The Arab Influence on Western Policies (part 2 of 2)

· Human Rights, Islam

[Continuation from part 1 –]


(4804 words)

Eurobia by Bat Ye’or was published January 31st, 2005. So let us examine the authenticity of what has been written was historically correct or what had been assumed or what has come to pass.
(1) From historical evidence and observations by prominent Westerners, the State of Palestine and the Palestinian peoples never historically existed. Palestine was a creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, under Arafat who claimed Palestine for his clique in modern times. Palestinians were recent immigrants to the land of Palestine having emigrated since WWII from Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and other Arab countries. But the real cause for Arab claim to Palestine was to claim the Holy Lands for the Arabs and to push the Israelis out of the region. This cause was eventually supported by the whole Arab world. But Christian sympathies were with the Jews, as it was according to Biblical history that Jerusalem was the Promised Land to the Jews. Arabs would not accept this concept in spite of the fact that they knew that the Palestinians had no legitimate rights to Palestine.

Europe Accepts Arab Demands to Recognise Palestinians

(1) However, within 21 days of the Yom Kippur War and “the threat of an Oil Embargo,” 9 countries of the European Union capitulated and recognised the rights of the Palestinian peoples, a created imaginary Palestinian Peoples by the Arabs. The Nine countries were: “Belgium, France, West Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Britain, Denmark & Ireland.” This marked a significant victory for Islamic determination and power brokering. To force Western powers to recognise a newly imagined and created Palestinian State by Arab Nations and its Peoples and forced upon the Western world, was a miraculous achievement. It should up Western vulnerability and Islamic strength. It also confirms that Arabs have considerable influence over European foreign policies. A fact.

(2) Because not only did the European nations have to “swallow hard” and recognised the Palestinian Peoples and the Palestinian State, they also have had to withdraw their support of Israel and  to distance themselves politically from America who was a staunch supporter of Israel. This was and still is a policy observed today to a great extent. Hence the demonising of America in Europe, a product of Arab policies. Again this is a fact even today.

(3) Let us further examine the claims in “Eurabia” of the insidious infiltration of Arab influence into European civil and political life. {Information is scarce and scattered but this author will attempt to highlight real life events to illustrate how accurate the statements in Eurabia has proven to be in recent years.

The Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples”

This conference was held in January 1960 in Cairo.

The chief object of this conference was to demonstrate “Europeanhostility towards Zionism and show solidarity with the Arab Population of Palestine.*” The conference stressed:

“that all information media should be mobilised to enlighten world public opinion, kept in ignorance and confusion by deceitful propaganda on the part of Israel and its supporters.”

It is an incumbent moral and political duty” of all participants of this conference to reveal the truth and spread it through the press, the radio, television, demonstrations, visits of delegations, and the organisation of seminars and conferences in the West and through all continents.”

Resolution 15*: “The conference decided to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform for promoting support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.”
Resolution 22*: Representatives will organize, on return from the conference, special meetings and publications, and “utilize the press, radio, and television media to popularize the conference’s decisions in the most appropriate way for each individual country.”
[Not only were the Arabs determined to force the new European partners to demonise the Israelis and Americans, but also to force them to accept the legitimacy of the Palestinian peoples, that was a newly created *political identity since 1945, and to support their demands for their territorial demands, that also was non-existent before 1945. United States cannot claim not to have been aware of the decisions taken at these meetings as they were represented there.]

Of the 54 members of the conference,43 were from Europe, i.e., France, East Germany, England, Italy, Belgium and Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Poland, and Hungary, and Chile, and the United States. [Appendix 4] [4.p44]”

I would like to stress this Resolution from the 2nd It’l Conf.

Resolution 15*: “The conference decided to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform for promoting support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.”

“To use the parliamentary platform for promoting support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.”

“utilize the press, radio, and television media to popularize the conference’s decisions in the most appropriate way for each individual country.”

Now bearing in mind the European members who attended the conference and then from my own limited knowledge, let us look whether this “use of parliamentary platform” has been effectively used in Europe?

(4) Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses earned him a fatwa and all the West did was to provide him with 24/7 Police protection, without any condemnation of the fatwa.

(5) The Muhammad Cartoons caused riots in Europe and worldwide, and the poklice did their best to hold the peace but that signalled the end of “the Freedom of the Press.” From then on all press releases were heavily edited to abide with “political correctness.” International reporters reporting on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Islamic nations were careful to be politically correct or they would not obtain the permit to report from Arab lands. The Media was confined to political correctness. All European Politicians too observed political correctness, and never dared to criticise Islam or Muslims. Britain even pursued the Metropolitan police and publicly accused them for being “institutionally racist.” The whole of Europe bent over backwards not to say a thing that could offend the Muslims.

Europe has been intimidated, and still is intimidated and influenced by Islam sensitivities.

(6) “The European Union have already conceded to the  most important Arab demands, i.e., to accept Arabic culture and philosophy as part of European culture, i.e., acceptance of the Islamic faith in Europe. Is it a price worth paying because Islam is displacing the Christian culture faster than anyone could have anticipated?Having established the institutions of an European-Arab Dialogue, “recognised and ratified by the European Union, the Arabs lost no time in ensuring that the interests of the Arabs was firmly established in Europe. The ensuing body will be referred to as the “Euro-Arab Dialogue, EAB,” and its purpose was to bring together the two shores of the Mediterranean with the interests of the Arab world “fully appreciated and accepted in European society.” It was to be the start of a “fusion of an Arab-European culture,” acceptable on both sides of the Mediterranean. It was meant to homogenise the culture, politics, economies and policies between the two shores. It would no longer represent a European body politic culture, but a culture of Eurabia. But could it be as simple as that? Because it is difficult not to realise that the two cultures are immiscible.”

(7) European Immigration Policy is OPEN TO ALL MUSLIMS

This is the first obvious destruction of national sovereignty, the loss of control of national immigration policies. The Arabs had insisted that if Europe wanted them as partners to rebuild Europe that all Arabs/Muslims must be treated equally as European citizens. With no discrimination on welfare benefits, education, worship or way of life. So this is a sample of what happened to immigration:

Review of growth of Arab Immigrants into Europe since 1950

Bearing in mind that The Euro-Arab Cooperation began in 1974 and the Strasbourg Convention’s Resolutions in June, 1975. The increase of Muslim population in a few strategic countries is alarming.

 Europe  1950  1980  2010
     Number of Muslims  10.7 million  693 million  733 million
     As % of Population   1.97%  3.57%  5.74%
     Number of Muslims  0.230 million  2.48 million  6.21 million
     As % of Population  0.55%  4.6%  6.26%
     Number of Muslims  20 thousand  1.72 million  4.28 million
     As % of Population  0.03%  2.2%  5.2%
     Number of Muslims  101 K  1.24 million  2.45 million
     As % of Population  0.2%  2.2%  4.0%
     Number of Muslims  5.1 K  396 K  966K
     As % of Population  0.05%  2.8%  5.8%
     Number of Muslims  701  24.9K  500K
    As % of Population  0.01%  0.3%  5.38%

It is clear that after 1975 the growth of Muslim population in European nations increased at an exponential rate and worrying. It has also inflamed problems between the Muslims and the native inhabitants as the Muslim population demand their rights to all the  privileges on the Social Welfare systems and test their legal rights through their aggressive demonstrations and unacceptable behaviour. Yet there is practically nothing the European Union Member states can do because of the agreements with the Arabs to treat Arabs not only as equals but with preferential treatment. To have abrogated any of these agreements would have caused the Muslim world to go into a catatonic state of frenzy leading to violent and uncontrollable behaviour.

