Supporting The Respect Party For The UK General Election 2010 - The Only Truly Patriotic Party For The U.K.

I Back BNP Policies, Says Sikh

Category : Corruption, United Kingdom, War on Terror

This is soooo funny. I was just thinking yesterday how I thought the first non-whites to join the BNP would be sikhs and hindus, along with zionists.

Why did I think that?

Because sikhs and hindus are no different when it comes to Islam: They’re all Islamophobes.

That’s why Israel and India love each other so much – because of their common hatred for Islam.

It’s not a new thing: It’s always been there for them.

In the article below Rajinder Singh claims Muslims made life difficult for them in India. Muslims were the minority as opposed to hindus and sikhs over there. Alway were.

And it was they who were oppressing the Muslims. Check out Slumdog Millionaire where the hindus go around killing Muslims.  That’s based on fact.

But of course, as with Israel, they’re always the victims, despite their murderous ways.

However, there’s a true story about an Indian who betrayed India during the time of British rule over there. It was a guy named Mirza something. I can’t quite remember his name.

Anyway, what happened was, the British promised this guy wealth and position if he spied for them. So he did.

Now here’s the rub. When the British got what they wanted, they invited him to their ‘embassy’ to reward him.

When he got there, they set the dogs on him. Literally.

They bascially said, ‘If you’re own people can’t trust you, how can we?’

And the dogs killed him and ate him.

Remember that, Rajinder Singh, for you may be going the same way. The BNP will probably turn out to be the dogs which kill you and drink your blood. And kicks your family out of the country.

And I’ll be laughing at you while they do it.

A 78-year-old Sikh, soon to be the first non-white member of the BNP, has told why he supports the far-right party.



Rajinder Singh spoke a day after the BNP voted to change its constitution to allow black and Asian people to join.


A 78-year-old Sikh is soon to be the first non-white member of Nick Griffin’s BNP party

The party made the decision at an extraordinary general meeting in Essex on Sunday after it was told by Central London County Court to amend its constitution to comply with race relations laws or face legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

On Sunday, leader Nick Griffin said he expected to welcome Mr Singh soon as the BNP’s first non-white member.

Mr Singh said he would gladly join the party, although being a member or not would not change his support of its policies: “If they say ‘join’, I can’t chicken out now. I will support them to the hilt, for their policies. I’m just pleased for them, not pleased for myself, because it doesn’t change anything in me.

“It doesn’t change my attitude to them, my loyalty to them. That doesn’t change whether I am a member or not. I am still loyal to them.”

Speaking at his home in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, Mr Singh praised Mr Griffin for “taking on the whole storm of lefties” who, he said, wanted to encourage multiculturalism.

Mr Singh, who was born in West Punjab, India, said he left the country in 1967 after seeing years of violence caused by the partition of the country, which also saw the death of his father.

He said the BNP was the only party he felt would take on the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, and “save” Britain – preventing any repetition of what he had seen in India.

“BNP are home-grown sons of this soil, not home-grown terrorists – there’s a big distinction. They want to save this country and, when they save it for themselves, it will be good for me too.”

From>> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/813282-i-back-bnp-policies-says-sikh

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

People Are Seeing The Truth In Palestine – Israel Is Losing The Hearts And Minds Battle

Category : Gaza, Human Rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism

Forget what governments are telling us.

Certainly forget what Israel seems to think world opinion is regarding the Middle East.

If you want to find out how people feel just check the comments sections in the online news sites.

Take the Haaretz as an example: A story about a Palestinian Policeman killing an Israeli soldier has more comments in support of Palestine and their resistance to the Israeli occupation.

Yes, there are comments in support of Israel.  But while there are zionists around, you’ll get them.

For it is only the zionists who support Israel.

Go to any site where people can comment (YouTube, for example) and you’ll see the majority of them are against Israel.

In fact, there are many who are against Jews, full stop.

While that is not necessarily correct, as there are many Jews who oppose the occupation, this demonstrates how Israel’s policy of murdering Palestinians is affecting their own people.

Israeli policy is killing Jews as well as Muslims.

Although, Israel would probably label those Jews as ’self-hating’ Jews.  In other words, it’s their way of dismissing the killings of their own people.  It makes it more bearable to them.

And it also shows the non-state of Israel has ntohing to do with real Judaism.

Whatever.

The fact is, people all over the world now see Israel for what it really is: A pariah.

Incidentally, did anyone notice the obvious links with The Matrix movies and Israel?

I know, I know.  It was actually based on Israel, Judaism and their belief that a Jew will free the human race from enslavement. (My guess is it was made by zionists).

What I’m referring to is how it turned out their messiah turned out to be a… virus!

That’s right, Neo was a virus released in to the computer to destroy it.

Here’s a definition of a virus according to Dictionary.com:

1. an ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nm in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, mainly bacteria, plants, and animals: composed of an RNA or DNA core, a protein coat, and, in more complex types, a surrounding envelope.
2. Informal. a viral disease.
3. a corrupting influence on morals or the intellect; poison.
4. a segment of self-replicating code planted illegally in a computer program, often to damage or shut down a system or network.

Now, what does that remind you of?

During his speech, Berlusconi lambasted the UN’s Goldstone Commission for trying to “incriminate Israel for its legitimate response” to incessant Palestinian rocket fire during last year’s Gaza war, and fully sided with Jerusalem on the demand for much stronger international action against Iran’s nuclear program.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Sarkozy’s Rejection of the Burqa Will Only Further Marginalize Muslims

Category : France, Human Rights

By Sabria Jawhar

Muslim women locked in a tyrannical chokehold by Muslim men can rest easy. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is ready to rescue us.

In a breathtaking moment of hubris, Sarkozy in a speech to France’s Parliament said there is no place for the burqa in France.

“In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” Sarkozy said. “The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.”

For the record, I wear the abaya and niqab in Saudi Arabia. I wear the abaya and niqab because it’s my choice. Contrary to popular Western myth, the abaya is not forced on women in Saudi Arabia. As an Islamic country, women are only required to cover the details of their body. While I am living abroad I wear a different style and color hijab that is conducive to the environment I live in. I choose not to wear the common black abaya in the United Kingdom for my own personal reasons that are nobody’s business but my own. But if I ever decide to put on the abaya and niqab the way I do in Saudi Arabia that also is my own business.

Sarkozy is echoing what many French lawmakers have been demanding the past few years. They want to create a commission to examine the possibility of a full-scale burqa ban. The issue is divisive as some lawmakers say it will create tensions between France’s Muslim population of 5 million people and non-Muslims.

Sarkozy provides us with yet another example of how Western nations define human rights and the oppression of women. It’s assumed that if a woman is wearing the burqa, it is forced on her. Because, really, who in their right mind would wear such a thing?

But in Saudi culture the abaya is part of our identity, an identity that most of us happily embrace. Young Saudi girls often emulate their mothers and older sisters by wearing the abaya before they even hit puberty. This differs little from young Western girls who wear their mothers’ clothing and high heels.

Although there are certainly cases in which women are forced to wear the burqa or abaya, the majority do so because they want to. The French government will be faced with the task of how to determine who embraces the burqa and who is forced to wear one. It appears, however, that France is willing to consider the easy route by simply banning it all together rather than bother itself with considering what Muslim women want.

There seems to be the misconception that wearing the burqa excludes women from participating in French society. Somehow the burqa prevents women from asking the clerk at the grocery store what’s on sale, having parent-teacher conferences at their kid’s school, or running for municipal office.

What the French government is demanding is that Muslim women become active members of society under the government’s rules. Rules that apparently don’t apply to Hasidic Jews or Catholic school girls forced to wear pleated skirts and knee-high socks. These forms of cultural and religious dress are acceptable by Western standards, yet Muslims are excluded from the club.

By imposing a dress code the government sets the parameters of social etiquette. In effect, by mandating a dress code the French government excludes many Muslim women from society. Muslim women who believe it’s their right to wear the burqa simply will not leave their homes. They will not engage the grocer and their kid’s teacher. They will not run for public office. The oppression will not come from their culture or religion, but the French Republic.

What is lost in the hubbub of public debate over this cockamamie burqa ban proposal is that we allow our civil liberties to slowly erode. In 2004, the hijab, along with other religious symbols, were banned in France’s public institutions. Today the French take another step by considering banning yet another piece of clothing. Tomorrow? Will the French see the Islamic requirement of praying five times a day a sign of oppression and implement a ban? Will it decide that Hasidic Jewish women’s scarves and conservative dress required by Jewish law is oppressive? Where do they draw the line between oppression and freedom?

The Muslim community has always viewed France as friendly and tolerant. Now France’s Muslims find themselves more marginalized than ever as the West continues to determine what is best for them. France should know better. There are many French citizens alive today who remember when one segment of French society was once ostracized, had its religious and cultural symbols stolen or destroyed, denied the right to worship or wear clothing that identified their religion, and ultimately put to death. It seems that France is on the path to revisit that part of their history.

From >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sabria-jawhar/sarkozys-rejection-of-the_b_220564.html

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

If You Live In Blackburn U.K. Remember This…

Category : UK General Election 2010

I felt uneasy talking to someone I couldn’t see

That’s what Jack Straw said, in October 2006, on meeting a Muslim woman wearing the hijab.

I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the first time he had met a woman with a Hijab, so why start with this type of thing then?

Whatever his reasons he shouldn’t be given the chance to come face to face with someone who voted for him if that’s his attitude toward them.

Personally, I’m surprised the Muslims of Blackburn voted for him in the local elections.

My suggestion?

Make sure you don’t make the same mistake again.

Vote for someone else.  If muslim councillors are in the Labour party, don’t vote for them — they should know better.

The general elections will be here soon.  Make sure you vote someone other than Labour or Tories.

Here’s Jack Straw’s full article:

“It’s really nice to meet you face-to-face, Mr Straw,” said this pleasant lady, in a broad Lancashire accent. She had come to my constituency advice bureau with a problem. I smiled back. “The chance would be a fine thing,” I thought to myself but did not say out loud. The lady was wearing the full veil. Her eyes were uncovered but the rest of her face was in cloth.Her husband, a professional man whom I vaguely knew, was with her. She did most of the talking. I got down the detail of the problem, told the lady and her husband that I thought I could sort it out, and we parted amicably.

All this was about a year ago. It was not the first time I had conducted an interview with someone in a full veil, but this particular encounter, though very polite and respectful on both sides, got me thinking. In part, this was because of the apparent incongruity between the signals which indicate common bonds – the entirely English accent, the couple’s education (wholly in the UK) – and the fact of the veil. Above all, it was because I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone “face-to-face” who I could not see.

So I decided that I wouldn’t just sit there the next time a lady turned up to see me in a full veil, and I haven’t.

Now, I always ensure that a female member of my staff is with me. I explain that this is a country built on freedoms. I defend absolutely the right of any woman to wear a headscarf. As for the full veil, wearing it breaks no laws.

I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face. Indeed, the value of a meeting, as opposed to a letter or phone call, is so that you can – almost literally – see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say. So many of the judgments we all make about other people come from seeing their faces.

I thought it may be hard going when I made my request for face-to-face interviews in these circumstances. However, I can’t recall a single occasion when the lady concerned refused to lift her veil; and most I ask seem relieved I have done so. Last Friday was a case in point. The veil came off almost as soon as I opened my mouth. I dealt with the problems the lady had brought to me. We then had a really interesting debate about veil wearing. This itself contained some surprises. It became absolutely clear to me that the husband had played no part in her decision. She explained she had read some books and thought about the issue. She felt more comfortable wearing the veil when out. People bothered her less.

OK, I said, but did she think that veil wearing was required by the Qur’an? I was no expert, but many Muslim scholars said the full veil was not obligatory at all. And women as well as men went head uncovered the whole time when in their hajj – pilgrimage – in Mecca. The husband chipped in to say that this matter was “more cultural than religious”. I said I would reflect on what the lady had said to me. Would she, however, think hard about what I said – in particular about my concern that wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult. It was such a visible statement of separation and of difference.

I thought a lot before raising this matter a year ago, and still more before writing this. But if not me, who? My concerns could be misplaced. But I think there is an issue here.

From >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/06/politics.uk

elegraph, which prompted the debate

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace