At least Cllr Bartlett used the proper channels to try to enforce his outdoor smoking ban. But while we were all watching Stony Stratford, the Christian Institute and Pink News - not normally sources which would be in agreement - were both reporting that areas of Tower Hamlets have been designated smoke and alcohol-free zones, and a lot more, without any democratic input whatsoever. From the latter article.It is understood the posters were found last Thursday morning at council-managed housing blocks in Shadwell, next to the DLR and Overground station.Porn?!? From my cold, dead hands, sunshine!
They state: “You are entering a Shariah controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.”
Underneath, images declare that smoking, alcohol, music, drugs, prostitution and porn are forbidden.
[Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary] said: “This will mean this is an area where the Muslim community will not tolerate drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, usury, free mixing between the sexes – the fruits if you like of Western civilisation.
“This will be a very heavy leafleting campaign aimed at both the Muslim and non-Muslim community in terms of what the Sharia means economically, socially and politically.”
Earlier this year, he claimed he had “thousands” of people willing to patrol streets up and down the UK to dissuade people from anti-Islamic behaviour.
A police spokeswoman said: “We are aware of a limit [sic] number of posters appearing in Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham.Why bother? Street prostitution is already illegal, as is drug use in public; alcohol-free zones are in abundance around the country; ASH have openly advocated outdoor smoking bans; noise nuisance bylaws are commonplace to prohibit music; and they'll be getting round to porn and gambling soon enough, if not already.
“Officers are working closely with the local authority to have the posters removed as soon as possible.”
There's not much there which won't be enforced under common law soon. May as well leave the signs up and save some money for the council in having to produce their own in the future. You know, Big Society and all that.
[Tower Hamlets council said:] "We treat issues like this very seriously, and the matter is being looked into further by our Hate Crime Team"This, naturally, won't apply to the smoking bit.
19 comments:
As suggested on Twitter, DP - hows about a visit to Tower Hamlets by the Stony Stratford Smoking Brigade?
What about shisha pipes?
Curmudgeon: Exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps they are exempt.
WfW: While I'm sure there are some who would welcome it, I think I'll pass ... until the council itself proposes the same, that is. ;)
I wouldn't be able to get along to Tower Hamlets as my British passport has expired.
According to that poster there is no mention of gays being banned. I wonder why?
I expect to see a massive gay pride march organised by the oh-so vociferous gay fascisti. Any time soon... boys, boys where've you all gone?
C'mon, you're very loud about your rights when faced with the blue rinse and twinset brigade or Christians, I'm sure you'll all be falling over yourselves to vent your outrage at the mooselimbs.
And the tumbleweed rolls by.
Anyone remember this story? You do have to wonder whether they would have been quite so amorous in a halal café in Tower Hamlets...
I notice Choudray doesn't mention music. Funny how he'd omit that, rather wide-ranging, aspect of the notices.
My immediate reaction to them would be to go home, fling the windows open, and turn the stereo up to 11. Bach, of course.
The bit left out is that the ban does not apply to those who organise it.
Thing with the likes of Choudray and his fellow travellers is, little do they realise that they're what Stalin called useful idiots.
But once they're of use no longer, they'll find themselves either worked to death or kneeling at the side of a mass grave stripped and waiting for the bullet to the head.
If history teaches us anything, it's that this is how it always turns out, without exception.
Islam has a pretty bad name all round, largely whipped-up by a hysterical press and then confirmed by a few Muslim nutters. Or is it the other way around? Who knows?
But either way, moderate Muslims - who I quite appreciate form the massive majority of Muslims everywhere - don’t actually help the situation by their failure to condemn, loudly and vociferously, such arrogant and high-handed behaviour on the part of their more extremist members. For sure, there was one protest not so long ago, but if moderate Muslims genuinely don’t want to feel quietly resented and feared within whatever western society they have chosen to live, then they really do need to get their act together and to form some kind of organised “rebuttal” group who can spring into action whenever this kind of activity brings their religion into disrepute and fuels the media’s salacious and generally pretty uncomplimentary stories about them all.
Unless and until this happens, non-Muslims in any society where Muslims are resident will continue – rightly or wrongly – to harbour the inner belief that all Muslims privately approve of such actions, and the resentment, suspicion and ill-feeling will continue. As we know from the smoking ban - silence is often interpreted as approval, even when it is actually nothing of the sort!
Islam as a religion might have a good handle on a lot of things, but PR ain’t one of them!
Vis-a-vis the alcohol-free watchamagubbins, local councils across our lovely land are enforcing this horrid law already. Drinking out of doors is beautiful when one gets chance to do it in the open air, out of doors.
Something that councils and the Shariah wallahs have distinctively in common, then.
If one was completely delusional one might even say that one might be encouraging the other.
I have no doubt whatsoever that ordinary muslim people want to live in peace with their neighbours. But do they have a voice? What channels are available for them to speak?
There seems to be a block upon the ability of ordinary people to make their feelings known. Did I say 'feelings'? Smack, smack. 'Feelings' are animalistic - feelings derive from the animal in us, and not from the human in us. And there, is a large part of the problem - lots of people do not think rationally - they think emotionally. "Oh, the poor children!" is a case in point. Rarely does one see any intelligent analysis of why these 'poor children' are 'poor'.
The Smoking Ban is an irrational law. It is an emotional law. It is based upon animalistic fear. In particular, animalistic fear of the unknown - in particular, the unknown, unquantifiable and, probably, non-existent effects of SHS (especially non-existent on children).
Few people understand the irrationality of the ban. Even Tobacco Control do not really understand what they do. They have, and continue to, play emotional games, and that is how the slaughter of WW1 started.
Maybe that is what the man in Norway was so annoyed about
"Why bother"
Why?......dunno, I couldn`t give a monkeys what they do in Tower Hamlets etc.
On this occasion Dick I have to disagree with you. If this Sharia business means Hattie Harperson, Jaqui Smith and all thouse other sour faced champions of political correctness in the Labour Party have to go around with bags over their heads it cold turn out to be a good thing.
'There's not much there which won't be enforced under common law soon.'
DP,
I'd like to think that such would never, and could never be enforced under the common law. Statute law, yes. Common law, not a hope.
I bow to your distinction, Chuckles. :)
And now in the Daily Wail...
Post a Comment