Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Fury at Short's hate date

FORMER Cabinet Minister Clare Short will provoke outrage today by meeting Muslim fanatics in the House of Commons.
She has invited the radical group Hizb Ut-Tahrir — which Tony Blair wants banned from Britain — to speak to MPs.
They say democracy is unacceptable and spout anti-women, anti-gay and anti-Jew bile.
Their spokesman has declared there is "no possibility of harmonious co-existence between Islam and the West. Ultimately, one has to prevail."
Last night Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, hit out at Miss Short, his neighbouring MP.
He said: "By agreeing to host this meeting, she will cause utter dismay in the Muslim community.
"The hurt will be felt among mainstream Muslims — she should listen to them, not this very worrying group."
And Mr Mahmood revealed some of his constituents complained about the "brainwashing" activities of the group.
He said: "These people manage to get at young people. I have spoken to parents who say they ‘lost’ their sons and daughters as a result."
Omar Khan Sharif, who was found drowned after failing to bomb a bar in Tel Aviv in 2003, had Hizb Ut-Tahrir literature at his home in Derby.
The group is banned in Germany and Denmark. In 2003 Russia banned it after leaders were arrested with explosives, grenades and detonators.
After the terror attacks in London last July the PM promised to ban the group in Britain.
watch video.

update....


Short urged to cancel radical Muslim forum



Clare Short was today urged to cancel a Westminster meeting she organised tonight to allow MPs to hear Hizb ut-Tahrir argue why they should not be banned under forthcoming terror legislation.
The extremist Muslim group, which has previously put out literature calling for Jews to be killed, is already prohibited in Germany and the Netherlands, and is expected to be added to a list of proscribed organisations when the government's current terror bill comes into law.
Ms Short, a former cabinet minister and MP for Birmingham Sparkbrook, has invited Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Commons tonight to put their case to MPs.
But today the homosexual human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the group was "no more fit to be hosted in the House of Commons than the BNP".
Saying he had received death threats from the group in the 90s for being gay, he accused the organisation of hiding its true nature since the threat of the ban.
In an open letter to Ms Short, Mr Tatchell wrote: "you are hosting a meeting of the misogynistic, homophobic and anti-semitic Muslim fundamentalist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, at the House of Commons on Wednesday 1 March."
"Perhaps you are not aware of the true nature of this group, and its anti-democratic and anti-humanitarian goals?"
He had suffered death threats from members of the group in the early-to-mid 90s, he said.
"Since this thuggery was exposed, Hizb ut-Tahrir has sought to project a less extreme public image.
"But I have no doubt that many of its members continue to hold, in private, violent homophobic and misogynistic views ... Hizb ut-Tahrir is no more fit to be hosted at the House of Commons than the BNP." He urged her to host a meeting of liberal, progressive Muslisms instead.
That criticism was echoed by fellow Birmingham MP Khalid Mahmood. He told the Sun newspaper: "By agreeing to host this meeting, she will cause utter dismay in the Muslim community.
"The hurt will be felt among mainstream Muslims - she should listen to them, not this very worrying group."
And Mr Mahmood revealed some of his constituents complained about the "brainwashing" activities of the group.
There was no immediate response from Ms Short's office, but in a letter to colleagues she said the organisation "explicitly rejects the use of violence.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir have been approaching parliamentarians to explain who they are and what they believe.
"Following such a meeting in my constituency, I volunteered to facilitate a meeting at the House of Commons so parliamentarians can decide for themselves whether the organisation should be banned."

update

Three British Islamists jailed for four years in Egypt over membership of a banned group have left for home after being questioned at Heathrow.Hizb ut-Tahrir members Ian Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst, from London, and Maajid Nawaz from Essex, were granted early release from their five-year sentences.Special Branch officers held them under terror laws for four hours after they landed at the London airport 12.52 GMT.The men say they have been repeatedly tortured for their political beliefs.

Here we go again, allowing people into this counrty who's aim is to destroy it.In an earlier post, I posted Hizb ut-Tahrirs' aims and how they had been invited into the House of Commons by MP Claire Short(of brains), it would appear that this lot have come back just in time for that party.Joking aside, these people have claimed they were tortured, thier group is banned in Egyptand if there is anybody out there who may not know, Egypt is an Islamic country, torture and similar activities are routine in such countries, yet when Muslims are captured in war zonesand are removed to Guantanamo they all start yelling foul, we are being tortured, so it is ok for muslims to be the torturer as long as nobody does it to them- thats not allowed.The MP Dennis Amess was at the airport to greet these people and he said "there should have been Goverment representatives here to greet these people"(BBC Newscast 1/3/06)He wants terrorists to be greeted by members of the Government, is he nuts!.Ah well there are now three more Islamic nuts walking the streets of the UK, what can you say.

Gandalf

Freed Britons attack government


British men jailed in Egypt for being part of a banned Islamist group have accused the UK government of "brushing under the carpet" their torture claims.
Speaking days after their return, two of the three men said they were ashamed of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) members Ian Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst, from London, and Maajid Nawaz, from Essex, returned to the UK earlier in the week.
The UK government plans to ban HT, accusing it of terrorism links.
The trio were arrested in 2002 for attempting to revive Hizb ut-Tahrir, which translates as Party of Liberation. HT campaigns for majority Muslim countries to become a single Islamic state. It is outlawed in Egypt and in other areas of the Middle East and Asia.
The organisation is legal and active in the UK, but may be banned after the current anti-terrorism legislation passed through Parliament.
Mr Nawaz had originally travelled to Egypt as part of a compulsory year abroad as part of his university degree. Mr Nesbit was in the country to improve his Arabic, having already converted to Islam.
'Betrayed'
Speaking to the media Mr Nawaz, 30, and Mr Nesbit, 31, said they had been pawns in a wider political strategy by the British government to "curry favour" with Middle East regimes. They claimed they received no visits from British officials for the first three months of their detention.
"I feel personally betrayed by the prime minister and back-handed discussions [between the UK and Egypt]," said Mr Nawaz.
"No words can describe how I feel. I was not treated like a citizen of this country, even though I was born in Essex.
"I'm a law-abiding citizen and could not believe that Tony Blair was taking these holidays [in Egypt] while turning a blind eye to us in prison. It's the ultimate betrayal."
"I feel that we were a problem that was brushed under the carpet because of deals [the UK] wanted to do with these governments [Middle East states]."
Mr Nawaz alleged that Mr Pankhurst, not present at the press conference, had been electrocuted by Egyptian interrogators during their imprisonment.
Both he and Mr Nesbit had been subjected to extremely painful methods of restraint, he claimed, along with beatings, sleep deprivation and other forms of humiliation.
In August 2005, following the London bombings, Prime Minister Tony Blair said the government would ban HT, something which may happen once the current anti-terrorism legislation is passed by Parliament.
But the organisation has been lobbying MPs to back its cause, saying it is avowedly non-violent and has no association with terrorists.
Furthermore, it says it does not call for Islamic law in Britain because the UK is not an Islamic state.
Mr Nawaz said that while he wanted to rebuild his family life, his experience had strengthened both his faith and belief in political change for Muslim nations.
"I have become more convinced of the ideas that I went into prison with," he said. "After so many years of seeing the violence and torture [of the Egyptian authorities] I am convinced there is an alternative."
Mr Nesbit added that having returned home to learn of the plans to ban HT, he was concerned he could be imprisoned a second time for his beliefs. He stressed however that he just wanted to "hibernate until I feel alive again"
"I have not yet adjusted to being back, it is going to take time," he said. "We have to rebuild our lives, rebuild our families, it is not something I can describe."
Responding to the claims, a spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "We take any allegations of mistreatment extremely seriously and our concerns about these claims have been made at all levels including by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"We have pressed for a full investigation into the men's allegations and the Egyptian government can be in no doubt as to the seriousness with which the allegations are taken in the UK."

Q&A: Hizb ut-Tahrir


Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced plans to ban the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, in a crackdown on in the wake of the 7 July bomb attacks. So, is it a security threat and would a ban be effective?
What is Hizb ut-Tahrir?
Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) which translates as the "party of liberation" is a radical political organisation which has members in the Muslim world and in countries with a significant Muslims population. It was formed just over 50 years ago in Jerusalem by an Islamic jurist, Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.
It has been most active in central Asia and it has been banned in many countries, although it's fair to say that in some of the countries concerned other political movements have also faced bans for challenging regimes or dictatorships.
It's difficult to know how many members an international organisation like HT has. In the UK the membership is thought to be relatively small by political party standards, but certainly well organised, particularly among students who have been attracted to its ranks. Where it is banned in central Asian states, its members are thought to number in their thousands and meet in secret small groups to minimise the likelihood of detection.
What does it believe?
In short, HT wants to establish an Islamic state across the Middle East - something known as a "Caliphate". The organisation regards the Caliphate as the ideal form of government which emerged from Islam 1,400 years ago because it is government according to the laws of God, as set out in the Koran, rather than by laws designed by man.
The organisation believes that the system practised by the Prophet Mohammad during the first years of Islam is applicable to all of the Muslim "ummah" or global community. HT regards Islam as an entire system for life - in other words there should be no western-style separation between religion and politics.
So where does it stand on democracy?
It totally opposes it, saying that participating in a western-style democracy is incompatible with the goal of establishing an Islamic state. It does say, however, that such an Islamic state would include provisions for voting in an Islamic context.
So what does that mean for integration?
In one article in the party's magazine, a writer said that "Islam will naturally be at odds with, or even in conflict with, every other civilisation or ideology". He goes one: "The champions of the integrationist movement ¿ tend to be weaker-minded Muslims who simply compromise their ways due to what they deem as necessity."
This contrasts sharply with the views of leading Islamic scholars in Britain who argue that there is nothing incompatible between Islam and the West.
Has it got a violent agenda? Some people think so.
HT insists not. It says that it does not advocate violence and is not a "conveyor belt" towards terrorism.
However, HT's worldview is shared by many other radical Islamist organisations, some of whom believe that violence is an answer. Some central Asian states have taken the view that HT is extremely dangerous and even if the organisation is not specifically engaging in violence, some of its members may end up taking that route.
Three British HT members were jailed in Egypt last year, where the organisation is banned, after being accused of plotting to overthrow the state. The men and their families vehemently deny the charges, saying they have been tortured and forced to sign false confessions.
Germany banned the organisation shortly after 9/11 after naming it as a radical Islamist movement which sought the destruction of Israel? Authorities in Denmark have previous expressed similar concerns.
So is it anti-Semitic?
Again, HT insists not. However, its views on Israel are considered by opponents to be offensive. It says that Israel was formed by taking other people's land by force. Therefore, HT says that Islam is "in conflict with Israelis - not in their capacity as Jews who historically lived alongside Muslims in peace and security for centuries - but in their capacity as occupiers and aggressors." The World Jewish Congress has accused HT of aggressively propagating anti-Semitic ideas, saying that it trades language, insults and accusations against Jews seen in other Islamist literature.
Will a ban work?
One fear, particularly among some Muslim leaders, is that a ban will be counter-productive. Many mainstream leaders have already voiced concerns over the proposals - the fear being that it would drive radical groups underground and encourage those who wish to radicalise them further. Secondly, HT is relatively open as radical organisations go.
The National Union of Students has banned it among universities - but its members can often be found leafleting Muslims. They also hold fairly regular open meetings, demonstrations and conferences. Would a ban mean that the security services would find it harder to monitor such activity? And given the global nature of the internet, would HT's well-organised presence on the web be disrupted?

more




No comments: