UPDATE: The match is still on. (Thanks to MM for the link.)
Note the Muslim Association of Britain's enthusiastic support for this successful enterprise of intimidation. "Conflict affects sport and arts," from the BBC, with thanks to Twostellas:
A match involving the Israeli cricket team in Glasgow has been abandoned amid fears of demonstrations over Israel's campaign in Lebanon.Organisers, the European Cricket Council, said it was cancelled because of public safety issues.
The Edinburgh International Film Festival has also cancelled sponsorship from the Israeli Embassy following protests from pro-Palestinian groups.
Jewish leaders said they were concerned about anti-Semitic feeling.
Originally, police said the European Cricket Council could not find an available venue for the Israel match on Thursday.
The Israeli cricket team had been expected to play Jersey in Newlands, in Glasgow's south side, on Thursday.
That match was switched to Anniesland, postponed then cancelled. Both teams will now receive one point in the tournament.
The team is due to meet Norway on Saturday in Hillhead, Glasgow, in the European Cricket Council's second division championship match.
Osama Saeed, of the Muslim Association of Britain, said of the decision to drop the match: "This is fabulous news, though we would wish that the decision had been taken earlier by the organisers on the grounds of principle rather than practicality."
Another instance of British attitudes: the BBC is advertising yet another TV program attacking the divinity of Christ. That is hardly news, since British TV in general and the BBC in particular are more hostile to Christianity than Combes, Calles, Stalin and Hitler rolled into one. What is interesting, however, is the slant from which this particular anti-Christian program approaches the issue. For this program is about the miracles of Jesus, and seems to admit their historicity. It does, however, deny that Jesus ever thought of himself as God or the Son of God (in spite of the plain words and the obvious context of the entire New Testament) - in other words, it presents Jesus as a MAN with miraculous powers. AND IT IS PRESENTED BY RAGEH OMAR, the BBC's most visible and popular Muslim anchor. Does this add up? Jesus presented as a miracle-working human being - that is, a prophet - and discussed, if the word will serve, by a Muslim, that is by someone who believes that Jesus was a prophet. All we need is the final invitation to join the Ummah.
It has been a long time since I was in as fierce a rage as when I heard this news. I refuse on principle to pay the BBC canon, which is just as well. I do not want my money going into this filth.
Regarding the BBC's "Miracles of Jesus" airing Sunday night nationwide on British tv... the run-ups on BBC this week have Rageh Omar, the well-known muslim Apologist, asking the question :
"did Jesus ever claim to be Divine ?"
No doubt the muslims up and down the country will be dancing in the streets.This programme is aimed at undermining Christian beliefs.
This from the same organisation that gave us Jerry Springer the Opera on peak-time nationwide tv.
Then when they refused to show the muhammad cartoons (because of muslim death threats) they issue a statement to the effect that the BBC does not hurt peoples religious sensitivities!!!
Throughout the programme we are asked the question : "can we validate these claims ?"
A Scottish RC Bishop complained to the BBC about them using a muslim to host the program. THe BBC (incredously) replied that it treats all faith groups equally, and listed the BBC sponsored program : "the ISLAMIC History of Europe" , hosted by the same Rageh Omar,as an example of this equality!!!
"Equality" would have involved a non-muslim (eg Ali Sina) hosting a program about muhammad and asking eg
"can we validate the claim that muhammad only had ""revelations"" when he was under the blanket with his little child-bride Aisha?
Or is it MORE LIKELY that he knew that only a child would fall for his plagiarised "revelations"
or can we validate the claim that it was a Moon God, Allah, who said it was ok for muhammad to "marry" his son's wife ? or is it MORE LIKELY that Mo was just following his own lustful desires ?
Can we validate the claim, that it was Allah who proclaimed that if a woman is raped she needs 4 MUSLIM, MALE witnesses ?
or is it MORE LIKELY that Mo was covering up for little Aisha who had had a night of fun with a young Arab boy and was being accused of adultery?
The list goes on and on . . .
Bear in mind also that Rageh Omar is NO longer a BBC employee, he works for Al-jazeera!
If you are a UK-resident please make a point of complaining to the BBC... demand that they give us a program about muhammad.
