Seven members of a sex grooming ring have been convicted of abusing children from Oxford.
An Old Bailey jury heard six girls were drugged and suffered sadistic abuse while aged between 11 and 15.
The court heard victims were plied with alcohol and drugs before being forced to perform sex acts. Some had also been beaten, burnt and threatened.
Nine men had denied charges including rape, arranging child prostitution and trafficking between 2004 and 2012.
Two were acquitted of all charges.
The judge told the guilty men: “You have been convicted of the most serious offences and long custodial sentences are inevitable.”
They are due to be sentenced on 26 June.
Pain and humiliation
The abuse began in Oxford but some of the victims would be later taken around the country to be offered to other men who were in contact with the gang.
The court heard how the men identified vulnerable girls for abuse then groomed each one of them until they were under the control of the gang.
Acts of physical and sexual violence escalated into using objects to cause pain and humiliation.
The court heard girls were tied up, burnt, suffocated, bitten, scratched and urinated upon.
Jurors were told most of the victims chose to take vast quantities of hard drugs to deaden their senses, particularly when they knew they were being hired out to a large group of men for gang abuse sessions that could go on for days.
The victims would return to Oxford bleeding, injured and carrying sexually-transmitted diseases.
One of the victims described being plied with hard drugs and forced to have sex with strangers while being filmed at the age of 13.
On one occasion she was given so much crack cocaine she could not breathe and was rushed to hospital.
Another, who was groomed at the age of 11, said she fell in love with Mohammed Karrar who raped her, beat her with a baseball bat and forced her to have an illegal back-room abortion when she was 12-years-old.
She said of her abuse: “At the time I thought it was my choice and it was fine, but years on I can see I never had a choice. I said ‘no’ but I didn’t have a say.
“It was literally like a normal relationship but I know now it isn’t a normal relationship. I was a child.
“He told me he loved me. He said he would take me to Saudi Arabia when I was 15 and marry me. I believed him at the time.”
A number of opportunities to catch members of the gang are believed to have been missed and prosecutors, the police and social services have apologised for any failings.
Scuffle in court
The jury at the Old Bailey considered the evidence for two-and-a-half days and returned the following verdicts.
Kamar Jamil was found guilty of five counts of rape, two counts of conspiracy to rape and one count of facilitating child prostitution.
Akhtar Dogar was found guilty of five counts of rape, three counts of conspiracy to rape, two counts of child prostitution and one count of trafficking.
Anjum Dogar was found guilty of four counts of rape, two counts of child prostitution, two counts of conspiracy to rape and one count of trafficking.
Assad Hussain was found not guilty of rape and guilty of two counts of sex with a child.
Mohammed Karrar was found guilty of two counts of conspiracy to rape, three counts of rape of a child, one count of using an instrument to procure miscarriage, two counts of trafficking, one count of assault of a child by penetration, one count of child prostitution, one count of rape and one count of supplying a class A drug.
Bassam Karrar was found guilty of two counts of rape, one count of conspiracy to rape a child, one count of rape of a child, one count of child prostitution, one count of trafficking and one count of conspiracy to rape.
Zeeshan Ahmed was found guilty of two counts of sex with a child.
There was a scuffle in the dock as Ahmed struck out at Mohammed Hussain when he was cleared of the charges against him.
Mr Hussain was found not guilty of three counts of sex with a child.
Sold for sex
The Old Bailey was told the key members of the group used and abused the six victims in a systematic and organised sex trafficking ring over eight years until their arrest in 2012.
The court heard how the men identified vulnerable girls for abuse and then groomed each one of them until they were under the control of the gang.
They were then each either abused by the men themselves, given to their friends or offered at a price to others who were not on trial.
The youngest girl to be targeted was 11-years-old. The girls were mostly chosen because their unsettled or troubled lives made them easier to manipulate.
The Crown Prosecution Service said it would look again at its decision to take no further action over allegations involving the girls between 2005 and 2006.
Baljit Ubhey, chief crown prosecutor for Thames and Chiltern, said: “I think we could have been more proactive. Of four cases we looked at, in three of those it’s arguable we might have been able to do more.
“I think what these cases have highlighted is that they’re probably not isolated incidents and there’s probably more of this activity going on.”
One of the victims had complained to police twice but no one was charged.
A care home manager, who was later sacked, refused to pay her taxi fare when she returned after running away and the 14-year-old was driven back to Oxford where she was raped.
The court heard girls, who had been placed in care by Oxfordshire County Council for their own protection, would frequently abscond and were caught with older men by police.
Council chief executive Joanna Simons said: “We are incredibly sorry we were not able to stop it any sooner.
“We were up against a gang of devious criminals. The girls thought they were their friends.”
Det Ch Supt Rob Mason said: “Thames Valley Police and Oxfordshire County Council social services deeply regret that this activity wasn’t identified sooner and that we were too reliant on victims supporting criminal proceedings and that they suffered a terrible ordeal.”
Secretly filmed documentary shows growing trend of Sharia courts deciding fate of Muslim women in UK.
By Soeren Kern
A new documentary secretly filmed inside several of the 85 Islamic Sharia Law courts operating in Britain has exposed the systematic discrimination that many women are suffering at the hands of Muslim jurists.
The documentary, Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Courts, was filmed by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and was first aired on BBC Panorama, a long-running current affairs program, on April 8.
The undercover investigation proves what has long been suspected: Namely, that Sharia courts, which operate in mosques and houses across Britain, routinely issue rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Islamic Sharia law that are at odds with British law.
Although Sharia rulings are not legally binding, those subject to the rulings often feel obliged to obey them as a matter of religious belief, or because of pressure from family and community members to do so.
The documentary contends that the Sharia courts, run by Muslim judges known as qadi, are putting women at risk of violence from abusive husbands by pressuring them to stay in abusive marriages.
In one case, the BBC secretly filmed proceedings at the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, a heavily Islamized area in east London. While there, a BBC reporter met Sonia, a Muslim woman from Leeds who has suffered extreme physical abuse from her husband. When Sonia obtained a civil divorce, the courts allowed her husband only indirect access to the children.
But when Sonia went to Leyton Sharia Council for an Islamic divorce, she was told she would have to give up custody of the children to her husband. According to British law, Sharia courts are not allowed to interfere in child access matters.
After Sonia threatened to contact the police, the Leyton Sharia Council dropped its demand.
Reflecting on the court case, Sonia said, “I could not bear the thought of such a violent person having my children. What was shocking was when I explained to them why he should not have that access to the children, their reaction was, well, you cannot go against what Islam says.”
In another case, a Muslim convert from Bristol named Cara contacted the Leyton Sharia Council for a divorce. Cara, who met her husband at university, had been persuaded to have only a Sharia marriage. After the wedding, she was abused by her husband, who allegedly controlled her by taking all of her earnings. After he brought prostitutes to their home, Cara ran away to a shelter.
The Leyton Sharia Council told Cara she would have be accompanied by her estranged husband for arbitration. “I was shocked,” says Cara. “Surely they can see that women who have been through this cannot be forced to meet up with someone who is abusing them.”
The BBC then sent an undercover reporter to the Leyton Sharia Council to see what advice its members would give a vulnerable female client. Her story was that her husband was hitting her.
During the proceedings, the secret recordings show that Suhaib Hasan, a senior member of the Leyton Sharia Council, told the undercover reporter that going to the police would result in her having to go to a shelter, which, he said, was a “very bad option.”
Hasan suggested that she ask herself if the violence was due to her own actions, then urged her to redouble her efforts to be a good wife by cooking and cleaning for her husband.
The BBC also filmed proceedings at Sharia Council of Dewsbury, a city in West Yorkshire that is a magnet for Muslim immigration. (Islamists have promised to turn Dewsbury into an independent Islamic state ruled by Sharia law, and entirely apart from British jurisprudence.)
The documentary also shows a woman named Ayesha who has been physically abused by her estranged husband and then went to the Dewsbury Sharia Council to get a divorce. Although her husband has been imprisoned for violence, Ayesha was told she would have to go to mediation with him. The advice ignored injunctions issued by a British court and which Ayesha and her children hold against her husband due to his abuse.
According to Ayesha, “I cannot do that because he is not even allowed near my house, and because I am frightened. I cannot face him… but they did not take any notice.”
After an outside lawyer became involved in Ayesha’s case, the Dewsbury Sharia Council eventually agreed to see Ayesha on her own. It took Ayesha two years for her divorce to be granted by the council, by which time her husband had re-married in Pakistan.
The BBC showed the secret footage to the head of the Crown Prosecution Service in northwestern England, Nazir Afzal, a Muslim who has spoken out against honor-based domestic violence. He said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by what he had seen.
Referring to the Sharia courts, Afzal said, “Most of them are fine, are absolutely fine, but there are some who are putting women at risk. And doing so for ridiculous reasons, namely that they are somehow responsible for the abuse they are suffering.”
Under the Arbitration Act 1996, Sharia courts in Britain — home to a sizable Muslim population of nearly 3 million — are legally recognized as providing a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). In addition to marital disputes, Sharia courts rule in conflicts over inheritance, contractual disagreements between Muslim landlords and tenants and sometimes between employees and their employer.
But Sharia courts have long been accused of discriminating against women. In the case of divorce, for example, men and women are treated differently. When a man has initiated a divorce, the procedure is called talaq; when a woman has initiated a divorce, it is called khula.
With an Islamic marriage, a man can initiate the divorce from his wife by pronouncing the so-called triple-talaq ["I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you."]. By contrast, the only way for women to divorce their husbands is through the use of Sharia councils. Women are required to produce two male witnesses, and, while a man pays nothing, an Islamic divorce costs a woman at least £400 ($600).
Moreover, under Sharia law, a woman must pay compensation to her husband by handing over all of her dowry and other wedding gifts before a divorce can be granted. This can effectively constrain women from seeking a divorce because, with the loss of the dowry, they have no financial means of support. Because Sharia marriages are not recognized under British law, when it comes to a divorce, Muslim women are not automatically entitled to half the house or financial assets.
The British Parliament held its first-ever full parliamentary debate on the issue of Sharia courts in October 2012, after the Baroness Cox, who has long campaigned against the spread of Islamic law in Britain, presented a bill in the House of Lords that would specifically limit the activities of Sharia courts and explicitly require them to uphold equality laws including women’s rights.
The so-called Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill — currently moving through the legislative process — would also make it a criminal offense punishable by five years in prison for anyone falsely to claim or imply that Sharia courts or councils have legal jurisdiction over British family or criminal law.
Baroness Cox told the House of Lord about Sharia law cases she had encountered, including that of a woman who had been admitted to hospital by her violent husband — who had left her for another woman but still denied her a religious divorce so she could remarry.
Another woman was forced to travel to Jordan to seek permission to remarry from a seven-year-old boy she had never met because she had no other male relatives. A third woman who came to see her was so afraid of being seen going into the Sharia court that she hid behind a tree.
Another woman told Baroness Cox: “I feel betrayed by Britain, I came to this country to get away from all this but the situation is worse here than in my country of origin.”
At the same hearing, Baroness Donaghy, a Labour Party peer, said: “The definition of mutuality is sometimes being stretched to such limits that a women is said to consent to a process when in practice, because of a language barrier, huge cultural or family pressure, ignorance of the law, a misplaced faith in the system or a threat of complete isolation, that mutuality is as consensual as rape.”
Baroness Cox added: “These examples are just the tip of an iceberg as many women live in fear, so intimidated by family and community that they dare not speak out or ask for help. It is a system which, in its gender discrimination causing women such suffering, is utterly incompatible with our country’s values. It is time to draw a line in the sand and say ‘enough is enough.’”
The Leyton Sharia Council — the oldest Islamic council in Britain and one of the most active in the country — is also hoping to draw a line in the sand: to establish the full recognition of Islamic Sharia law.
On its website, the Leyton Sharia Council writes: “Though the Council is not yet legally recognized by the authorities in the UK, the fact that it is already established, and is gradually gaining ground among the Muslim community, and the satisfaction attained by those who seek its ruling, are all preparatory steps towards the final goal of gaining the confidence of the host community in the soundness of the Islamic legal system and the help and insight they could gain from it. The experience gained by the scholars taking part in its procedures make them more prepared for the eventuality of recognition for Islamic law.”
Alicia Gali was savagely raped in the United Arab Emirates, then charged with having illicit sex outside marriage and thrown in jail for eight months.
Reporter: Ross Coulthart
Producer: Ali Russell
With Dubai emerging as a major stopover point for long haul journeys, five hundred flights a month will deliver over one million of us to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the next year.
Dubai is being promoted as a luxury high-class paradise in the desert, but the reality is brutally different, as Australian Alicia Gali discovered. Gali took a job in the UAE with one of the world’s biggest hotel chains, Starwood. What happened next makes this story a must-watch for every Australian planning on travelling through the region.
Gali was using her laptop in the hotel’s staff bar when her drink was spiked. She awoke to a nightmare beyond belief: she had been savagely raped by three of her colleagues. Alone and frightened, she took herself to hospital. What Alicia didn’t know is that under the UAE’s strict sharia laws, if the perpetrator does not confess, a rape cannot be convicted without four adult Muslim male witnesses. She was charged with having illicit sex outside marriage, and thrown in a filthy jail cell for eight months.
Now, finally home and struggling to move on with her life, Alicia breaks her silence for the first time on television to reporter Ross Coulthart.
Video: Alicia Shares Her Story Here:
The Australian Television Program, “Sunday Night” emailed Alicia’s employer in the UAE, Starwood Hotels, with a detailed list of questions pertaining to her case. This was their response:
“What happened in June 2008 to Alicia Gali, a former employee of Le Méridien Al Aqah hotel, was deplorable. While the hotel worked diligently on Ms. Gali’s behalf, the authorities investigated and prosecuted Ms. Gali under the local laws. Additionally, the men involved were also prosecuted and each served prison terms before being deported. As for Ms. Gali’s lawsuit against the hotel, we disagree with the allegations.
The hotel management provided support and assistance to Ms. Gali and her family throughout that time,
including assisting with medical support and the investigation, liaising with her representative Australian embassy and coordinating and arranging affairs with her family in Australia.
Starwood’s repeated approaches to discuss Ms. Gali’s claim with her attorneys have been ignored and declined. As this matter is part of an open on-going Starwood investigation and litigation commenced by Ms. Gali against Starwood and the Commonwealth of Australia, we cannot comment further at this time.
The safety and security of our associates and guests continues to be a paramount priority.”
We also contacted the Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) with a detailed list of questions regarding Alicia’s case. This was their response:
“The Department rejects Ms Gali’s account of her dealings with the Australian Consulate in Dubai, as suggested in your letter of 7 May 2013. Ms Gali was provided with extensive consular assistance by the Australian Consulate in Dubai. Our consular officers do not give legal advice, but do assist Australians in trouble to obtain local legal advice.
As this matter is subject to ongoing legal proceedings, the Department is unable to respond to the questions raised in your letter or participate in the Sunday Night program. The Department will present its position as necessary during the course of the legal proceedings.”
Counter-terror experts are targeting schools feared to have been infiltrated by Islamic fundamentalists using Wales as a base for recruitment.
A leaked “restricted report,” called the Wales Contest Plan, that deals with the specific terror threats to Wales, exposes growing radicalization in Cardiff and proposes extra training in how to spot extremism for staff at schools “identified as having increased risks” of radicalism.
Early signs of radicalization need to be spotted by professionals, says counter-terrorism expert Professor Michael Levi.
Professor Levi said that in addition to educating teachers to spot the early signs of radicalization, teachers need to engage in an “active debate on legitimacy” on what shapes the beliefs of extremists. Education officials must ensure that the school curriculum fully addresses reasons why people become extremists, the counter-terrorism expert said.
Levi said that while the measures detailed in the Wales Contest Plan are real, the country should not assume that the task of tackling the issues of radicalization and extremism would be easy.
“We have to think about what attracts people into blowing things or people up, as they are essentially announcing, ‘We are here, now pay attention to our grievances’ ” said Levi.
“We have to ask how much attention do we give to debates of legitimacy in society and in our schools? How does this feature in our curriculum? There needs to be an active discussion, as well as providing teachers with the knowledge of what to look out for,” he continued
Prof. Levi’s comments also come as Wales’ most senior counter-terrorism officer said specialists are engaging with youngsters in schools in order to protect them from the dangers of embracing terrorism.
In December 2010, two brothers Abdul Miah, 25, and Gurukanth Desai, 30, from Cardiff, together with Omar Sharif Latif, were arrested after planning a Mumbai-style attack on the London Stock Exchange. They were eventually sentenced to a total of 40 years in jail.
In another incident, Idris Faridi, 32, of Roath, Cardiff, was jailed for nine months after a “terrorist’s manual” called 39 Ways To Serve And Proceed In Jihad was discovered on his computer’s hard drive. He had applied to work at the Millennium Stadium during the Olympic Games.
Assistant Chief Constable Matt Jukes, head of the Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit said “At the heart of this, there’s a question of safeguarding children. If young people are being exploited, and I’m not suggesting that is the case, if they put themselves on a path of some of these ideals, not only will they take lives, they are at risk themselves and we are concerned about saving lives.”
A recent report by European Police Office (Europol) found that the number of terrorist acts and related arrests across Europe rose in 2012, bucking a downward trend in previous years. The report revealed there were 219 terrorist attacks across Europe in 2012, compared with 174 in 2011. The number of people arrested for terror-related offences also rose to 537, from 484 in the previous year.
Meanwhile Europol director Rob Wainwright revealed that increasing numbers of EU citizens who have become radicalized have travelled to regions of conflict to take part in terrorist activities. “There is growing concern about the threat posed by these people, given the possibility of their returning to the European Union intent on committing acts of terrorism,” he said.
A spokesman for the Welsh Government said, “Clearly schools have an important role to play in helping our children and young people understand the reasons why a small minority of people are drawn into becoming violent extremists.”
That is the reason that the Welsh Government produced the “Respect and Resilience” book which is a guide and good practice document for schools to help support schools in their role in developing and supporting strategic approaches to promoting community cohesion and preventing violent extremism.
By Enza Ferreri
“We don’t debate unprofessional councillors, unprincipled journalists, and self-righteous community organizers; we turn the tables on them”: this is how British barrister Gavin Boby, also known as the “mosque buster”, describes the activity of his organization, the Law And Freedom Foundation. He uses the law to stop the building of mosques in the UK by demonstrating to local councils that the building of a mosque or an Islamic centre is actually in violation of British law. And he succeeds: the count so far is 16 victories out of 17 cases.
Gavin Boby is a 48-year-old planning lawyer from Bristol, South-West England. He deals with planning permissions or zoning permissions.
Like many other people in Britain, for almost 10 years Boby had witnessed the progressive penetration of Islam in his country, but like many other people he watched idly not knowing what to do about it.
It was the same feeling of impotence that most of us shared. But then, a couple of years ago, he had this idea. Many mosques disrupt neighbourhoods and drive out long-time residents. Non-Muslim women in particular are made to feel uncomfortable in those areas. Why not use his legal skills to help local communities resist planning applications for mosques?
The BBC video above the article exposes how corrupt the process of granting mosque planning applications can be, showcasing a session in the Rochdale Council’s planning committee in the North of England, during which councillor Begum does not allow discussion before the vote is taken and rushes the other members to vote.
This is very topical in light of the recent revelations that the Boston bombers’ mosque “has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism”, has classic jihadi texts in its library, and gave money to two terrorist charities which have been shut down by the U.S. government. But then again, when is something about the violent nature of Islam not topical these days?
Still, this is a good way to introduce the mosque buster’s work. What are mosques? As we know, mosques are not like churches or synagogues, they are far more than houses of worship and contemplation, many of them are centres of jihadist activity that indoctrinate to commit and support violence against infidels. In America, as many as 4 different studies have independently come to the same conclusion that 80 per cent of US mosques “were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians”.
The Law And Freedom Foundation website declares: “A mosque is not merely a place of worship. Islamic doctrine requires the application of Islamic law within its geographical reach.”
We can see the truth of that in London. It is no coincidence that sharia-law areas or self-declared Muslim areas with Muslim patrols acting like vigilantes in cities like London are near mosques. We are increasingly seeing Muslim patrols in the proximity of mosques saying to passers-by that they can’t walk a dog, wear a skirt, drink alcohol.
In an interview Gavin Boby explains that mosques are being used as the bridgehead, the forefront of the advance of Islam in a territory. What happens in neighbourhoods – usually working class districts which are not used to dealing with officialdom – where a mosque is built is that the area changes forever for its residents, who no longer recognize it and eventually have to move out, due to things like the parking jihad, general harassment, vandalism.
“The parking jihad is” he describes, “soon after the construction of a mosque, people will find no parking space there, their driveway is being blocked or even a car is parked in the driveway inside your property and if you ask them to move their car they’ll say it’s only for an hour.” The parking tends to be used as a way to establish possession and control over the area, of saying: ”This is a mosque area, we are the owners now and there’s nothing you can do about it”, and then after that it gets worse until the point when people move out.
“The Koran” the Bristol lawyer continues, ”calls 14 times for the enslavement of non-Muslims, and 3 times for killing the unbelievers wherever they are found. This is obviously against English law. You don’t need to be a good lawyer to fight it but you need to be a very good lawyer to get around it.”
Partly, the mosque buster’s approach is that of finding the contradictions and incompatibilities between Islam and Western fundamental principles (that’s the easy part), and making mosque building and planning regulations become the battleground of these ideological conflicts.
In the same way as Islam is not just a religion but also a political doctrine of supremacy and power, so the mosque is not simply a building of worship but also a political one.
This is the Islamic doctrine, every mosque is instructed to be based upon the original mosque in Medina, where Muhammad originally in the 7th century set up his religious-political doctrine of social control, and the mosque is a place of government, it is a place where treaties are made, death sentences are passed, armies are blessed and dispatched, it is primarily about political control and it is very much used as a tool of advance. Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey talked about that, the Muslim Brotherhood compared their mosques to battalions and to beehives, where Muslims will gather and then advance, and there’s nothing new about this, it goes back to the 7th century.
So, this is the why of the Law And Freedom Foundation’s operation. Now let’s see the how.
Gavin works pro bono as a barrister for anyone wishing to fight the erection of a mosque. He says:
The method is very simple. A planning application gets submitted for a mosque in an area, and it will never be called a “mosque”. It will be called a community centre; an inter-faith centre; a public community, harmony-building outreach centre, and then the neighbours contact us, and it’s usually people who have never been involved in politics before, are shy of politics and officialdom and ask us to help them to resist it. And that’s what we do, we help them to simply use established methods of consultation to tell the local authorities: “We object to this proposal because of the effect it will have on the neighbourhood, the effect on parking, the effect on noise, the effect on disturbance, the architectural effect, the effect of concentrations of people generally, the amenity for residents”. And also we give them advocacy in front of the council meeting, we’ll advocate on their behalf.
Therefore the approach is twofold. The most commonly employed is to use the effects on and the desires of the local communities as tools in the consultation process which is local authorities’ standard procedure before a planning or change of use permission is granted.
As an example, the last two refusals to mosque building from local authorities were motivated by: loss of the retail floorspace; harm to the character, function, vitality and viability of the neighbourhood centre; possible harm to the surrounding transport network in respect of movements to and from the site for both pedestrians and vehicles; loss of employment use in a Locally Significant Industrial Site and potential harm to the viability and function of the remaining Locally Significant Industrial Site; low public transport accessibility inappropriate for a large-scale community facility; lack of adequate on-site parking with resulting overspill on-street parking likely to cause unacceptable traffic management problems and traffic congestion, to the detriment of traffic flow and road safety in the vicinity of the site.
From these you can have an idea of the broadness and scope of reasons that can be used. Other common issues are noise, and congestion at particular times like Fridays at prayer times or when there are Koran lessons for children.
The second approach – although what is predominantly used is the first – goes more to the core of what Islam is. The organization’s website states: ”Also, it is hard to see how a Local Authority has the power to grant planning permission for a mosque, since the purpose of a mosque is to promote a doctrine that incites killing, enslavement and war. You don’t need to be a skilled lawyer to understand this point – you have to be a skilled lawyer to find a way around it.”
This conviction was evident when the mosque buster was asked how he responds to people who say this is an infringement of freedom of religion. He answered:
I understand people who say that, and it would be the case if Islam were simply about private contemplation and reflection, the way that Christianity in a parish church is, but the problem is that you have two legal principles that conflict. You have this issue of freedom of religion and you have the public order issue, it’s not an issue of censorship, it’s a public order issue that [you have] if you have people preaching warfare, preaching violence, preaching killing and enslaving against another part of the population: that is against the most founding principles, [which were established] before freedom of religion was established within English law, within any law.
The British barrister clarifies the relationship between these approaches when he advises his clients: “Don’t focus on the religious and political aspects, focus on the technical ones, but what we are doing is trying to stop the area from being Islamized”. But the two issues, i.e. the political question and the concern about community safety, are in fact indissolubly interconnected; he acts from knowledge of the intimidation and violence that the mosques regularly bring with them.
He observes that mosques are increasingly being built in the UK in numbers which are disproportionate to the need for them, and often in areas with hardly any Muslim population.
The Law and Freedom Foundation also offers advice to local activists on how to go about the business of mosque busting. Gavin Boby’s is an original approach, even the way he talks gives you the immediate impression that he brings something new and different (lawyer-like but this time in a good sense) to the anti-Islam movement.
Boby has become a household name in the counterjihad movement, and others outside the UK are following his example, like Geert Wilders in Holland, whose party recently launched the “MoskNee” (“MosqueNo”) project. Still to remain in continental Europe, the mosque buster spoke at the Brussels ICLA conference on July 9 2012.
He was also invited to speak in Ottawa, Canada by the organization Act for Canada, which points out that the University of Alberta’s former Chair in Islamic Studies explained how the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood Hassan al-Banna hoped to change “the status of the Mosque, bringing it from a static place of worship to a center of Islamic revolution”, while Youssef Qaradawi, unconditionally endorsed by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood operating in Canada, wrote: “It must be the role of the mosque to guide the public policy of a nation, raise awareness of critical issues, and reveal its enemies. From ancient times the mosque has had a role in urging jihad for the sake of Allah“. Gavin also spoke in Toronto and Montreal.
In August/September 2012 Mr Boby toured Australia on invitation of the Q Society of Australia, according to which many Australians still do not fully understand how important mosques and mosque-building are in Islamic doctrine and how crucially different a mosque is from a church or synagogue. Many Australians did not know that in their country there are already over 340 mosques and Islamic prayer rooms, many of which are rooms in once secular public buildings and public spaces.
As can be expected, there is controversy and attempts to stop this mosque-busting lawyer from giving speeches wherever they are scheduled, and he has been vilified by the mass media.
But what really matters is that it works. Maybe his activity can be the inspiration to find other specialistic, professional ways to use the law against the Islamization of our countries.
Muslims Continue Their Worldwide Christian Holocaust
A Muslim mob attacked two men, five women and two children, all of English origin. The police prevented the destruction of their house, but have arrested two Christians. Leader of the Global Council of Indian Christians (GCIC): “The growing anti-Christian intolerance is alarming.”
by Nirmala Carvalho
Srinagar, India (AsiaNews) – “The anti-Christian intolerance in Jammu and Kashmir is reaching alarming proportions” is the complaint of Sajan George, president of the Global Council of Indian Christians (GCIC), after the arrest of two Christians in Srinagar, the capital of Indian state, on false charges of forced conversions. The arrest took place on April 10 last, after a Muslim mob attacked two men, five women and two children, all of British origin.
The foreigners had been living for about four years Shivpora, a district of Srinagar. According to local residents one of them, James Thomas, was engaged in conversion activities. So, two days ago a large group of people attacked the Christians, threw stones at their vehicles and tried to destroy their house. The intervention of the police prevented the demolition and the wounding of those present, but officials arrested James and Alora Milli to clarify the charges against them.
The police have impounded the building and evacuated the foreigners. The local imam told police that he had repeatedly asked the foreigners not to convert Muslims, but to no avail. “Now – he added – they can no longer access the area. And even if they try to convert anyone, I will prevent it at all costs.”
“The false and defamatory accusations of the Imam – says Sajan George – and the complicity of the police in arresting these Christians are a serious threat to religious freedom, a right guaranteed by the Constitution of India.”
Jammu and Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority state of India where religious intolerance frequently occurs. This past January, a group of foreign tourists risked being lynched after the publication of some posts on Facebook. An exemplary case dates back to 2011, when the Rev. Chander Mani Khanna, pastor of All Saints Anglican Church, was arrested for having baptized seven Muslims and then indicted by an Islamic court (which has no legal authority in the State or in India, ed) for proselytism and forced conversions.
The permission allows Muslims to raise the Adhan for three to five minutes between 12:00 pm and 1:00 pm on Fridays
Sweden Persecutes Christianity and Submits to Islam
CAIRO – A mosque in the Swedish capital was given the green light Thursday, April 11, to raise Adhan (call for prayers), to the jubilance of the Muslim community in the Scandinavian country.
“I’m happy, very happy,” Ismail Okur, chairman of the Islamic Cultural Center of Botkyrka, told Sveriges Radio (SR).
“It means a great deal for our association and above all for our religion, and for the prayer.”
Police said Thursday that Fittja mosque in the southern Stockholm suburb of Botkyrka will be allowed to raise the Adhan on Fridays.
The permission allows Muslims to raise the Adhan for three to five minutes between 12:00 pm and 1:00 pm on Fridays.
The move came in response to a request by Muslims to raise their call for prayers from the Fittja mosque, the only Muslim worship place that has a minaret in Sweden.
“I’m really happy and grateful,” Okur told Swedish news agency TT.
Police said strict regulations would govern the placement of the speakers to raise the Adhan.
Information must also be provided to nearby residents before raising the call for prayers, police said.
No date has been set for the first Adhan.
The Adhan is the call to announce that it is time for a particular obligatory Salah (ritual prayer).
The Adhan is raised five times a day.
But Muslims in the West were often unable to make Adhan for prayers as local authorities argue that the call would cause noise to residents.
Muslims make up between 450,000 and 500,000 of Sweden’s nine million people, according to the US State Department report in 2011.
‘Either Europe Will Become Christian Again or It Will Become Muslim’
By Enza Ferreri
Only a few days ago one of the best known figures of the Italian counter-jihad, Egyptian-born journalist Magdi Cristiano Allam, a former Muslim who converted to Catholicism, announced that, although he remains Christian, he has left the Catholic Church.
In his column in the daily paper Il Giornale he gave several reasons, prominent among which is “Because this Church is weak vis-à-vis Islam”:
What more than anything else drove me away from the Church is its religious relativism, in particular the legitimization of Islam as true religion, of Allah as true God, of Muhammad as true prophet, of the Koran as sacred text, of mosques as places of worship. It is genuine suicidal madness that John Paul II went so far as to kiss the Koran on May 14, 1999, Benedict XVI put his hand on the Koran praying toward Mecca in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul on November 30, 2006, while Francis I began by extolling the Muslims “who worship one, living and merciful God.” On the contrary I am convinced that, while respecting Muslims who, like all people, possess the inalienable rights to life, dignity and freedom, Islam is an inherently violent ideology, as it has historically been conflictual inside and belligerent outside. Even more I am increasingly convinced that Europe will eventually be submitted to Islam, as has already happened from the seventh century to the other two sides of the Mediterranean, if it does not have the vision and the courage to denounce the incompatibility of Islam with our civilization and the fundamental rights of the person, if it does not ban the Koran for apology of hatred, violence and death against non-Muslims, if it does not condemn Sharia law as a crime against humanity in that it preaches and practices the violation of the sanctity of everyone’s life, the equal dignity of men and women, and religious freedom, and finally if it does not block the spread of mosques.
This news has attracted national and worldwide media attention, just as the announcement of his conversion from Islam to Catholicism on 22 March, Easter Eve night, 2008 did, when he “received Baptism, Confirmation and Communion in St Peter’s Basilica from Pope Benedict XVI”.
Allam’s position has several Italian (and international) counter-jihad blogs sympathetic to it, carrying articles with titles like Islamic Fundamentalism and the Impossible Dialogue.
But his new decision to leave the Church has also attracted many criticisms in Italy. Journalist Filippo Savarese: “I do not know what could be worse than repudiating one’s conversion for (alleged) issues which are in fact mostly ‘political’.” Politician Maurizio Lupi who was Allam’s godfather: “I am sorry, but Christianity taught me to love the freedom of every man and to respect it even when I do not agree with his choices. In this case not even with the reasons (we are Christian for love of truth not for aversion to Islam), but I notice that, unfortunately, this is the attitude of many who say they accept Christ but not the Church.”
Gabriele Satolli, candidate to the 2013 Italian general election for the party founded by Allam, Io Amo l’Italia, left the party, called Magdi’s motivations “raving, and therefore impossible to agree with.”
Still, although we may dispute whether they are a good enough reason to leave the Catholic Church, Allam’s arguments are grounded in reality.
“Having a dialogue” is by definition a reciprocal verb, as “being a sibling.” They mean something only if what is true of the subject of the verb is also true of the object, be it a quality, relationship or activity. When a call for dialogue is not met with a response, it is a monologue.
As Raymond Ibrahim points out, the Muslim countries with some of the worst records on their treatment of Christians are also the most interested in interfaith initiatives in the West:
Few things offer surreal experiences as when Islam and the West interact—when 7th century primordialism encounters 21st century relativism. Consider the issue of “interfaith dialogue.” In principle, it is a decent thing: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others trying to reach a common ground and professing mutual respect. But what does one make of the gross contradictions that emerge when a human-rights violating nation calls for “dialogue,” even as it enforces religious intolerance on its own turf?
Enter Saudi Arabia. Birthplace of Islam, the Arabian kingdom is also the one Muslim nation that regularly sponsors interfaith initiatives in the West—even as its official policy back home is to demonize and persecute the very faiths it claims to want to have an interfaith dialogue with.
There are different positions within the Catholic Church with regard to Islam, with a minority of voices, some of which are powerful, dissenting from the official stance.
The two positions at the extreme opposites are exemplified by the late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, who was Archbishop of Milan, and Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Archbishop of Bologna.
The former is credited with having anticipated many bishops of Italy and Europe in stretching out an acquiescent hand towards Islam. As early as 1990 he dedicated his Saint Ambrose homely to “We and Islam.” In 2001, after 9/11, his Saint Ambrose homely had a title that substituted a clear stance with a list of concepts: “Terrorism, retaliation, self-defence, war and peace.”
On Islam, the most difficult issue of the decade, as well as on many other questions, Martini’s position has always been the search for a grey area, a balancing act: “We have to prevent the dramatic scenario of a clash of civilizations,” qualified by “We must not delegitimize the right to self-defence from terrorism and the need to extinguish its hotbeds.”
It is interesting how, replicating the ideological and political alliance between Islam and the Left in the Western lay world, Cardinal Martini, considered a progressive and constantly praised by the mainstream liberal media, was after his death eulogized by the leftist newspaper La Repubblica for having approved of policies ranging “from dialogue with Islam to yes to condoms” and because “he had never condemned euthanasia.”
Writer and blogger Antonio Socci thus sums him up rather unfavourably: “Everything imposed by ideological fashions found Martini open to dialogue and to all possibilities: ‘there is nothing wrong in two people, even homosexuals, having a stable relationship and in the State favouring them,’ he had said.”
At the other end of the spectrum is Cardinal Giacomo Biffi. As early as 30 September 2000, before 9/11, when not many people in the West worried about Islam at all, he delivered a speech at the Fondazione Migrantes seminar, “On Immigration”. The following [translated from Italian by the author] is what he said on Muslim immigration to Italy and Islam:
The case of Muslims
If we do not want to evade or censor realistic attention, it is apparent that the case of Muslims should be treated separately. And it is hoped that political leaders will not be afraid to face it with open eyes and without illusions.
Muslims – in their vast majority and with few exceptions – come here determined to remain alien to our “humanity”, individual and social, in its most essential, valuable, “secularly” non-renounceable aspects: more or less openly, they come here determined to remain substantially “different”, waiting for us all to become substantially like them.
They have different eating habits (not in itself a big problem), a different holiday in the week, a family law incompatible with our own, a concept of women very far removed from ours (going as far as practicing polygamy). Above all, they have a strictly fundamentalist view of public life, so much so that the perfect identification between religion and politics is part of their unquestionable and inalienable faith, although they prudently wait to become predominant before imposing it. It is therefore not the Church, but modern Western states that must think carefully about this.
I shall say more than that: if our state seriously believes in the importance of civil liberties (including religious) and democratic principles, it should work to make them more widespread, accepted and practiced at all latitudes. A small tool to achieve this goal is the request of being given a not purely verbal “reciprocity” by the immigrants’ countries of origin.
In this respect the Italian Bishops Conference wrote in 1993: “In many Islamic countries it is almost impossible to adhere to and freely practice Christianity. There are no places of worship, non-Islamic religious events are not allowed, not even minimal ecclesiastical organizations exist. That raises the difficult problem of reciprocity. And this is a problem that affects not only the Church, but also civil society and politics, the world of culture and even international relations. For his part, the Pope is tireless in asking everyone to respect the fundamental right to religious freedom” (n. 34). But – we say – asking does not help very much, even if the pope cannot do any more.
Although it may seem alien to our mentality and even paradoxical, the only effective and not unrealistic way to promote the “principle of reciprocity” by a really “secular” state, truly interested in propagating human freedoms, would be to allow for Muslims in Italy only the authorization of institutions which Muslim countries actually allow for others. [...]
In an interview ten years ago, I was asked with great candor and with enviable optimism: “Are You among those who believe that Europe will either be Christian or cease to exist?” I think my answer then may well serve to conclude my speech today.
I think – I said – that either Europe will become Christian again or it will become Muslim. What I see without future is the “culture of nothing”, of freedom without limits and without content, of skepticism boasted as intellectual achievement, which seems to be the attitude largely dominant among European peoples, all more or less rich of means and poor of truths. This “culture of nothingness” (sustained by hedonism and libertarian insatiability) will not be able to withstand the ideological onslaught of Islam, which will not be missing: only the rediscovery of the Christian event as the only salvation for man – and therefore only a strong resurrection of the ancient soul of Europe – will offer a different outcome to this inevitable confrontation.
Unfortunately, neither “secularists” nor “Catholics” seem to have so far realized the tragedy that is looming. “Secularists”, opposing the Church in every way, do not realize that they are fighting against the strongest inspiration and the most effective defence of Western civilization and its values of rationality and freedom: they might realize it too late. “Catholics”, letting the knowledge of the truth they possessed fade in themselves and replacing apostolic anxiety with pure and simple dialogue at all costs, unconsciously pave the way (humanly speaking) to their own extinction. The only hope is that the seriousness of the situation may at some point lead to an effective awakening both of reason and of the ancient faith.
It is our hope, our commitment, our prayer.
Written in 2000. All predictions confirmed. Truer, if possible, now than it was even then.
Human rights: The court in Strasbourg found that the decision to re-detain Abdi in 2008 was not lawful because the required reviews weren’t carried out
European Court ”Re-Molests” British Little Girls
Mustafa Abdi was jailed in 1998 for rape and indecency with a child
Somali was later detained for two and a half years as he awaited deportation
This breached his right to liberty, European Court of Human Rights found
UK Government ordered to pay more than £7,000 in damages and legal costs
By Jack Doyle
A Somali paedophile has been given thousands of pounds by a human rights court – and released on to the streets.
Ministers have spent more than a decade trying and failing to deport Mustafa Abdi, who is thought to have cost taxpayers more than £600,000 in jail costs and legal aid.
But yesterday Strasbourg judges ordered the British government to pay the convicted child rapist thousands of pounds in damages and legal costs.
The court said Abdi was ‘wrongfully detained’ for two and a half years, breaching his right to liberty.
Ministers had decided he should remain in jail while awaiting deportation because he presented a ‘high risk’ to the public. But it emerged he was released from prison in January this year because there was no prospect of him being deported any time soon.
He has spent around 13 years in jail and received tens of thousands of pounds in legal aid to help him thwart deportation.
Last night Home Office officials were still insisting they would ‘continue to seek to deport’ him – despite having failed to do so since 2002.
Abdi, who was born in 1975, arrived in Britain in May 1995. His asylum claim was rejected, but he was given leave to remain in Britain until February 2000.
In 1998 he was convicted of rape and indecency with a child and sentenced to eight years in prison.
In May 2002 David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, ordered his deportation – but Abdi made the first of several appeals.
While in prison he was assessed as presenting a ‘high risk’ of sexual offending if let out. As a result he was detained after his sentence was completed while ministers tried to deport him.
They were thwarted because no airline was prepared to fly him, or any other Somali nationals, back home against their will. Abdi refused to return home voluntarily.
In September 2006 he was given permission to apply for a judicial review of the decision to keep him behind bars.
He won his initial case, but the Court of Appeal ruled that his detention between December 2004 and June 2006 was lawful because he could have returned to Somalia voluntarily. He was let out in April 2007 but arrested again a year later after breaching his bail conditions by failing to report to police.
Ministers struggle to return Somali nationals home, even those convicted of heinous crimes, because of another ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.
Yesterday the same court overturned the British court’s ruling and said his detention was unlawful because regular case reviews did not take place.
The Strasbourg judges ordered the Government to pay £1,277 (1,500 euros) in damages and £5,960 (7,000 euros) for legal costs and expenses. It is thought he has received between £20,000 and £30,000 in legal aid in Britain, while taxpayers have also had to cough up £45,000 a year for jail costs.
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We are extremely disappointed with the court’s decision and are urgently reviewing our options.
‘We will continue to seek to deport this individual who has shown a complete disregard for the laws of this country.
‘We believe it is right that dangerous individuals are kept in detention, wherever possible, in order to protect the public.’