Review - where we are and hopes for 2007
So where exactly are we? Has any progress been made during 2006? Some, certainly. While not exactly the prospect of a "new dawn", we appear to have witnessed the beginning of an official change of heart over multiculturalism with Trevor Phillips, Jack Straw and the Prime Minister himself all saying that people in the UK should integrate more. What a shame that it’s taken them so long to realise that… The problem is that it's not enough. Back in March, a few of us got together to hold a small pro “freedom of expression” rally (MfFE) in Trafalgar Square in opposition to the hysterical reaction of some Muslims to the publication of the Danish Cartoons. This small movement largely fizzled out and can only now be found on a few blogs and websites, though, judging from public comments on the BBC and national newspapers’ websites, the ideas behind the MfFE are very popular with the general public who have clearly had enough of the current situation of appeasement and creeping subservience to an increasing vocal and confident Muslim minority. Perhaps the problem is of definition. Most people in the UK are in favour of “freedom of speech” or “freedom of expression” and that, in itself, doesn’t grab the headlines or even explain what this is all about. It’s a bit like “The War on Terror” - what does that mean? We all oppose terror. Is it perhaps a euphemism for a war on Islam in general? Some Muslims clearly think that it is, which doesn’t help much. Many of us on the rally are not against all Muslims per se but we need to have a clearer idea of what, exactly, draws us to this cause. The 910 Group defines it thus: http://the-910-group.blogspot.com/2006/11/910-group-statement-of-principles.html The 910 Group: Statement of Principles The 910 Vision is for Liberty to Prevail Worldwide The 910 Group is an international movement of individuals who work actively for liberty throughout the world. This liberty must be founded upon the right of all individuals to live without fear of oppression by governmental or religious powers. · We work to establish and preserve basic human rights through representative democracy. · We seek to reverse radical islam’s intention to wage global jihad, and stop any totalitarian movement to impose fascist domination upon any unwilling persons or nations. · We promote individual rights, the separation of church and state, and the universal values of freedom of speech and expression, of religion, the right to assembly and association. · We encourage a tolerant environment of goodwill that promotes the foundational values of western civilization with respect for historic cultural and national aspirations. · We are committed to the productivity of civil society, so the individual must be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his labor on his own terms, within societies based upon equal application of civil law for all persons. · We denounce the use of violence, while appreciating the right of self-defense; we repudiate all motives sourced from hate, revenge, or intolerance. · We welcome cooperative association with all individuals and groups of like mind, in order to leverage our efforts in promoting the common good and prohibiting any oppression of the human spirit. The independent individuals comprising the 910 Group pledge to implement these principles through watchfulness, education, and political activism, so that all mankind may enjoy its birthright as a free people. My current favourite is “anti-Jihadists” and this well thought out post by Derius on Talk Veritas explains the thinking behind this: http://talkveritas.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1455 (exerpt) “One way to combat all of this is to be precise in our terminology. Anybody trying to spead Islam in a non muslim state should be referred to as a "Jihadist". Not only is this factually accurate, but if anybody, most of all a muslim pulls you up on this, then merely smile and explain the Jihad does not mean physical violence, but merely the struggle to bring the world under Islamic Law, and that you find their assertion that Jihad is automatically violent to be offensive. Turn it back on the apologists! Al Qaeda should be termed "violent Jihadists", as their chosen instrument of Jihad is violence. This is why our Government is wrong when they say that the goal of such people is to divide communities. Their goal is actually to bring Islamic Law to the world. Note by inserting the world violent, you are correctly distinguishing between different methodologies used in spreading Islam. However, do not assume that all Muslims who conduct peaceful Jihad (through the political process, for example) automatically believe that using violence is wrong, a such a stance is not justified in Islamic teachings (see Sura's 8 and 9 for proof of this). For example, some muslims believe that demography will run it's course in Europe eventually through high muslim birth rates and unchecked muslim immigration, and therefore consider that not only is violent Jihad not needed, but is actually counter productive as it alerts Infidels to the threat that Islam poses to their own way of life. Therefore, when a muslim is asked "do you agree with the London Bombings", some will say no, not because they believe such attacks were unjustified, but because they will believe it is counter productive to what it set out to do. Despite this, 10% of Muslims still agreed with the attacks in two separate polls conducted in Britain, which should show the scale of the problem we now face. My final comment is that terms such as "Islamist", "extremists" and other examples should not be used. These terms are rarely defined, which leads to further confusion which Islamic apologists can use to obfuscate the issues at hand. Furthermore, we now have the terms "Jihadist" and "violent Jihadist", which have now been clearly defined, and avoid any misunderstanding. No other terms are necessary.” So to recap, it appears to me that many of us came together because we are against the creeping Islamification of our country brought about by Jihad. Derius eloquently explains that Jihad can take many forms, both violent and non-violent, but the end result is usually an advance for Islam. I hope that in 2007 we can be clearer and more honest about what, exactly, we are opposed to. We will have to see whether 2007 will finally be the year that we, the people of the UK, draw a line in the sand and collectively say with a strong voice, “Enough!” and “No More!” to those who would seek to abuse our hospitality and change our country to suit themselves.