Chamberlainesque British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith believes that abject dhimmitude is the only permissible response to Muslims being “offended”.
As Melanie Phillips writes in The Spectator capitulation and double standards exemplify the British Government’s actions when faced with Islamism.
Even opponents of Geert Wilders in the Dutch Parliament were affronted at him being refused entry into Britain and unceremoniously sent packing back to his homeland, despite diplomatic representations being made to Home Secretary Smith by the Dutch ambassador to the UK, to reverse her servile decision.
The result of Smith’s stubbornness is, therefore, a diplomatic rift between the UK and the Netherlands, with a concomitant diminishing in Britain’s standing across the world.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a man puffed up with his own self-importance, but signally a disastrous Minister of State, backed up his equally inept colleague, with this on the BBC’s Hard Talk : “The home secretary made a decision on an individual case as she is required to do,” adding that the movie Fitna contained “extreme anti-Muslim hate and we have very clear laws in this country”.
Yes Mr. Miliband, but they are being applied in a way biased to favour Muslims who preach hate, and practice hate against “the kuffars” in Britain. Of course, hatred of “the kuffar” is mandated in the Koran, but exposing the hatred within its pages in the form of a movie breaches British “hate laws”.
Mr Miliband also said: “We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.” No, but presumably bellowing “Allah u ackbar” in a crowded theatre is perfectly permissible and, therefore, kicking the holy crap out of a bearded Muslim doing such a thing would be an indefensible act of anti-Muslim hatred and not self-preservation.
Mr. Miliband has, in his own inept way, also created his own diplomatic rift between the UK and India, by implying that India’s policy on Kashmir was responsible for the Muslim terrorist murders in Mumbai. This man is a true internationalist, and like his bloated boss, Gordon Brown, a globalist. This necessitates him to ponce around the world sticking his nose into other people’s business and to pompously pontificate on how they should conduct their affairs. If there is one thing worse than a colonial British Foreign Secretary, it is a post-colonial British Foreign Secretary attempting to be “influencial”.
The British media was quick to brand Geert Wilders as “extreme” and “far right”. SIOE has made the point before, but will make it again here. Is stoning a woman to death for being raped “left wing” or “right wing”? Is beheading someone for leaving Islam extreme or normal behaviour? Both activities are punishments decreed in sharia law, which itself sprung out of the Koran.
The Western media say that Muslim suicide bombers and beheaders are extremists (unless they use toned-down descriptions such as, radical, militant or political Muslims). Therefore, to describe Geert Wilders as an extremist, to put him in the same league as Muslim terrorists is deeply insulting. However, that is the point. “Extremist” defenders of free speech, democracy and Western culture do so in a civilised manner, in other words in a Western manner, whereas Muslim “extremists” use violence and intimidation to quell opposition to Islam, as the Koran mandates them to do.
SIOE supporters are proud to be Western Extremists. That is what we are. We unashamedly defend democracy and freedom, and oppose Islamisation employing the extremist methods we already do and will continue to do. No doubt Geert Wilders is also proud to be a Western Extremist, using the extremist method of rational debate.
David Miliband and Jacqui Smith are assuredly stupid not to see the irony that the Western Extremist Geert Wilders is under constant armed guard for his own protection, whereas Muslim clerics are preaching hate, and “moderate” muslims are shouting the insult “kuffar” on Western streets with impunity. Incidentally, SIOE’s report of the hate crime to Home Secretary Smith resulted in her merely passing the complaint to the complainant’s own MP, so she did not take kuffarphobia as seriously as the “anti-Muslim hatred” displayed in Fitna.
“Bigot” is another word which is bandied about, when describing Geert Wilders and anti-Islamists. A typical example was when former minister, Michael Portillo used the word on the BBC’s This Week where he considered Geert to be “a twit and a bigot”.
The definition of a bigot is “an obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. A perfect description of a Muslim if ever there was one. However, Muslim bigotry is perfectly acceptable in the EUSSR kalifate.
We are sure Geert Wilders, like SIOE supporters, is completely intolerant of sharia law and its kuffarphobic bigotry. A worthy stance to take.
Laughably, Michael Portillo then went on to imply that Geert Wilders should be ignored because he is unworthy of garnering publicity. That sounds like substantial bigotry to the more discerning.
The suggestion is that the media should ignore any concerns about Islamisation and suppress such concerns because they are bigotted. However, a supposedly free media in practising such self-censorship, is not bigotted in any way!
Chamberlainism and dhimmitude are the future that the Smiths, Milibands and Portilloes of this world will lead us to, if allowed. Of course, we will not allow them to.