(8) With the influx of millions of Arabs and Muslims, Islamic Ghettoes sprang up with no go areas for non-Muslims. Mosques grew like mushrooms. Burqas once rare especially in British villages was now a common sight. Strangely, in Britain people were sacked for wearing a Cross necklace, but Burqas and Nijabs were defiantly freely used everywhere. Muslim demonstrations began sprouting out for the least provocation. Young Christian girls were groomed to serve the Muslim men. Hallal foods in our supermarkets meant Hallal slaughter. Muslims begin to proselytise and foster disinformation on the local internet. If you rebut you are labelled an Islamophobe and a racist. The way of life is no longer that peaceful rural English country way of life any longer, as the scene is changing fast.

(9) Positive Discrimination was soon prevalent either because of  European acceptance of cooperation with the Arabs or the formation of pressure groups within Europe or individual countries. It soon also became obvious that suddenly there was a proliferation of Muslim media presenters, and public servant workers in a percentage that is in access to their numbers of population, whilst there is hardly any representation of other ethnicities like Buddhists, or Hindus, or non-Muslim Asians.

In Britain, quangos that protected the interest of Muslims and minority groups were financed by the treasury like “The Equality and Human Rights Commission” chaired by Trevor Phillips.

Dr. Rowan Williams who, through his associations with learned Muslim friends, advocated that Britain adopt Sharia Law for Muslims. Today we have 85 legally recognised Sharia Law courts in operation in Britain thanks to Dr. Williams advocacy.

What has been the Real Cost of Immigration to Europe? The Real Fiscal Impact.

Little is ever said in public about the real cost of massive uncontrolled immigration to any nation especially nations that provide a full comprehensive social welfare support system to all citizens as well as other inhabitants of their nations. We keep on hearing that diversity strengthens a nation and adds to its genetic pool but certainly this cannot apply to totally immiscible exclusive cultures like Islam. It certainly has proven to be the opposite thus far.

I therefore will post at random some figures and analysis of the cost of immigrants in different countries in order to give some perspective to the misinformation that the public has about the benefits of immigration:

“The research evidence from static analyses (i.e. focusing on a specific fiscal year) of the fiscal impact of immigration in other European countries and the USA remains mixed

Most of the static analyses of the fiscal impact of immigration in the USA date from the 1990s. One of the first studies about this issue suggests that for 1992, migrants in the USA paid about USD 20.2 billion in taxes and received in services (directly and indirectly) about USD 62.8 billion, for a net deficit of USD 42.5 billion (Huddle 1993). George Borjas using a different approach found that in 1990, the net annual fiscal loss associated with immigration in the USA was about USD 16 billion (Borjas 1994). The conclusion of these studies, therefore, was that migrants in the USA were a significant fiscal burden for the country. Other researchers challenged this conclusion (e.g. Passel 1994, Passel and Clark 1994 and Passel and Fix 1994) and found that migrants in the USA contributed more in taxes than they consumed in services, leading to a positive net contribution.”

Influx of immigrants ‘costs every UK household £350 a year’

Last updated at 11:20 17 October 2007

Labour’s ‘open door’ policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, it was claimed yesterday.

David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.

In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been an ‘absent-minded commitment’ to increase the population by one million every five years.

A Government submission to the same Upper House panel claims that foreign workers contributed about £6billion to economic growth last year.

But officials admitted they have no conclusive data on two crucial measures favoured by experts – whether migrants make a positive contribution to GDP per head of population and whether they cost the Treasury more in the long term than they pay in taxes.

Professor Coleman, an internationallyrespected population expert, said the costs of immigration are likely to increase if, as according to Government figures, immigration continues to swell the population by 200,000 every year.

‘The absent-minded commitment into which we have drifted, to house a further 15million people – one million every five years – must be the biggest unintended consequence of government policy-of almost any century,’ he said.

Click to enlarge

Enlarge the image

‘There are no merits in the promotion of population growth itself and many reasons to regret it, especially in a country as crowded as the United Kingdom.’

Professor Coleman said the costs to the public sector include £1.5billion to run the asylum system, £280million to teach English to migrants and at least £330million to treat illnesses such as HIV.

Immigrant communities are over-represented in the criminal justice system, he added. Mass immigration also imposes ‘congestion costs, diverts investment to new infrastructure and housing, impinges on space and amenity and accelerates the output of waste and greenhouse gas emissions.’

Read more:

Read more:

Most immigrants come from countries that offer no form of Social Services, and suddenly come and enjoy a standard of living equal to any Briton without having contributed a penny to the system. And that is not all, they can continue to live on these benefits for the rest of their lives without making an effort to find work. How much this burden has contributed to the overall debt burden all western countries are suffering today is debatable, but certainly some of their native countries flushed with oil revenues do not have to contribute a penny for this much improved lifestyle at the expense of the host countries tax coffers. Little wonder the natives are resentful.

(10) Even Prince Charles has shown great sympathies for Islam:

Prince Charles, defender of Islam
By Fazile Zahir

One particular member of the royal family, the queen’s eldest son, Prince Charles, has come under suspicion of having his own particularly strong connection to Turkey.

In October 1996, London’s Evening Standard newspaper quoted the Grand Mufti of Cyprus, who claimed that the prince had converted to Islam. “It happened in Turkey. Oh, yes, he converted all right,” the Grand Mufti was quoted as saying. “When you get home, check on how often he travels to Turkey. You’ll find that your future king is a Muslim.” This was one of several reports linking Prince Charles and Islam highlighted by authors Ronni L  Gordon and David M Stillman in The Middle East Quarterly in 1997.

There have been various alleged proofs offered for the conversion myth. Numerous times over the past three decades, Charles has spoken to support both Muslims and Islam. In 1989, when the Iranian ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie, Charles reacted to the death decree by reflecting on the positive features that Islam has to offer the spiritually empty lives of his countrymen.

In 1993, speaking at Oxford University, he said, “Our judgement of Islam has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to the norm. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex. My own understanding is that extremes, like the cutting off of hands, are rarely practiced. The guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law, taken straight from the Koran, should be those of equity and compassion. Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost.”

In a June 1994 television documentary, he declared his preference to be known as “Defender of Faith” rather than “Defender of the Faith”, prompting then prime minister John Major to comment, “It would be a little odd if Prince Charles was defender of faiths of which he was not a member.”

In a speech at the Foreign Office Conference Center on December 13, 1996, he called on Islamic pedagogy and philosophy to help young Britons develop a healthier view of the world. “There is much we can learn from that Islamic world view in this respect. Everywhere in the world people want to learn English. But in the West, in turn, we need to be taught by Islamic teachers how to learn with our hearts, as well as our heads.”

In 1997, the Daily Mail of London reported that he had set up a panel of 12 “wise men” (in fact, 11 men and one woman) to advise him on Islamic religion and culture. No comparable body was established to advise him on any other faith in his future realm.

He is vice patron of the Center for Islamic Studies at Oxford University, a center built by a US$33 million Saudi gift with the stated aim of putting Islam at the heart of the British education system.

In 2003, Prince Charles went to America for an eight-day tour. His mission was to persuade President George W Bush and the Americans of the merits of Islam. He has voiced private concerns over America’s confrontational approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam’s strengths. He thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion.

Charles’s most recent visits to Turkey were in 2005 to mark the 90th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings and again in 2007 with Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, for a four-day tour.

Whether or not he has converted, which is of course strongly denied by Buckingham Palace spokesmen, he is an immensely popular figure throughout the Middle East. The Saudis regard him as a candid friend of the Islamic world. British academic John Casey, of Cambridge University, says the Prince of Wales’ hero status in the Arab world (for his pro Islamic comments and actions) is permanent and “No other Western figure commands this sort of admiration.”

Cynics claim his friendship is based on upper-class hobnobbing with the Dubai polo set. Others believe that the UK Foreign Office capitalizes on his popularity and uses him as a point man for British business interests in Muslim countries. Casey commented in the London Daily Telegraph, “The Charles of Arabia phenomenon is here to stay, for it helps assure British commerce with the Muslim world.”

Whether or not a conversion did take place in Turkey will probably never be known, Charles is unlikely to give up his claim for the British throne by making a full disclosure. He may even encourage the image of himself as a spiritual dilettante flitting from faith to faith to hide an special leaning toward Islam.

Fazile Zahir is of Turkish descent, born and brought up in London. She moved to live in Turkey in 2005 and has been writing full time since then.

(11) Parliamentary “Appointments” to both Houses of Parliament

Lord Ahmed threatens Parliament into submission

Lord Ahmed is a repugnant individual. Not only in appearance, but in association, character and morality. And to hear that he has threatened jihad on the House of Lords if their lordships should fail to meet his demands only serves to intensify Cranmer’s loathing of the man.

It appears that a member of the House of Lords had invited the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to a private meeting in the Palace of Westminster. She had intended to invite her colleagues in the Lords to a private viewing of his ‘documentary’ Fitna, followed by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion. This is, after all, a liberal democracy, and their lordships enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, not to mention certain parliamentary privileges for the protection of their function in the legislature.

But no sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he ‘threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’.

And so Fitna has been cancelled: it shall not now be screened in the House of Lords on 29th January.

The Pakistani Press is jubliant, and Lord Ahmed is praising Allah for delivering ‘a victory for the Muslim community’.

(12) Shahid Malik: a Labour appointee to the House of Commons as Justice Minister

The remarks were made at the October 2008 “Global Peace and Unity” conference held at the Excel London centre, but were deliberately withheld from the video coverage released of that event.

The video speech in which Mr Malik made his remarks has now been released on the internet — nearly five months after the event.

The suppression of the video was clearly designed to try and limit the damage to the ruling Tory and Labour elite, whose immigration policies have led to the situation where a Muslim cabinet minister can confidently predict the total Islamification of this nation.

In his speech, Mr Malik said that he was “proud of the achievements of the Muslims of this country since 1997.”

Referring to Muslim members of the British parliament, himself included, Mr Malik went on to say that: “In 1997 we got our first Muslim MP. In 2001 we had two Muslim MPs. In 2005 we had four Muslim MPs. In ša Allah, in 2009 (or) 2010 we’ll have eight or ten Muslim MPs. In 2014 we’ll have 16 Muslim MPs. At this rate the whole parliament will be Muslim.”

Mr Malik then realised that he had let the cat out of the bag by being too honest, and in an embarrassed tone, he backtracked slightly, saying that was not his intention “in case any members of the press are present.”

The crowd showed no signs of reacting to his remark, and, filled with confidence, he then resumed an explanation of how Britain is to be totally Islamified.

“I am confident, as Britain’s first Muslim minister, that, in ša Allah, in the next thirty years or so, we’ll see a prime minister who happens to share my faith,” Mr Malik said, in reference to the growing Third World population and immigration figures.

The people of Britain cannot say that they have not been warned.

This nation will be Islamified unless the Tory and Labour parties are rejected and the British National Party comes to power.

Mr Malik has spelled it out: the Labour/Tory aim is the destruction of Britain within thirty years.

The BNP seeks the preservation of Britain.

The choice is for the British people to make. It will be either one or the other.

(13) Baroness Warsi, Conservative Minister for Community Cohesion

Conservative peer Baroness Warsi of Dewsbury, named Britain’s most powerful Muslim woman, has been pelted with eggs during a visit to Luton.

Baroness Warsi was taking part in a walkabout in the predominantly Muslim Bury Park area of Luton when she was confronted by a group of protesters.

The male protesters accused her of not being a proper Muslim and supporting the death of Muslims in Afghanistan.

Baroness Warsi, who was hit by at least one egg, debated with the men.

The shadow minister for community cohesion and social action was then taken into a nearby shop.

‘Views challenged’

Baroness Warsi told the BBC that the men were “idiots who did not represent the majority of British Muslims”.

She said these type of protesters “bring Muslims into huge disrepute”.

“I stood up to this group and said I challenge your views,” she told BBC News.

“They just weren’t prepared to listen. They shouted. I said if you want to have this debate, listen.”

She continued her walkabout with a police escort.

One of the protesters against Baroness Warsi, Sayful Islam, told the BBC they were “against everything she stands for”.

He said: “She is not a practising Muslim. Clearly by looking at her she does not represent Muslims.”

He said he and his fellow protesters did not throw the eggs at her.

Baroness Warsi was named as one of the most powerful women in The Power List – chosen by a panel led by Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The award was set up to celebrate high performers in business, the arts, media, voluntary and public sectors.

None of the Muslim candidates have proven to have been successful choices for their functions. In fact Lord Ahmed and Shahid Malik proved that their loyalties to Islam were far greater than their loyalty to the nation that appointed them to help govern the country. Nevertheless, they were appointed by their parties to represent their communities. Where does the pressure for such positive discrimination come from? It would seem that these must be the indirect result of the European Union Agreements to treat Arabs with Equality as referred to in the descriptions in Eurabia.

(14) The European Court of Human Rights

DAVID Cameron yesterday blasted European judges in Strasbourg for crazy rulings that could leave Britain open to terrorist outrages.

He launched a blistering attack on frightening decisions from the European Court of Human Rights — such as its BAN on Britain deporting hate preacher Abu Qatada.

The PM said it left the Government unable to “fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them”.

In a keynote speech to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Mr Cameron bluntly accused the court of sabotaging the UK’s war on terror.

He also unleashed a broadside at rulings on illegal migrants — saying the court acted like an “immigration tribunal” — and prisoners’ rights.

Mr Cameron’s uncompromising message enraged many in his audience of European parliamentarians.

The Court’s president Sir Nicolas Bratza — who blasted Mr Cameron this week — even snubbed an invitation to meet him, saying he was “busy”.

But Mr Cameron is furious at convicted criminals and terrorists using the ECHR to torpedo UK court decisions. Britain loses three out of four cases taken to the ECHR.

The PM was unapologetic about condemning the ruling on Abu Qatada.

Britain jumped through every hoop and even won pledges that Qatada would not be tortured if he was sent back to Jordan.

Mr Cameron said: “The problem is that you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced — and have good reason to be convinced — means to do your country harm.

“Yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them.

“So having put in place every possible safeguard to ensure that ECHR rights are not violated, we still cannot fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them.”

The court was also guilty of trampling over British decisions on immigration and prisoners’ votes, said the PM.

On immigration, he said the court is “too ready to substitute its judgment for that of reasonable national processes”.

The PM said: “In other words, it should not see itself as an immigration tribunal.”

He also said the court should respect Parliament’s view that prisoners should not be able to vote.

Mr Cameron declared: “At the heart of this concern is not antipathy to human rights, it is anxiety that the concept of human rights is being distorted. It is in danger of slipping from something noble to something discredited — and that should be of deep concern to us all.”

He slammed the way the court had let itself be swamped by potty cases.

In one example someone sought 90 euros compensation because their bus journey from Bucharest to Madrid had been uncomfortable. Mr Cameron called on Strasbourg to stop acting like a “small claims court” and start slashing the growing backlog of more than 160,000 cases.

Just 45,000 cases faced the court in its first 40 years — but in 2010 alone it was asked to consider 61,300 applications.

The PM wants a new British Bill of Rights to replace Labour’s Human Rights Act.

He thinks the ECHR should focus on big human rights issues and leave national courts to deal with everything else. Mr Cameron made it clear that the court should concentrate on serious abuses in countries such as Belarus, rather than lecturing Britain.

His message triggered a series of hostile questions from his audience afterwards.

Several parliamentarians challenged his stance — while others blamed the City of London for sparking the economic crisis in Europe.

There was loud applause when Lithuanian left-winger Biruté Vésaité said: “I have a feeling that the world is governed not by democratically elected parliaments but by the banks. The big part of them are situated in London.”

Socialist politicians condemned Mr Cameron for opposing plans for a Europe-wide tax on the City.

Last night Labour MP Paul Flynn — who heard the PM’s speech — accused him of a “cheap shot that will not achieve anything”.

But Tory MEP Sajjad Karim said: “Courts should serve the well-being and safety of our citizens, not have the opposite effect. Reform is long overdue.

Barmy ECHR rulings

Protected ... (left to right) John Hirst, Abdi Sufi, Akindoyin Akinshipe and Sean Taylor Sabori

Protected … (left to right) John Hirst, Abdi Sufi, Akindoyin Akinshipe and Sean Taylor Sabori

John Hirst

THE axe-killer was twice backed by the ECHR in his fight to win prisoners the vote. Hirst was jailed for 15 years for hacking his landlady to death.

Abdi Sufi

THE serial criminal — who entered Britain illegally — was allowed to stay in the UK after judges said he could face inhuman treatment if sent back to his native Somalia.

Akindoyin Akinshipe

THE Nigerian rapist, 24, escaped deportation after judges ruled he had a right to a private life in the UK — despite having no wife, partner or children here.

Sean Taylor Sabori

THE drugs baron won £3,000 for invasion of privacy — after cops intercepted his pager messages.

He moaned about “interference with private life”.

Appeal ... Abu Qatada
Appeal … Abu Qatada

Abu Qatada

HATE preacher Abu Qatada — once described as Osama Bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe — last week won his appeal at the ECHR against deportation to his native Jordan.

The radical cleric is linked to al-Qaeda attacks and is wanted there for conspiring to carry out bombings. Euro judges said the UK could not deport him in case he did not get a fair trial.

The court accepted that he would not have been ill-treated there. Now Qatada — currently in a UK jail — could be released in days.

Churchill’s bid to beat fascism

THE European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was created in 1959 — a decade after Sir Winston Churchill first championed the idea

With the assistance of British Lawyers, undesirable criminals and Jihadist aliens have been stopped from being deported by the ECHR. It is almost as though the invisible hand of Allah was there protecting criminal Islamists from being deported. It would appear that the British Judicial Sovereignty is totally subservient to the ECHR. Britain should leave this convention to regain her Judicial Sovereignty and be able to defend and protect her citizens once again instead to be dictated by the UCHR whose loyalty and independence has not been proven.

(15) Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights

This declaration of the Islamic Human Rights of course is entirely based on Islamic Laws, i.e., Sharia Laws and the Quran and thus bears little resemblance to the ECHR laws. Whether some lawyers attempt to accommodate Islamic Human Rights in interpreting their laws is questionable. But it would appear that some laywers are attempting at some kind of compromise to please all parties. To study in detail the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights this link will lead to the declaration:

The total conflict of principles is obvious after comparing the two Human Rights perceptions.


Whether the Arabs have used their bargaining powers, their money, or their skills as political manipulation, it is clear that the culture of Europe and Britain has definitely changed. Whether Britain and Europe have benefited or learned to appreciate more the Arab culture or whether they have been slowly subjugated by this insidious overwhelming of the Islamic culture or whether Europe is slowly beginning to realise what is happening and will submit or fight back is a matter for the near history to record. But what has been described above has proven that all the statements and predictions of Eurabia by Bat Ye’or has been proven over time with evidence to confirm all such events. It is clear that Arabic/Muslim influence in Europe has permeated every aspect of European lives and this influence has been insidious. It is for us to assess our predicament and to decide our futures.


Comments RSS
  1. I absolutely love your blog.. Excellent colors & theme. Did you create this
    site yourself? Please reply back as I’m wanting to create my own website and would like to know where you got this from or just what the theme is called. Kudos!

  2. Hey there would you mind letting me know which web host you’re using? I’ve loaded your blog in
    3 completely different browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster
    then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a honest price?
    Thanks, I appreciate it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: