Friday, 1 May 2015

Frankie Boyle: Comedian, Glaswegian & Anti-Racist Chomskyan

Paul Murphy's photo.
Frankie Boyle opens one of his Guardian pieces with the following words:

I sometimes wonder if satire has reached a nadir in Britain [he means England!] because British society has itself become a parody of itself.”

Oh good! So does that mean that Frankie Boyle will finally shut the fuck up? (Do you like my little hommage to Boyle?) Of course it doesn't!

Anyway, have you ever wondered how a comedian who's made the most extreme and nasty jokes imaginable - about disabled people and whatnot - has got away with it? Indeed not only only has he got away with it, he continues to be employed by the BBC (e.g., Comedy Shorts, etc.) and still writes for the Guardian.

The only answer I can think of is that Frankie Boyle is a Leftist, a Glaswegian and he's never made any racist jokes.

You'll know that many middle-class Leftists and Left-Liberals often patronise people with black and brown skin when they allow them to do and say all sorts of things they'd never allow white Englishmen (especially right-wing Englishmen) to do. Many of them also do the same to Glaswegians. The reason is that these Leftists – yes, and others too – automatically assume that all Glaswegians are both hardmen and working class. (I think it's do to with the guttural and rhotic – or is it nonrhotic? - accent.) And this is even true of a comedian who left Glasgow when he 17 or 18 to study at Aston University and then Sussex University. Nonetheless, he's still got that Glaswegian accent. (Boyle did return to Glasgow.)

Frankie & Chomsky

Frankie Boyle (like all 20-year-old left-wing students) has confessed to being one of Noam Chomsky's many groupies. Indeed he's said that 'Chompers' (Russell Brand's word) has had a great influence on his political beliefs; specifically his theories about the disabled, those with cerebra palsy (see later), paralympians and the Palestinians.

Yes, Frankie Boyle has half-digested ) a lot of Chomsky(just like Russell Brand). One result of all that is this racist and historically/politically/philosophically illiterate Dave-Spartacist rant:

White Americans have a stereotype of black people being criminals purely because they can’t acknowledge that it was actually white people that stole them from Africa in the first place.... you think it’s OK to say that you killed one of them because he was trying to escape.”

Britain is in a similar place with colonialism.... We profited from a vile crime and feel no shame. We fear the arrival of immigrants that we have drawn here with the wealth we stole from them...”

As you can see, Frankie Boyle is a consummate racist who mindlessly thinks that he can't be one simply because - according to Marxist/Leftist theology - there's no such thing as racism against whites, the white English... and Israelis. (Israeli Jews – as well as Jews worldwide - are almost uniformly classed as 'white' by Leftists/Marxists; even those Israeli and other Jews who have brown and black skin!)

So despite what racistNazifascistbigots say, it seems that Frankie Boyle's “not cynical at all” - he's Chomskyan! Although, after saying that he's a devotee of Chomsky, Boyle did add that he's actually "more leftwing than that".

Okay: Frankie Boyle is to the Left of Chomsky. So what does that make him? A member of Permanent Revolution or of an ultra-Leftist split-off sect from the

Socialist Workers Party? Perhaps he'd have joined the Khmer Rouge had he been around at the time. After all, I know that at one point his darling Chomsky was a fan of Pol Pot's anti-fash activists.

Frankie Boyle explains his comedy – as well as his debt to Marx - in this way:

"It's that Marx thing: you make history in conditions not of your own choosing. And the point is not just to write to the converted. It's about getting to the audience that doesn't agree with you rather than preaching to the converted."

Hah! So Frankie Boyle's humour is vicious, nasty and cynical for left-wing reasons? Well, I never knew that.

Frankie Boyle: A Racist Anti-Racist Zealot

As I said, Frankie Boyle is a self-described and grandstanding anti-racist. (His third book is called Scotland's Jesus: The Only Officially Non-racist Comedian.) That means that he'd never criticise a disabled person, or a person with cerebral palsy, or a suicide, or a paralympian (all victims of Boyle's humour) who had brown or black skin.

Anti-racism rules, okay?

Boyle has had a lot to say about racism. Take this lovely snippet:

The SNP’s growing popularity has prompted a little low-level press racism of the kilts-and-porridge variety...”

What? Does Frankie Boyle mean like his own high-level racism towards Israelis/Jews and indeed towards the white English (at least towards the right-wing white English)? And that's not to forget the following:

It is British [he means English] people that don’t learn languages, or British history. Britain is the true scrounger, the true criminal.”

Frankie Boyle has also written article for the 'progressive' (i.e., sometimes Trotskyist, sometimes communist, sometimes even Islamist) British newspaper the Guardian.

The thing about Boyle's articles for the Guardian (as well as elsewhere) is that they have almost zero political content; despite the superficial and epiphenomenal political smell they give off. Whether or not they're funny is irrelevant. When you scrape away the relentlessly nasty and vicious sarcasm (as well as his self-consciously clever prose), there's almost nothing (political) left. There's no argumentation or even much data or information. It's all about Frankie Boyle and his hate-filled (Leftist) humour.

There’s nothing like jollying up a Macmillan Cancer Support coffee morning by making your neighbours feel like the pakoras were a little unwelcome. Let’s not forget where coffee and tea come from: this mug is bitterly opposed to its own contents....”

Nice... but what the fuck does it all mean? (Yes, I can swear too. And I'm not even from Glasgow.)

I've read a lot of Guardian articles which I strongly disagreed with. However, at least I understood what was being said. In Boyle's case, most of the time I simply don't understand what he's saying. It sounds like he's overdosed on Chomsky and the end-result is a lot of stream-of-consciousness stuff done in a (presumably) comedic style.

Another Chomsky-whore, Russell Brand (see my American Thinker piece), more or less admits that his book – Revolution - contains large chunks of Chomsky which has simply been rewritten in his own inimitable style (e.g., with added jokes and hip references). In fact an entire chapter (Chapter 18) is a rewriting of Chomsky's ideas – and that's according to Russell Brand himself! (Go read what happens when a political moron, exhibitionist and narcissist gets hold of someone else's ideas.) Does Frankie Boyle do this as well? Well, it's not as obviously the case with Frankie Boyle as it is with Russell Brand.

But he's a comedian!” you may shout. Yes, exactly. So why has he written articles for the Guardian and been consistently asked for his political opinion on an whole host of political subjects?

Frankie Boyle's Comedy Classics

Boyle's joke about Katie Price and Peter Andre's disabled son (Harvey) was aired (in 2010) on his show Tramadol Nights. Katie Price and Peter Andre accused him of encouraging “bullying”.

A representative of Andre said that “[c]hildren, especially a disabled youngster, should be off-limits" when it comes to comedy; just as Muslims, blacks and Palestinians are off-limits to Frankie Boyle.

So what was Boyle's joke? This:

"Apparently Jordan and Peter Andre are fighting each other over custody of Harvey, well eventually one of them'll lose and have to keep him. I have a theory that Jordan married a cage fighter (Alex Reid) cause she needed someone strong enough to stop Harvey from fuckin' her."

Another victim of this Chomskyite comedian was people with Down's syndrome. During a 2010 stage show, Boyle confronted a woman in the audience who was uncomfortable with his jokes. She explained to Boyle that her five-year-old girl had the condition.

Boyle has also felt fit to joke about the brother of Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton, who has cerebral palsy; as well as about the suicide of Mark Speight (who presented children's programmes).

Quite simply, the Guardian, the BBC, etc. would never have allowed a white Englishman to say half the things that Frankie Boyle has said. The other thing is that he's never been racist. So although he's made the remarks chronicled above (as well as many others), that supreme evil to Leftists – racism – is something that even the repulsive Boyle (as well as the BBC, Guardian, etc.) would never countenance.


1) Fantastic retrospect (about slavery) from Frankie Boyle. Not only is it the retrospect of over 200 years, it's a mindless retrospect whose prime purpose is to point the finger at contemporary England. He doesn't care about the slaves of over 200 years. He cares about about pointing the finger at today's England.

How philosophically dumb must you be to blame those alive today for what happened so long ago? He must believe in racial guilt. And to believe in racial guilt is also to believe in anti-English racial essentialism.

Because many Leftists spend almost their entire time accusing others of racism, they have no time to analyse their own self-contradictory and indeed racist positions. When you're a member of the Leftist 'tribe of independent minds', you very rarely hear or see alternative viewpoints.

Why is being a Fox News or Daily Mail junky any better or worse than being a tribal addict of Chomsky or the Guardian? Seriously, what's the difference?

2) Just like so many rich Leftists throughout the 20th and 21st centuries - from Labour MPs to the Guardian, Tony Benn and Bono (no one even bothers to investigate all those anonymous upper-middle-class Trotskyist/communist lawyers, rights 'n' race activists, journalists, professors, etc.) - Frankie Boyle has been accused of tax evasion/avoidance. Boyle, of course, denied the charges.

