Dhimmitude report from the UK
Bookworm on Apr 04 2008 at 6:16 pm | Filed under: Britain, Islam
Last I heard, the law of Great Britain required monogamous marriages, not polygamous ones. It also imposes speed limits that require drivers to travel at temperate speeds in certain neighborhoods, presumably to protect other drivers and pedestrians. In Scotland, however, these laws went out the window so that a Muslim commuting between his two wives (one of whom really ought not to exist in a legal sense), was allowed to speed without losing his license, even though his speeding was so significant that loss of license is the automatic penalty under the law:
When it comes to avoiding a ban for speeding, the courts hear every excuse in the book.
But yesterday one motorist offered what must be a unique reason why he should keep his licence.
Mohammed Anwar said a ban would make it difficult to commute between his two wives and fulfil his matrimonial duties.
His lawyer told a Scottish court the Muslim restaurant owner has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow - he is allowed up to four under his religion - and sleeps with them on alternate nights.
He also needed his driving licence to run his restaurant in Falkirk, Stirlingshire.
Airdrie Sheriff Court had heard that Anwar was caught driving at 64mph in a 30mph zone in Glasgow, fast enough to qualify for instant disqualification.
Anwar admitted the offence, but Sheriff John C. Morris accepted his plea not to be banned and allowed him to keep his licence.
Instead, he was fined £200 and given six penalty points.
Lorna Jackson, from the road safety charity Brake, called the decision “astonishing”.
She said: “Regardless of the number of wives or businesses this man drives to, he broke a law which is there to protect everyone.
“Travelling just a few miles over the limit in a 30mph zone can be the difference between life and death if you hit someone, let alone driving at more than twice the speed limit.
“Drivers know the law, and they know the punishment they could face when they break it.
“For the courts to allow someone to keep their licence when they have so blatantly flouted the law and put peoples’ lives at risk, on the basis of an excuse such as this, is astonishing.”
You can read the rest here, but it doesn’t get any better no matter how much of the article you read.
Email This Post To A Friend
17 Responses to “Dhimmitude report from the UK”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This simply cannot be true . . . I just can’t believe it!
Doesn’t Scotland have a law against bigamy or have they lifted that prohibition in honor of multiculturalism?
And if this is true, then on what basis can the authorities ever fine someone and disqualify them from possessing a license? I mean, if this excuse works (one that may include a confession of another law that was broken), then what excuse won’t?
I’m serious - I hope this is not true. If it is, then Europe is in much, much deeper trouble than I had thought.
Deana
After decades of fashionable extolling of the Third World and all for which it stands, Brits and Scots will soon get a chance to experience it first-hand under the New Caliphate.
I’m wondering if there has been any effort to formally assess what the average Joe-on-the-street over there thinks about the influx of Muslims. What does the average European think about stories like this?
I’m curious because there are certainly several influential people who have talked openly about this problem: Ayaan Hirsa Ali, Geert Wilder, etc. But they were already well-known beforehand.
If the situation in Europe is going to change, it is going to have to be because the average European is doing something about it.
This is truly scary.
Deana
Hi Deana:
If you want an insight into why it doesn’t matter what they think, consider this provocative insight:http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/04/hammer-sickle-of-eu.html#links
Well, you see officer……
… I was leaving one wife to see the other:Last I heard, the law of Great Britain required monogamous marriages, not polygamous ones. It also imposes speed limits that require drivers to travel at temperate speeds in certain neighborhoods, presumably…
[...] From the Bookworm Room: [...]
Religion has been in decline in Europe for decades. When you have no standard for judging right from wrong, when everything is relative, this is the natural result. Why should having one wife be better than having four? If nothing bad happened, what’s the problem with speeding?
When the Archbishop of Canterbury — the Crown’s sprirtual advisor — thinks Sharia law is OK by him, why should anyone have respect for the common law?
Danny -
I love the quote at the head of Wolf Howling’s webpage:
It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion. — Dean William Inge
True, true.
And the article you linked me to was interesting. Some of the points I don’t fully understand as I am not familiar with the details of European governance. Still, there is enough in there to give one serious pause. It’s hard, though, for me to believe that the average European is not aware of at least some of this, unless they are completely uninvolved with civic life.
Deana
My lover is metrosexual urban, and we enjoy jazz clubs and art museums in the heart of the city.
Yet once upon a midnight drear, I chanced upon a pasture clear,
And what my wondering eyes did peep
But the fetching allure of an adorable sheep.
Ewe I love, how I love ewe.
But ewe be three hours distant from the heart of the city! How am I to satisfy both my desires within the span of my one lunar eve?
The distance be no obstacle, indeed! I may speed the fastest route I choose, betwixt my urban and my pasture loves. Britannia - nay, Europa herself! - hath revealed the righteous and so wise way!
mooo-vin’ on down that road.
Hi Deana:
“It’s hard, though, for me to believe that the average European is not aware of at least some of this, unless they are completely uninvolved with civic life.”
As Book knows, I am half Euro, grew up there as an expat and still have much family there. What you describe is in what large part what I saw happening while I was there and would never, ever want for my own country. I will try to be brief - many Americans can’t relate to what I what describe here but I fear that many of us in the U.S. now show the same tendencies against which I warn.
I think that it all begins when the average citizen shrugs their shoulders and decides that it doesn’t matter, because “they” have all the power and will make all the decisions for them, anyway. This gives the citizen an intellectual excuse not to pay attention and get involved.
It is solidified by a political system that removes democracy further and further from the individual, which reinforces the disconnect between the individual and the State (as in a Parliamentary System and its strong centralized government. My EUro relatives are amazed that we apply our democratic system to the election of sheriffs, mayors, judges, resolutions, etc. In their parliamentary system, they only get to vote for which party gets to be in power.
It is further solidified when the State realizes that it can buy off its citizenry by convincing them that they cannot survive without the benevolence of the State. The State makes them feel grateful for mandating employee benefits, health care, retirement plans, public safety, and other entitlements, thereby convincing the average citizen that they no longer need to take care of themselves as the government will do it for them. Pretty soon, those citizens are held hostage to the State’s benevolence (e.g., “if you don’t vote for us, your pensions will be cut”). They forget to ask where the State gets its funds to do all this (as do far too many Americans).
It is affirmed when the State, in order to pay for all these entitlements, burdens the citizen with innumerable and confiscatory taxes, leaving only minimum disposable income. The average citizen reacts by focusing only on ways to survive financially, surrendering their civic involvement and responsibilities, surrendering their personal autonomy and right to self-defense (no guns, no self-defense), relinquishing dreams to be financially independent (and, conversely, demeaning those that do); and living for today. Got a problem? Let the State take care of it. Raise kids? Too expensive. So, might as well party on. This clears the field for the wolves.
Combine all this with a government-controlled press, an elite ruling class (aristocracy), a top-down centralized economic system, and you have the new /old Europe in a nutshell.
Deana, when our forebears came to American, they (for the most part) came to be free people. Their descendants, with the awful exception of slaves, knew nothing but freedom and reveled in it, believing that our system of government was the “best” system that was, because their parents told them so. This is what I mean when I say that most of my fellow Americans have no idea of what it is like to live in a political, economic and civil system other than our own - so we assume that everybody else in the world thinks like we do. Moreover, I fear that as the old narratives die, more and more Americans are listening to the same siren song that is has dashed European freedom on the rocks.
If you look in a British passport, you will note that it designates the holder a “Subject” of the Crown, whereas our passports designate us “Citizens” of the United States of America. This is a fundamental difference. They are subjects of the State, we are citizens of a state. As long as we fight to stay free, resist the encroachment of government and take on our personal responsibilities with the pride of free men and women, (”the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”), raise our kids in the narratives of our ancestors and have the courage to say “Stop!”, we will continue to be free.
Sorry for the long discourse.
The simple answer to your question, is “yes”. The EUros, I am afraid, simply shrugged their shoulders and gave up. For the most part, the average EUros don’t want to look reality in the face because the reality is too awful and they long ago gave up the ability to do much about it. Those that continue to fight and resist, like Geert Wilders and Lord Monckton, are a courageous minority howling in the wilderness. They have long and discouraging fight ahead of them to change the heart and soul of the continent as a new aristocracy asserts its power.
I hope that they win.
I’m wondering if there has been any effort to formally assess what the average Joe-on-the-street over there thinks about the influx of Muslims. What does the average European think about stories like this?
You’d probably get the same answer if your question had been “how would such folks feel about being raped, killed, and terrorized in the night by thugs and criminals”.
But think on what the actual policy implementations were used to “correct” such problems. The mob and their MP representatives went to gun control and then outright gun banning.
So it doesn’t matter that a mob may give you one story and answer on an individual basis, since on an enlarged and macroscopic basis, mobs are simply the tools of the political leadership. The basic truth of majority rules - which is a central pillar in parliamentary systems that allocate MPs, and thus policy and law making power, according to direct population - is that 51% decides what a 100% of the pop does. Then 26% decides what that 51% decides. 14% decides what that 26% thinks is right. 8% decides for the 14%. Sooner or later, Deana, what you end up with is like a small group of people controlling 100% of the population.
That’s what majority rules mean. Rule by minority.
The British and other Euros thought they were being “democratic” or something they never understood, when they formed governments based solely on population distribution.
They didn’t reform to a system like America’s, with a balance of powers, because of tradition and bureaucratic inertial. And now they see that their system is now too old and the times too dire for them to change it, except to stand by and watch it being changed by those that have a fervent belief in their own self-righteousness.
Why did the British kick out Churchill and the Conservatives for Labour after WWII? Because the British wanted to keep that “war unity” Churchill provided them in victory, during peacetime. And Labour promised that the government will still take care of people and create that ‘unity” and national purpose that was present in war. The British, being fools, took up Labour’s devil’s bargain.
The British wanted to feel national unity without paying the cost in vigilance, blood, and treasure. First they got rid of guns cause the government would have controlled where guns went in warfare. Then they increased taxes on corporations and businesses, cause government would be taxing such things in warfare. Then came Thatcher that lowered the corporation taxes to lower than the US’s. And now we’re back with Tony Blair and what whatchacallits.
Wolf HOwling link
I agree with Danny in that it doesn’t matter what the Euros think. It only matters what they do. Unfortunately for them, and unfortunate for us who will have to use nukes to prevent European and NATO arms from falling into fascist hands, Europe already did do something. It’s called the EU and gun control and whatever else that can be attributed to socialism. Democratic socialism at that.
And to simply illustrate that you don’t have to be reading any centrally organized talking points to come up with those conclusions, I mentioned the “EU” before I read Danny’s link. It is not, however, a coincidence that Wolf Howling blogged about the EU.
All of these things have threads that don’t require any central propaganda agency to distort into some conspiracy. It is just there. There’s too much evidence around for any fabrication to be required.
For those that don’t care about human misery and delight in tyranny, they focus more on infiltration of academies and corporations and hollywood than they focus on fabricating evidence. When you are in a position of power, as the European new aristocrats are, you don’t need to “fake” evidence. You are the evidence. Whatever you say or do becomes evidence. If you are the media, reporting a story now becomes its own evidence and self-justification.
American long term strategists perhaps had a nagging suspicion that the European love affair with totalitarian ideologies and eternal warfare making will resurge even if America succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of Europe. Even if America disarmed Europe and took up the war making duty, Europe would still have a very high chance of going back towards the European traditions of creating ideologies like Communism and Fascism and Nazism and Marxism and all the other stuff you see after the Enlightenment.
It’s like Europe always remembered that it was inferior to the Roman Empire and never did bring down the Roman Empire by their own virtues and strengths. Or rather, Rome was brought down by barbarians, amongst other things, and so thus we should go back to the strengths of the barbarians, which were totalitarian dictatorship and raiding villages for tribute to “defeat the new Roman Empire”, which would be us of course. And of course, which superpower was the EU supposed to “balance”? America or some other nation? There was no other nation.
It is not that Europe, you see, is the only one guilty of starting wars that killed a bunch of people. Alexander and Persian Emperors and a bunch of other folks were guilty of the same. Warfare is nothing new to human history and it is not something Europeans invented or perfected or some such clap trap. It is just that Europe is the master of creating wars that horribly maim both side’s populations for absolutely no long term gain or stability. They don’t even do “Empire” correctly. Europe could have fought amongst themselves until a Napoleon Bonaparte came to power and united Europe. But that was never going to happen or if it did happen, the task was too great for the tech and culture of an European dictator.
What they do is fight over a piece of territory, like Alsace Lorraine between France and Germany, for hundreds of years and then have an excuse to start up WWI over the same exact damn. And they would still be doing the exact same thing to this day had America not stepped in and told the children to behave themselves or get punished.
Warfare is only ever justified if it produces long term stability. If you fight a war and resolve it, so that you need never fight a war for the same reasons ever again. Europe has been fighting a war over the same damn reasons for centuries. Land, nobility entitlements, religious authorities, and other such peculiarly “European”.
Nor does America even owe great fealty or all that much gratitude for Britain and Europe in terms of being colonized. Since America was colonized and built on Enlightenment values, meaning Greek and Roman values. Not European values. European values can be exemplified in the Hansean League up north amongst the German and Baltics. A purely mercantile empire of money grubbing greedy merchants.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the best Western values came from Rome and Greece, not the Celts and Germans. Doesn’t mean they were entirely useless. Like all people or provinces, they had something to offer. The French, because they were in Gaul and descended from Celts, were intensely mercenary. They would fight for whomever paid them and looked like they were winning. I suspect this is why the French surrendered so easily to the Germans, their once hated enemies. It wasn’t just the military or political leadership that surrendered easily either. The French youths and communist grass roots welcomed the German jackboots into Paris. How’s that for French mercenary aptitude. Then there’s the French Foreign Legion, which is an interesting take on “mercenary” to whole nother degree.
While the French make good mercenaries, don’t count on their help unless you have a huge bribe to offer them and you know that they hate your enemies. Hannibal Barca, back in the 2nd Punic War, used Gallic mercenaries to good effect. One, because Barca had loot to offer and victories as bribes. Two, because the Gauls hated the Romans. There you go, the only two prerequisites you need to have the French on your side.
It’s hard, though, for me to believe that the average European is not aware of at least some of this, unless they are completely uninvolved with civic life.
Look at it like this. Are blacks aware that they are being oppressed under a system of institutional racism? Obviously, yes. But just like Europeans do, they blame it on Americans. You see how that works? It’s not Europe’s fault or the Democrats’- who blacks keep voting back into power even after the history of lynchings during Reconstruction which toppled Republican and pro-Emancipation governments in the South came into effect- rather, it is the fault of traditional and patriotic Americans cause Americans are just too insecure, materialistic, un-virtuous, and what not. Only European culture is superior. That’s why the French outlawed the world “email” and turned it into “emaile”. That’s very similar to the inferiority complex of African Americans that think “African” culture is superior to “American” culture because “African” culture never oppressed black people. As if. As if the islamic conquests in Africa weren’t “oppression” but “joyous liberation”. As if the slave trade could have occurred without the tribalism inherent in African politics. As if.
So it is not that they are “unaware”, it is that even if they were aware, it wouldn’t happen. Even if they were aware, they either wouldn’t care or would blame the wrong party.
[...] of Danny at this Bookworm thread I made a comment at. I’m wondering if there has been any effort to formally assess what the [...]
Wow, Danny. Don’t apologize for the discourse - I really enjoyed reading your post.
Much of what you write about worries me because I recognize these thoughts and tendencies in Americans, particularly when it comes to the left’s attempt at create a dependency on the government.
On a somewhat side note, something I’ve been thinking about recently - the disintegration of the family, while partially a result of the shift to government dependency, truly accelerates the processes that you describe in your post. The lack of support and security of the family combined with an ever increasing tax burden that forces individuals to work more and live with (as you said) minimial disposable income means that people have less time and energy to devote to tracking what is going on and doing something about it. Plus (and this is just my opinion) it feels as if there is so much more emphasis now on living for pleasure only and not focusing on the things that must endure if people are to live free.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to write your post and explain how this problem came to pass in Europe. It’s important to know this because we are at risk of going down the same path.
Deana
I agree, Deana. Thank you…and spread the word. We don’t want to become like EUrope.
I posted a 11 comment, but it hasn’t been moderated yet.
http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/europe-going-down-the-tubes/
Here’s the link to a post I wrote that included the comment.
Good commentary on this issue at your website, YM.
Thanks