I wonder when we can expect to see a programme by the BBC about how Mohammed had convenient visitations from god when he wanted to marry his sons wife or pull his dissenting wives into line. Perhaps it could be hosted by the archbishop of Canterbury, or Nick Griffin of the BNP. Oh no, hang on a minute, that would be racist/islamophobic, and in the Christian country we live in we are only allowed to bash any other religion than Islam. When will the leaders of this country wake up and smell the sharia?
Why not make things just as unpleasant for Pakistan's tour of England? Right now, England is in the lead, and after this test, cancel the 4th test, and declare England the series winner.
Incidentally, it's good to see England trounce Pakistan for a change.
It's quite amazing how Mockbul Ali, who advises the Foreign Office on Islamic matters, can get admission for dangerous jihadist preachers, but Jewish athletes can't appear in public to play a game.
"Wake up and smell the sharia", I like that! May I use it from now on?
"I refuse on principle to pay the BBC canon, which is just as well. "
-- from a posting above
Why not urge others to do the same? To then be arrested? Or better still, to hold a march on Bush House, decrying its pro-Islamic propaganda, its staff full of shrill or sly Lord Haw-Haws, each more intolerable than the next, its World Service slant determined by John Simpson, and the Muslim staff who are ever expanding, and wathcing, infilrating, vetting reports, helping to choose the stories, and the "experts" to be invited on -- from Hamas-supporter Azzam Tamimi, to the various former American diplomats to the Arab countries and sly NGO propagandists of the Murphy or Robert-Malley variety, to all the others who seem always to be invited on.
Make placards. Passages from Qur'an: 9.29, 9.5. A few Hadith. Names: Aisha, Asma bint Marwan, Khaybar, Banu Qurayza, Al-Hudaibiyyah.
Then march --ten, a hundred, a thousand. How many others in England are fed up, yet feel helpless in doing anything about, the hideous, dangerous, seditious and misleading BBC?
Well Hugh I am English and I'm totally fed up of all this.
Sick and tired of M.A.C., the BBC, the whole damn lot of them!
When are we English going to stop being so bloody polite and always trying to see it from the other point of view and instead stand up and bloody do something about it?
Anti-Jewish and anti-Christian art and literature: a free-for-all.
Anti-Islamic art and literature: for the brave, at your own risk.
The reason for the former: Jews and Christians don't react violently.
The reason for the latter: guess...
In the field of education, parents and teachers may hammer it into their kids' heads 'til the cows come home that violence is not the answer, that bullying is despicable, that threats are the sign of a weak and evil person and that blackmail shouldn't be caved in to. But kids have a sharp sense for "do as I say, not as I do", and the adults' cravenness in front of Islamic bullying won't go unnoticed by them.
The parents may be lost. Are the kids going to grow up soon enough to be the fighters in this war against this ideology of school bullies masquerading as a religion?
Somewhat off-topic:
An interesting thing happened at the lake yesterday.
I had an interesting interchange with my Leftist friend yesterday. We went out to a lake to enjoy the summer, go for a swim, have some beers and catch up on stuff. I didn't feel like swimming myself, but my friend decided to go into the water for a while. As he got up to get ready, he had to change out of his shorts into his swimming trunks, but there was no place nearby to do it in. There were lots of people around. He said he'd go behind a bush to change. Before doing so, he made a brief comment disparaging our society for its puritanical attitudes about public nudity, and added, by way of example, "why aren't women allowed to breastfeed in public?".
About an hour later, after his swim, we're sitting at the picnic table talking about various things. I had been reading the newspaper and found an article about how in the town of Riccione, Italy, "Muslim women to get own section of beach". So, without any comment, I slid the paper over to my Leftist friend and asked him to read the brief story and tell me his thoughts and feelings. He read it carefully, then said, "Well, I don't really have any feelings of opinion one way or the other."
I was hoping he'd say that. I proceeded to remind him of his comments just an hour before, about how he criticized our society for its ever-so-slight attitudes of puritanism reflected in various discouragements of public nudity, including his desire to be able to show his genitals briefly while changing into swimming wear without worrying about public attitudes.
"With your strong feelings about that issue," I said to him, "you now tell me you have 'no opinion' about a Western society bending over backwards to support a far more regressive and puritanical attitude among its Muslim citizens?"
