From Jihad Watch:
Geert Wilders
Speech House of Lords, London
Friday the 5th of March 2010

Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film 'Fitna'. Thank you my friends for inviting me.

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (...) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book 'The River War' from 1899.

Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: "The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome". End of quote.

Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: "There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent". End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' "the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message". As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book 'The Second World War', a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill's comparison of the Quran and 'Mein Kampf' is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That's a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women's rights are being destroyed. Burqa's, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don't get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour's immigration strategy was, and I quote, to "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date". If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn't really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women's rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn't in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I'm being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to 'Mein Kampf'. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial... Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing 'legal jihad'. This is Islamic 'lawfare'. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.

I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear".

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can't wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: "We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow". That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word 'London' is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words 'This is London' were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be "This is London"? Or will it be "This is Londonistan"? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.
---

True.

From BBC News:
Four Islamists have been convicted by a court in Germany of plotting to attack US facilities in the country. The men, two of whom were German-born converts to Islam, were given prison sentences of between five and 12 years.

The judge said they had dreamed of "mounting a second September 11 2001" by killing US civilians and soldiers by bombing targets like Ramstein Air Base. They were accused of operating as a German cell of the radical al-Qaeda-linked group, the Islamic Jihad Union. According to the US state department, the Islamic Jihad Union was responsible for co-ordinated bombings outside the US and Israeli embassies in July 2004 in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent.

'Mistake'
The two German converts to Islam - Fritz Gelowicz, 30, and 24-year-old Daniel Schneider - were sentenced to 12 years in jail. Adem Yilmaz, 31, a Turkish citizen, was given 11 years, while Atilla Selek, a 25-year-old German of Turkish origin, was sentenced to five years.

During the 10-month trial, all four admitted to belonging to a terrorist organisation, plotting murder and preparing explosive devices. Schneider also admitted to attempted murder for grabbing a handgun from a police officer while attempting to evade capture and firing a shot. No-one was wounded in the incident. He, Gelowicz and Selek renounced extremism and described their actions as a "mistake".

Announcing the verdict, Judge Ottmar Breidling said the men had dreamed of "mounting a second 11 September 2001. If the accused had managed to do what they planned, it would have led to a monstrous bloodbath, primarily among US army personnel and also civilians," he added. The judge added that there were now "many impressionable young men and men who have already been led astray, ready to kill for notions of jihad".

"Violent Islamism has penetrated our society and turned young men against it."

'Profound hatred'
Known as the "Sauerland group", after the area of western Germany where three of them were arrested in September 2007, the men had trained at camps in Pakistan and procured some 700kg (1,500lbs) of chemicals to produce 410kg (900lbs) of explosives, prosecutors said. Such a quantity would have been 100 times the amount used in the 2005 London bombings, which killed more than 50 people.

They had allegedly planned to use vehicles loaded with the explosives to kill or injure large numbers of people at locations visited by Americans, the US military base in Ramstein and Frankfurt airport. But the security services uncovered the plot in December 2006 and conducted one of the biggest surveillance operations in post-war German history. The men's movements were monitored around the clock for nine months, until it became clear that they were planning to move their huge stores of hydrogen peroxide and an attack was imminent.

Gelowicz, Schneider and Yilmaz were arrested at a rented cottage in Sauerland on 4 September 2007, while Selek was detained in Turkey in November 2007 and later extradited to Germany. At the time, they were described as "very dangerous terrorists" with a "profound hatred of US citizens", acting on the orders of an "international network".

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Berlin says the participation of Gelowicz and Schneider in the plot has shocked Germans and raised concern that militant groups abroad are actively seeking out and signing up Muslim converts to attack the West.

Germany, which has soldiers in Afghanistan as part of Nato but did not send troops to Iraq, has been largely spared militant attacks. But nine years ago, it emerged that an al-Qaeda cell had used the city of Hamburg as a base for planning the 11 September attacks.
---

Muslims, again. Don't they know Islam is a religion of peace? (That was sarcasm, by the way.)

At last a judge has pointed out that, "violent Islamism has penetrated our society and turned young men against it." I'm happy to see that the judiciary in Germany actually have their heads screwed on correctly instead of screwed up like the heads of our judges in the UK.

