who think otherwise. Even New Yorkers believe Muslims should show some sensitivity to the atrocities committed in the name of Islam on 9/11. A poll in The New York Times found that while 67 per cent agree the right to freedom of religion allows the building of the mosque, they believe the developers should find a different site. An editorial by the moralising New York Times would have none of that. Building the mosque would be "a gesture to Muslim-Americans", it lectured. What about a gesture from moderate Muslims?

In recent years the West has fallen over itself to accommodate Muslim sensitivities. In Britain, the BBC boss says Islam should be treated differently from other religions. American publishers pull books that might offend Muslim sensibilities. Television stations censor images of Mohammed. Why does the accommodation always run one way?...

Fear, of course, and the idiotic multiculturalist guilt complex.

Islamic Court: - UAE Says Wife, Child Beating OK - Just Don't Leave Any Marks

2010-10-19T06:24:00.000-07:00

This is yet another reason why Western civilisation is superior, because we would consider any type of violence against women and children to be illegal and morally indefensible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (CBS/AP) Apparently, it is perfectly OK for a man to beat his wife and young children, according to the UAE's highest judicial body, as long as the thrashing doesn't leave any physical marks.

The decision by the Federal Supreme Court shows the strong influence of Islamic law in the Emirates despite its international appeal in which foreign residents greatly outnumber the local population.

The court made the ruling earlier this month in the case of a man who beat his wife and adult daughter. The court stated that the man crossed the line suggested by Sharia Law because the daughter was not a minor and the wife sustained visible injuries.

The beating left the wife with injuries to her lip and teeth and the 23-year-old daughter suffered bruises on her knees and and hand. In ruling against the defendant in that case, Chief Justice Falah as Hajeri stated that there were conditions when domestic violence was acceptable, according to the New York Daily News.

But Justice al Hajeri said the man "abused this right of discipline" and therefore was not "exempted from punishment."

Islamic law allow for "discipline" if no marks are left. It also says children who have reached "adulthood" - approximately puberty - cannot be struck.

The ruling was reported Monday in the Abu Dhabi-based newspaper The National.

Police identify 200 children as potential terrorists

2009-03-28T09:48:00.001-07:00

This is worrying. That at such a tender young age, these children have already been radicalised and turned against the country of their birth.

From the Independent.

-----------------------------

Two hundred schoolchildren in Britain, some as young as 13, have been identified as potential terrorists by a police scheme that aims to spot youngsters who are "vulnerable" to Islamic radicalisation.

The number was revealed to The Independent by Sir Norman Bettison, the chief constable of West Yorkshire Police and Britain's most senior officer in charge of terror prevention.

He said the "Channel project" had intervened in the cases of at least 200 children who were thought to be at risk of extremism, since it began 18 months ago. The number has leapt from 10 children identified by June 2008.

The programme, run by the Association of Chief Police Officers, asks teachers, parents and other community figures to be vigilant for signs that may indicate an attraction to extreme views or susceptibility to being "groomed" by radicalisers. Sir Norman, whose force covers the area in which all four 7 July 2005 bombers grew up, said: "What will often manifest itself is what might be regarded as racism and the adoption of bad attitudes towards 'the West'.

"One of the four bombers of 7 July was, on the face of it, a model student. He had never been in trouble with the police, was the son of a well-established family and was employed and integrated into society.

"But when we went back to his teachers they remarked on the things he used to write. In his exercise books he had written comments praising al-Qa'ida. That was not seen at the time as being substantive. Now we would hope that teachers might intervene, speak to the child's family or perhaps the local imam who could then speak to the young man."

The Channel project was originally piloted in Lancashire and the Metropolitan Police borough of Lambeth in 2007, but in February last year it was extended to West Yorkshire, the Midlands, Bedfordshire and South Wales. Due to its success there are now plans to roll it out to the rest of London, Thames Valley, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, and West Sussex.

The scheme, funded by the Home Office, involves officers working alongside Muslim communities to identify impressionable children who are at risk of radicalisation or who have shown an interest in extremist material – on the internet or in books.

Once identified the children are subject to a "programme of intervention tailored to the needs of the individual". Sir Norman said this could involve discussions with family, outreach workers or the local imam, but he added that "a handful have had intervention directly by the police".

He stressed that the system was not being used to target the Muslim community. "The whole ethos is to build a relationship, on the basis of trust and confidence, with those communities," said Sir Norman.

"With the help of these communities we can identify the kids who are vulnerable to the message and influenced by the message. The challenge is to intervene and offer guidance, not necessarily to prosecute them, but to address their grievance, their growing sense of hate and potential to do something violent in the name of some misinterpretation of a faith.

"We are targeting criminals and would-be terrorists who happen to be cloaking themselves in Islamic rhetoric. That is not the same as targeting the Muslim community."

Nor was it criminalising children, he added. "The analogy I use is that it is similar to our well-established drugs intervention programmes. Teachers in schools are trained to identify pupils who might be experimenting with drugs, take them to one side and talk to them. That does not automatically mean that these kids are going to become crack cocaine or heroin addicts. The same is true around this issue."

But Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said the police ran the risk of infringing on children's privacy. He warned: "There is a difference between the police being concerned or believing a person may be at risk of recruitment and a person actually engaging in unlawful, terrorist activity.

"That said, clearly in recent years some people have been lured by terrorist propaganda emanating from al-Qa'ida-inspired groups. It would seem that a number of Muslim youngsters have been seduced by that narrative and all of us, including the Government, have a role to play in making sure that narrative is seen for what it is: a nihilistic one which offers no hope, only death and destruction."

A Home Office spokesman said: "We are committed to stopping people becoming or supporting terrorists or violent extremists. The aim of the Channel project is to directly support vulnerable people by providing supportive interventions when families, communities and networks raise concerns about their behaviour."

Pope. - We need more little Catholics, - even if they do have AIDS!

2009-03-28T09:37:00.000-07:00

Yet again the Pope is proving to be one of the foci of evil in the modern world.

-------------------------------------

The Pope caused dismay among Aids campaigners yesterday by declaring on his first trip to Africa that condoms were not the solution to the epidemic ravaging the continent.

In his first public comments on condom use, an issue that has divided even Roman Catholic clergy working with Aids sufferers, he told reporters en route to Cameroon that Aids “cannot be overcome by distributing condoms – it only increases the problem”.

Aids activists had hoped that Pope Benedict, who has emphasised previously that the Roman Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against Aids, would take a more nuanced approach than his predecessor, John Paul II.

Catholic and human rights activists immediately condemned the statement, saying that it showed that the Pope was out of touch with reality and advocating inhumane policies that would increase the suffering of innocent people.

Kevin Osborne, HIV adviser at the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said: “All the evidence is that preaching sexual abstinence and fidelity will not solve the problems. We need to work with the reality of where people are, especially in countries he is visiting such as Angola, which is hard-hit by the epidemic.

“The Pope’s message will alienate everybody. It is scary. It spreads stigma and creates a fertile breeding ground for the spread of HIV.”

Rebecca Hodes, head of policy, communication and research at Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, said that if the Pope were serious about preventing HIV infections he would focus on promoting wider access to condoms and information. “Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans,” she said.

After his election, the Pope described Aids as “a cruel epidemic which not only kills but seriously threatens the economic and social stability of the continent”, but reiterated the Vatican ban on the use of condoms. It was hoped, however, that he would modify its position to take account of particular circumstances.

Echoing words spoken frequently by Pope John Paul II, Benedict declared that the “traditional teaching of the Church” on chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it had proved to be “the only sure way of preventing the spread of HIV and Aids”.

A few hours later, when his plane landed at Yaoundé the capital of Cameroon, he said that he was bringing the “Christian message of hope” to the world’s poorest continent – an assertion disputed strongly, even among his clergy. About 5 per cent of Cameroon’s 18 million people are believed to be living with HIV/Aids. Across the continent more than 22 million people are now infected.

The Vatican’s stand flies in the face of current world opinion. President Obama appears ready to reverse the Bush Administration’s controversial policy of giving financial aid only to organisations promoting abstinence and fidelity, a position adopted largely under pressure from the Christian Right.

The Pope’s comments look likely to create further division in a church racked by disagreements on numerous issues from gay rights to Holocaust denials.

A senior lay Catholic, who asked not to be named, said: “It is very hard to be a Catholic nowadays. We are meant to be following the Lord.”

He said that he felt as ashamed now as he had when the mother of a nine-year-old girl who had become pregnant with twins after being raped by her stepfather was excommunicated when she allowed doctors to abort the babies. The doctors were also excommunicated, but the stepfather suffered no penalty from the Church.

