Yesterday we were deeply shocked to read that The Telegraph had removed an article in which Patrick Sookdheo (the Director of the Barnabas Fund) reflected over the Muslims in Britain and announced that They will have a state within the British State in very few years. But today we come across this pieces of news:
- the editor who placed the removed Telegraph article is herself removed: “apparently, for placing an article of interviews in which a reporter finds, among other too predictable items. In an Email Sarah Sands, The TELEGRAPH UK, has informed me that she has been removed as editor at the Telegraph UK. This appears to be the result of a campaign by such sites as ISLAMOPHOBIAWATCH.COM. Contact the Telegraph and let them know how an abandonment of all all England has ever stood for looks. Contact them HERE and HERE.” So if someone says out the truth, not only the newspaper is denying -or ar least hiding- what he has done, but the editor of the newspaper -the one who approves the content is removed from her job! That makes me wonder: was the free press created to inform the rest of what is happening? If, instead of doing it, they are just hiding it, what is this press for?
- the British Press has shut down Mark Steyn: “
Mark Steyn’s column is no longer available in the British press; according to the Guardian’s Lionel Shriver, Steyn has now been dropped from both the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator. (Hat tip: Tim Blair.)” In his column for the Sun Times, he slashes the American Press for his Dhimmitude about the Taheri–Azar case:
“According to statements taken by the police, Mr. Taheri-azar, 22, an Iranian-born graduate of the university, felt that the United States government had been ‘killing his people across the sea’ and that his actions reflected ‘an eye for an eye.'” “His people”? And who exactly would that be? Taheri-azar is admirably upfront about his actions. As he told police, he wanted to “avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world.” And yet the M-word appears nowhere in the Times report. Whether intentionally or not, they seem to be channeling the great Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali, who died a millennium ago but whose first rule on the conduct of dhimmis — non-Muslims in Muslim society — seem to have been taken on board by the Western media: The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle. . . . “
(see Gates of Vienna, Gateway Pundit, The Belmont Club)
But if those news are both worrying, we receive another one from Agora that can be named more disgusting if that is possible:
Clarke criticises Danish ‘mistake’ over cartoons
Hélène Mulholland Wednesday March 8, 2006
The British government has accused its Danish counterparts of making “a serious mistake” in the way it handled relations with Muslim countries after the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.
The home secretary, Charles Clarke, criticised the decision by the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to snub a request from 11 Muslim countries for a meeting after the cartoons were published in the Jyllands Posten newspaper in September.Mr Clarke told a public meeting in Willesden Green – primarily held to discuss law and order issues – that Mr Rasmussen had not even responded to the request.
Admitting it was a “political point”, Mr Clarke said: “I think that was a serious mistake which you could not imagine happening in other countries … certainly not in this country. It is a question of respecting others, and that means do not provoke or challenge the deeply-held views of others.”
If you read this letter you can see what Mr. Clarke says is not true:
“The freedom of expression is the very foundation of the Danish democracy. The freedom of expression has a wide scope and the Danish government has no means of influencing the press“. Well, thst does not seem to be as being a mistake, taht is just reality. Clarke thinks very much as some Orthodox Islamic Cleric:
Only an official apology by the Danish government to all Muslims for offence caused by the Prophet Mohammad cartoons will prompt the lifting of the boycott of Danish goods, Muslim preachers said on Friday.An official apology “is absolutely necessary … because your government has not dealt with them (Muslims) respectfully,” Islamic scholar Tareq al-Suweidan told a conference hosted by the government in an attempt to ease tension over the drawings.
But as The American Thinker says:
This is of course an intimidation tactice, after the trumped-up “offense” at the perfectly innocent Mohammed cartoons. It is Muslim cultural imperialism. It means a surrender of free speech from now on out, to be followed by further demands. Why aren’t Danish women wearing burqas? Why are they provoking Muslim men by showing their bodies? Why are Danish Gays out of the closet? And why do Danes put blasphemous ideas out on the Internet, where innocent Muslims can read them?
It won’t end with Denmark.
No, it won’t: