Liberty Lost

Back in 2001, Britain’s political parties signed a fantastic pledge. They agreed to say nothing to “stir up racial or religious hatred, or lead to prejudice on grounds of race, nationality or religion.”

This gag order did more than keep the parties polite. Vital issues – from massive immigration and multiculturalism to their eradicating effects on British civilization – were officially banned. Thus, such concerns became impermissible thoughts. Not that such issues weren’t already thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would have put it. But this unprecedented pledge turned “violators” into political lepers.

I thought of that elite code of cowardice this week when a London judge sentenced a 42-year-old British secretary named Jacqueline Woodhouse to 21 weeks in jail. Her crime? An expletive-laden rant about immigration, multiculturalism and the disappearance of British civilization. Not in so many words. But that was the unmistakable gist of Woodhouse’s commentary one January night on the London Underground.

This same week, another London judge ordered two black girls, 18 and 19, to perform community service after a savage physical attack on two white legal secretaries. “I am satisfied what you both did, you did that night because you were fueled by alcohol,” Judge Stephen Kramer said, as though tut-tutting a child’s unknowing apple theft.

A few months ago, another London judge freed four Somali Muslim women who set upon a white couple, yelling, “Kill the white slag,” and other anti-white slurs. The gang beat the woman to the ground and ripped out a patch of her hair. Judge Robert Brown was lenient because, he ruled, as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk.

Jacqueline Woodhouse was drunk, too, but that was no mitigating factor in her case. She harmed no one, but that was no mitigating factor, either. Judge Michael Snow invoked the “deep sense of shame” Woodhouse’s display elicited, because “our citizens … may, as a consequence, believe that it secretly represents the views of other white people.”

And, thanks to YouTube, it becomes continuous spectacle. Woodhouse’s court-deemed “victim,” Galbant Singh Juttla, recorded and uploaded her display. After the six-minute clip went viral, Woodhouse turned herself in to police.

I did it, mates. I said: “I used to live in England. Now I live in the United Nations.”

Woodhouse said a lot of other things as she surveyed her fellow passengers, her squawky voice weirdly reminiscent of an Eliza Doolittle grown old without having met her Henry Higgins. “All bleeping foreign bleeping bleeps,” she says. “Where do you come from? Where do you come from? Where do you come from?” She estimated that 30 percent of the train’s passengers were in the country illegally.

Expletives fly regarding England (“this bleeping country is a bleeping joke”), Pakistanis, illegals, pigs.

“I wouldn’t mind if you loved our country,” she said, lucid, to a Pakistani beside her.

“Long live Pakistan,” he said twice in Urdu, later leading a chorus of the Pakistani national anthem.

Woodhouse then notices her “victim” recording her. “Oh, look, he’s filming,” she says. “Hello, government.” She leans into the camera.

Why, Woodhouse quite rationally asks, “am I not allowed to express my opinions?”

This tears it. “Why is it all right for you but not all right for me?” She’s shrieking now, her voice cutting the air like a ragged-edged razor.

There is background laughter, but nothing is funny. For a few, farcical minutes, a nation’s tragedy -- its unmourned, unmarked passing -- has taken the spotlight, the lead role played by a drunken secretary because there is no one else.

“Because you questioned me first,” he says, which isn’t true. Juttla questioned Woodhouse first, asking for her name. Surely, Big Brother would want to know.

Agreed but there seems to be another British bulldog on the political prowl right now who's calling out those who've betrayed their nation to the filthy koranimals at his countryman's expense. Saudi Arabia Buys Oxford In his latest essay, Paul Weston examines the ongoing process of Islamization in Britain as realized through the financial subversion of its universities by the Saudis and other wealthy Muslim donors. The British once built glorious structures in our varied colonies and did so in order to project imperial power architecturally. But after we retreated within our own borders and invited in the Third World, so we in turn are now subjected to foreign statements of imperial power. This is very apparent in the ancient university city of Oxford, home to the massive Oxford Islamic Centre. Oxford Centre for Islamic StudiesThis building occupies the majority of its three-acre site and appears to have been constructed slap-bang in the middle of the colleges’ sports fields. The dreaming spires of Oxford have some serious competition here — the architectural projection of Islamic supremacy simply has to be seen to believed (go to Google maps and enter “Kings Mill Lane, Oxford.” The lane serves as the northern border of the site). The Oxford Islamic Centre gained Royal approval recently, a landmark event celebrated by Prince Charles, a noted admirer of Islam who is apparently impervious to the reality of Islam’s core tenets. The Islamic centre, built at a cost of some £75 million, was funded by a number of hard-line Islamic states, most notably Saudi Arabia. Between 1995 and 2008, eight universities — Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, University College London, the LSE, Exeter, Dundee and City accepted more than £235 million from Muslim rulers and those closely connected to them. The donors tell us the Islamic Centres of British Universities merely want to promote an understanding of Islam, but Prof Anthony Glees, a man who has studied the rise of Islamic extremism in our universities, suggests their real agenda is rather different. He argues that they promote an extreme ideology and act as a form of propaganda for the Wahhabist strain of Islam within universities. They push, he says, “the wrong sort of education by the wrong sort of people, funded by the wrong sorts of donor”. If this is true, why on earth are we allowing these Islamic centres to built, and why on earth are we allowing the construction costs (and one assumes the associated back-handers) to be funded by people and states linked to supremacism and terrorism? Saudi Arabia has spent around 90 billion petro-dollars funding the growth of hard-line Wahhabist ideology in the West, yet Saudi Arabia is also a country that bans crosses, Bibles and any Christian teaching within its borders. Our much vaunted multicultural tolerance seems to be just a one way street to oblivion. Or, to put it more bluntly, we are being played for Dhimmi fools. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals, and Hilary Clinton has since stated that Saudi Arabia is the single biggest financial contributor behind the rise of Islamic extremism. In the politically correct newspeak so beloved of our recent political leaders she said: “it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority”. In 2007, the Guardian reported that a survey conducted by the Policy Exchange think-tank found extremist literature in a quarter of the one hundred mosques and Islamic institutions it visited, including London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park, which is funded by Saudi Arabia. The literature advocated violent jihad, murdering gay people and stoning adulterers, with most of this hateful, homophobic and seditious material produced by agencies closely linked to the Saudi regime. Britain’s Muslim schools are also being slowly taken over by hard-line Saudi Wahhabist ideology. According to the Daily Telegraph, 68% of Muslim schools investigated were linked to Islamic fundamentalists, and this does not take into account the 2,000 madrassas around the country which are attended by some 80% of Muslim schoolchildren outside school hours. The madrassas teach the Koran in Arabic, along with the usual hateful Islamic propaganda about “wicked” Western society and Jews. By the time Muslim children enter university, they have already been taught to hate their host culture with a passion, so it should come as no surprise that a study of five years of lectures on politics at the Middle Eastern Centre at St Antony’s College, Oxford, found 70% were “implacably hostile“ to the West and Israel, nor that 30% of people convicted for al-Qaida-associated terrorist offences in the UK had attended a British university or institution of higher education. Think-tanks have highlighted a succession of extremist speakers invited to deliver lectures unopposed at university Islamic societies, including University College London (UCL). Westminster University recently elected students with links to the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir as president and vice-president of the student union. In 2011, secret files obtained by The Daily Telegraph and WikiLeaks disclosed that at least 35 terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay were indoctrinated by extremists in Britain. The leaked documents, written by senior US military commanders, illustrated how Britain effectively has become a crucible of terrorism over the course of two decades. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, president of University College London’s Islamic Society between 2006 and 2007, tried to blow up a flight to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009 by ingeniously designing a pair of exploding underpants. Whether this was actually possible is something wiser minds are pondering, but the intention to cause mass murder via novelty underwear was certainly foremost in engineering student Umar Farouk’s propagandised mind. Killing in the name of Islam is rather popular amongst “British” students. In 2008 a YouGov poll found 33% of Muslim students in Britain believed killing someone in the name of religion to be justifiable. This was exhibited recently at a conference held by the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society at Queen Mary University in London, when a follower of the Religion of Peace threatened to kill various debaters if they dared to mention Mohammed. The Independent reported it thus: “The same man then began filming the faces of Society members in the foyer and threatening to hunt them down if anything was said about Muhammad, he added that he knew where they lived and would murder them and their families…on leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, seemingly there to support him. We were told by security to stay in the Lecture Theatre for our own safety.” Queen Mary’s has no plans to hold another conference on themes Islamic. They have submitted before the religion of Islam — just as intended. The word “Islam” translated from Arabic to English actually means “submission” — a practice avidly carried out by British University Chancellors who turn a blind eye to such Islamic shenanigans, and the British police, who apparently provided “reassurance” to the debating society but lacked a certain amount of courageous get-up-and-go when it came to actually finding and arresting the bearded gentlemen who made the death threats. The British government has also submitted before Islam. The rather lightweight Home Secretary Theresa May (who also doubles up as Minister for Women and Equality…) has stated that some forty British universities have been radicalised. Ms May said: “I think for too long there’s been complacency around universities. I don’t think they have been sufficiently willing to recognise what can be happening on their campuses and the radicalisation that can take place. I think there is more that universities can do.” The British government has at least tried to something about this, despite their utter uselessness being so all-encompassing as to be almost endearing. Under their new “Prevent” strategy, our clueless leaders promised to spend more on identifying threats in prisons, universities and the health service…and to ensure that no more cash was given “to organisations that hold extremist views or support terrorist-related activity of any kind”. Not a bad notion really. The public funding of people and organisations wishing to kill us smacks of foolishness at the very highest level, but the British government is made up of the usual half-witted suspects when it comes to recognising the danger posed by the Religion of Peace. No one should be shocked to discover therefore that Theresa May has admitted via the Guardian: “the money from the £63 million anti-extremism budget has been given to groups that promote hardline beliefs.” Such is the derisory state of tragicomic, Dhimmified Britain. Hard-line Islamic states that outlaw Christianity in their own countries are allowed to pour hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain in order to promote supremacy, jihad, terrorism, homophobia, misogyny and anti-Semitism. University Chancellors look the other way because they are either afraid or have benefitted handsomely financially. The British police look the other way as well, through fear of being called names. And the British government financially rewards the extremists through fear and/or criminal incompetence. Unless things drastically change in the very near future, I think it is safe to say Britain is on the point of no return. Accelerating Muslim demographics, blatant Islamic fundamentalist propaganda and a supine indigenous population guarantees our imminent destruction. All the powers of the state seem to work with those who wish us harm and against those who wish to expose Islam for what it really is. Britain is an absolute multicultural madhouse these days, but it can still be saved. If you are angered by the details in this article, then please consider joining or funding British Freedom, the only non-racist political party in Britain prepared to stand up to both Islam and their treacherous, Britain-hating leftist allies like the UAF and other such immoral, depraved and disgusting organisations. Paul Weston is Chairman of the British Freedom Party.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.