Shocking #Hinduphobia. The shameful silence of the British Media. Assault on a Hindu temple & Hindus in #Birmingham by Muslim extremists.
— INSIGHT_UK (@INSIGHTUK2) September 28, 2022
– Screams of Allah Hu Akbar
– Go drink some cow pi*s
– Go eat cow s**t
– Piss drinking b****ds
– Abusing the police & throwing missiles pic.twitter.com/Vln8eSRBq9
UK/London
All posts tagged UK/London
The new King has said he will follow the steps of his mother and not be political but will he?
‘In a 1997 Middle East Quarterly article titled “Prince Charles of Arabia,” Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman looked at evidence that Britain’s crown prince might be a secret convert to Islam. They shifted through his public statements (defending Islamic law, praising the status of Muslim women, seeing in Islam a solution for Britain’s ailments) and actions (setting up a panel of twelve “wise men” to advise him on Islamic religion and culture), then concluded that, “should Charles persist in his admiration of Islam and defamation of his own culture,” his accession to the throne will indeed usher in a “different kind of monarchy.” The whole article may be read at https://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/01/is-prince-charles-a-convert-to-islam
‘A chaplain who lost his job at a Church of England school has given evidence to a tribunal that “truth, Christian faith, freedom of faith and speech” were “ridden roughshod over” as the school disciplined him and eventually made him redundant.
Today, Rev. Dr Bernard Randall told East Midlands Employment Tribunal that Trent College, where he worked as a chaplain, that the school had shown “absolutely no regard for the concern [he] had for those upset or confused by the implementation of Educate and Celebrate” – a charity that provides training “to embed gender, gender identity and sexual orientation into the fabric” of their organisations.
Staff training from Educate and Celebrate
In the summer of 2018, Dr Randall became aware that Educate and Celebrate was due to lead a staff training session at the Church of England school. When he visited the charity’s website to understand what the session would involve, he saw that it “went beyond a neutral stance of inclusivity, into active promotion of ideas”. Alarmed by the group’s intention to “smash heteronormativity,” its promotion of identity politics and ‘misleading’ claims, Dr Randall considered writing to the Head, suggesting that the invitation be delayed until there was time to address his concerns.
However, Dr Randall decided instead to attend the Educate & Celebrate training when it took place in September. Although he had no objection to some of what was taught by Ms Elly Barnes, the charity’s founder, he “considered some areas impossible to reconcile with Christian principles, and therefore with the stated objects of the school”.
This included “the notion that ‘love is love’, without further definition” and “having the staff chanting about the need to ‘smash heteronormativity’”.
Dr Randall challenged Ms Barnes over “selective” use of statistics about intersex/Differences in Sexual Development. “I pointed out that, contrary to the list produced by E&C, gender identity is not a protected characteristic, to which Ms Barnes smiled and responded, ‘Well, it should be’”.
Implementing Educate and Celebrate
After the training session, Dr Randall spoke to his line manager and the Head to explain his concerns. They gave assurances that they had not known the full content of the session and were also concerned by the chanting. They said that they “would not simply implement the entire Educate and Celebrate programme as presented, but would make selective use of whatever fitted with the Trent ethos.”
Dr Randall was told that he would be part of a group looking at what aspects of Educate and Celebrate’s programme the school would use. However, in November, after mentioning the lack of meetings he was told he had “not been invited to discussions because [he] ‘might disagree with it.’” He later discovered that the school had since committed to pursuing the charity’s gold award by implementing their entire programme.
Sermon
Dr Randall picked up on concerns among the school community about aspects of the programme. “Some objected to elements on religious grounds; others found the aggressively political approach concerning, feeling that beliefs were being forced on them; others were simply confused about what they could, or could not, believe.”
When one child asked if he could use a sermon to address the question “How come we are told we have to accept all this LGBT stuff in a Christian school”, he carefully wrote an explanatory, moderate sermon emphasising the importance of “respecting those with whom we disagree”.