My friend admitted his contradiction.
I wasn't done.
"The fact that I had to explain this to you, and that you didn't immediately --" I snapped my fingers for emphasis -- "and viscerally identify the problem that these Muslims represent is significant."
"Yes," said my chastened Leftist friend, "you're right. That was significant."
Ginro asks when ?
When the bombs start falling in Europe, just like in the 30's/40's, apparently things won't be taken seriously until then, and then all will bemaon "how could this happen ! "...
Aye bondservant, I fear you may be right but I wish it wasn't so. Too many people need a metaphorical bomb set under them before they start doing something. Although in this case it isn't likely to be metaphorical. And we ourselves are to separate in distance for us all to get together and make a huge difference. It's a pity there isn't some way we could all become more of a unit with one loud voice that reverberates around the world.
The BBC did a one hour radio documentary on Mohammed about 3 months ago. It was a nauseating whitewash: all that was missing were instructions on where to apply if you wished to become a Muslim after listening to it.
The Muslims have stated that they will be able to take over Europe and many parts of the world without firing a shot mereley by moving in, and we see that in parts of Europe happening...folks better wake and start cracking down on immigration allowances all in the guise of being free and friendly to all, being free and friendly to all will someday cause the disinegration of those freedoms in ones own country that they hold so dear. Being so nice anymore just may get yout throat cut. Same goes for the border problems here in the US..gone are the days when America can or should say "come one,come all", with the world as it is today how on earth can we have miles and miles of unprotected borders with people walking over, I think we will be surprized (though we shouldn't be) at perhaps how many terrorsits have come across, if we have sleeper cells of Hezballah and others we have made it quite easy for them to come across our southern borders.
Hi Remote, this leftist (well left in comparison to the uptight radicals who call themselves conservative these days).. holds and has held in low esteem and umbrage both the uptight sexually repressed Christian Right and the uptight sexually repressed Muslims.
You guys don't want to hear it, but I can and have checklisted a litany in which you "right wingers" have more in common with Muslims than not, but trust me it pains me, makes my neck muscles bulge and face redden to see so called "progressives", liberals and leftists apologizing for and in alliance with that enemy of conscience and freedom called Islam.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend..there is no choice between vampires and werewolves except wooden stake or silver bullet.
"Osama Saeed, of the Muslim Association of Britain, said of the decision to drop the match: "This is fabulous news, though we would wish that the decision had been taken earlier by the organisers on the grounds of principle rather than practicality." "
A disgusting comment, and a revealing one.
The seem to think they are gaining ground.
Are they really?
Another instance of British attitudes: the BBC is
Now this is a strange phrase...........what has the BBC to do with Britain or the British ?
We are captives of the BBC forced to pay £3.000.000.000 to an organisation in which we have NO shares, NO elected representatives, and the threat that a Judge will send you to jail for refusing to pay the levy.
The multinational corporation - BBC - and it is one of Britain's biggest corporations - thinks it is a global operator like TimeWarner-CNN or Disney-ABC or News-International - and that it is like a geo-stationary satellite out in space beaming on the world..............it just happens to have a cative source of funding in Great Britain but frankly despises the "feet of clay"
which keep it earthbound
But NEVER......EVER...... suggest the BBC represents BRITISH Values or Attitudes............it despises them
"Note the Muslim Association of Britain's enthusiastic support for this successful enterprise of intimidation."
Well, Robert, his name IS Osama...
jhl952
Help yourself.
This sounds to me like a private war of your own, Nariz, and I wonder what it has to do with this site. You are not comparing like with like - these attitudes only appear to you to be alike, because you are only approaching them at a very shallow level. It seems to me that you are saying: here are restrictions on sexual behaviour; there are restrictions on sexual behaviour - you see the connection, don't you?
Well, no, I don't. Prescisely what are the restrictions in each case? And what is the reason for them?
Virtually all societies hedge sexual matters around with restrictions and there are perfectly sound reasons for that. And even where that is said not to be so, it often turns out that the account is false - vide Magaret Mead in Samoa, who either lied or was lied to or both.
There are, as I say, sound reasons, and it is beyond the scope of an internet posting to deal with them here, but, if you wish to pursue the matter here is a book-length treatment.