The Pope will fly from Cameroon to Angola, which is staunchly Catholic as well as badly hit by HIV/Aids after years of civil war.

Two years ago there was speculation that the Vatican might amend its ban on condoms after Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan, said that in couples where one partner had HIV/ Aids, the use of condoms was “a lesser evil”.

The World Health Organisation says that “consistent and correct” condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent.

UK: Extremism promoted on websites of Muslim Schools.

2009-02-22T01:54:00.000-08:00

Is it any wonder that the Muslim community in the UK lives in a parallel society, not integrating but holding themselves separate? Is it any wonder that we have some young Muslims, growing up with extremist views, forming plots to blow their non - Muslim countrymen to bits? And what do the government do? They think it is far more important to prevent an elected member of the Dutch parliament from expressing his views in the UK than tackling real problems like this.

-----------------------------------------

Islamic fundamentalism that encourages children to despise British society is being promoted on websites at some Muslim schools in the UK, think tank Civitas has revealed.

t warns the messages are threatening social cohesion and could fuel "ghettoization" and segregation.
A site linked to one primary school said playing Monopoly or chess was forbidden and likened the latter to "one who dips his hands in the blood of swine".
Another warned children in Britain were being exposed to a culture that was against everything Islam stands for, while a third school's website had electronic links to alleged extremist sites.
Others had links to other sites or chatrooms that contain fundamental views such as forbidding the playing of cricket or even reading of Harry Potter books.
Many of the messages, sites or links mentioned in the report have since been taken down, but the Department for Children, Schools and Families last night said it would investigate the allegations it contained.
Representatives of Muslim schools angrily dismissed the study, labelling it "misleading, intolerant and divisive", but the report will reignite the debate over the growth of religious schools in the country.
In a foreword to Music, Chess and other Sins, Civitas director David Green said: "The schools that give cause for concern are being run by religious fundamentalists.
"Their aim is to capture the next generation of Muslims for fundamentalism and to turn children away, not only from Western influence, but also from liberal and secular Muslims, whom they despise perhaps with greater vehemence than non-Muslims."
The report said there are around 166 Muslim schools in the UK, which are a mixture or private or state funded, as well as around 700 part-time madrasas.
But it found some were promoting anti-Western views actively on their website.
The Madani Secondary Girls' School in East London said on its website: "Our children are exposed to a culture that is in opposition with almost everything Islam stands for."
The school was unavailable for comment but the sentence has since been removed from the site.
The Feversham College in Bradford had links on its website for two other sites, one of which allegedly advocated jihad.
A spokeswoman for the college said the two links have now been removed and insisted the college was "unequivocally committed to community cohesion and promoting strong responsible citizenship".
"Our website pages have for some time had links with other sites which are generally informative," she said.
"It has been brought to our attention that some of the content now on two of those sites could be misinterpreted. We have therefore reviewed the position and have removed any links to those websites."
A third school, a primary, had links with a site which said games such as Ludo, Monopoly, draughts and chess should be forbidden.
The site added: "The Holy Prophet stated the person who plays chess is like one who dips his hands in the blood of a swine (pig)."
The site was not working last night and the school was unavailable for comment.
The report also found evidence of sites saying a woman who is raped is "jointly responsible" for the crime, that women should remain at home rather than study or that the greatest form of veiling for a woman was to stay indoors and keep herself hidden.
The report's author Denis MacEoin said: "To see everything Western as the clear opposite of all one is taught to believe to be right has the potential to damage young minds for life. This should be taken seriously in the light of the 7/7 bombings, where hatred of what non-Muslims stand for was adduced as an excuse for massacre.
"We do not say that schools teach terror, but we do ask if they do not make some of their pupils likely to fall prey to even greater extremism. If all that is Islamic is right and lovely, and all that is non-Muslim is corrupt and evil, how might an impressionable mind understand his or her role in British life?"
But Dr Mohamed Mukadam chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools UK, said: "Contrary to what this report claims, Muslim schools provide an outstanding standard of education for thousands of young children across the country.
"The report contains rhetoric which is not only inaccurate but also breeds distrust and disharmony and adds nothing positive or constructive to the debate on the future of education or social cohesion in our country."
A DCSF spokesman said: "Ministers are absolutely clear that schools should be a force for bringing together communities - not dividing them. All maintained schools, faith and non-faith, have a statutory duty to promote community cohesion - which is inspected by Ofsted.
"DCSF has asked the authors of this report for sight of his evidence so that the allegations can be properly considered. We would treat any evidence of potential breaches very seriously but it would be inappropriate to comment on any specific allegations until we have seen the evidence and been able to consider its accuracy."

Obama warned. Britain is biggest threat to US security.

2009-02-17T01:57:00.000-08:00

As a British citizen, I worry about what this says for the state of my country. The dilemma we face on our own shores is intensified further whe our government prevents a democratically elected politician from entering the country and yet the following Sunday sees a 'festival' organised by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas take place in central London. - Despite these two organisations being banned in the UK! Who is in whose pocket? Is something sinister happening of which we are not aware? Makes me wonder!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American spy chiefs have told the President that the CIA has launched a vast spying operation in the UK to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks being launched from Britain.

They believe that a British-born Pakistani extremist entering the US under the visa waiver programme is the most likely source of another terrorist spectacular on American soil.

Intelligence briefings for Mr Obama have detailed a dramatic escalation in American espionage in Britain, where the CIA has recruited record numbers of informants in the Pakistani community to monitor the 2,000 terrorist suspects identified by MI5, the British security service.

A British intelligence source revealed that a staggering four out of 10 CIA operations designed to thwart direct attacks on the US are now conducted against targets in Britain.

And a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama told The Sunday Telegraphthat the CIA has stepped up its efforts in the last month after the Mumbai massacre laid bare the threat from Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group behind the attacks, which has an extensive web of supporters in the UK.

The CIA has already spent 18 months developing a network of agents in Britain to combat al-Qaeda, unprecedented in size within the borders of such a close ally, according to intelligence sources in both London and Washington.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.

"The American security establishment believes that danger continues and there's very intimate cooperation between our security services to monitor that." Mr Riedel, who served three presidents as a Middle East expert on the White House National Security Council, added: "President Obama's national security team are well aware that this is a serious threat."

The British official said: "The Americans run their own assets in the Pakistani community; they get their own intelligence. There's close cooperation with MI5 but they don't tell us the names of all their sources.

"Around 40 per cent of CIA activity on homeland threats is now in the UK. This is quite unprecedented."

Explaining the increase in CIA activity over the past month, Mr Riedel added: "In the aftermath of the Mumbai attack the US and the UK intelligence services now have to regard Lashkar-e-Taiba as just as serious a threat to both of our countries as al-Qaeda. They have a much more extensive base among Pakistani Diaspora communities in the UK than al–Qaeda."

Information gleaned by CIA spies in Britain has already helped thwart several terrorist attacks in the UK and was instrumental in locating Rashid Rauf, a British-born al-Qaeda operative implicated in a plot to explode airliners over the Atlantic, who was tracked down and killed in a US missile strike in November.

But some US intelligence officers are irritated that valuable manpower and resources have been diverted to the UK. One former intelligence officer who does contract work for the CIA dismissed Britain as a "swamp" of jihadis.

Jonathan Evans, the director general of MI5, admitted in January that the Security Service alone does not have the resources to maintain surveillance on all its targets. "We don't have anything approaching comprehensive coverage," he said.

The dramatic escalation in CIA activity in the UK followed the exposure in August 2006 of Operation Overt, the alleged airline bomb plot.

The British intelligence official revealed that CIA chiefs sent more resources to the UK because they were not prepared to see American citizens die as a result of MI5's inability to keep tabs on all suspects, even though the Security Service successfully uncovered the plot.

MI5 manpower will have doubled to 4,100 by 2011 but many in the US intelligence community do not think that is enough.

For their part, some British officials are queasy that information obtained by the CIA from British Pakistanis was used to help target Mr Rauf, a British citizen, whom they would have preferred to capture and bring to trial.

Sensitivities over the intelligence arrangement formed a key part of briefings given to Mr Obama, since they are central to what is often called "the most special part of the special relationship" and could complicate his dealings with Gordon Brown.

Tensions in transatlantic intelligence relations which were laid bare last week during the High Court battle over Binyam Mohamed, the British resident held in Guanatanamo Bay. British judges wanted to publish details of the torture administered to Mr Mohamed, an Ethiopian national, in US custody. But key paragraphs were blacked out after American officials threatened it could damage intelligence sharing between the two countries.

