Society is sadly accepting the sinful sodomite lifestyle as normal so therefore anyone that does not MUST be dealt with in the harshest way possible. Therefore a ‘UK bank closes Christian ministry’s account, according to Christian Concern 24 July 2020. Barclays Bank is closing the account Core Issues Trust, a Christian counselling service. The bank has informed them that their account will be closed in September. Core Issues Trust (CIT) provides “help for people who who want to move away from same-sex attraction or behaviours.”
No reason was given by the bank, but it is the latest in a series of denials of service to CIT, including from PayPal and Mail Chimp, Facebook and Instagram. CIT have also been targeted by an extensive campaign of abuse on social media, aggressive trolling and hateful text messages and abusive phone calls to staff. Mike Davidson, CEO of CIT said: “A coordinated campaign has resulted in our ministry coming under immense pressure and key service providers cancelling their services.” He went on to comment: “This amounts to mob rule. If a social media mob can cause a bank to close the account of a Christian ministry, then there is nowhere for Biblically faithful Christian ministries to go. The UK is now becoming an intensely intolerant country. Key service providers have cancelled their services to a Christian charity because of a social media mob.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, commented, “If it is CIT first, it will be churches next. If banks and other service providers start to placate social media campaigns by unilaterally terminating their accounts then the UK will be a very difficult place for Biblically faithful Christian ministries.”
Editorial Comment: This is not just a UK phenomenon. Our most recent email newsletter was blocked by Mail Chimp, with no specific reason given. It was eventually allowed to be sent after we removed a brief item that included the following comment: “the Bible reports the Creator God does hate homosexuality, along with adultery, gluttony, thievery, etc, all in the same paragraph, (1 Corinthians 6:9).” Read the item here. Creation Research has also had to deal with denials of service, along with abuse and interference with our websites and electronic media, but this is not just a “woe is us” report. It is a wake-up call to Christians. This is what happens when people “exchange the truth about God for a lie”. See Romans 1:18-32.
I have attached the video below. The ‘Shocking police body camera footage has revealed the brutal arrest of a father for refusing to leave the bedside of his critically ill six-year-old daughter, after doctors announced life-saving treatment would be withdrawn without the family’s consent.
The arrest led to long serving NHS respiratory consultant, Dr Rashid Abbasi, 58, having a heart attack outside his daughter’s hospital room as four police officers arrested him on 19 August 2019.
Doctors at the hospital, which cannot be named for legal reasons, called for the police to remove or arrest Dr Abbasi after they announced they would withdraw treatment and ultimately enforce end of life ‘treatment’ on his six-year-old daughter, Zainab, through extubating her.
The case, hitherto unknown to the public, is reminiscent of the high-profile tragedies of Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard.
Reluctant to treat six-year-old girl
Six-year-old Zainab was suffering from a rare life-limiting neurodegenerative condition called Niemann-Pick Disease. Unrelated to that, she also contracted swine flu at the age of two, which led to serious respiratory problems requiring treatment.
The parents believe that the doctors became increasingly reluctant to treat even the treatable respiratory problems because of her underlying life-limiting neurodegenerative disease. Fighting for her life was seen as pointless by the hospital because the genetic disease would make it likely that she would die during childhood.
This caused numerous disputes between the parents, who are both doctors, and the medical team supporting Zainab, about the appropriate intensity of treatment, culminating in the incident captured on video in August 2019.
Zainab sadly died four weeks later.
Legal challenge
Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Dr Abbasi and his family have begun legal proceedings against the police for wrongful arrest and are considering legal action against the NHS.
Responding to the video footage the police have said to the Mail on Sunday that it “sets out a very different picture to the limited version of events which have been presented to us.”
Dr Abbasi said: “We have lost our daughter Zainab, but we want to take action for future Zainabs so that no one else has to go through what she did and what we have.”
‘They just want to kill her’
Shortly before the police body-cam video footage begins, Dr Abbasi and his family had been informed by the medical team responsible for Zainab’s care that they would be withdrawing life-saving treatment.
In recorded audio, Dr Abbasi can be heard saying that medical staff are trying “to kill my daughter.”
One doctor can be heard saying in the meeting that the process of withdrawing life support needs to start “straight away.”
Fearful that his daughter was being extubated in their absence from the intensive care unit, Dr Abbasi rushed back to her bedside and medical staff tried to block his way.
When Dr and Mrs Abbasi refused to consent to their daughter’s immediate extubation, the doctors tried to hand over a letter to severely restrict him from visiting his critically ill daughter. A few days earlier staff had tried to restrict his access due to claims that he was difficult but had to step down after he challenged the decision.
At Zainab’s bedside, Dr Abbasi’s wife, Dr Aliya Abbasi can be heard crying and saying: “They have made their decision already; they just want to kill her…they are going to just take the tube out. Let’s take her home.”
‘I’m having a heart attack’
The video footage begins with Dr Abbasi sitting tenderly holding his daughter’s hand with his wife and son at his side. Dr Abbasi has said that when his daughter developed the debilitating illness, she would communicate by squeezing his fingers with her little hand.
The police ask to speak to Dr Abbasi outside saying that “they have some concerns about his behaviour.” He replies quietly and calmly: “This is a lie…I don’t want to leave my daughter; my daughter is dying,” and he kisses her hand.
A six-foot police officer then approaches Dr Abbasi and says: “If you do not comply with what I am saying, there may be a necessity to place you under arrest.”
At no point, however, were the police able to produce any paperwork justifying this course of action. Police have still not produced an justification for Dr Abbasi’s arrest, despite our requesting all footage from the police officers.
As Dr Abbasi again refuses to leave, a police officer uses a metal spiked instrument to unclasp his hand from his daughter’s.
Meanwhile his wife pleads with the police and medical staff to show compassion but is then pulled by the shoulders away from the bedside and falls and screams in distress.
Alarmed at what is happening to his wife, Dr Abbasi shouts “what are you doing to my wife?” Two officers then drag him from the bedside and onto the floor.
A struggle follows with four police officers and Dr Abbasi breathlessly shouts: “I’ve got chest pains; I’m having a heart attack” and urgently asks for the medicine in his pocket to relieve his angina.
His repeated requests, however, are ignored by the police and he is instead told that he is ‘disgusting’ and is an ‘animal’ who has brought it all on himself. The police handcuff him, kick him, strap his legs together, dump him on a trolley and wheel him out of the unit.
Dr Abbasi is then taken to A&E where he is later de-arrested. Medical records later confirm that he had indeed had a heart attack. His health has not been right since. The day following the arrest he had to have an emergency procedure, and has since had two more.
Emergency hearings
Following his arrest and heart attack, Dr Abbasi was only allowed back to see Zainab under harsh restrictions. This included a two-hour visiting window where he was escorted throughout the building and was prevented from questioning or challenging the care his daughter was receiving.
Despite the threat of Zainab being immediately extubated, this did not escalate further, but instead the steroid treatment she needed to survive was slowly withdrawn.
On 29 August 2019, the Hospital made an application to the High Court for an order authorising a withdrawal of life support.
The trial was listed for 19-20 September 2019 and the Court imposed an anonymity order to prohibit identification of the parties in any reporting of the case.
On 15 September 2019, Zainab’s condition deteriorated. The parents secured two emergency telephone hearings before Mr Justice Cohen, where they argued for an escalation of life-saving steroid treatment which had been reduced.
The application was refused, and Zainab died the following morning.
‘I was treated like a criminal’
The Abbasi family say that there was a ‘toxic environment’ surrounding the medical care of their daughter.
Dr Abbasi said: “I reacted as any father would who is suffering from grief, but I also knew in my professional capacity that my daughter was purposefully not receiving the treatment she needed to live.
“For challenging this and trying to protect my daughter’s life, I was treated like a criminal and an animal. This was brutal and unacceptable, but we want to emphasise that it was the doctors and the hospital who escalated the situation and involved the police unnecessarily.
“Ultimately, this story is about life and the value the NHS places on life and the wishes and rights of the parents involved.
“We are still grieving deeply, but we have no choice but to expose what has happened and to fight for justice for our daughter.
“We insist that what happened to Zainab should be rigorously investigated by an independent and impartial tribunal.”
‘Culture of death must be exposed’
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Any parent or indeed anyone who has ever lost a loved one will be deeply moved and appalled by this story. You could not find more caring and loving parents who simply wanted their daughter to have a chance to continue to live.
“The family showed an extraordinary amount of restraint in the face of their brutal treatment by the police and the hospital. They genuinely feared that their only daughter, their youngest child was about to die.
“Can you imagine how in such a moment it would feel to be treated as they were?
“The whole system needs a major overhaul. These tragic cases occur in a shroud of secrecy. Nothing breaks through because of the way in which the law operates to prevent close and open inspection and accountability. Parents are expected to navigate a complicated system weighted against them. It is almost impossible. This has to change.
“Sadly, the culture of death has resulted in more and more of this type of story, from Alfie Evans to Charlie Gard, where deeply disturbing decisions have been made by treating clinicians, police and the courts. The family, in their grief, have the whole legal machinery tumble down on them and no one advocating for them during the most harrowing life experience anyone could imagine.
“At a time when the parents need support and compassion, they are met with a court order to extubate their child meaning certain death. The order is enforced by judges and the police and backed up by medical establishment opinion.
“Why is it that time and time again when parents resist end of life treatment being imposed on their children, the police swiftly appear?
“We are living in a culture of death, and when our society and frontline services unilaterally decide that death is in a child’s best interest, and the parents are left powerless in the face of the ‘system’, it has to be exposed.
When the Bobbies recently ran from the BLM protesters its not surprising to read that ‘The police are looking at dropping the terms “Islamist terrorism” and “jihadis” when describing attacks by those who claim Islam as their motive.
Proposed alternatives include “faith-claimed terrorism”, “terrorists abusing religious motivations” and “adherents of Osama bin Laden’s ideology”.
The reform was requested by a Muslim police organisation that blamed the official use of “Islamist” and “jihadi” for negative perceptions and stereotypes, discrimination and Islamophobia.
The problem was discussed at an online event last month addressed by Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, the national head of counterterrorism policing, and attended by more than 70 attack survivors, victims’ relatives, academics, experts and advocacy groups. The police emphasised to The Times that the reform was not certain to go ahead.’ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-may-drop-term-islamist-when-describing-terror-attacks-7pjsf8pn7
Islamic immigration is a world-wide movement where Muslims go into Western society and claim minority status which all too often gives them an advantage over others. So now in the UK there is ‘“A bid to build a 1,000 capacity ‘mega-mosque’ in one of London’s most iconic buildings has been met with a rash of last-minute objections from locals, with concerns citing its close proximity to the city’s world-famous historic gay quarter. The plans submitted to the City of Westminster Council surround the Trocadero building [pictured, above] on Picadilly Circus in London’s cultural hub in the West End. ”
Picadilly Circus
A mega-mosque in a historic gay quarter is odd, given that normative Islam prescribes the death penalty for gays, as well as coverings for women and abstinence from alcohol, but clearly the mosque leadership doesn’t care about the impact on residents.
ISLAMIC LOVE
Westminster City councillor JP Floru said: “This is not a small scale mosque catering for local demand. There are fewer than five per cent of Muslims living in this area, who use small local mosques. Setting up a 1,000 capacity flagship mosque right next to the long-standing gay district of Soho will damage local cohesion…..The area is already heavily overcrowded — imagine adding another 1,000 after Friday prayers — road traffic will have to be stopped. Let’s keep central London for entertainment use, and place new large places of worship where there is local demand for it.”
The Islamic call to prayer (adhan) is also now being blasted on loudspeakers in London during Ramadan, with the stated reason being to comfort Muslims during the coronavirus lockdown. Are Muslim leaders willing to sign a document that the adhan, which declares Islam to be supreme, will not continue once the lockdown ends?
There is a pattern to be noted in what Councillor Floru describes above that relates in general to the demands of leaders of organized Islamic centers, mosques and groups. First, they are presented as demands which are needed, and opposed only by “racists” and the “intolerant.” Demands by these leaders also exceed those of any other group; others generally worship in peace and with consideration for the larger community. Islamic supremacists infringe on the rights and peace of communities (eg. with the adhan); they cause disruption and division, and tearing away at of social cohesion in Western societies. Anyone who opposes them is called “Islamophobic” for doing so.’
Why doesn’t this surprise me? From the UK we read that;
‘Doctors will have power to section people indefinitely
The Coronavirus Bill (which is being passed into law this week at breakneck speed) will, among other things, (1) authorise a forcible detention of people on mental health grounds (‘sectioning’) on the opinion of any one doctor (rather than two, as previously required) and (2) abolish the six-month time limit on ‘sectioning’. Any one doctor will have the power to lock you up in a lunatic asylum indefinitely – all in the interests of your own and others’ safety.
It is well-known, and self-evident, that forcible psychiatric detention is an area which is open to abuse in the absence of effective safeguards. In the Soviet Union, it was used simply as a tool to suppress political dissent. This may be an extreme example, but where is the guarantee that one rogue doctor or another will not, once in a while, abuse his newly found unlimited power? For very good reasons, we have had safeguards against that in our law. Now they are being urgently abolished – supposedly as an obstacle to our survival of the epidemic. How exactly are they such an obstacle?
It should be stressed that this has nothing to do with increasing doctors’ capacity to deal with coronavirus patients. A psychiatrist is not much help in treating a respiratory disease. In fact, he would be as useful as a gynaecologist. Just like gynaecologists can safely continue to supervise (and hopefully, sometimes refuse to authorise) abortions, there is no reason why psychiatrists cannot carry on doing their usual job – which includes, most importantly, protecting people from arbitrary detention on unsound psychiatric grounds. Those duties are expendable luxuries, but are vital safeguards of liberty.
Powers to issue warrants for surveillance
Another frightening power-grab in the Coronavirus Bill is the expansion of the power to appoint temporary judicial commissioners, with the powers to issue warrants for surveillance, under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The threat to civil liberty is obvious; and this has nothing to do with coronavirus.
Given those examples, one inevitably looks more sceptically at the idea that the government knows best about its other measures which ostensibly have something to do with coronavirus. Things like prolonging local councillors’ term in office for a whole year without a democratic mandate; police power to detain anyone for up to 48 hours on suspicion of a threat to public health; Ministers’ authority to ban mass gatherings; or court trials by skype. Are all those things really necessary? Or have some civil servants simply been waiting (heaven knows for how long) for a convenient moment to introduce them without provoking mass protests on the streets?
For example, skype trials in court sound sensible at the time of an epidemic, but the very first reported trial is a rather frightening one. That is a Court of Protection trial last week to decide the fate of an anonymous man in his ‘70s, whose GP wants to switch off his life support to let him die ‘in dignity’, and whose family objects. Remember all the debates and protests over the cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans in this country, and Vincent Lambert in France? Under the new regime, decisions on life and death cases of this kind are being made on a skype call. No proper trial, no ‘army’ of protesters, no real media coverage. It was only reported as a technological curiosity – the first major trial taking place by skype.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance
These and other measures are meant to be introduced only on a temporary basis. There is a subset clause in the Bill, whereby these new laws will automatically lose force after two years unless Parliament votes to extend them beyond that period. Amendments are being debated to shorten that period. However, this does not answer the concern that some of the most drastic innovations in the Act are clearly not necessary to contain coronavirus at all. If in those two years, someone is wrongly ‘sectioned’ in a lunatic asylum, it is small comfort to them that this practice will cease in 2022. Further, as a general rule of constitutional history, temporary limitations on liberty tend to become permanent whenever they are convenient for the state. We still live today with all sorts of draconian laws introduced as a matter of emergency after 11 September 2001. Come 2022, the Coronavirus Bill powers may also be extended on whatever pretext. Indeed, section 90 of the Bill even permits the extension of those powers without a vote in Parliament.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Many dictatorships originate in people’s panicked enthusiasm for drastic measures to deal with a genuine crisis. Putin’s regime in Russia, for example, took hold because people trusted their democratically elected president to do whatever it takes to defeat the threat of terrorism. Eventually, when Putin responded to another terrorist attack by replacing regional elections with appointed governors, that trust was largely lost – but it was too late. It is no surprise that when we see fairly similar moves attempted in this country, our trust in the government hangs in the balance.
Harry and Meghan are the ‘wokest’ of the Royals so far! Even though they are sort of leaving Royal duties they will never be average as far as their bank accounts are concerned.
‘Prince Harry’s net worth is on people’s minds now that he and his wife, the former Meghan Markle, have announced they are stepping back from their duties as senior Royals to become “financially independent.”
Despite that statement, Prince Harry already has significant wealth. His money derives largely from the inheritance he received from the estate of his mother, Princess Diana. The former Princess of Wales left both of her sons wealthy men in their own right. In addition, Harry also has many of his expenses paid by his father’s properties, the Duchy of Cornwall, income which he appears to want to still receive, according to the announcement that he and Meghan put on their new website, Sussex Royal.
What is Prince Harry’s net worth? How rich is the prince?
A lot of the Royal Family’s wealth is caught up in property that its members could never sell (it’s not like you could ever put Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle on the market, for example.) However, the Queen has other assets and draws money from some of the properties, making her worth about $425 million) Harry is still sitting on a fortune of his own, and his marriage to Meghan Markle added more wealth to his already impressive net worth due to her career as an actress. He and Meghan were also receiving money from the sovereign grant, which they now say they’re relinquishing.’ If interested the whole article is at https://heavy.com/news/2020/01/prince-harry-net-worth-2020/
Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Sometimes it doesn’t take much to get a little irritated, does it? The weather bureau said no rain for at least the next 6 days so we put our faith in the weather person and applied the first coat of three coats of sealer on our deck yesterday. Well, the climate scammers spout they can guarantee what the climate will be in ten or so years if society doesn’t do certain things BUT the weather bureau cannot tell us with 80 to 95% accuracy the weather for the next two days! Unbelievable! Well, it rained the day after we put the first coat of sealer on so we are now waiting for that dry day to apply the second coat of sealer. THANKS weather bureau.
Now, that I have that off my chest the real purpose for today’s blog is the story below. It is Unbelievable; or is it? The Western world has gone crazy with this gender bending hysteria. Here’s the story out of the UK.
‘A Christian doctor who refused to refer to a biological man as a woman has lost his court case, with a British court ruling that belief in the Bible is “incompatible with human dignity.”
Dr David Mackereth, a doctor with over two decades experience with the National Health Service, was dismissed by the Department for Work and Pensions on the grounds that refusing to call a patient by their preferred pronoun was “harassment” under the UK’s Equality Act.
Dr Mackareth has previously said that “Christians must be able to hold and express their faith in private and public and to uphold Biblical and scientific truths without fear of losing their livelihoods”.
But a British court ruled against the doctor.
“Belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals”, said the court.
The court went on to say that “in so far as those beliefs form part of his wider faith, his wider faith also does not satisfy the requirement of being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”
Dr Mackarth said he was not alone in being disturbed by the court’s decision.
“Staff in the NHS, even those who do not share my Christian convictions, are also disturbed as they see their own freedom of thought and speech being undermined by the judges’ ruling.
“No doctor, or researcher, or philosopher, can demonstrate or prove that a person can change sex.
“Without intellectual and moral integrity, medicine cannot function and my 30 years as a doctor are now considered irrelevant compared to the risk that someone else might be offended”, he added.
Andrea Williams, the chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said that “it is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech”.
Dr Mackereth says he will appeal the decision.
“I believe that I have to appeal in order to fight for the freedom of Christians – and any other NHS member of staff – to speak the truth.
That story of Dr. Mackereth is going to be repeated here in Australia. A few years ago the Australian public voted in favour of same sex marriage. Today, the Federal government is seeking to work out a so-called Religious Discrimination Bill! Watch this space!!
The UK government seems to be kowtowing to Islam when it comes to what may or may not be printed in the press concerning Islam. For example, ‘The press regulator guidelines on Islamophobia were leaked this week and reveal a serious threat to press freedom when it comes to Islam related issues.
Newspapers and magazines are regulated by the Independent Press Standard Organisation (Ipso) which was set up in 2014 following the phone-hacking scandal. For months, Ipso has been working on a project to draft guidance for journalists on how to report on issues connected with Islam and Muslims. Drafts of this guidance were leaked to the thinktank Policy Exchange which has issued a report about the revelations.
Miqdaad Versi’s influence
Miqdaad Versi is a prominent member of the Muslim Council of Britain. He has made it his personal mission to complain about so called ‘Islamophobia’ in UK media. He has issued multiple complaints to Ipso and frequently obtains corrections or apologies. In one case he succeeded by complaining to Ipso in getting mainstream newspapers to issue an correction stating “We are happy to make clear that Islam as a religion does not support so-called honour killings.” This correction notice is actually false. At the very least, there are many Muslims who would disagree with it. Backing in Islamic texts for killing someone who has apostatised is found here. Will Heaven cites a national newspaper editor as confirming that he frequently corrects stories when Versi complains about them as this will put a stop to a deluge of emails which will follow if no correction is published.
It turns out that Versi is a member of the group which has been drawing up the new guidelines about Islam and Muslims. This means that he will soon be complaining to Ipso about stories he objects to, using guidance which he helped to draft. In other words, someone with a vested interest has helped draft the guidance which he will later use for his own ends. Will Heaven explains that in the commercial sphere this is known as ‘regulatory capture’ which means that he will be able use his own rules to his own advantage.
Versi is an activist who wants to dictate what the media can and cannot say about Islam. He controls the Muslim Council of Britain’s ‘Centre for Media Monitoring’ which issues reports about supposed ‘Islamophobia’ in UK media. There is a serious question to answer as to why Versi was involved in drawing up Ipso guidelines at all?
The proposed guidance
A key paragraph in the proposed guidance is the following:
“Journalists should be aware that their content can have an impact on the wider community and on how minority communities are treated. Inaccuracies and insensitivities can damage communities and prevents their accurate representation. They can also contribute to members of communities feeling divorced from, or misunderstood, by the media. Finally, inaccuracies and unbalanced coverage can work to increase tension between communities, which can make harassment more likely.”
Is it really the fault of journalists if minority communities are badly treated or harassed? I am all for accurate reporting, but who defines what is ‘sensitive’? Assuming it is accurate, would it be insensitive to report that a terrorist attack was carried out by a Muslim who explicitly stated he was inspired by the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad?
Then who defines ‘unbalanced’? The media can be accused by every campaign group and political party in the country of being ‘unbalanced’. For one thing, they focus much more on negative news than positive news. Is that something a regulator should interfere with though? Where will this lead to in terms of press freedom? What happens when the regulator complains that your reporting is ‘unbalanced’? Does that sound like a free country?
If the media worries about causing offence then we do not have a free press. It is already the case, as the Casey Review pointed out, that too many public institutions shy away from tackling Islam related issues for fear of being branded ‘Islamophobic’. If the press also felt constrained then we could have been living in a world in which there was no reporting about the ‘Trojan Horse’ affair in Birmingham, or of Islamic rape gangs which has at least led to convictions and girls taken out of shocking abuse.
Who are ‘experts’?
Another disturbing warning in the guidance is the following:
“Identifying the ‘right’ person to speak to can be extremely challenging and journalists should be aware that individuals and organisations may have different interpretations of a particular belief.”
“Does the person you are speaking to have the relevant expertise?”
Clearly there will be different interpretations, but does that mean that one cannot state what the Bible or the Qur’an clearly say? Who decides ‘expertise’ in this context? Perhaps it will be someone who doesn’t agree with that interpretation?
An earlier draft talked of ‘representativeness’ rather than ‘expertise’. Policy Exchange point out that this is a frequent complaint of Miqdaad Versi and the MCB who want the exclusive right to determine who represents Muslims in the UK. This kind of argument can also be made in terms of ‘expertise’. Ipso appears to be openly facilitating this agenda from the MCB and Miqdaad Versi. This is in spite of the fact that the government does not engage with the MCB because of concerns about its association with extremism. This does not bode well for freedom of the press.
Defining ‘Islamophobia’
Versi is a vocal supporter of the proposed APPG definition of Islamophobia. I have warned about the dangers of this definition for free speech here. Several other advisors to Ipso on the guidance have also publicly supported the APPG definition. Whilst the government has rejected this definition, it seems that Ipso is moving down this line in providing guidance which can be used to censor criticism of Islam.
A chilling effect
There is already a ‘chilling effect’ reported by editors and journalists in relation to how they report about stories that touch on Islam and Muslims. Will Heaven is right to note that “there is a degree of self-censorship going on” when it comes to Islam. Some of our top investigative journalists have been labelled ‘Islamophobic’ for their reporting on rape gangs for example.
Ipso is moving in a disturbing direction. It appears to be aiding and abetting an activist agenda to protect Islam and Muslims from offence. Is this an appropriate role for a press regulator? Furthermore, they have accepted Miqdaad Versi and the MCB as the representatives of Muslims in the UK – a very dubious representation. Are there Christian representatives, or for that matter Jewish, Hindu or Sikh representatives? And would Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, or even Muslims want to be represented by one particular group, let alone individual?
Religious thought police
Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, wrote the foreword to the Policy Exchange report. He is scathing in his criticism of Ipso, arguing that it is: “putting a veto in the hands of self-appointed community spokespeople, or ‘media monitors’ – in effect a religious thought police, which might not seem out of place in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, but which should have no function in the UK.”
He continues:
“What is most worrying is that, increasingly, those charged with the responsibility to resist this creeping censorship and disguised segregation are quietly surrendering to its advocates. In many cases the reason is a fear of ‘causing offence’. Yet, the job of a journalist is to tell the truth irrespective of the feelings of those involved, if there is a public interest. But increasingly, the words ‘public interest’ are being read as ‘opinion of a well-organised, well-funded, persistent and ruthless lobby.”
Press freedom is about to fall
Philips concludes: “If we give way to the demands being made, the only people who will find themselves silenced will be those who want to tell the truth.”
The freedom of the press is under threat from Muslim activists who want to control what is said about Islam. Ipso, the press regulator, is capitulating to their demands. Unless things change, press freedom is set to fall. Truth will be the victim.’ https://christianconcern.com/comment/islamic-thought-police-target-the-press/
Good News out of the UK on the Freedom not only to speech but to preach Christ.
‘Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, a Christian street preacher has been offered £2,500 in exemplary damages from the Metropolitan Police in relation to his false arrest, imprisonment and unlawful detention.
In February, a video showing the aggressive arrest of Pastor Oluwole Ilesanmi (64) was watched by millions around the world, prompting outrage. Officers were shown forcibly handcuffing the preacher, claiming that he was breaching the peace and had made “Islamophobic comments”.
A petition was quickly launched calling on the Home Secretary to investigate the guidance and training given to police officers nationwide on the freedom to preach in public.
Marking the resolution of his case, Pastor Oluwole will deliver the petition, now with over 38,000 signatures, this Tuesday (30 July) at 10.30am at the Home Office to the new Home Secretary Priti Patel, as well as to London City Hall. The Christian Legal Centre, which has assisted Pastor Oluwole throughout the case, has written to chief constables across the country, asking them to uphold the freedom of street preachers to speak freely about Jesus Christ in public. This letter will be delivered on Tuesday to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick.
‘Exceptional humiliation and degradation’
On 23 February 2019, Pastor Oluwole was preaching outside Southgate Underground station. A member of the public, Mrs Ambrosine Shitrit, saw a tall hooded man squaring up to a street preacher. Thinking that the preacher was about to be assaulted, she pulled over and started filming with her phone.
Two police officers shortly arrived in response to a 999 call claiming that the preacher had been “Islamophobic”. The hooded man, who had identified himself as a Muslim, left the immediate vicinity and the police began asking the preacher to leave the area for supposedly “breaching the peace.”
The video, which shortly afterwards went viral online, shows Pastor Oluwole explaining his freedom to continue preaching to the officers, who arrest him, forcibly handcuffing him and snatching his Bible.
Pastor Oluwole was then driven five miles away from the scene, beyond the area he could use his Oyster card, and left with no means to pay for his ticket home. Police initially denied that this had happened, later changing their story after evidence backed the pastor’s claim.
Motivated by the desire not to see other street preachers treated the way he was, Pastor Oluwole authorised the Christian Legal Centre to write a pre-action letter to the Metropolitan Police. In response, the police force has agreed the sum of £2,500 in damages, including general damages for false imprisonment in the sum of £500, plus £1,000 for the exceptional humiliation and degradation and £1,000 for the mental trauma caused to Pastor Oluwole.
Petition to be delivered
Following the initial incident, questions were asked by MPs, peers and London Assembly members concerning Pastor Oluwole’s treatment.
A Christian Concern petition was also launched, supporting Pastor Oluwole and calling for the Home Secretary to urgently investigate the training given to police officers nationwide to ensure that they protect the freedom to preach in public.
The petition, now signed by over 38,000 members of the public, will be delivered this Tuesday (30 July) by Pastor Oluwole to the Home Office.
The Christian Legal Centre will also deliver a letter to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which is being sent to every chief constable in the country that calls for many of the misconceptions about street preaching freedoms to be addressed through specialist training.
The letter explains:
“Many street preachers have found themselves in trouble. This has included being arrested, and prosecuted, despite the law recognising their rights to both manifest and express their religious beliefs. None of the clients we have assisted has been convicted; accordingly, that might suggest the criminal justice system is working appropriately; however, the problem is that many officers simply do not understand the interplay between the public order legislation and the right to freedom of speech.”
‘Christians and freedom of speech must be protected’
Pastor Oluwole said: “I am glad that the police have recognised that it was not right to arrest me for preaching from the Bible. It was traumatic being arrested and left many miles from my home. But God was always with me and even though I was left in a place I did not know, I was determined to get back to Southgate and start preaching the gospel again.
“When I came to the UK it was a free Christian country, but now preachers like me are being arrested for speaking the truth. Christians and freedom of speech must be protected, especially by the government and police. I hope this recognition of fault can lead to more Christians being protected and the police gaining greater insight into what it means to lawfully proclaim the Word of God on our streets.
“I am amazed and so grateful for the support I have received from people across the world and the Christian Legal Centre.”
‘Critiquing ideas is often motivated by love and not hate’
Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Street preaching has a long and honoured history in the UK. In many ways it is symbolic of the kind of freedoms we have treasured in this nation.
“However despite laws that theoretically support the freedom to preach in public, in practice, police officers are quick to silence preachers at the first suggestion that a member of the public is offended. Freedom of speech means that each one of us needs to be able to critique all religions and ideas without immediately being labelled and silenced as offensive. Critiquing ideas is often motivated by love for others and not hate. The result of this also chills free speech through self-censorship.
“While the extent of the public outrage at Pastor Oluwole’s arrest was unique, what he faced from the police and members of the public was not. We are constantly supporting street preachers who are being silenced and penalised on our streets by the police, and their poor treatment and the injustice they face is too quickly forgotten.
“So whilst we are pleased that the police have agreed to pay compensation for what has happened to Pastor Oluwole, we now need to see tangible action from the government, the police and the Mayor of London, offering assurances that Christian street preachers are free to preach the gospel within the law without fear of prosecution.” https://christianconcern.com/news/police-payout-after-christian-street-preacher-arrest/
Health Service, was dismissed by the Department for Work and Pensions on the grounds that refusing to call a patient by their preferred pronoun was “harassment” under the UK’s Equality Act.
Organisation (Ipso) which was set up in 2014 following the phone-hacking scandal. For months, Ipso has been working on a project to draft guidance for journalists on how to report on issues connected with Islam and Muslims. Drafts of this guidance were leaked to the thinktank 
watched by millions around the world, prompting outrage. Officers were shown forcibly handcuffing the preacher, claiming that he was breaching the peace and had made “Islamophobic comments”.
whatyareckon 