You are just not comparing like with like. You are totally avoiding the issue of just how peculiar and unpleasant Islamic attitudes to sex can be.
Sorry for the language, but what the hell has this got in common with "conservative" attitudes - or more properly attitudes among "conservatives" in the West and others in other (non-Islamic) traditional societies across the globe?
Of necessity almost all traditional societies hedge sexual experience around with restrictions, because it touches deepest the levels of the personality and can be highly disturbing for people. This has as much to with protecting people - particularly the young - as it has to do with anything. Islam, as we have seen, is not concerned to protect the young - far from it. The root of Islamic "sexual morality" would seem to male sexual jealousy - that and that only.
An clear indicator of that is that the conservatives (whom you, in your innocence, think you are looking down on) would think it improper for an immature girl to be dressed in a provocative manner, because they understand, emotionally if not intellectually, that this puts her at risk. Among Muslims it is more of a concern to cover up adult women - a clear indication that it is male jealousy and relations of domination and subordination that are at the root of the matter here.
Yojimbo, well put.
According to BBC the second game Israel were due to play went ahead with a larger police presence than would normally be used for a Celtic / Rangers match. It was agreed with protesters that a peaceful demonstration could be made.
"In Glasgow, around 100 protesters gathered to demonstrate against a cricket match involving an amateur Israeli team.
The demonstrators, including members of the Lebanese community and Glasgow Stop the War Coalition, protested against the Norway vs Israel European Championship match at Glasgow Academicals’ ground in Anniesland. The Norwegian players were asked by a delegation from the protest group not to take to the field against the Israelis, but the match went ahead with no spectators and a high police presence.
Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain said: “Scotland has hit Israel for six this week. We’ve got rid of US and Israeli flights to Prestwick, the International Film Festival returned Israeli embassy sponsorship money and Thursday’s cricket was cancelled due to the size of the anticipated protest.”
Israel’s last game was abandoned on public safety grounds. The Edinburgh International Film Festival (EIFF) rejected funding from the Israeli embassy for a film after a storm of opposition.
In a statement, the European Cricket Council (ECC) said: “Both the ECC and the International Cricket Council believe this tournament can send out a positive message by showing the value of sport as a force for good and something to be enjoyed.”
Stop the War Coalition spokesman Joshua Brown said: “They have a responsibility that is greater than cricket – to take action against human rights violations.”
Assistant Chief Constable Ian Learmonth of Strathclyde Police said: “The decision on which teams would play lay solely with the organisers. We must strike a balance between the rights of those who want to protest and the rights of those taking part.”
There will be another protest with a police presence at today’s match . Stop the War Coalition is considering demonstrating against a film about Israeli soldiers to be shown at the EIFF. Brown said there would definitely be a protest if the film was pro-military. "
from: Sunday Herald 6th Aug 06
Voyager - sorry, but the plant grows out of the soil that feeds it. Those are British attitudes. If you want an exhibition of the insanity at the dark heart of England (for the English are not in the habit of discussing their views even with friends and family, and therefore most of them go quite insane on their own), I suggest you visit the blog of Ruth Gledhill (http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/), The Times' surprisingly sane, intelligent and competent writer about religion. Every day or two, Gledhill, who is the daughter of a minister, tries to talk sense about religion - I do not always agree with her, but she knows her subject and has her feet firmly on the ground; and every day or two, the comments thread come back full to bursting with the worst deliberate ignorance, fanaticism, polymorphous perversity and pernicious moonbattery, leaving the impression that not one reader in twenty is capable of reason. To me, it has been a devastating discovery: not only that there are so many maniacs on the subject - maniacs of all kinds, but with a prevalence of PC moonbats - but that in spite of years of sanity and continued excellence, Gledhill simply does not seem able to establish a public of her own that will share her sensible and informed attitude. People not only are ignorant, they rejoice in and are proud of their ignorance. That is where the BBC recruits.
Yojimbo: thank you for a sensible and intelligent reply. But why waste one's time with Nariz? He will not listen, nor will the all too many sexual-revolution twits out there who share his prejudices.
Update on this match, for those who're interested: it's been moved to an airbase.