He gave the sermon twice in chapel, once with minor alterations, and spoke to various members of staff and pupils. Dr Randall recalled, “They broadly said the message was interesting, enjoyable, and thought-provoking. None seemed to have been upset.”
He even spoke to a pupil who was public about his homosexuality, who also spoke positively. “At no stage did any member of staff or pupil give me any indication of wanting to express negative views, or ask to meet with me to discuss what I had said.”
Safeguarding meeting
Nevertheless, within a week, Dr Randall had been asked to attend a meeting with the school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead. He was given a glancing look at concerns which Dr Randall says “were from people who simply disagreed with Church teaching, or disagreed with it being taught.” He explained that there were factual errors in the complaints about what he had said, but this was brushed aside and Dr Randall was questioned about Church of England doctrine.
Asking what they considered was wrong with his presentation, Dr Randall said that two issues were raised: first, they incorrectly contended that gender identity was a protected characteristic; second, they claimed that psychology textbooks say there are three genders. But the real problem, according to the school was not what Dr Randall had said but how the sermon made people feel.
Dr Randall felt ambushed. While being accused of lacking empathy, he says he “was shown absolutely no empathy during the course of the meeting … There was absolutely no regard for the concern I had expressed for those upset or confused by the implementation of Educate and Celebrate”.
Suspended
Dr Randall soon found himself suspended.’https://christianconcern.com/news/school-rode-roughshod-over-christian-chaplain-after-sermon-on-identity/
‘Having been politically active while in the employment of housing provider L&Q since 2015, I was perplexed to suddenly find myself facing disciplinary action for political activity.
I had stood four times for Parliament, including in the Lewisham East by-election, as well as being No.1 on the list for the Christian People’s Alliance (CPA) for the London Assembly last year.
None of this activity caused any problems for L&Q.
The only problem arose when I stood this year to be mayor of Lewisham. As part of the process, each candidate is granted a full page in the mayoral booklet which goes out to every resident of Lewisham — over 200,000 people. For my contribution I produced a six-point plan which, along with plans to tackle knife crime and fly tipping, included the following statement:
I pledge to cut through political correctness and simply state the truth that natural marriage between a man and a woman is the fundamental building block for a successful society, and the safest environment for raising children.
Of the 200,000 residents, one of them decided this was “hate speech” and put forward a complaint to Lewisham Council demanding that the booklet be withdrawn. Lewisham Council politely informed them that it is up to each candidate to write what they like and they do not dictate the wording.
Next, however, came a complaint to my employer. Constant vicious posts were going up on social media with cries of feigned outrage and accusations of “hate speech”. Elements of the media began to pick them up and to contact the party headquarters and then myself.
An article appeared in the Guardian which was quite mild, followed by another much more forthright article in Pink News. Its article was headed “Christian candidate attacks same sex marriage in disgusting election leaflet”. My leaflet was called “anti-gay bile” though I didn’t actually mention homosexuality in the manifesto.
Pink News contacted my party’s office demanding answers. We sent a series of research pieces with evidence that demonstrated how children need a father and how married couples are significantly better parents, as well as some research which examined graduation rates and concluded that children of same-sex parents are significantly worse off. We also gave clear testimony from children who have grown up in same-sex households, demonstrating the detrimental effects it had on their lives. We asked Pink News to provide some research to back up its position that children are better off with same-sex parents — or at least no worse off. It couldn’t come up with anything at all.
This publicity, however, provoked a total of three complaints to my employer. The complainants accused me of being “homophobic” and discriminatory towards the LGBT community. All three demanded that I should receive “anti-oppressive training” and face disciplinary action.
I was immediately suspended pending investigation, but I still felt confident as I assumed Christian beliefs were protected under the Equality Act as much as homosexuality is. After all, I had not insulted or even criticised anyone — I had merely stated a clear Christian value.