Intelligence experts said that a trusting intelligence relationship, in which one country does not publish intelligence data obtained by the other, is vital to both countries' national security.

Patrick Mercer, chairman of the House of Commons counter-terrorism sub-committee, said: "The special relationship is a huge benefit to us. It clearly works to our advantage and helps keep the people of the UK and the US safe.

"There is no doubt that a great deal of valuable intelligence vital to British national security is procured by American agents from British sources."

Mr Riedel added: "The partnership between the two intelligence communities is dynamic; it is one of great intimacy. We overuse the term special relationship, but this is an extraordinarily special relationship.

"Since September 11 the philosophy on both sides has been to err on the side of telling each other more rather than less. It is in everyone's interests that that continues."

Is Britain a police state?

2009-02-17T01:01:00.000-08:00

I am all in favour of guarding against the terrorist threat. However, one has to call to mind the reason why we are being attacked. We are being attacked because the terrorists are afraid of freedom. They are afraid of our freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom for women and the free exchange of ideas. What our government is doing by restricting our freedoms in order to ostensibly 'fight terror' is to give the terrorists the victory they want. You cannot defend freedom by restricting it.

The following article is from the BBC and are the thoughts of Dame Stella Rimington. Well spoken Dame Stella.

-------------------------------------------------

Dame Stella Rimington, 73, said people in Britain felt as if they were living "under a police state" because of the fear being spread by ministers.

In an interview with Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia and published in the Daily Telegraph, she also attacks the approach taken by the United States.

"The US has gone too far with Guantanamo and the tortures," she said.

"MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect - there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification."

She said the British security services were "no angels," but they did not kill people.

Dame Stella, who stood down as the director general of the security service in 1996, has previously been critical of the government's policies, including its attempts to extend pre-charge detention for terror suspects to 42 days and the controversial plan to introduce ID cards.

"It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism - that we live in fear and under a police state," she said.

Dame Stella's comments come as a study is published by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) that accuses the US and the UK of undermining the framework of international law.

'Take stock'

Former Irish president Mary Robinson, the president of the ICJ said: "Seven years after 9/11 it is time to take stock and to repeal abusive laws and policies enacted in recent years.

"Human rights and international humanitarian law provide a strong and flexible framework to address terrorist threats."

The Conservatives said the government's push to extend the detention time limit for terror suspects was the kind of measure condemned by the report.

Shadow security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said: "The Conservative Party is committed to ensuring that security measures are proportionate and adhere to the rule of law."

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey said: "This is damning testament to just how much liberty has been ineffectually sacrificed in the 'war on terror'."

Dame Stella became the first female head of MI5 in 1992.

The Geert Wilders Affair.

2009-02-15T01:57:00.000-08:00

Anyone who was conscious last week will have noticed that Dutch politician Geert Wilders was denied entry to my country, the UK. The question is, should he have been? The answer, I believe is no!

Whether you agree or disagree with his views, Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch parliament and as such has the right to travel in any EU country without hindrance. The fact is that Mr Wilders visited London only four weeks ago, so if it was OK to let him in then, why is it not so now?

Everyone, quite correctly is vaunting this as an attack upon the principles of freedom of speech, which it is, but it also has more sinister political undertones. The ruling labour party in the UK, failing as it is in the polls, is more dependent upon the Muslim vote than at any time in it's history. If the Muslim vote halted in its support for the labour party, it would be exposed to losing many seats in it's inner city strongholds and therefore would face electoral disaster. It would be highly likely that labour would go from being the current party of government, to being a marginalised third party after the next general election. So, labour cannot afford to upset it's Muslim vote, which would certainly happen if Geert Wilders had been allowed into the House of Lords to show his film, 'Fitna.' Consequently, in the face of Muslim anger, the government sacrificed one of the values that this society is based upon, 'freedom of speech.'

Let us take a look at why British Muslims were so upset about Mr Wilders visit.

Geert Wilders is an outspoken critic of Islam, who is beginning to be demonised as an extreme right wing politician, almost a Nazi! He certainly is not this, on many issues he is not even as right wing as Margeret Thatcher was in the 1980's

Fitna.

Just over a year ago, Mr Wilders made a film called Fitna

I have watched Fitna (which means - dissension, affliction, trial, sedition or civil strife ) and was very surprised to find that many of the Muslims who were on British TV last week denouncing this film being shown, had not seen it. I was amazed at how people who had not seen the film and therefore were not properly apparaised of its contents could possess such strong views about it. During Fitna, Mr Wilders never expresses an opinion himself, what he does through graphic imagery is to relate how it is that Muslim extremists can justify their horrific actions by relating those actions to relative verses within the Quran. Fitna is actually a tool to explain how extremist factions within Islam can draw an interpretation, which justifies killing non - Muslims. That is all it does! It does not demonise Islam in general terms, it does not attack all Muslims, it merely highlights the extremists and the hold they seem to have within certain factions of Islam at the moment.

Unless British Muslims do not want the extremists to be demonised, what then is the problem in showing the film? Oh, but wait a minute, most of them haven't seen it have they?

So when Lord Ahmed pops up on television and says that the film is an attack on Muslims, he is plain wrong. He is also wrong when he appears on Pakistani TV claiming that the Wilders ban is a 'victory for the Muslim community.' - It is not! What has happened here is that the British government has stated that it does not trust the Muslim community. Our home secretary feels that they cannot be trusted not to react in a violent manner and in banning Wilders she has denied Muslims the opportunity to debate with him. She has restricted the free speech of Muslims as well as that of Wilders and his supporters. Maybe there would have been the predicted 10,000 Muslims marching on Westminster, who knows? Maybe there would have been violence, who knows? Maybe there would have been Muslims weilding placards calling for all those who oppose Islam to be beheaded. - We have seen that before. But if it is these type of public disturbances that the ban was designed to prevent, it is still wrong. It is wrong because we will have been seen to give way in the face of the threat of such violence and that is the greates threat to freedom!

The death of free speech.

UK: - Government plans yet another database.

2009-02-08T01:43:00.000-08:00

The Government is planning to create a database of the travel habits of the entire population of the UK. This is an unecessary infringement of civil freedom in what has become the most surveillance obsessed society on Earth. It is a fundamental mistake to think that in order to fight the enemies of freedom, we must give up those freedoms. If we do that, then our enemies have won. In any case, given this government's record on keeping public information secure, they will probably lose the DVD's containing the information.

From the BBC, - yet another attack on freedom by the Labour government.

--------------------------------------------

Computerised records of all 250 million journeys made by individuals in and out of the UK each year will be kept for up to 10 years.

The government says the database is essential in the fight against crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.

But opposition MPs and privacy campaigners fear it is a significant step towards a surveillance society.

The intelligence centre will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details of travellers.

Big Brother

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "The government seems to be building databases to track more and more of our lives.

"The justification is always about security or personal protection. But the truth is that we have a government that just can't be trusted over these highly sensitive issues. We must not allow ourselves to become a Big Brother society."

A spokesman for campaign group NO2ID said: "When your travel plans, who you are travelling with, where you are going to and when are being recorded you have to ask yourself just how free is this country?"

The e-Borders scheme covers flights, ferries and rail journeys and the Home Office says similar schemes run in other countries including the US, Canada, Spain and Australia.

Minister of State for borders and immigration Phil Woolas said the government was determined to ensure the UK's border remained one of the toughest in the world.

"Our hi-tech electronic borders system will allow us to count all passengers in and out of the UK and [it] targets those who aren't willing to play by our rules," he said.

"Already e-Borders has screened over 75 million passengers against immigration, customs and police watch-lists, leading to over 2,700 arrests for crimes such as murder, rape and assault."

Freedomwatch

Hypocrisy in action by the British State.

And if British people burned something as sacred to the Muslims as the poppy is to us, you can bet your life their would be mass arrests and charges centred on 'hate crimes.' And yet the Muslims are allowed to get away with it.

The other question is why the BBC did not report this? They were quick enough to report on the US pastor who wanted to burn the Koran and they are quick enough to report on marches by the English Defence League, so why not Muslims burning poppies? With thanks to the Daily Telegraph.

Muslims clash with police after burning poppy in anti-Armistice Day protest

Muslims clashed with police after burning a large poppy in protest at Britain's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which was timed to coincide with Armistice Day's two-minute silence.

Mission to name war dead found in Flanders

Amazon removes ‘paedophile guide’ from Kindle store

Has Westminster Council fallen out of love with Chanel?

NUS leader: student tuition fee protest 'undermined' by violence

Students vow to continue rioting

Cameron criticises police for not protecting Tory HQ