Just the other day that bearded pig on a stick, Anjem Choudary, said that Islam contains many violent passages that exhort its followers to fight and kill non-Muslims. What are our police and judges doing about this obvious threat to our country? That's right, they're giving him POLICE PROTECTION in case someone decides to beat him up. Ludicrous.

Well done, Germany!

From BBC News:
A top UN official has condemned as "inadmissible" Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's call for a jihad, or holy war, against Switzerland. "Such declarations on the part of the head of state are inadmissible in international relations," said Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the UN chief in Geneva.

Col Gaddafi criticised a Swiss vote against the building of minarets and urged Muslims to boycott the country. Libya and Switzerland are embroiled in a long-running diplomatic row. The dispute dates back to 2008, when one of Mr Gaddafi's sons was arrested in Geneva, accused of assaulting two servants.

A Swiss foreign ministry spokesman declined to comment on the jihad call.

The Libyan leader made his comments while speaking at a meeting in Benghazi to mark the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad. "Let us wage jihad against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression," he said. "Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against Muhammad, God and the Koran."

Mr Ordzhonikidze, director-general of the UN mission in Geneva, said the UN's security in Switzerland was very professional and well-prepared for any incident. He was responding to questions from journalists about Mr Gaddafi's "jihad" call. In a referendum last November, 57.5% of Swiss voters approved a constitutional ban on the building of minarets. An appeal against the ban has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights.

Tit-for-tat quarrel
Earlier this month, Libya stopped issuing visas to citizens from many European nations - those in the Schengen border-free travel zone. That drew condemnation from the European Commission. Libya's move came after Switzerland allegedly blacklisted 188 high-ranking Libyans, denying them entry permits. The Swiss ban is said to include Mr Gaddafi and his family. The row began after the arrest of Mr Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife, Aline Skaf, in Geneva in July 2008. They were accused of assaulting two servants while staying at a luxury hotel in the Swiss city, though the charges were later dropped. Libya retaliated by cancelling oil supplies, withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, refusing visas to Swiss citizens and recalling some of its diplomats.

In the same month that the Gaddafis were arrested, Libyan authorities detained two Swiss businessmen, in what analysts believe was a retaliatory move. One was finally allowed to leave the country earlier this week but the second was transferred to jail, where he faces a four-month term on immigration offences.
---

I'm sorry, ageing rockstar Mr. Gadaffi, but you simply cannot make proclamations like that and expect to get away with it.

The Swiss voted DEMOCRATICALLY to ban the building of minarets. They are symbols of Islamic power and supremacism, and the Swiss people voted not to have them in THEIR COUNTRY. I hate to go back to this oft-brought up point, but tell me, when was the last time Christians were allowed to build a church in a Muslim country? Muslims aren't banned from building mosques in Switzerland (yet), but they are banned from building minarets.

When the appeal goes to the European Court of Human Rights, then they MUST base their decision on the human rights of the indigenous people living in Switzerland. They voted - as is allowed in their constitution - and they chose to ban minarets. If the fucking Muslims don't like that, then build your symbols of Islamic power and supremacy SOMEWHERE ELSE. I suggest you take your butt-ugly mosques back to the Islamic countries you came from.

At some point in the near future, the indigenous populations of western countries are going to rise up and demand that the creeping Islamisation of our countries is stopped. WE also have human rights. My human rights are infringed every time one of you pinheads claims victim status for some perceived slight against your long-dead, warmongering, violent 'prophet'. You follow a thoroughbred cult of death, intent on forcing the conversion or subjugation of the entire world. You have to be stopped. If you think you have the right to believe in your religion, then you have to accept that we the right to NOT believe in your religion.

While we're at it, Gadaffi, shove a minaret up your arse.

From BBC News:
A French council has lodged a complaint against a fast food chain that serves only meat that conforms with Islamic dietary laws at a local branch. The mayor of Roubaix, in northern France, said the halal menu constituted "discrimination" against non-Muslims. The Roubaix branch is one of several restaurants at which the chain, Quick, took non-halal products and pork off the menu in November.

The move has triggered the latest row over France's Muslim minority. Several deputies from French President Nicolas Sarkozy's conservative UMP party have condemned the move, while Marine Le Pen, a vice-president of the far-right National Front, warned of "Islamisation". Their comments came ahead of regional elections in France next month, and against the backdrop of a debate over French national identity launched by Mr Sarkozy's government.