Prevented from campaigning while suspended, I was investigated by L&Q and told that my case had nothing to do with Christianity. Although I outlined how L&Q was breaching articles 9 and 10 of the European Court of Human Rights, my employer was simply not interested.
Article 9 gives me the right to freedom of thought, belief and religion, and Article 10 the right to hold my own opinions and to express them freely without interference. These articles take precedence over companies’ diversity and inclusion policies.
Nonetheless, L&Q acted quickly. As soon as the election was over, it told me I was dismissed with immediate effect for defying the company’s inclusion policy, which appears not to include Christianity.
This is the first time that a political candidate has been penalised by their employer for political speech which is protected for very obvious reasons. The ramifications of this case cannot be overstated. Free speech is being attacked and eroded by cancel culture rapidly in the UK and around the world.
I believe free speech and Christian freedoms are fundamental aspects of democratic societies and must be protected at all costs. Our ability to freely express our views and openly disagree with each other is the core essence of democracies. The alternative is forced censorship and the threat of losing everything if you don’t comply.
What has happened to me does not bode well for the ordinary citizen who hopes to make a difference in their community and nation. What message does this vicious attack on a Christian politician and my Christian values send to other Christians who want to engage with politics? I am deeply concerned that what has happened will deter them, and that is why I have no choice but to fight for justice.
My case illuminates how cancel culture intimidates dissenters into silence by making examples of employees so that anybody else who considers being openly honest about their views on controversial subjects will think twice or face a similar fate.
Corporations such as L&Q are willing participants in the erosion of free speech. They do the dirty work of the woke mob under the guise of internal inclusion and diversity policies. This is not diversity, but a narrow commitment to progressive social values.’https://thecritic.co.uk/sacked-for-christian-beliefs/
This woman has courage!
The West has lost any sense of justice. The society we once knew in the West is in its last days. The mob rules! 2Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
‘Last year, the incredibly brave Christian evangelist Hatun Tash was brutally stabbed at Speakers’ Corner, in what was evidently an attempt on her life. I wrote about the incident for The Critic at the time, and indicated that this was not the first time that she had been assaulted there.
Hatun was not deterred. She continues to bravely preach at Speakers’ Corner — the place known as “the home of free speech” — every Sunday. Just days ago, on Sunday, 26 June, she was arrested by police there after having her Qur’an forcibly stolen from her.
Yes, you read that right, she was arrested after her copy of the Qur’an was stolen from her. She had done nothing wrong herself. You can watch the footage of how the Qur’an was ripped out of her grip here. Shortly afterwards she was arrested. This is the third time she has had her Qur’an stolen from her at Speakers’ Corner. No one has ever been arrested for stealing her Qur’an, and her copies of the Qur’an have never been returned. This means that the robbers know they can get away with it and are therefore emboldened to steal again.
It is well-known that Hatun carries a copy of the Qur’an with holes drilled through it as a visual aid when engaging with Muslims at Speakers’ Corner. I have explained before that this reminds the Muslims there that one of their leading apologists admitted that the Muslim narrative about the origins of the Qur’an “has holes in it”. ‘https://thecritic.co.uk/the-police-are-enabling-islamic-intolerance/
‘Labour MP Rupa Huq is making another attempt to introduce new legislation that would ban any sort of prayer, protest or support offered to people outside of abortion clinics across the country.
In an amendment to the Public Order Bill, the proposed text suggests that anyone found within these censorship zones – which constitute a 150m radius around abortion clinics – could face a fine or six months’ imprisonment, and if found for a second time, could even face up to two years in prison.
To be clear, these punishments are reserved for anyone who “interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone.”
However, ‘interferes with’ is further broken down, making it clear that it targets anyone who might be there to offer appropriate support and advice to women looking for help. The amendment lays out that ‘interferes with’ can be defined as:
“(a) seeks to influence; or
(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies; or
(c) Impedes or threatens; or
(d) intimidates or harasses; or
(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion; or
(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means; or
(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likeness or personal data or any person without express consent.”
The growing use of ‘buffer zones’
The effort to shut down the pro-life voice by any means is sadly not new. In fact, the proposed amendment is simply the re-tabling of the same amendment brought forward by Ms Huq in 2021, which ended up not being put to a vote after opposition from Parliament and the public.
However, an increasing number of local councils have gone out of their way to enact Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), which essentially have the same legal effect as creating a so-called ‘buffer zone’.
Most famously, in October 2019, Christian Hacking became the first person to be arrested for publicly praying in front of an abortion clinic, in violation of the UK’s first ‘buffer zone’ in Ealing, West London. Since then, two more ‘buffer zones’ have been created in the UK, effectively silencing the pro-life voice outside abortion clinics.
More recently, Birmingham City Council has consulted on creating a new PSPO around another abortion clinic, arguing that it was in the ‘public interest’ to protect residents from allegedly ‘violent protestors’. Pro-life group 40 Days for Life, which regularly sets up peaceful prayer vigils outside abortion clinics (far enough away from the entrance so as not to cause disturbance), was accused by the council of sending ‘violent protestors’ to the Robert Clinic, Birmingham, who allegedly harass and interrogate the public. Yet the council failed to recognise that in reality, it is the pro-life volunteers who regularly face harassment from the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_sGmizYSQs Lots of foul language against those praying for those seeking an abortion.
Yet in reality, these zones are really ‘censorship zones’. The real purpose of them is shut down any form of pro-life action, prayer or support, outside of abortion clinics. In effect, this gives priority to a pro-abortion viewpoint over a pro-life viewpoint.
Even pro-abortion MP Kit Malthouse seemed to point out the hypocrisy of so-called ‘buffer zones’ during the second reading of the Public Order Bill in the House of Commons, commenting:
“I am honestly and genuinely perplexed by the argument about buffer zones … I understand the sensitivity in that particular situation, but why is it that we object to and are willing to restrict that particular form of protest, but not others?”
The pro-life presence outside abortion clinics in the UK is a peaceful one, with most groups setting up prayer vigils or silent demonstrations, with the occasional leaflet or booklet being offered to those who pass by.
Many women – and men – have been helped by these pro-lifers outside abortion clinics, being shown there are other options to abortion. For example, Danny and Carla were helped by 40 Days for Life outside an abortion clinic when they felt they had no other choice than to terminate Carla’s pregnancy. They are now proud parents to baby Betsy.
Similarly, the testimonies of those helped by abortion pill reversal suggest a growing number of women who regret choosing abortion, and point to a much-needed pro-life presence outside abortion clinics.
It makes sense for the pro-life movement to be present outside the very place it objects to; much as you might find animal rights’ protestors outside shops that sell fur or products tested on animals. The difference is, those with a pro-life point of view are effectively being told their views aren’t valid and must be shut down, even when they cause no disruption.
In turn, this essentially allows ideological abortion providers to hide all opposition to what they’re doing to where no one can see it. It lets them keep women, who may be being coerced or uncertain about their decision, on the abortion conveyor belt that always ends in the ‘choice’ to abort.
Breach of human rights
These censorship zones effectively breach freedom of religion and belief by banning a pro-life viewpoint from being expressed within a certain area. They are also a wildly disproportionate response to the activity that generally goes on outside abortion clinics.
Article 9 of the Human Rights Act in the UK protects freedom of thought, belief and religion, which Article 10 protects the right to freedom of expression. Similarly, Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides freedom of assembly, meaning that everyone, no matter the cause, has a right to protest, demonstrate or march in a public space – which includes outside abortion clinics.
The universal introduction of so-called ‘buffer zones’ would inhibit these freedoms and may well be ruled to breach human rights.
‘Buffer zones’ not supported by Parliament or public
On various occasions, both Parliament and the public have opposed the introduction of these areas of censorship around abortion clinics.’https://christianconcern.com/action/praying-outside-an-abortion-clinic-could-land-you-in-jail-for-two-years/
whatyareckon 