As you know, taxes are for the right-wing rich, not for the left-wing rich. Yes, they're for 'greedy bankers' and people in suits and ties; not for hip comedians who read Chomsky. (Now do I mean Russell Brand or do I mean Frankie Boyle?)

The Case Against Julia Mulligan: Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire

This is a copy of the criminal complaint made against Julia Mulligan. The complaint was filed by Tony Nixon at Northallerton Police Station on 22 April.

By Tony Nixon

I, Anthony Frederick Nixon (a retired solicitor), make a complaint against Julia Mulligan - the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire - in respect of her fraudulent use of public monies.

Below, I refer to the following;

[1] - extract from an email dated 18/3/15 from myself to Julia Mulligan.

[2] - extract from an article in the Yorkshire Post of 20/3/15.

[3] - You Tube video of BBC programme featuring the North Yorks Enquirer.

[4] - Copy of the Crime Prosecution Service (CPS) guidelines re the common law criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

As a taxpayer and resident of North Yorkshire I was furious to learn (around mid-February 2015) that Julia Mulligan (PCC for North Yorks) had illegally used public monies and had determined to continue doing such re a private, civil High Court action brought by nine Complainants against three Defendants. Two of the latter included Nigel Ward and Tim Hicks; who have run an excellent citizens blog for a number of years (namely, the North Yorks Enquirer). In effect, she has and still is using monies from the police budget - together with labour paid for out of both the police and PCC budget - to finance the action on behalf of the nine civil complainants. Such actions by her are blatantly illegal and criminal.

In order to facilitate an easier understanding of this complaint, I refer to the four items mentioned in the second paragraph of this statement as follows:

1] - extract from an email dated 18/3/15 from myself to Julia Mulligan.
I refer, of course, to your illegal - and, I believe, criminal - decision to misuse monies provided by taxpayers and North Yorkshire council tax payers (such as myself). Such monies being in the budget for funding North Yorks Police Authority (NYPA) to finance a High Court civil action brought by nine individuals acting in a personal capacity. The nine Complainants are seeking a permanent injunction to stop three citizens exercising their right of free speech via use of allegations of harassment by the latter.

Though I do not know the names of all nine Complainants, I am aware that three are serving police officers in North Yorks Police Authority and one is a retired officer from the same force. The other five appear to be individuals who are at odds with Mr Hicks and Mr Ward. The latter two people run the very popular North Yorks Enquirer website which has, for years, been exposing corruption within North Yorkshire Police and in various local authorities within North Yorkshire. I know that the North Yorks Enquirer was the first media outlet to expose the infamous Savile/Jaconelli paedophile scandal in Scarborough and Whitby. This was a scandal which North Yorks Police - recently assisted by yourself - has for years made every attempt to sweep under the carpet. Everyone knows about Jimmy Savile, whilst Jaconelli was a very prominent name in the area; at one time being the Conservative Mayor of Scarborough Council.

I now turn to Mr Hicks and Mr Ward.

Though I have never had the pleasure of meeting either of these two gentlemen, I have, during the past few years, read numerous articles they have written for North Yorks Enquirer. Having done so, I must admit to being extremely impressed by their great integrity, their extensive detailed research, and the fair and equitable manner in which their articles have been presented. These two gentlemen have been - and still are - of huge benefit to the community in North Yorks for they very diligently expose corruption where it exists. Unlike yourself, Mrs Mulligan, both believe in the rule of law, equity and the basic human right of freedom of speech. I might add that anyone who has been legitimately offended by anything they have written could have sued them for defamation. As I understand it, no such action has ever been taken by anyone against the North Yorks Enquirer.

Whatever the merits of the application for an injunction to try to suppress the freedom of speech of these two excellent gentleman, one matter is absolutely 100% certain and it is this: your decision to use public (taxpayers') money to finance a private civil action is illegal. The fact that three of the Complainants are police officers is not material as all citizens are equal under English Law and a police officer has no more rights than anyone else (as you well know).

What other projects do you have in mind for using public money for private purposes? Perhaps you intend the police budget to fund a visit by your deputy, 'Woeful Will' Naylor, to some posh hairdresser in Harrogate to have his hair permed and his toenails manicured? Maybe you intend to purchase a stylish miniskirt for your CEO, Joanna Carter.

In principle, the above examples are no different to what you are actually doing. Quite simply, it is illegal to use public funds for private purposes. In your case the situation is greatly exacerbated by the fact that your motive is to stop the free speech of two top-rate citizens. I have spoken with a few of my fellow lawyers and every one of them has the same opinion as myself. Without any qualification, they believe that you are acting in a blatantly illegal manner. One has even suggested that the whole matter has the whiff of a 'criminal conspiracy'.

Such is your unbridled arrogance that I suspect that you have not thought through the consequences of your illegal actions. Therefore I will enlighten you. Should your actions be found to be illegal, a Court will then order you to repay to the police budget all monies spent by it (including labour costs) as a consequence of your ultra vires actions.

My experience tells me that it is likely that thousands of pounds of costs have already been accrued re this action. Via contacts, I have learned that a London-based Queens Counsel represented the Complainants at a hearing at Leeds High Court in early February. A QC - paid for by the taxpayers - in a private action? For goodness sake! With regard to a case such as this, I suspect that a large amount of preparation will have been done before pleadings will have been filed. This will have included the preparation of a large bundle of documents. If so, then I ask this question: Who has prepared them? Whatever time has been spent on doing this preparation by lawyers and ancillary staff - at both the PCC and NYPA - needs to be quantified by a cost accountant as this is clearly a cost which must be born by yourself as an individual. None of this staff should ever have been used for it is an improper use of taxpayers' monies.

I suspect that the costs figure - including the staff costs mentioned above - already exceeds five figures as it stands; though such a figure may very well be much higher than £10,000 (with the bulk of such sum not being the costs of solicitors and the QC but labour costs of staff at both the PCC & NYPA). Really, Mrs Mulligan, don't you think that you have created massive problems for yourself?

I now turn to the question of criminal misconduct on your part.

As you are aware, I have previously studied in detail the common law criminal offence of misconduct in public office. If you deign to look at the guidelines issued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) you will conclude that your actions - in illegally using public monies to fund a civil case against citizens - falls squarely within the guidelines. You are also aware that this is a very serious criminal offence - hence the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

[2] - extract from an article in the Yorkshire Post of 20/3/15

North Yorkshire’s police and crime commissioner Julia Mulligan, who oversees the force’s spending, said:

'I have weighed up the arguments in favour and against doing this from a public purse point of view.

'I am satisfied that as it stands, taking this action will be better value for money because of the amount of money the police has already spent dealing with these matters.

'Persecution of individuals to the point where severe harm is done is really unacceptable. That is whether it is done face-to-face or remotely. It is unacceptable to put people through an ordeal like that.'

She declined to say how much had been spent on the legal case but said 'the day-to-day cost of dealing with this far exceeds the legal costs so far'.

A preliminary hearing of this case took place at Leeds High Court on February the 9th and it is clear from the above extract that Mulligan has spent public monies financing the action prior to this hearing.

[3] - You Tube video of BBC programme featuring the North Yorks Enquirer.

[4] - Copy of the CPS guidelines re the common law criminal offence of misconduct in public office. Misconduct In Public Office: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service.
Any lawyer examining these excellent guidelines should easily conclude that Mulligan's actions of intentionally misusing public monies - so far thousands of pounds - puts her misconduct very firmly within the prerequisites contained in these guidelines.

However, as to which criminal offences she has committed, the CPS needs to carefully consider: e.g., offences relating to fraud, theft and, perhaps, criminal conspiracy.

Anthony Frederick Nixon,


*) See also 'Tony Nixon vs. Julia Mulligan', 'Greater Manchester Police Inaction on Muslim Grooming Gangs' and 'The Illegal Misuse of Public Funds by PCC Julia Mulligan'.

Monday, 20 April 2015

'Fairness, Not Favours': The Muslim Council of Britain's Ten Commandments to British Politicians.


I'll let the Western Morning News (based in the English West Country) tell you about a new document which has just been published by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB):

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) – an umbrella body representing a wide range of Muslim organisations – has drawn up a list of key commitments which they suggest Muslim voters may wish seek from would-be MPs...

With all the opinion polls pointing to an extremely tight contest, the MCB estimates that there are more than 40 constituencies where the votes of Muslims 'can make a difference' to the outcome....

It is also highly critical of the Government’s Prevent counter-radicalisation strategy which is supposed to stop people getting drawn into extremism...” (2nd April, 2015)

More specifically, what follows is a commentary upon the ten points ('Muslim Vote Pledge') which can be found in the MCB's publication, 'Fairness, Not Favours'.

This is how the uncritical and unquestioning Our Birmingham (16th April, 2015) also describes that document:

Fairness, Not Favours presents a consensus view amongst its affiliates of the issues affecting British Muslims ahead of the 2015 General Election...
MCB hopes it will serves as a useful guide for incumbent and prospective Parliamentary candidates, and for local Muslim communities seeking to engage in political dialogue...”

Faux moderate Muslims like the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) keep on telling us that Islam and politics are utterly separate. It often says, for example, that "Islam isn't the same as Islamism". Yet Islam itself has always been political in that sharia law is at the heart of Islam and sharia law covers all aspects of life: from the private to the political (e.g., to the nature of an Islamic state/government).

And, above and beyond (basic) Islam and sharia law, there's also the explicit politics of what the MCB is doing here. The MCB is basically telling British Muslims - as all Islamists do - to become political Muslims. The MCB is telling British Muslims that Islam should be at the heart of their politics. In this, it is taking the same position as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Morsi regime in Egypt before it was overthrown.

What better definition of Islamism could you possibly want?

The MCB's Ten Commandments to British Politicians

1) “Commit to proactively engage with a broad and representative spectrum of the British Muslim community.”

Translation: The British government and all non-Muslim authorities must proactively engage with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and other Islamists.

2) “Defend the right of Muslims – and people of all faiths – to live their faith be that in religious clothing, food and reasonable accommodation of religious observance.”

Translation: The British Government and all non-Muslim authorities must defend the right of Muslims (particularly Islamists) to live by sharia law. That includes Islamic clothing, food and all the other private (family) and political aspects of sharia law.

3) “Pledge to undertake meaningful action to combat Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all forms of racism.”

Translation: The British government and all non-Muslim authorities must pledge to undertake strong legal actions to combat the criticism of Islam and the prophet Muhammed. Such actions should include the banning, prosecution and imprisoning of the groups and individuals who criticise Islam and the prophet Muhammed. Sharia blasphemy law should also be implemented in the UK. It should at first go under 'hate crimes' law; or under legislation which currently deals with racial crimes.

4) “Enhance our democracy by increasing participation of minorities and women in politics and public life.”

Translation: The British Government and all non-Muslim authorities must enhance the political power of Muslims and Islamism (as best represented by the MCB) in the UK. There should be more Muslims agitating for a specifically Islamic agenda in all walks of life: from Parliament to local councils and from police bodies to university campuses.

5) “Uphold civil liberties and re-build trust with communities when tackling crime and terrorism.”

Translation: The British Government and all non-Muslim authorities must uphold the civil liberties of Muslims, Islamists and Islamic terrorists. They must also re-built trust with Muslim communities by stopping all action against Islamic terrorism and Islamic extremism; as well as against Muslim criminals (such as against the members of Muslim sexual-grooming gangs).

6) “Develop an inclusive National Curriculum reflecting the diverse religious, ethnic and cultural identity of Britain today.”

Translation: The British Government and all non-Muslim authorities must develop an inclusive National Curriculum that fully accommodates Islam and all aspects of sharia law. This initial accommodation will be a prelude to the acceptance (in law) of full Islamic schools which will have complete independence from the (non-Muslim) state and indeed from all secular institutions and authorities.

7) “Address structural economic and social inequalities that prevent minority communities from taking a full part in British life.”

Translation: The British Government and all non-Muslim authorities must address the structural, economic and social inequalities that prevent Muslims communities from Islamising British life. These structural and economic inequalities are, after all, largely a result of Muslims coming from Islamic backgrounds and living largely Islamic lives. Nonetheless, Muslims should be recompensed for such things with positive discrimination and the Islamisation of UK society.

8) “Promise a fair and equal approach to educational provision be that in faith schools or in state schools with large Muslim populations.”

Translation: The British Government and all non-Muslim authorities must promise Muslims that they will be allowed to attend Islamic schools. In addition, Muslims in non-Muslim schools should be given a full Islamic education and other Islamic provisions. Muslim students are also encouraged to attend either Islamic schools or schools with Muslim majorities.

9) “Support a binding recognition of Palestine as an independent and sovereign state.”

Translation: The British Government and all non-Muslim authorities must support a binding recognition of Palestine as an independent and sovereign state. This will be the first step towards reclaiming the whole of historic Palestine (“From the River to the Sea”) from the imperialist and racist Jews. So despite the fact that there is massive persecution and killing of non-Muslims (specifically Christians) in virtually every Muslim country, we at the MCB feel it fit to comment on only one area of the Middle East in our ten commandments to British politicians and authorities. We shall further the cause of Palestine (therefore Islam) by deploying racist memes against Israelis and Jews. These will include the purported fact that Israel is the only “racist apartheid state” in the world and the only country which “institutionalises racism”. Thus these racist memes against Jews will be used to propagate the idea that it is the Israelis and Jews who are racist. (The useful Jews – nearly always Marxists or quasi-Marxists - who are against Israel and Zionism are, of course, the honourable exceptions to all this.)

10) “Uphold an ethical and consistent UK foreign policy with human rights, poverty alleviation and justice.”

Translation: The British Government must not involve itself in any Muslim country; unless specifically requested to do so by the Muslim community of Britain (such as in cases of aid or charity). The British Government must also concern itself with the sharia rights and poverty of Muslims throughout the world; though it must never militarily intervene in Muslim countries. The Government must also be committed to justice for Muslims (as defined by Muslims and specifically by the MCB). Basically, the British Government must take full responsibility for all the bad things that are happening – and have happened - in the Middle East and in the Muslim world generally. Islamic extremism and terrorism are solely a response to what non-Muslim Western governments have done in the Muslim world. Indeed before the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 and the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Muslim world was an abode of peace, democracy and prosperity.

The Islamist Muslim Council of Britain feels the need to hijack non-Islamic 'discourse' (to use a word from Marxism, post-structuralism, etc.) when attempting to Islamise the UK. For example, it does so when it refers to “anti-Semitism and all forms of racism” or “minorities and women”. In other words, the MCB has to pretend that it's fighting against all forms of racism, discrimination, social injustice, etc.

The MCB, however, is most certainly not fighting against all forms of racism discrimination, social injustice, etc. – the opposite is the case. It's fighting exclusively against what it sees as discrimination against Muslims and indeed against Islam.

Again and again the MCB disingenuously uses the language of the non-Islamic West in order to advance positions and views which are distinctly Islamic (therefore non-Western) in nature. This works primarily because nearly all the non-Muslim politicians and activists the MCB engages with know next-to-nothing about Islam. What's more, they often know even less about the MCB's own brand of Islamism and what it is truly aiming for in this country. Thus such duplicitous MCB doublespeak (e.g., uses of PC, Leftist and interfaith jargon) is quite literally taken at face value by such non-Muslim enablers of Islam.

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

What Do British Muslims Want? The Lot!

The question is whether all the demands of Muslims in the workplace, supermarkets, universities, Muslim communities/ghettos, law, supermarkets, swimming pools, hospitals, council-run amenities, etc. should be met even while knowing that they will inevitably become much broader and more extensive in scope in the future. On the other hand, if all these Islamic demands aren't met, will the employers, etc. be deemed 'Islamophobes', 'racist' or 'discriminatory'?

Take just three - among very many - examples:

i) What if Muslims demanded that they take the whole of Friday – not just Friday afternoons - off for prayers?
ii) What if Muslims demanded the separation of the sexes in all workplaces?

iii) What if Muslims wouldn't sit in communal dining rooms if non-Muslims were eating pork or other non-halal products?

Sure, all these things may not be occurring today; though they certainly will do in the future.

Do we deal with this inevitable increase in demands from Muslims with more laws against employers; or do we put an end to them? Should we ask Muslims simply to follow standard practices in the workplace and English society as a whole?

Another point worth stressing is that making endless demands - whether in the workplace, universities or anywhere - is important to Muslims. Through such demands they can assert their Islamic identity. Such agitation is deemed as Islamic 'struggle' (i.e., both 'inner' and 'outer jihad'). Muslims are testing both their own Islamic credentials and the willpower of the kuffar in Dar al-Harb (the Abode of War). Rubbing up the wrong way against the kuffar - whether employers, Marks & Spencer, university vice chancellors - is a way of asserting both Islam itself and the identity of Muslims as Muslims.

It may sound a little over the top to argue that in the end all this is bound to lead to civil war (or, at the very least, to civil conflict). Why do I think that? Because of what’s going on in the Muslim world; as well as what happens when Muslims live alongside non-Muslims. Many people will have read about the violent and conflict-prone history of Muslim peoples when they've lived in the same countries as non-Muslims. In addition, simply look at what's happening today in southern Thailand, Burma, southern Philippines, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Nigeria, west and north Africa, the Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia, Yemen, Bahrain and so on. Indeed look at Oslo, Malmö, Stockholm, parts of Paris, Marseilles, parts of Birmingham, Rochdale, Rotherham, Bradford, Tower Hamlets...

Is all this really worth the risk?

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

Paul Austin Murphy's Images (20)

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

UKIP: News & Comment (3)

Monday, 6 April 2015

UKIP: News & Comment (2)