Mar 1 2010
If not, they should be. Apparently they are providing her talking points, i.e., ‘Muslim police fear REAL terrorist threats coming from growing far-right movement.’
Muslim police in Britain have attacked the government’s anti-terrorism strategy for triggering an upsurge in Islamophobia and deepening divisions in communities. The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) warned that the Prevent programme, which aims to combat violent extremism, was “stigmatising” Muslims by focusing on “so-called Islamist extremism.”
The group said the real threat came from the growing far-right movement.
“The hatred towards Muslims has grown to a level that defies all logic and is an affront to British values,” said the association in a written submission to a parliamentary commission examining the anti-terror initiative. (It does not defy all logic, it’s called self-preservation against Muslims who are trying to steal their country from them)
“The climate is such that Muslims are subject to daily abuse (Awww, you’re breakin’ my heart) in a manner that would be ridiculed by Britain, were this to occur anywhere else.” There may be a “connection in the rise of Islamophobia and our Prevent programme as it feeds on the stereotypes that the media and some rightwing parties promote,” the group said. These stereotypes were that “all Muslims are evil and non-trustworthy“, added the officers. (No, stereotypes are based in fact)
Community cohesion (Muslims don’t integrate into any community but their own) may have suffered as a result of the strategy, said the association, which has more than 2,000 members and was founded in July 2007.
They also highlighted the growth of rightwing movements as a threat that needed greater attention. (Oh right, what’s a few trains blown up compared to people holding up anti-Islamization of Britain signs in a protest march)
“The impact and growth of the far-right and its ability to carry out terror acts cannot and should not be underestimated,” said the association. (They oughta know, being the leaders in worldwide terrorism)
(Of course, the EuroWeenies just have to weigh in) EU court condemns British police anti-terror searches
Last week the European Court of Human Rights condemned British anti-terror legislation allowing people to be searched by police without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. A case brought by Kevin Gillan, 32, and Pennie Quinton, 38, challenged the searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In a unanimous ruling, seven judges said the searches could cause “humiliation and embarrassment” and breached the complainants’ right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the statement said. (Yes, how dare they search people who look just like those responsible for 99.999% of terrorism?)
The police powers that required “an individual to submit to a detailed search of their person, clothing and personal belongings amounted to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life,” it said. (Of course, we can’t interfere with the lives of people who want to convert or kill all British citizens)
“The public nature of the search, with the discomfort of having personal information exposed to public view, might even in certain cases compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment,” it added. (And we know that humiliation and embarassment is far worse than having ones head cut off)
“The search powers under Section 44 are qualitatively different. The individual can be stopped anywhere and at any time, without notice and without any choice as to whether or not to submit to a search,” the statement added. Between 2004 and 2008 the number of searches recorded by the Ministry of Justice went from around 33,000 to over 117,000, it said. (That’s ALL?)
And now from the EU: “Britain is wrong to stop aid to terror suspects’ wives.” (Why is the UK giving welfare payments to wives of terrorists in the first place? Oh that’s right, if you’re Muslim in Britain, you automatically qualify to suck the teet of the taxpayers for the rest of your life)
Britain is wrong to restrict social security payments to the wives of terror suspects, the top European court advisor said in an opinion last week.(That’s right, if Britain cuts them off, they may have to move to France to sponge off their taxpayers)
The wives argue that while their husbands are subject to an asset freeze, they themselves are not and should continue to receive social security aid such as child benefit and housing support. (God forbid, they should get a job) Under British anti-terrorism laws the spouses of terror suspects may also see their social payments restricted.
“It is clear to me,” the advocate general said in a written opinion, “that by enduring payment of the rent charged for the residential occupation of real property, or the sums payable for the consumption of domestic utilities, the appellants do not provide their spouses (the suspects) with economic resources.” (Here’s an idea, throw the spouses in jail with the terrorists, or deport them)
He said he couldn’t see how anyone on the terror list “could obtain any such assets” given that his funds and/or economic resources have been frozen”.
The advocate general concluded that restrictions on social assistance payments to the terror spouses should only be applied when the couple live together and the money may be used “to pay for goods or services which the person included on that (terror) list will use or from which he will benefit.” ARAB MEDIA
RELATED VIDEOS: Islamic Britain