Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
June 23rd 2011 print

Bill Muehlenberg

More cases of creeping Sharia

There is never a shortage of examples of how Islam is slowly but surely creeping into Western democracies, with sharia law and other less than democratic features being promoted and eventually accepted. Democracy of course can be its own worst enemy as it seeks to accommodate itself to anyone and everyone, even those forces which are anti-democratic at heart.


There is never a shortage of examples of how Islam is slowly but surely creeping into Western democracies, with sharia law and other less than democratic features being promoted and eventually accepted.


Democracy of course can be its own worst enemy as it seeks to accommodate itself to anyone and everyone, even those forces which are anti-democratic at heart.

Four more examples appeared in this week’s press, and all make for worrying reading. Consider first two overseas examples. The Swedish city of Malmo is now effectively a no-go zone for Swedes, police, firemen and emergency workers. A quarter of the population is Muslim, and anti-Western rioting has become commonplace there.

As with many other European cities, many urban areas have come under the domination of Muslim radicals who are making life miserable for everyone else. Muslim immigrants there have refused to integrate, and are causing all sorts of major problems for authorities and the rest of the nation. Many do not know Swedish, and many refuse to even try to learn the language.

Swedish tolerance is being stretched to the breaking point, and many areas of Sweden are simply not safe to enter if you are a non-Muslim. The video link provided in the link below is well worth looking at. It makes for sobering viewing.

In the UK we have another example of creeping sharia, and the demise of the Christian West. Incredibly – or perhaps not so incredibly – a UK equality bigwig has come out and said that Christians – not Muslims – are the real threat to English democracy!

Here is how one report covers this alarming story: “Despite Britain being an officially Christian country with a majority Christian population and a Christian heritage reaching back to the 7th century AD, the UK’s equalities chief has said that Christians need to ‘integrate’ better into Britain’s ‘modern liberal democracy.’ Compared to Muslims, he said, Christians are ‘more militant’ and have a harder time blending in.

“‘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,’ said Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The current movement towards doctrinal and moral orthodoxy in the Anglican and Catholic churches is a revival of ‘an old time religion incompatible with modern society’ that is clashing with ‘mainstream’ views, especially on homosexuality, he continued.

This is absolutely mind-boggling. Muslims better adapt to modern British life than do Christians? Christians are more of a threat and more militant than Muslims? What planet does this guy actually live on? Is he telling us that Christians take flying lessons so they can send planes into buildings?

Is he actually suggesting that Britain must fear Christians walking around with bombs strapped to their bodies? Is he telling us the London tube bombings were in fact carried out by Christians? Is he telling us the Bali bombings were the work of Christian terrorists?

This is sheer lunacy. Yet such is the power of creeping sharia, coupled with anti-Christian bigotry in the UK, that this guy can actually get away with saying such nonsense. Talk about rewriting history. Talk about Orwellian doublespeak. Talk about political correctness gone mad. No wonder the UK is such a basket case.

The third example comes from Australia and demonstrates the benefits of wearing a burka: you can commit a crime and escape doing the time. Here is how a news report covers the story: “A Muslim woman sentenced to six months’ jail for making a deliberately false statement that a racist policeman tried to forcibly remove her burka has been freed on appeal.

Judge Clive Jeffreys said he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt it was Carnita Matthews, a 47-year-old Muslim woman from Woodbine, NSW, who accused the police of racism because the person who handed in the complaint to police was wearing a burka at the time.

To reach the level of proof of identity to prove the case, it appears Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burka at the police station to prove her identity – which is what started the uproar in the first case. More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting ‘Allah Uh Ahkbar’ as they stormed out of Downing Centre, Sydney, with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.

While most Muslims of course do not wear the burka to get away with committing crimes, this is nonetheless a real worry. When religious clothing becomes a means by which law-breakers can escape conviction, then we need to have a rethink about how much tolerance we show to these guests in our country.

While the calls to ban burkas altogether need to be discussed and debated, surely more cases like this will make it almost a foregone conclusion. Muslims who refuse to integrate and embrace Western values will continue to be a thorn in the flesh to freedom and democracy.

Finally, consider the ongoing trial of Australian journalist Andrew Bolt. Our unhelpful laws on race, religion and vilification have resulted in him being taken to court by angry aborigines, who objected to some columns he wrote. In a similar fashion Muslims have taken Christians to court in Victoria. While we await the outcome of this particular case, James Allan has highlighted the foolishness of this case and these laws:

Last night nearly 600 people in Melbourne paid to attend an evening in support of free speech. The audience and speakers were also there to support columnist Andrew Bolt who has been taken to court for an opinion he voiced in the Herald Sun. The legislation that allows that sort of speech-stifling action is terrible legislation in my view, and so I was happy to be one of five invited speakers.”

He continues, “The only sort of free speech that matters is the sort that offends some people somewhere. In a situation where all is agreement and harmony and people sitting in circles, holding hands, and singing Kumbaya, the concept of liberty and free speech does nothing. You will never have to fight for it meaning a freedom only to act or speak within the bounds of agreed opinion, good taste and proper decorum just isn’t valuable. It doesn’t carry with it any obvious good consequences.

The threat to our freedom of speech in the West today does not come from some Soviet-style secret police. No, it comes from turf-protecting bureaucrats who find themselves all of a sudden in the human rights game; it comes from people who want to create a right not to be offended.

Or at least not to be offended about the things that matter to them, because almost all the sorts of people who like the legislation being deployed against Bolt would be horrified to think that those in the US who are offended by the burning of the American flag ought to be able to prosecute the burners for their offended sensibilities. So what they really want is a right not to be offended, as long as it’s the sort of things a good chardonnay-sipping member of the progressive elite ought to be offended about, nothing else.

But plain and simple that’s a mistake. The only kind of free speech worth anything is the kind that leads to speech that offends people. And I say that knowing full well that none of us can be absolutists and there will always have to be some limits on speech, against counselling murder, say, or detailing how to make biological weapons.

Quite right. But creeping PC and Islamist influence and intolerance is shutting down free speech in Australia. It is shutting down freedom of religion and freedom of conscience as well. And these idiotic laws which aid and abet such intolerance are a big part of the problem.

In sum, these four examples can be multiplied many times over. They all demonstrate how the tolerant West may have to rethink just how far it goes in allowing those with a hostile ideology coming to our nations, especially if they do not or will not seek to blend in and integrate.

When these pockets of separatism are allowed to grow and fester, they will cause more damage, undermine any attempts at unity, and make a mockery of notions of multiculturalism. They will instead just be further examples of creeping sharia, and the radical Islamic war against the West.