UK: Pigs Heads More Important Than the Rape of Their Own Children

Update:

clear

From the Daily Mail

00ffd0dee6f323f4967dd7536e4e55b4In what was once great Britain, the heavily enriched police waste much of their time and taxpayer money to investigate pranksters who dump pig’s heads in mosque neighbourhoods. Meanwhile, their children are being raped by Paki Muslim gangs.

Muslim rape gangThis report doesn’t mention it (which in itself is telling), but 75%, and probably more (since it is so politically unacceptable to report such things), of these rape and sexual exploitation gangs are “Asian,” which is British Newspeak for “Muslim.” Despite the continuing horror of these revelations, the British continue to take this with equanimity, for to resist it would be “racist” and “Islamophobic.”

“Child sexual exploitation ‘now normal in parts of Greater Manchester’: report,” by Helen Pidd, the Guardian, October 29, 2014 (thanks to JW):

Sexual exploitation of vulnerable children has become the social norm in some parts of Greater Manchester, fuelled by explicit music videos and quasi-pornographic selfies, an MP has warned.

The Goose of Gosford

Anglican Parish of Gosford

I’m all for the religious (and non religious) freedom to wear what you like in public.  (I quite like my new party dress). If we impose a ban on the burqa (In Australia Muslim women usually wear niqab) we must be prepared to accept that by the taking away of this religious freedom, we could, equally, be forced to wear one. There are indeed Christian women who still cover their heads in public, or when going to church, that is their choice. We must be free to wear what we like. Its the deep rich tapestry of ‪#‎teamhumanity‬.
Fr Rod

I'm all for the religious (and non religious) freedom to wear what you like in public. (I quite like my new party dress). If we impose a ban on the burqa (In Australia Muslim women usually wear niqab) we must be prepared to accept that by the taking away of this religious freedom, we could, equally, be forced to wear one.  There are indeed Christian women who still cover their heads in public, or when going  to church, that is their choice.  We must be free to wear what we like. Its the deep rich tapestry of #teamhumanity. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/team-australia-should-encourage-young-muslims-not-ban-niqabs-20141003-10prej.html Fr Rod
Jerusalem:
.

Perhaps the Obama regime was right to call Netanyahu a chickeshit:

After day of absolute closure, holy site to reopen for Friday prayers – for some

.
Site will only be open to men over age of 50 and women; Jordanian spokesman: Pressure from Amman led to decision; US calls for calm in Jerusalem.–YNETNEWS.COM

2 thoughts on “UK: Pigs Heads More Important Than the Rape of Their Own Children”

  1. “Fr Rod” = FRAUD.

    Why on earth didn’t that willfully self-blinded ignorant masochistic fucktard do a simple bit of research before Submitting to sharia in the name of Jesus?!

    The Hijab is not a fashion trend, it’s a prison uniform!

    It’s also an insult to both sexes; from Qur’an Sura 33:59, it is a slanderous statement that implies the muslim men (and all men, just like Muhammad) are so at the mercy of their hormones, that they must molest and rape any and all women they can see; so it’s always the women’s own fault for not covering up. It also says the muslim men have a duty to molest and rape all the infidel women for not covering up!

    “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. That will be better so that they will be known so as not to be molested. And Allâh is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’ân 33:59)

    So, exactly HOW will they “be known” in the freedom sack?! Certainly not as in: “Oh, I know her! Hi, Mary!” but “known” as muslimas – as members of the gang! And why is this important? “so as not to be molested!”

    Which again implies that muslims DID and always WILL “molest” (i.e: rape,) all the NON-muslim (“infidel”) women! That it’s the infidel women’s faults, because they don’t cover up, that the muslim men “must” molest (rape) them!

    Moe also said women are created by allah as domesticated animals, created for men’s pleasure, and like fields to be tilled at will by men.

    ;-(

    Before Moe, covering up was optional; any fool could ignore it if they wanted to. The tafsir ahadith isnads (supplemental, explanatory material apending the Qur’an) explain that the Sura in question (33:59) arose because Moe’s wives were seen by moonlight as they went potty outside his tent one night. But, quite unlike any other self-respecting warlord, who would have had the peeping tom executed for spying on his wives, Moe agreed with the man and blamed his victims, (his own wives) perhaps because the peeper was a rich or influential member of an allied tribe.

    As for the “freedom to wear what one wants” bit – NO again!
    The burqa limits peripheral vision, causing accidents when, say, buses of school children are driven around by muslimas, not to mention wearing masks is already banned because criminals can use them to rob banks, etc!

    1. The one eyed burqa

      …. which has nothing to do with Islam. From the ‘Noble Koran’:

      Quran – 33:59 Allah says: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (tanslated to close) – i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed.

Comments are closed.