'Going too far'
In Roubaix, Mayor Rene Vandierendonck, a socialist, called for a boycott of the Quick branch, and the town council has filed a complaint for discrimination with a regional court in Lille. "I'm not bothered by the fact that there is a halal menu," Mr Vandierendonck said. "But this is going too far because it is the only menu on offer and it has become discrimination."

Quick decided to take a bacon hamburger off the menu at eight of its 350 branches, replacing it with a halal version that comes with smoked turkey. It said the move was designed to test the "commercial interest and technical feasibility" of introducing halal menus. The Quick manager responsible for the Roubaix branch said there had been a slight increase in business after the introduction of halal menus and that he had not received complaints from customers, AFP news agency reported.

France is home to Europe's biggest Muslim minority, estimated at more than five million people. Debate has recently focussed on the Islamic veil, with a French parliamentary committee recommending a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils last month.
---

This really fucks me off. By all means have halal meat for that bunch of pious Muslims who think they should be pandered to at every turn (oh, that would be all of them), but don't fucking force it on the rest of us!

In the UK we allow halal slaughter even though this goes against ALL our laws designed to prevent pain in animals. Why? Because our government are a bunch of vote-whoring fucktards. They allow halal slaughter to mollify the idiotic barbarisms of Islam. It needs to stop. It never used to be so prevalent, but when Labour got into power they started pandering to the minorities in return for votes. That isn't going to help them this time round...

From BBC News:
Ministers are being accused of caving into pressure from faith schools over sex and relationships education. The government is due to make sex and relationship lessons compulsory in England's schools from 2011 through a bill in Parliament next week. But pressure groups and the Liberal Democrats say a late amendment means faith schools will be able to teach it in line with their religious character. The government denied faith schools were being given an opt out.

In a statement on its website, the Catholic Education Service says the amendment was secured after a period of "extensive lobbying". It said the change would allow schools to teach the subject in accordance with their ethos. The body would not comment further on the amendment. Instead, it pointed to a document on its website which said teachers would need to act wisely, "mindful that the teachings of the Church must be upheld in our Catholic schools and the innocence of children preserved". It continued: "This must take place whilst also acknowledging pupils will often be encountering conflicting messages from external sources. This is an example of where good teaching will need to respond to the maturity of children and the environment in which they live, coupled with respect for the dignity of all human persons, upholding the Church's teachings."

Under the plans, all schools are to be required to teach children aged seven to 11 about relationships including marriage, same sex and civil partnerships, divorce and separation under Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education. Secondary school pupils are to learn about sexual activity, reproduction, contraception as well as same sex relationships. Clauses in the Children, Schools and Families Bill require schools to cover these issues in an "accurate and balanced" way, reflecting a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives and the religious and cultural backgrounds of the school's pupils.

The subject is also to be taught in a way that promotes equality, accepts diversity and emphasises both rights and responsibilities, the Bill says. This requirement could have been problematic for schools governed by religions that are specifically opposed to homosexuality and contraception. But an amendment to the Bill, tabled by the Education Secretary Ed Balls, suggests these principles could be diluted by head teachers and governing bodies of faith schools, so that teaching reflects a "school's religious character".

'Homophobic'
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families denied faith schools would be able to opt out of statutory sex and relationship lessons when they come into effect in September 2011. "All maintained schools and academies will be required to teach the full programmes of study in line with the principles outlined in the Bill including promoting equality and encouraging acceptance of diversity," he said. "Schools with a religious character will be free, as they are now, to express the views of their faith and reflect the ethos of their school, but what they cannot do is suggest that their views are the only ones. The bottom line is that all young people must by law receive accurate and balanced information so that they can make informed, positive choices."

But Liberal Democrat Children's spokesman David Laws said the amendment was "a serious and undesirable U-turn" by Mr Balls. "The government has already given an opt-out from sex and relationship education up to age 15. This looks like it will further water down the information which all young people should be entitled to before they reach the age of consent."

'Violated'
The Accord Coalition - which calls for an end to what it sees as religious discrimination in school staffing and admissions - also criticised the amendment. Its spokesman Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said: "It is astonishing that the government plans to deny young people of their right to accurate, balanced PSHE and Sex and Relationships Education (SRE), and allow state-funded schools to teach the subject from one religious viewpoint."

Chief executive of the British Humanist Association Andrew Copson said the amendment effectively gave a licence to faith schools to teach SRE in ways that were homophobic, gender discriminatory and violated principles of human rights. They both called on Mr Balls to withdraw the amendment.
---

So, Catholic schools lobbied extensively? And what exactly were they lobbying for? Yes, that's right - the legal right to discriminate based on their religious views. And, given that they are "specifically opposed to homosexuality and contraception", it would seem that they lobbied for the right to continue to be specifically opposed to homosexuality and contraception. This is not balanced education. Religious schools are a blight on our education system. We are legally separating children based on the religion of their parents, and teaching them that they are different (superior) to people of other faiths. And then we have bishops, archbishops and other random levels of church hierarchy saying we need to be more inclusive and accepting of others! That smacks of hypocrisy.

I like how the Catholic church says, "respect for the dignity of all human persons". Yeah, unless you happen to be homosexual, or in favour of using contraception... In those cases you are merely someone the church doesn't care about specifically because you go against the teachings of their church and dogma. Doublespeak, pure and simple.

I think we need to stop supporting faith schools. If you wasnt a faith school, then you pay for it. If you want to use state funds, then you need to teach what the state wants you to teach. If that means you don't get to discriminate then that's what happens. I'm fed up of religious schools. Absolutely fed up. I went to a CofE school, and I was excused from the 'daily act of worship' because I simply didn't believe in it. Granted, our sex education was a bit lame back then, but I turned out fine. And I managed to finish school without being a God-bothering, sandal-wearing, discriminatory, pious little pratt which is what religious schools want.

From BBC News:
Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers - known as Kirpans - to school and other public places, Britain's first Asian judge has said. There have been a number of cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they wear the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota Singh QC, who is retired, has criticised schools over the issue. "Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right," Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

'No objection'
Last year, a Sikh police officer, who had been told to remove his turban during riot training, won a discrimination case against Greater Manchester Police. A schoolboy was also banned from wearing his Kirpan at the Compton School in Barnet, north London. And, in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against her school after it excluded her for breaking its "no jewellery" rule for wearing a Kara (steel bangle), which is another symbol of Sikh faith. The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

"I see no objection to a young Sikh girl or boy, who's been baptised, being allowed to wear their Kirpan if that's what they want to do," said Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list. "I wear my Kirpan and I've always worn it for the last 35 to 40 years, even when I was sitting in court or visiting public buildings, including Buckingham Palace." Sir Mota, who is now retired, added: "I think these are issues that can be dealt with with a certain amount of sensitivity.

"The girl not allowed to wear the Kara is a petty thing for the administrators to have done and it doesn't do them any good. It is the right of every young girl and boy to be educated at the school of their choice. For him or her to be refused admission on that sort of ground, as far as I'm concerned, is quite wrong. It ought not to happen but it does. I think it's wrong to be discriminated against for that reason."

The Compton School offered the boy the option of wearing a smaller knife, welded into a metal sheath, but his parents refused and withdrew him - an action by the family that Sir Mota said he supported. He later told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "But on the other hand, I am also conscious of the health and safety position. I accept that, because I think as one realises the increase in crimes of violence involving the use of knives and other offensive weapons, I can see that. But there has been no reported case, certainly none that I know of, of a Sikh using a knife in order to cause injury."

'Worn discreetly'
Asked about the possibility of substituting a smaller knife in place of the traditional Kirpan, the judge said that might be an option for debate between school and Sikh authorities. But he told Today: "It's a little more than ceremonial. It's a requirement of the religion."

In Sikhism, the Kirpan and Kara are two of the five "articles of faith" that must be carried at all times by baptised Sikhs. The others are Kesh (unshorn hair), Kara, Kanga (comb) and Kacha (special underwear). The Kirpan is carried in a sheath attached to a cloth belt. It is normally worn discreetly under clothes and most people would be unaware that a person was carrying one.

Guidelines from the department for Children, Schools and Families indicate it is up to individual governing bodies to make their own policy on the carrying of the Kirpan, and if challenged, it would then be up to the courts.

Dabinderjit Singh is an adviser to the Sikh Federation UK and he says he regularly receives calls from worried Sikh parents whose children have been prevented from wearing the Kirpan at school and in public areas. Although Sikhs carrying the Kirpan are exempt from prosecution under the offensive weapons act, Mr Singh believes objections about the ceremonial dagger have increased following the September 11 attacks and instances of knife crime. "There have been problems for Sikhs going to tourist attractions," he explained. "Part of it is education. We're actually working with the government to introduce a code of practice which would then be used to educate people in the security industry so they are aware of the different articles of faith," Mr Singh told the BBC Asian Network.

Campaign groups such as United Sikhs and the Sikh Federation UK have welcomed Sir Mota's comments over issues which the judge himself has not had to encounter during his career.

'No eyebrows raised'
Sir Mota was raised in Nairobi, Kenya, before coming to England in 1954 in order complete his studies in law. He joined the English bar in 1967 and made headlines with his appointment to the bench in 1982 when he wore a white turban in court instead of a wig. "The fact that I'm a Sikh matters more to me than anything else," he said. "If, for instance, when I was appointed the suggestion had been made that I could not appear unless I wore a wig and discarded my turban, I would have refused. I would have said I would not accept the appointment, but the question never arose and no judicial eyebrows were raised at all."
---

You know what? It's a knife. If you allow children to take a knife to school, they may not use it, but someone else might. That is enough reason to ban children from wearing it at school. You are sending your child to SCHOOL. Just because they are religious, it does not mean they should be allowed to flout common sense and the safety rules that are designed to keep all children safe.

Just last week a Muslim man walked into an elementary school in the US with a knife. Because of that, all doors at elementary schools over there are now being locked during lessons. This is designed to protect children. Wearing a KIFE to school is NOT safe.

I'm really not surprised that a Sikh judge has called for them to be allowed; he's a Sikh. You don't hear a Muslim calling for the Sikh kirpan to be allowed in school, do you? Ann Widdecombe hasn't called for them to be allowed. Religious people want their own religion put ahead of the law of the land. Religion does not deserve respect; it must earn it. Kirpans should NOT be allowed in schools because they are DANGEROUS! Would my child be allowed to take a steak knife to work because my (just made-up) religion says they must carry a steak knife around with them everywhere? No.

From BBC News:
A secularist group has lodged an official complaint against Cherie Booth QC after she spared a man from prison because he was religious.

Shamso Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, broke a man's jaw following a row in a bank queue.

Sitting as a judge, Ms Booth - wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair - said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief.

The National Secular Society claims her attitude was discriminatory and unjust.

'Acceptable behaviour'
Inner London Crown Court heard that Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, went into a bank in East Ham and became embroiled in a dispute with Mohammed Furcan about who was next in the queue. Miah - who had just been to a mosque - punched Mr Furcan inside the bank, and again outside the building.

Ms Booth told Miah that violence had to be taken seriously, but said she would suspend his prison sentence because he was a religious person and had not been in trouble before. She added: "You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour."

The National Secular Society has complained to the Office for Judicial Complaints, suggesting that Mrs Blair acted in an unjust and discriminatory way, and suggesting that she might have treated a non-religious person less leniently.
---

Yet another example of how religion is breaking down our society. If I, as a total non-theist, broke a man's jaw you can be pretty certain I'd get sent to prison. It s ONE RULE FOR ALL.

This man got a suspended sentence because he's religious?! Hey, Cherie Booth, I hate to have to point this out to you given that you're apparently quite intelligent, but he was religious when he broke the man's jaw! His religion didn't stop him from breaking someone's face!

Hitler was a Catholic, so should he be let off his crimes? No. Tony Blair (your husband) is (now) a Catholic. Should he be let off his crimes? NO.

This picture comes from this article at The Guardian. It has been, erm, slightly modified by me.

Darkpaw attacks Pope over being an old, ignorant fuckwit
From BBC News:
The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal". Pope Benedict XVI said the legislation "violates natural law" and could end the right of the Catholic Church to ban gay people from senior positions.

The Pope has confirmed he will come to the UK this year, the first papal visit since John Paul II in 1982.

The government said the bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would make the UK a fairer place.

'Unjust limitations'
The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

Gay rights charity Stonewall condemned the Pope's comments, saying equality had to apply to everyone.

Senior parliamentary officer Jonathan Finney told BBC 5 live: "People should not be denied access to services and employment purely because they are gay... We've got to guard against sweeping exemptions seeming to protect one person's freedom, which actually really impact on other people's." He added: "What you can't start doing is saying that religious people have hard-won freedoms, we'll now restrict those, we won't give them to gay people, we won't give them to women."

Religious leaders have voiced concern that the Equality Bill could force churches to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.

No official itinerary has yet been drawn up for the Pope's visit but officials at the Vatican and in the UK told the BBC it was likely to take place in September. A spokesman for the Catholic Communications Network said further details were expected in early March. The pontiff is expected to visit Birmingham - as part of the planned beatification of Cardinal John Newman - and Scotland.

'Ill-informed claim'
The National Secular Society said it would mount a protest campaign made up of gay groups, victims of clerical abuse, feminists, family planning organisations and pro-abortion groups among others. President Terry Sanderson said: "The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20m for the visit of the Pope - a visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination."

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the Pope's comments were a "coded attack on the legal rights granted to women and gay people". His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos," he said. "He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law."

But Catholic MP Ann Widdecombe said: "This isn't a debate about homosexuality, this is a debate about religious freedom." She told BBC Radio 5 live: "If a faith teaches, as major faiths do, that something is wrong, then quite clearly you cannot have somebody who believes that it's right actually occupying a very senior position. That we have accepted as natural justice for a very long time." She added: "Nobody else is saying that the teachings of the Catholic Church should influence what non-Catholics do - this is about allowing Catholics to pursue their own faith."

Robert Mickens, Rome correspondent at the Catholic newspaper The Tablet, said the Pope's position was "nothing really new - this is part of the classic Catholic teaching on human sexuality". What the Pope is doing is trying to encourage the bishops to keep their resolve in very fluctuating morals in cultures and societies today."

'Prejudiced employers'
He added: "It's not that the Pope is wading so much into the particulars of British society or British law - I think this is very much a piece of his longstanding teaching."

Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who sits on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said all Britons - including Catholics and gay people - were protected by UK equality laws. "Religious people can be reassured that there is nothing in the Equality Bill which imposes gay priests on religions, but it does protect the general workforce from prejudiced employers," he said.

A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: "The Pope acknowledges our country's firm commitment to equality for all members of society. We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against. The Equality Bill will make Britain a fairer and more equal place."
---

Let's take a look at what the old bastard has said: "In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed." Now, is homosexuality natural? Yes. It is seen all over the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is merely one part of the whole spectrum of human sexuality. The Pope cannot claim that homosexuality is unnatural, since it exists in NATURE. If anything, the clothes he's wearing are unnatural - they don't exist in nature. Hospitals are unnatural. Cars are unnatural (and therefore so is the Pope-Mobile). The palace he lives in is unnatural. FUCKING CATHOLICISM ISN'T NATURAL!!!

Are we surprised that Ann Widdecombe is siding with the Pope? After all, she's a Catholic.

Could you imagine what would happen if a company decided not to employ Catholics? There would be outrage. I mean, Catholicism is a choice. You believe it and treat it as your way of life. Non-Catholics subscribe to other beliefs and other ways of living. What makes Catholicism, and "religious freedoms" so special? What makes them more equal than everything else? Nothing. Religion should earn respect, not be given it gratis.

I see it's going to cost us £20mn to have this old bastard visit this country? Well, how about he pays for it himself? How about he refunds us the £20mn cost of policing HIM? After all, he sits atop a vast pot of money. £20mn is small change - probably not even as much as they have to pay out every week in compensation to victims of people in their particular religious cult.

The Pope is an old fart. That he is trying to sway the politics in our country is a vile intrusion that must be stopped. If a bishop is sitting in Parliament, then that bishop's FIRST duty is to THIS nation and to the people of THIS nation. Their duty is not to the Pope. Fucking old bastard.

Go here for 1m 20s of fun involving the Pope and a random woman who attacked him. Brings a smile to my face every time I see it.