They come as refugees and then want to live under Sharia law.
According to sharia laws:
– There is no freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
– There is no equality between people (the non-Muslim is not equal to the Muslim).
– There are no equal rights for men and women.
– There is no democracy or a separation between religion and state politics.
Sharia is incompatible with Western values.
The Western world must close its borders, deport illegal immigrants, and ban the Sharia laws.
Liberals and leftists in the West use the made up term “Islamophobia” to portray anyone who criticizes Islam as a “racist”.
Radical Muslim terrorists all over the world carry out terror attacks “in the name of Allah”.
They justify their violence by quoting verses from the Quran.
Islamophobia is a made up word created by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically to silence debate.
Liberals and leftists ignore the fact that Islam is an ideology that has nothing to do with race.
Islamophobia is a neologism created to silence any possible debate about the problems Islamic extremism has got with modernity, with the intention of using the collective post-colonial “guilt” to exempt a particular set of beliefs from scrutiny, analysis and criticism.
It’s a buzzword used in an attempt to silence anyone, whenever had legit questions or criticisms about the religion.
Islam is not a race. It’s a religion. There is an attempt in the West to impose a sharia-blasphemy law to criminalize criticism of Islam.
It started when Saudi Arabia and Muslim countries tried to pass a UN resolution to force Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam.
The Parliament in Canada passed “Motion M-103” to condemn the so-called “Islamophobia (Fear of Islam)” in a preparation for a blasphemy law in Canada.
According to the sharia blasphemy law anyone who criticizes Islam or the Prophet Muhammad should be killed.
Under Sharia blasphemy law in Saudi Arabia and Iran Muslims are executed if they are accused of blasphemy.
In Pakistan, the situation is even worse, radical Muslims use the blasphemy law to persecute the Christian minority.
Is this the law the liberals in the West want to adopt?
The Tommy Robinson Interview That Got Me Banned From The U.K. – Interview with Brittany Pettibone
And if you doubt Tommy’s version – Listen to this very sobering journalist report which includes some of the same stories Tommy told from Andrew Norfolk. Corruption across the board – Police, Politicians, Government services.
Published on 3 Jun 2018
31 March 2018
“The media want to write a story about me and basically for me to have no right to reply.” !! How true has that statement proved to be
I think Muslims are victims of Islam and I would love to set them free
The media need the Boggy man
Government funded campaign
I wasn’t allowed to spend more than $250 pounds a week
Tommy’s manifesto for political change
I would close down the 100’s of Sharia law courts we have .
I would outlaw Sharia law
I would stop accepting funding from “Qutar, Saudi Arabia & Iran
I would stop all Muslim immigration into our country
Temporarily I would stop the building of Mosques
Close down Midras ( Islamic schools that are bringing children up
Segregate our prison systems acknowledging that the ISIS terrorists are prisoners of war
Arm police officers
Convictions- 90% are Muslim men 20% called Mohammed. Muslims only represent 4-5 % of population
this is not about rape or sexually satisfaction for the men who are doing it. It is about destroying those girls. To stop it we have to understand it. They are being taken as sexual slaves , all sanctioned by the Scripture
Lord Pearson in Parliament “Can we talk about Islam?”
The UK now carries out more halal slaughter than the rest of Europe. Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such
The EU’s 2009 Slaughter Regulation requires all animals, including poultry, to be stunned before slaughter. Stunning is defined as any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instant death.
The UK has invoked the “religious exemption” from the EU’s “slaughter directive” and in practice now carries out more halal slaughter than the rest of Europe. Traditional halal meat is expected to be killed by hand and must be blessed by the slaughterman. The exception allows for animals to be slaughtered without being stunned first.
The halal market is worth £2.6bn in Britain alone, and the export market is also growing particularly in the Middle East. Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such.
No one knows at present what form Brexit will take. Will we still be part of the “single market” and therefore bound by common rules? Will we, on the contrary, be free to develop our own set of rules and standards, even if these go beyond EU requirements?
Personally, I much regret that the UK invoked the “religious exemption” in the first place. I don’t believe that religious convictions, however deeply held, justify unnecessary cruelty to animals – a position which, I am glad to say, has been vigorously maintained for some time by organisations such as the British Veterinary Association, the Humane Slaughter Association and the RSPCA. I would be happy to see specific UK legislation, drafted to replace the EU slaughter directive, explicitly preclude the “religious exemption” from pre-stunning requirements.
I recognise, however, given the strength of feeling in some quarters (and given the explicit commitments in the Conservative 2015 Manifesto to “protect methods of religious slaughter”), that “dropping the religious exemption” may be difficult to achieve in the present context, however desirable in the long term.
But there is, happily, another way of rapidly achieving an important step forward as far as the halal issue is concerned and that is to introduce in the UK a mandatory labelling scheme whereby any and all halal meat offered for sale (including for exports) would be clearly labelled as such.
The EU Commission at present is investigating just such an option but it’s likely to be a long time coming. Nor do individual EU member states have much freedom in this area to take unilateral action. Mandatory labelling schemes devised by individual EU member states for application in their own territory are almost always struck down by the EU authorities as being contrary to the principles of the Common Market. And, of course, EU-wide labelling schemes may no longer affect us at all.
But as far as the halal issue is concerned, Brexit might allow us to devise and implement precisely such a national labelling scheme. The key building block here is of course the operation of informed consumer choice. If the consumer actually knows what he or she is buying, we would – I believe – in very short order see in a major reduction of halal products without at the same time offending the sensibilities of religious groups.
More generally, well-judged “post-Brexit” action by the UK in the field of animal welfare and the environment may act as a spur and a stimulus to our continental, but no longer-EU, partners to up their own game.
Many years ago, the UK banned the rearing of veal calves in crates. The EU eventually followed suit. UK rules on animal experimentation were eventually followed by EU directives. We may no longer be able to throw our weight around in the EU, but there is a wider world out there – UN specialised agencies, for example – dealing with international animal welfare and environmental matters where we should be proud to take a lead.
Stanley Johnson is a former Conservative MEP, author and journalist. He was the Founder-Chairman of the European Parliament’s Intergroup Group on Animal Welfare and holder of the RSPCA’s Richard Martin Award for Outstanding Services to Animal Welfare