Correction: Vandalism of war memorial with "Islam will dominate the world" deemed "not religiously motivated"

The headline in the Daily Mail is misleading, because it says “not racially motivated”.

Spencer picks up on it, correctly:

Racially motivated? No. Islam is not a race. Religiously motivated? Yes, and very obviously so. But craven fear drives authorities to outdo Orwell himself, and sweep this affair under the rug as being merely “political” in nature. “Muslim daubs war memorial with ‘Islam will dominate the world’ – but walks free after CPS says he was NOT racially motivated,” from the Daily Mail.

Update: Local Media Cover up Islamist Graffiti Attack on War Memorial

Its worse than you think:

True to form, the Burton Mail only called the East Staffordshire Racial Equality Council for comment. A Mr Dennis Fletcher from that organisation was then quoted as saying that he “suspected someone from the far right was responsible.”

He said: “Graffiti of any type is terrible but when it includes racist material it has to be considered utterly unacceptable.”

In other words, the Burton Mail tried its very best to completely invert the memorial desecration by innuendo to imply that it was the work of the “far right” and that it was “racist” as well.

There is, of course, no evidence as to who was responsible for this outrageous act. It is therefore highly irregular and irresponsible for the Race Police and the Burton Mail to go naming the “far right.” More/thanks to Mullah

Islamic message: Tohseef Shah’s graffiti ‘Islam will dominate the world’ was not religiously motivated, according to the Crown Prosecution Service

The CPS said Shah’s offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.

(That’s right! Rembember: we had another judgement last week that said the grey mass of unbelievers is not a “particular religious or racial group”, but if you say the same thing about Muslims, you go into the can because THEY ARE a particular  religious or racial group./ed)

It said: ‘While it was appreciated that what was sprayed on the memorial may have been perceived by some to be part of a racial or religious incident, no racial or religious group can be shown to have been targeted.’

The case comes after a senior judge ruled on Thursday that Christian beliefs had no right to protection by the courts.

Lord Justice Laws told Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane he had no right to appeal after he was sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to a gay couple.

The judge said legal protection for views held purely on religious grounds would be ‘irrational’.

Just an ordinary Muslim guy:

Defending, Mumtaz Chaudry said Shah did not hold extremist views. ‘This is nothing to do with his religious beliefs, his family’s beliefs or his cultural beliefs,’ he said. ‘He is just an ordinary guy.

He is remorseful, but at the time of his interview he was simply answering questions and didn’t realise that was the right time to show remorse.’

Translation: he didn’t need to pretend. He got off the hook anyhow…..

Then, of course, some of us might remember this:

Dennis Fletcher, chairman of East Staffordshire Racial Equality Council, said he suspected someone from the far right was responsible….

The UK seems to be full of useful idiots like him.

Here it is, found it:

Here’s the original link in German:

Die “Tiere” fügen sich

Basel, Switzerland: Proceedings were launched against a Swiss imam for  a sermon/kuthba in which he called unbelievers,  those who don’t believe in Allah and his prophet the “vilest of creatures, lower than vermin”, standard Mohammedan fare, as you can see here:

Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe

e 7:176 compares unbelievers to “panting dogs” with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.  Verse 7:179 says they are like “cattle” only worse.

rse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs.  Verse 2:65 echoes the theme.

A hadith says that Muhammad believed rats to be “mutated Jews” (Bukhari 54:524, also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).

46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than demons who believe in Muhammad.

Here’s the judgement in German, I try my best to translate:

Damit dieser Tatbestand erfüllt ist, muß sich die Herabsetzung oder die Diskriminierung gegen eine bestimmte oder zumindest bestimmbare Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion richten. Diejenigen Menschen, die Allah nicht anerkennen, stellen indessen keine eigene – vom Schutzbereich der Strafnorm erfaßte – Rasse, Ethnie oder Religionsgemeinschaft dar; vielmehr handelt es sich um die unbestimmte Gesamtheit aller Anders- und Nichtgläubigen.

Das bedeutet: Würde ich den Spieß umdrehen und behaupten: “Alle Menschen, die an Allah glauben, sind weniger wert als Tiere”, dann ginge es mir an den Kragen. Denn dies wäre ja eine Herabsetzung “einer bestimmten oder zumindest bestimmbaren Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion”.

Judgement (my translation in English)

To fulfil the conditions for hate speech the  attacks must be directed against a specific race, ethnical group or religion.  The people who don’t recognize Allah are not a protected group because they are not a race, ethnical group or a religious congregation. It is rather directed towards an unknown quantity of  other- and non believers.

So that means if you would turn it around and make the claim that “Everyone who believes in Allah are lower than animals, vermin..” then you can be booked for hate speech. Because you are attacking one specific group that  belongs to one particular religion, (even though they are not necessarily ethnic or a race)

Interesting, isn’t it?

That puts Mohammedans  above the law, everywhere in Europe where dhimmified  polit-props have signed up to this nonsense.

15 thoughts on “Correction: Vandalism of war memorial with "Islam will dominate the world" deemed "not religiously motivated"”

  1. * That puts Mohammedans above the law, everywhere in Europe where dhimmified polit-props have signed up to this nonsense.

    The effect of such laws, prophetically, is to wage war against the saints and martyrs of Jesus…

    “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there shall be earthquakes in divers places (not boobquakes); there shall be famines: these things are the beginning of travail. But take care: for they will give you up to the Sanhedrins; and in Synagogues you will be whipped; and you will be taken before rulers and kings because of me, for a sign to them. And the gospel must first be preached unto all the nations.” – Mark 13, in part.

  2. As Jesus said to Micah, “Η ειρήνη είναι μαζί σας και άστοχες παραφροσύνη σας.” Which loosely translates to Peace upon your troubled soul.

  3. It was the BNP that published the pics of the islamic graffiti on the war memorial – the local paper had them, but lacked the integrity to use them, and ran with the spin that right wing extremists might have been responsible. (can’t remember if this was posted here at the time)

    [The local media in the West Midlands town of Burton have launched a full-scale cover-up to try and hide the desecration of the town’s war memorial with Islamist graffiti.

    Sometime during the night of 8/9th December, unknown vandals spray painted the words “Islam will dominate the world” on the war memorial in Burton town centre.

    A passing member of the public spotted the graffiti and, filled with horror, snapped a picture (above).

    The local council was informed and to their credit had it removed within half an hour.

    The Burton Mail was then informed of the desecration, and a short while later an article appeared in the paper — which ignored the nature of the graffiti and without any justification or evidence of any sort said that the “right wing” was to blame.

    The Burton Mail’s article even boasted that it had censored the picture so that no-one could see what the graffiti actually said. Angered at the censorship, the photographer then handed over the pictures to this website for publication.]

    “… and Britain has no balls at all”

  4. The official religion of Britain is the Church of England and its head is the British monarch, the Defender of the Faith. This case is not about petty vandalism, racially or religiously motivated or not. By declaring Islam to be dominant over the Church of England, this Paki bastard intentionally committed sedition and lèse majesté. The Queen has been figuratively slapped across the face by an insolent foreign invader and no one dares to do anything about the national insult. That’s how much of a pussy the Brits have become. Shame on the Queen and all the so-called church fathers who should know better.

  5. The Queen’s likely successor considers himself to be “defender of faith” in general (and probably islam in particular) – the Royals being a very compelling argument for an Australian republic, in the absence of anything else for or against.

    [The Prince of Wales, who is 60 today, is planning a symbolic change when he becomes King by taking the title Defender of Faith to reflect Britain’s multicultural society. ]

  6. Thanks for that, Mullah.

    I’m not sure that this article is accurate though.

    According to my records it was “Defender of the Faith’s”, plural, which would make it even worse.

  7. naat,
    Why would you say that? Does it give you a sense of power, or belonging, or security? What is there really to love about this religion?
    Let me ask you this: is allah against sexual immorality? If yes, then why does he sanction prostitution in heaven (72 virgins to each martyr). If no, then we have a problem, don’t you think? In both cases, your cult fails.
    Listen, God gave you a brain and he expects you to use it. He also expects you to seek Him with all of your heart for the forgiveness of sin. For this reason, the Lord Jesus Christ died on your behalf to grant you eternal life.

  8. The essence of this story is that these racial vilification laws work against the natives and favor Mohammedans:

    Last night, he refused to discuss the case.

    Instead he appointed Abdullah Ibn Abbas, who described himself as spiritual leader of a group called Road to Jannah, to speak on his behalf.
    He said: ‘It really doesn’t concern us how the British people feel about the graffiti he wrote – the real outrage should be about the thousands of Muslims who are being killed and butchered as a result of British foreign policy.’

    The CPS said Shah’s offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.( Don’t NON muslims count then?) Mail/from this link here

  9. why is there any surprise this act of vandalism was deemed non religious,it was done by a member of the arabian paedophiles fan club who can do no wrong in the eyes of the pc cowards who dare not face the reality that this barbarous murderous cult presents a danger to their namby pamby views,not to mention my life and that of my fellow citizens.
    So,I’m off to spray a non religious statement on my local child molester mosque “paedophile worshipping scum will be fed to the pigs”.If any muzzies want to make anything of that they will have to admit mohammed was a paedophile
    hope I haven’t put anybody off bacon and sausages

  10. Sheik,
    We really need to counter the bullshit propaganda that is issuing from these vile islamic mouths. The CPS can be dragged before the coals and the members fired, if the British people want it to happen and they have to act. This mohammedan is a terrorist – nothing more – nothing less – and I hope that people make this piece of excrement’s life as difficult as possible.

  11. Spencer writes “Racially motivated? No. Islam is not a race. Religiously motivated? Yes, and very obviously so.”

    I don’t entirely agree with this. In a way, I think the Burton Mail was right. Islamic is not a religion, but a political system masquerading as a religion.

    I suppose it depends on what your definition of religion is. Islam is akin to Nazism. Is Nazism a religion? If so, Spencer is correct to say it was religiously motivated. But if you don’t regard Nazism as a religion, then he is incorrect.

    All very confusing!!

    1. LOL!

      Cassandra sez

      ” I think the Burton Mail was right. Islamic is not a religion, but a political system masquerading as a religion.”

      Sure. But that was hardly the deliberation of the judge or the Burton Mail. Both don’t seem to know the difference between the soldiers of allah or the Salavation Army. For them, they’re all equally evil.

  12. No not confusing, Cassandra. We have developed a deep knowledge of islam now.
    Robert, I am sure, is a very religious person who gives the same standing to islam as he does his own religion because so many ignorant muslims still believe it is a peaceful religion who abhore the fundamentalists.[TERRORISTS]
    I think it is very clear that islam is a politico-militaristic cult: ipso facto and the West’s response needs to be based on this concept.

Comments are closed.