Sunday, June 10, 2018

London Closes 500 Churches; Opens 423 New Mosques. The creeping Islamization of London is almost complete, with hundreds of official sharia courts operating in the capital, and mosques opening where famous Christian churches have stood for many hundreds of years.

The article below is very well-referenced but is rather alarming so I had a look at what Snopes says about it. They of course branded it as False but, in a way rather typical of Snopes, what they said was mostly quibbles. They said that not all the mosques were recently built and most were small buildings. They also noted that most of the deconsecrated churches had become private homes rather than mosques and that hundreds of new churches had been built. But most of the new churches were black Pentecostal churches so are well outside the mainstream of English life and not therefore very relevant to it. So those quibbles do very little to detract from the overall message of English spirituality being in steep decline amid an influx of Muslims.

Snopes however would appear to know very little about either the history of religion or its present reality.  They  probably think they don't have to.  But that ignorance led  to them missing  the important issue about religion in England: The last upsurge of religiosity in England was at the time of Oliver Cromwell (1599 – 1658) and religious interest has been declining ever since -- though with a couple of minority revivals in the form of the Methodists and the Salvation Army. And the Methodists were mostly in Wales rather than England. So England from quite early on was only formally religious. The Church of England became a mainly social institution. And in the post WWII era the great majority of the English didn't go to church at all.

Australians are mostly of British origin so they too are predominantly irreligious -- though the Irish Catholic influence did keep average church attendance up a bit for a while. In the long gone days of my youth it was common for official forms to include a question about religion and I remember that my father would always put himself down as "C of E". But in all my life I never once saw him set foot in any church, let alone the Church of England. So that is to this day a very telling picture of English religiosity.

So the vast majority of the English are neither Christian nor Muslim. They are simply irreligious. And that is the important thing about religion in England. The sprouting of Mosques here and there in England is simply irrelevant to them.

“London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together“, according to Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi, one of the Islamic preachers who now lead “Londonistan“, as the journalist Melanie Phillips has called the English capital. No, Rizvi is not a right-wing extremist.

Nobel Laureate for Literature,Wole Soyinka,  was less generous. He called the UK “a cesspit for Islamists“.

Terrorists can not stand London multiculturalism“, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan said after the deadly terror attack at Westminster last year. The opposite is true: British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism

Above all, Londonistan, with its 423 new mosques, is being built on the sad ruins of English Christianity. Many iconic Christian churches in London have been converted into mosques.

Gatestone Institute reports: The Hyatt United Church was bought by the Egyptian community to be converted to a mosque. St Peter’s Churchhas been converted into the Madina Mosque. The Brick Lane Mosque was built on a former Methodist church.

Not only buildings are converted, but also people. The number of converts to Islam has doubled; often they embrace radical Islam, as with Khalid Masood, the terrorist who struck Westminster.

The Daily Mail published photographs of a church and a mosque a few meters from each other in the heart of London. At the Church of San Giorgio, designed to accommodate 1,230 worshipers, only 12 people gathered to celebrate Mass. At the Church of Santa Maria, there were 20.

The nearby Brune Street Estate mosque has a different problem: overcrowding. Its small room and can contain only 100. On Friday, the faithful must pour into the street to pray. Given the current trends, Christianity in England is becoming a relic, while Islam will be the religion of the future.

In Birmingham, the second-largest British city, where many jihadists live and orchestrate their attacks, an Islamic minaret dominates the sky. There are petitions to allow British mosques to call the Islamic faithful to prayer on loudspeakers three times a day.

By 2020, estimates are that the number of Muslims attending prayers will reach at least 683,000, while the number of Christians attending weekly Mass will drop to 679,000. “The new cultural landscape of English cities has arrived; the homogenised, Christian landscape of state religion is in retreat”, said Ceri Peachof Oxford University. While nearly half of British Muslims are under the age of 25, a quarter of Christians are over 65. “In another 20 years there are going to be more active Muslims than there are churchgoers,” said

Since 2001, 500 London churches of all denominations have been turned into private homes. During the same period, British mosques have been proliferating. Between 2012 and 2014, the proportion of Britons who identify themselves as Anglicans fell from 21% to 17%, a decrease of 1.7 million people, while, according to a survey conducted by the respected NatCen Social Research Institute, the number of Muslims has grown by almost a million. Churchgoers are declining at a rate that within a generation, their number will be three times lower than that of Muslims who go regularly to mosque on Friday.

Demographically, Britain has been acquiring an increasingly an Islamic face, in places such as Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets. In 2015, an analysis of the most common name in England showed it was Mohammed, including spelling variations such as Muhammad and Mohammad.

Most important cities have huge Muslim populations: Manchester (15.8%), Birmingham (21.8%) and Bradford (24.7%). In Birmingham, the police just dismantled a terrorist cell; there is also a greater probability that a child will be born into a Muslim family than into a Christian one. In Bradford and Leicester, half the children are Muslim. Muslims do not need to become the majority in the UK; they just need gradually to Islamize the most important cities. The change is already taking place. “Londonistan” is not a Muslim majority nightmare; it is a cultural, demographic and religious hybrid in which Christianity declines and Islam advances.

According to Innes Bowen, writing in The Spectator, only two of the 1,700 mosques in Britain today follow the modernist interpretation of Islam, compared with 56% in the United States. The Wahhabis control six percent of mosques in the UK, while the fundamentalist Deobandi control up to 45%. According to a survey from the Knowledge Center, a third of UK Muslims do not feel “part of British culture.”


London is also full of sharia courts. There are officially 100. The advent of this parallel judicial system has been made possible thanks to the British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution. These new courts are based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values ​​of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law.

British personalities keep opening the door to introduce sharia. One of Britain’s leading judges, Sir James Munby, said that Christianity no longer influences the courts and these must be multicultural — which means more Islamic. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chief Justice Lord Phillips also suggested that British law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law. The British cultural establishment is rapidly capitulating to Islamic fundamentalists in accepting their demands.

British universities are also advancing Islamic law. The official guidelines of the university, “External speakers in higher education institutions“, published by Universities UK, provide that “orthodox religious groups” may separate men and women during events. At Queen Mary University of London, women had to use a separate entrance and were forced to sit in a room without being able to ask questions or raise their hands — as in Riyadh or Tehran. The Islamic Society at the London School of Economics held a gala, in which women and men were separated by a seven-meter panel.

After the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, recommended self-censorship and “some restraint” in discussing Islam. The British ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, converted to Islam and completed the pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj. He now calls himself Haji Collis.

What will be next?


Why real Christians MUST support Israel and its holy city

The holiness and Jewishness of Jerusalem is deeply embedded in our Christian culture

British cops took more than two months to let man falsely accused of rape know he’d already been cleared

Gross negligence from the British police again. Rape allegations are usually extremely disruptive to the lives of those accused but the British police have shown repeatedly that they care nothing about that

WHEN Paul broke up with his girlfriend she sent him messages promising revenge. He says what she did next “destroyed” him.

POLICE took more than two months to let an innocent man who had been falsely accused of rape know he had been cleared, it emerged today.

Paul Faulkner, 46, was left suicidal over the stress after his partner made a string of allegations against him when he broke up with her in May 2016.

Despite the police having WhatsApp messages from his accuser where she told him it was for “revenge”, the CPS took nearly two years to clear Mr Faulkner.

Incredibly, police then took a further two months to let him know that he had been cleared of all charges.

Speaking today, he told The Sun Online: “I’d shown them the evidence, I’d shown them the texts and shown how I was innocent.

“But instead they destroy my life, I lose my job and now I realise that they even knew I was innocent but could not be bothered to tell me.”’

The revelation is the latest disturbing example of how the police handle rape cases, after a damning report published yesterday saw nearly 50 collapse over withheld evidence.

Mr Faulkner lost his £100,000-a-year job ($175,000) after being branded a “reputational risk” by bosses when four cops raided his home and arrested him on suspicion of assault, actual bodily harm, sexual assault and coercive control in August 2016.

He remained on bail without charge and Hertfordshire Police officers informed him, after 70 weeks on December 21 2017, that he’d been cleared of rape.

But it was not until February this year — just after we revealed his story — that police informed him he’d been cleared of all charges levelled against him.

After making a request under data protection laws to access information the cops held about him, Mr Faulkner discovered shocking internal memos which showed how he had not been informed for more than 2 months, after the CPS cleared him in November.

He told The Sun Online how he’d been preparing his suicide for New Year’s Day, as the false allegations hanging over him for more than 70 weeks took their toll.

“I also find out in these memos that they are referring to me as an ‘offender’. Like I’m guilty when I’m not,” he added.

“The only way that I feel my case can be described is abuse — I feel abused by Hertfordshire Police.”

Mr Faulkner has also shared phone recordings with The Sun Online in which he can be heard telling an officer the length he’d been on police bail without charge as he sought an update on his case.

The officer can be heard gasping, and says: “Oh God”.

A spokesman for Hertfordshire Constabulary said: “Mr Faulkner has made an official complaint to Hertfordshire Constabulary and while this is being reviewed it would be inappropriate to comment any further.”

Yesterday it was revealed that fifty rape cases collapsed in just two months after an urgent review discovered key evidence was kept secret from defence lawyers.

Prosecutors launched the inquiry after a number of high profile trials fell apart because evidence emerged which cleared the names of men accused of rape.

After reviewing every single ongoing rape case, they stopped 47 where the facts hadn’t been disclosed properly.

In each of those cases, the defendants should have been told earlier that police had found evidence which suggested they were not guilty.

Chief prosecutor Alison Saunders yesterday apologised to those affected by the evidence blunders.

She said: “Getting disclosure right is a fundamental part of a fair criminal justice system. Our analysis shows that in the vast majority of cases we are doing that.

“But there are cases where we are falling short, and that is unacceptable.

“I recognise the huge impact on individuals involved, and deeply regret every case where mistakes have been made.”


'This is DEEPLY offensive!' Twitter users voice their horror over Google's new 'inclusive' salad emoji, after designers revealed they removed the egg to make it vegan-friendly

It seems a storm in a teacup to me. I never put eggs in my salad anyway.  Danish Feta cheese and avocado are my trademarks.  And I don't care a fig what others put in their salad

An emoji designer has revealed that Google removed the egg from it's salad symbol in order to be more inclusive towards vegans.

Jennifer Daniel, a Google UX Manager at Expression design team, informed social media about changes to the company's symbols, including the addition of red-headed characters.

But one change has the public in an uproar after Jennifer revealed the new salad emoji would no longer include an egg.

Not woke: Another person pointed out that the salad now excludes everyone who is not vegan

'There's big talk about inclusion and diversity at Google so if you need any evidence of Google is making this priority may I direct your attention to the (salad) emoji— we've removed the egg in Android P beta 2, making this a more inclusive vegan salad,' she wrote on Twitter.

Commenters who responded to the tweet were confused if Jennifer was trying to be funny or if that was the actual reason for removing the egg.

'Serious question: is this in earnest or intentionally ironic parody?' One person asked after the tweet was posted.

But mostly everyone was surprised that this is what one company is focusing on in terms of inclusion.

One person wrote: '1960: "In 2018 we'll have flying cars and travel across space!" 2018: "We removed an egg from an emoji because it hurt someones feelings."'

A consistent point to the change that people made was that by excluding the egg, it also excluded most people who did not participate in veganism.

'Why don't you make a salad for every preference instead of this hateful exclusion of everyone who isn't vegan?' One angry commenter wrote. 


Julian Burnside QC shows the usual Leftist myopia to Australia's refugee problem

I am almost certainly wasting my time in putting up any reply to anything a Leftist says and Burnside's track record makes that particularly so in his case. But I have 15 minutes to spare so I will proceed:

Burnside criticizes the way Australia treats "boat people", people who thought that they could crash their way into Australian residence by exploiting the reluctance of Australians to treat anyone in poor circumstances harshly. And Labour party governments under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard did treat boat people considerately.

But that treatment simply meant more and more rickety boats ending up on Australian shores. And Australians didn't like that. Polls showed that a big majority wanted the flow to stop and even for existing arrivals to be sent back. Australia accepts vetted refugees and others in huge numbers every year at great stress to our infrastructure so it is hardly unreasonable to reject another big inflow of unvetted arrivals.

And Tony Abbott got a big electoral endorsement to stop the boats coming and proceeded to do so. But he achieved that in the only way that would work: By being tough on boat peole. He was assisted in that by a declaration from Leftist leader Kevin Rudd in the dying days of his regime that no boat people ever would be given Australian residence.

But what to do with the boat people already coming under Australian jurisdiction? To give them Australian residence or any comfortable life would simply restart the flow. So a residue of boat people is deliberately treated restrictively as a warning to others. It is that harshness which Burnside criticizes. And Burnside omits that Australia has an open offer to all of them to fly them back to their home country. Very few have taken that option. So they are in a limbo of their own making. They have food and accommodation at the Australian taxpayer's expense so it is not surprising that they do not want to go back

At this point Burnside will righteously explode that they risk their lives if they go back. They do not. They all had refuge the minute they crossed their country's borders -- mostly into Pakistan. And many are still in Pakistan. But a minority of rich ones decided that life in Pakistan was too harsh for them so boarded airliners to take them thousands of miles to places in Indonesia where they could hop onto the pity boats. They are simply economic migrants, not refugees. They could go back to Pakistan if they really wanted to but they prefer the "harsh" treatment that Australia offers.

So Burnside is just virtue signalling. He does not address the situation that the Australian government has been forced into.

The irony is that, being affluent citizens of their home countries, many of the boat people could probably have qualified in time to come to Australia as legitimate immigrants. They were just arrogant and impatient. We are better off without them

The top politicians in this country are guilty of major criminal offences, but they are unlikely ever to be tried for them, says lawyer Julian Burnside.

“I think it’s pretty clear that Australian prime ministers and immigration ministers are guilty of criminal offences against our own law,” says the Melbourne-based QC. “The problem is that no one can bring a prosecution for those offences without the approval of the Attorney General. Take a lucky guess what the Attorney General would say.”

In a new documentary, Australian human rights barrister Julian Burnside examines the harsh treatment of refugees around the world by western democracies.

The offences he has in mind involve the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers – deliberate and unnecessary cruelty that amounts, he argues in the documentary Border Politics, to torture.

Since 2002, Australia has been a signature member of the International Criminal Court, and as a result, he explains, “there is a series of offences [in Australian law] that mirror the offences over which the ICC has jurisdiction.”

It was compulsory for Australia to introduce those laws, and some were well overdue. “Until then, believe it or not, genocide was not an offence under Australian criminal law,” he says. “But it is now.”

In Border Politics, which is getting a limited release nationally, Burnside – who says he does not enjoy travel – roams the world to see how our treatment of asylum seekers stacks up. The short answer: terribly.

“The way we are seen overseas is really worrying,” he says. “It’s vaguely embarrassing to be in another country and disclose that you’re Australian. It’s like, I guess, being in another country and disclosing you’re American, because of Trump.”

He traces the root of this systematic abuse of people we are obliged take in (under a raft of international conventions but most crucially the UN Convention on Human Rights) to 9/11.

Genuine tragedy though it was, it has been ruthlessly exploited ever since by politicians on both sides of the divide to whip up anti-refugee hysteria, and to depict those seeking asylum as somehow inherently criminal.

Under the laws to which Australia is a signatory, they are not. But, arguably, our political leaders are.

But surely the politicians would say they are only reflecting the will of the people they serve?

“That’s right,” he says. “That’s the Jim Hacker approach to leading the country, when he said in Yes, Prime Minister, ‘I’m their leader, I must follow them’. And that is exactly what we’ve seen in recent years in Australia.

“Since the Tampa episode the Coalition has repeatedly called boat people ‘illegal’ even though they don’t commit an offence [in coming here as refugees by boat], and they call the exercise of pushing them away ‘border protection’. So I think the majority of the public think that we are being protected from criminals, which, if it was true, would make sense. But it’s false. The public has been persuaded to go along with dreadful mistreatment of people who are innocent and who are, almost all of them, genuine refugees.

“I think that’s terrible. Deceiving the country into doing very bad things to innocent people is something this country shouldn’t do. And it’s absolutely meaningless to try and find out what the public think about it because the ‘it’ is something about which they have been misled for so long.”

Border Politics debuted at last month's Human Rights and Arts Film Festival, where it preached to the converted. But, Burnside readily admits, the ideal audience as it plays more broadly is something else entirely.

“People who disagree with me,” he says. “I’ll be doing some Q&A sessions after screenings and I reckon people who disagree with me should come along and challenge my views. If they’re so confident that it’s right to mistreat innocent people, let them come along and explain why and challenge me.

“Unless you’re someone who thinks mistreatment of innocent people is OK, I think the case for proper treatment of boat people is overwhelmingly strong,” he adds. “And I’m perfectly happy to be challenged on that.”



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: