Lies about the Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal

If I say "Catholic Church", does the idea of sexual child abuse instinctively form in your mind more often, or more intensely, than if I say "BBC"?

If so, why do you think that is?

Do you instinctively associate the Catholic Church with sexual child abuse? And do you immediately associate the BBC with sexual child abuse?

If you answer yes to the first question and no to the second, why do you think that is?

Because these kinds of associations are created, or not created, as the case may be, in the minds of people by the mainstream media, which are for hours every day talking and showing images inside people's living rooms, being read by commuters on trains or buses, listened to by people in their cars. One of these media, indeed a very prominent one, in fact the world's largest broadcast news organisation, is the BBC itself, which has been found out to be involved in the cover-up of extensive and prolonged children sex abuse in its midst.

I haven't seen Richard Dawkins or Peter Tatchell demanding the arrest of BBC heads. Is it perhaps because they don't give a fig about child abuse half as much as they care about attacking the Church under any pretext (true or false it doesn't matter)?

Peter Hitchens, at the time when these nutcakes who included his own brother Christopher Hitchens, fundamentalist atheists that we call "professor" and militant homosexual activists that declare to be "human-rights advocates" called for the arrest of Pope Benedict XVI, wrote:

But the Vatican doesn’t actually tell its priests to abuse children. The vast majority of them do not so do. And it has tried to stamp out the problem and to offer genuine apologies to the victims.

I (as a non-Roman Catholic) have examined some of the main charges levelled against Benedict XVI by his attackers, and found that several of them are simply untrue, whereas others have been crudely distorted.

I have also examined the record of one of the main critics of the Papal visit. This is Peter Tatchell, prominent in the ‘Protest the Pope’ campaign.

...But this does not cancel out what I believe is the hypocrisy of his attempt – and that of the Left in general – to wage war on the Pope by employing the charge of condoning or failing to act against paedophilia (it is No  5 in the charge-sheet set out by ‘Protest the Pope’).

For on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start­ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.

In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored.

Tatchell defends under-age sex in his own website too, and advocates the removal of age of consent. He claims: "Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at l2; others not until they're 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn't take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances".

In this, he is in good company: his comrades of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) want the same, so much so that Wikipedia is having a discussion about listing the entry for the CPGB in the Pedophile Organizations category.

Why do I say that these are Tatchell's comrades? Because Tatchell has a history of militant Marxism, although he keeps quiet about it.

The Left, with its atheist bent, has consistently been in favour of "free love" for everybody, children included. In France, as an example, the petition for the removal of the age of consent was signed by a veritable group of socio-communists, which comprised Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Roland Barthes, the novelist/gay activist Guy Hocquenghem and many others.

Now, the above leads us to the two main points of this article.

The first is that those who are and have been most vociferous and aggressive in their condemnation of the Catholic Church over the abuse episode, starting from the BBC and finishing with Peter Tatchell, have done so not for the sake of children's welfare but for their own political goals, in which the destruction of the Church, Christianity and indeed the sense of decency and morality are central. This is evident from their hypocrisy on the matter.

The second point, which will now be demonstrated by studies and statistical evidence, is that paedophilia is rampant in this day and age NOT because of the Church and the sexual ethics of self-restraint it believes in, BUT exactly because of the opposite, because Christian and in particular Catholic values in the sexual sphere have been eroded, and children are those who are paying the greatest price, not just due to the increase in the incidence of paedophilia cases, but also due to the breaking-up of families and progressive destruction of the institution of marriage.

Here I'll introduce to you the Canadian author and broadcaster Michael Coren and his book Why Catholics Are Right (Amazon USA) , (Amazon UK) , from which I will quote, since he has made an extensive, thorough and accurate research which should be read by anyone who has even the slightest urge to make pronouncements on this subject.

From page 12 and following [all emphases added]:

The rates of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church were in the past exactly the same as those in other Christian Churches and within other faith communities, though they may well be lower now. More than this, they were on a par with the abuse rates within any institution involving a power ratio between adult and young person, such as education, sports teams, and so on. All these incidents are deeply tragic. But to single one of these bodies out for particular venom seems strange. Of course, the Church speaks with a moral authority not claimed by a sports club or a school, so in this regard it is right that the Church should be particularly exposed, but the condemnation went much further than justified criticism and became dishonest, libellous, and hysterical. Horrible as it is to contemplate, the most dangerous place for a young person with regard to sexual abuse is the family, often with young women being abused by stepfathers or stepbrothers. Today the Catholic Church is probably the safest place for a young boy or girl because of what the Church has done to make it so. This is in no way to adopt the odious "it's not just us" approach but to show that abuse is not peculiar to the Church and says nothing specific about Catholicism.

If we look at the situation in the United States within other religious groups and various secular bodies, we see a revealing if disturbing picture, and the United States is entirely typical of the international experience. In Protestant circles, for example, a 1984 survey showed that 38.6 per cent of ministers reported some sort of sexual contact with a member of the Church and 76 per cent claimed to know of another minister who had had sexual intercourse with someone who attended the Church. Nor is this confined to one particular branch of the Protestant Church but seems to pervade liberal, mainstream, and orthodox denominations. The highly respected Fuller Seminary conducted an extensive survey of 1,200 ministers and concluded that 20 per cent of conservative pastors admitted to a sexual relationship outside of marriage with a member of the Church, with the figure doubling to an extraordinary 40 per cent for self-identified moderate ministers - the numbers rise to a staggering 50 per cent for so-called liberals. How much of this behaviour concerns minors is uncertain but the number is likely to be relatively low. Professor Philip Jenkins estimates that between 2 and 3 per cent of Protestant clergy have abused minors, but he puts the figure for Catholic priests at less than 2 per cent. Jenkins, remember, is a former Catholic who is now an Anglican and is far from being a Roman Catholic apologist. In 2002, the Christian Science Monitor, not a particular friend or supporter of Catholicism, reported on the results of national surveys conducted by an organization called Christian Ministry Resources and stated that, "despite headlines focusing on the priest paedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American Churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but Church volunteers".

Beyond the Christian faith, Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer, professor of law and ethics at Loyola Marymount University, believes that sexual abuse among rabbis within organized Judaism is roughly the same as that found within Protestant clergy. "Sadly," says Rabbi Schaefer, "our community's reactions up to this point have been often based on keeping things quiet in an attempt to do damage control. Fear of lawsuits and bad publicity have dictated an atmosphere of hushed voices and outrage against those who dare to break ranks by speaking out." In the field of education, the American Medical Association found in 1986 that one in four girls and one in eight boys were sexually abused in or out of school before the age of 18. In the city of New York alone, at least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day! in 1994, Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft conducted a study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York City and found that although every one of the accused admitted to sexual abuse of a student, not one of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 per cent of the abusers lost their licence to teach.

In 2001, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System developed by the Children's Bureau in the United States found that approximately 903,000 children were victims of maltreatment, and 10 per cent of them (or a little more than 90,000) were sexually abused. It also found that 59 per cent of the perpetrators of child abuse or neglect were women and 41 per cent were men, statistics that reflect international findings. In the same year, clinical child psychologist Wade F. Horn wrote a report on the work of researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, where it was shown that nearly 20 per cent of low-income women in their study had experienced sexual abuse as children, with family friends constituting the largest group of abusers, followed by uncles and cousins, then stepfathers, and then brothers.

Which is all pretty depressing stuff and, again, must not be used to somehow explain away the Catholic scandal just because evil, exploitation, and abuse is a theme in almost every area of society. What this does show is that those critics who seemed to be so morbidly eager to prove that abuse was all about Catholicism, about Catholic teaching, and about Catholic sexuality were completely wrong and never made a worthy attempt to put the horror in any sort of valuable context. So at its most clinical, we need to describe the abuse crisis that happened within the Church primarily but not exclusively in the 1960s and 1970s. In this period, between 1.5 and 4 per cent of Roman Catholic clergy were involved directly or indirectly in the abuse of young people under their authority. The figure includes those who may not have physically abused anyone but were aware in some way of the abuse and by not stopping it enabled it and allowed the abusers to repeat the offence. Most informed commentators think that the 4 per cent figure is far too high, but we will never know the exact number of victims because not every victim has come forward, for a variety of entirely understandable reasons. Most of the abused were boys between the ages of twelve and sixteen, but younger boys and girls were also molested. Although the term "paedophile priests" was and is commonly used, it is misleading and sometimes appears to be intended to mislead. A crime, of course, is a crime, but if we are to deal with the perpetrators properly and try to stop the crime being repeated, we need to understand its precise nature and stop dealing in tabloid terminology and sensational headlines. Alliteration is no substitution for accuracy.

Photo of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome: Pixabay

Spot the Similarities: Pro-Gay-Rights and Muslim Thugs

Look at the similarities.

As Gallia Watch explains, the French video above shows "the vigil held in Montpellier on the eve of the first homosexual marriage in France that took place May 29 in that city. Les Veilleurs (those keeping vigil), seated on the ground, and singing L'Espérance (Hope), their anthem, are confronted by the pro-gay crowd, standing, visibly more rowdy and drinking, carrying the multicolored banner of Gay Pride".

It is easy to see the contrast between the beautiful, peaceful hymn sung by the Les Veilleurs, who oppose same-sex marriage, and their composure, and the beer-swilling, shouting, insult-hurling mob of "pro-gay-rights" activists.

"At 2'34" you see two Gay Pride banners. The caption reads: 'Publicity for Gay Pride, paid for with our tax money'."

The video below shows the English Defence League's silent walk of respect for Drummer Lee Rigby, barbarically beheaded by jihadis, in Sheffield, Northern England, on June 8. The United Against Fascism (UAF) mob starts singing nice little songs with pleasant lyrics like "If it wasn't for the coppers you'd be dead". Also notice the rainbow flag of the LGBT movement among the crowd of fascist "anti-fascist" thugs.

A while later, some of the UAF mob activists join Muslims shouting Allahu Akbar to try to put into practice what they had been singing.

As in the case of counterjihadists' or nationalists' demonstrations being attacked by Muslims and Leftist extremists' violence, we have people holding a peaceful vigil to mourn the death of marriage being aggressively confronted by "gay" activists.

Another of the many examples of similarity between Muslim and homosexual activists.

Raymond Ibrahim: Jihadis Are Preparing Unprecedented Terror Storm

Another interesting Raymond Ibrahim's article about the way Jihadis were and are helped by the USA and its European allies according to similar patterns in Afghanistan in the 1980s and in the countries of the "Arab Spring" now.

Against the Soviets then, against secular dictators today.

As the Jihadis strengthened by American support in Afghanistan gave rise to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, name which not coincidentally means "the base", Western support in Egypt, Lybia and now possibly Syria has helped create not one small base in a relatively unimportant country, but many Jihadi bases in crucial countries of the Middle East and the Muslim world.

And, just as the several-year incubation in Afghanistan prepared 9/11, Ibrahim predicts that the jihadis, much stronger now, are preparing a terror storm of which we have not yet seen the equal. We are witnessing "The Calm Before the Jihadi Storm" (links are in the original article):

On this Memorial Day, it’s important to remember that the very same U.S. policies that created al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s—leading to the horrific attacks of 9/11—are today allowing al-Qaeda to metastasize all around the Muslim world. As in the 80s, these new terrorist cells are quietly gathering strength now, and are sure to deliver future terror strikes that will make 9/11 seem like child’s play.

Once limited to Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, thanks to U.S. policies, has metastasized around the world, and is in the consolidation/training phase for the new jihad.

To understand this dire prediction, we must first examine the United States’ history of empowering Islamic jihadis—only to be attacked by those same jihadis many years later—and the chronic shortsightedness of American policymakers, whose policies are based on their brief tenure, not America’s long-term wellbeing.

In the 1980s, the U.S. supported Afghani rebels—among them the jihadis—to repel the Soviets. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and countless foreign jihadis journeyed to Afghanistan to form a base of training and planning—the first prerequisite of the jihad, as delineated in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones.

Al-Qaeda—which tellingly means “the base”—was born.

The U.S. supported al-Qaeda, they defeated the Soviets, shook hands with Reagan, Afghanistan became ruled by the Taliban, and for many years all seemed well.

But it wasn’t. For over a decade al-Qaeda, unfettered in Afghanistan, trained and plotted. Then came the strikes of 9/11, which were portrayed by the talking heads as a great and unexpected surprise: “What happened? Who knew? Why do they hate us?”

Had al-Qaeda not secured a base of operations, its namesake, 9/11 would not have occurred.

But if Reagan helped create the first al-Qaeda cell in relatively unimportant Afghanistan, Obama is helping to create numerous, more emboldened, al-Qaeda cells in some of the most important Islamic nations.

He is doing this by helping get rid of Arab autocrats who were effective at suppressing jihadis (even if for selfish reasons), while empowering some of the most radical jihadis who were formerly imprisoned or in hiding.

And all in the name of the “Arab Spring” and “democracy.”

In Egypt, Obama threw Mubarak, America’s chief Mideast ally for three decades, under the bus, and cozied up to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s government is today overrun with Islamists, many who share al-Qaeda’s radical worldview. Several of these new policymakers—including President Morsi himself—were imprisoned under Mubarak, not, as the Western media portray, because they were freedom-loving rebels, but because they were, and are, Sharia-loving radicals trying to transform Egypt into an Islamist state.

The Sinai alone is now infested with jihadis, including possibly al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri.

In Libya, Obama supported the opposition against Gaddafi—knowing full well that al-Qaeda was among them—enabling the Benghazi attack and murder of Americans on the anniversary of 9/11. The unprecedented persecution of Christians in Libya—from attacks on churches to attacks on nuns—is further indicative of the direction “liberated” Libya is taking.

And now in Syria, Obama is, once again, supporting foreign jihadis, who make up 95% of Syria’s so-called “opposition.” As in Libya—and as in Afghanistan in the 80s—foreign jihadis are flooding Syria and terrorizing non-Muslims (a recent fatwa permits the raping of non-Sunni women), in their bid to create another base, another qaeda.

One of them recently declared, “When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!”—precisely al-Qaeda’s thinking in the 80s-90s when it was supported by the U.S. against the U.S.S.R.

Thus all the forces and circumstances that led up to the strikes of 9/11—foreign jihadis infiltrating and consolidating power in Muslim countries formerly run by secular dictators—are once again in full play, but in a much more profound way. Today it’s not just one relatively unimportant country, Afghanistan, that is being subverted by jihadis but several strategically important nations.

If 9/11 was the price the U.S later paid for helping turn Afghanistan into a jihadi base in the 80s-90s, what price will America later pay now that it’s betraying several major nations to the jihadis, who are turning them into bases, into qaedas?

So why are American politicians not blowing the whistle on Obama’s suicidal policies?

Because their myopia and inability to see beyond today—beyond their tenure—has not changed since September 11, 2001. Just as it took over a decade after al-Qaeda’s creation to launch the 9/11 attacks—a time of ostensible peace and calm for the U.S., a time of planning and training for the jihadis—it will take time for the new jihadi storm to pour on America.

And that’s the era we’re currently in: the calm before the storm. Just as before 9/11, today’s American leaders focus only on the moment—a moment when the U.S appears relatively safe—never considering the future or the inevitable consequences of a woefully counterproductive U.S. foreign policy.

Speaking of foreign policy, if Reagan supported the jihadis to combat the U.S.S.R—a hostile super-power—why is Obama supporting the jihadis? What exactly does America have to gain?

At any rate, just as it was before 9/11, when the jihadi storm eventually does break out—and it will, it’s a matter of time—those American politicians who helped empower it, chief among them Obama, will be long gone, and the talking heads will again be stupidly asking “What happened?” “Who knew?” Why do they hate us?”

Except then it will be too late.

The Use of Modern Man Liberating Modern Woman

"What do we want from modern man?" is the headline on the cover of the Style section of The Sunday Times' latest issue.

The man in the cover photo, almost naked, looks androgynous, as if he hadn't quite made up his mind whether to be male or female (a common occurrence these days).

I'll answer that question by taking a cue from The Sunday Times itself, which for years - at least until I stopped reading it in disgust, no, I mean, because it was too riveting and captivating to bear - has been telling us that man is finished, there is really no role or need for him now that we have artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), and women work or are on benefits.

It is not just this particular paper, of course, to repeat such a mantra, it is in the air, it's the ethos of our time.

The answer I suggest is the following.

Modern men should all become homosexual or at least bisexual, as our friend Peter Tatchell wrote:

Everyone is potentially bisexual...

Q: What's the difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex? A: A few inches of flesh...

If homosexual desire is this widespread in a homophobic society, imagine how much more common it would be in a gay-positive culture. With the cultural taboos removed, nearly everyone would savour its delights [give or take a few tuberculosis/AIDS co-infections].

With all (modern) men being at least bisexual, which is the great dream of Tatchell and many of his homosexual activist comrades, we can arrive at this solution.

Men will only indulge in the homosexual element of their bisexuality. The semen from these anal or other intercourses, after being tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and found negative, will then be used for artificial insemination or IVF.

So the human species will continue, but women will be free from the oppression of men, as feminists want, and will have full control over their lives - with the help of the Social Security offices - and reproductive potential, without even the need for Planned Parenthood or similar organizations.

Men will serve as semen donors, and at the same time will enjoy freedom from commitment and, as Tatchell, who can be trusted as an expert on the matter, tastefully put it, "savour its [homosexual desire's] delights ".

Sorted.

Europe's Awakening: Switzerland Restricts Asylum, Holland Says No to Islam

How I love and admire Switzerland. Now more than ever.

A vast majority of the Swiss people, 78.5%, have yesterday voted in a referendum, approving the amendments to further restrict the asylum law in the country. All cantons of the confederation have been in favour.

"A big disappointment" commented the result Adèle Thorens, co-chairman of the Greens. "We did not expect to win, but we did not expect a similar result." That the Greens are disappointed is a measure of how good the changes are, at least in relation to the rest of Europe.

The amendments to the asylum law, approved by parliament at the end of last September, are designed to accelerate the formal procedures, revoke the opportunity to apply for asylum in embassies, and no longer recognize conscientious objection as a reason for obtaining the status of refugee.

On the other hand they allow federal authorities to temporarily convert buildings, mostly military, into asylum seekers shelters, even without the consent of the cantons and the municipalities concerned. And they allow the possibility of opening centres for "problematic" asylum seekers.

The Swiss law on asylum had already gone through a series of progressively-restricting changes, all approved by the people.

It's an easy prediction that, if every country in Western Europe were allowed a referendum on asylum and immigration, the result would be similar. It's also easy to predict that no other country would go down the same route as Switzerland, a nation with historical direct democracy roots, exactly because the result would be similar.

Switzerland has planned another referendum for 2015, this time to curb all immigration and not just asylum seeking.

Another poll, this in Holland and not a referendum but simply a public opinion survey, shows, in the words of Geert Wilders, that “The Netherlands has had enough of Islam”:

More than three quarters of the Dutch (77 percent) believe that Islam is no enrichment for our country. More than two-thirds – 68 percent – say that there is enough Islam in the Netherlands. It is striking that a majority of voters from all political parties (from PVV to VVD, CDA, D66, PvdA, SP and 50plus) share this view.

A poll conducted by the research bureau of Maurice de Hond (the Dutch equivalent of Gallup), commissioned by the PVV, among a representative sample of over 1,900 people also shows other striking results:

A majority of 55 percent favors stopping immigration from Islamic countries.

63 percent say: no new mosques.

72 percent favor a constitutional ban on Sharia law in the Netherlands.

64 percent say that the arrival of immigrants from Islamic countries has not been beneficial to the Netherlands.

Nearly three-quarters – 73 percent – of all Dutch see a relationship between Islam and the recent terror acts in Boston, London and Paris.

Anjem Choudary May Soon Lose His Benefits

The movement of public opinion against Anjem Choudary, the UK Muslim welfare scrounger, sorry, recipient and former solicitor who co-founded the now-banned Islamist organization al-Muhajiroun, has always been great, and has become greater especially after the beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich.

Research by the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society indicates that, in the 12 years up to al-Muhajiroun’s proscription, about 18 % of all those convicted of Muslim terrorism offences had current or past links with the association.

Choudary has a history of leading Islamist groups now banned, like the ominous-sounding Islam4UK.

Patience seems to be running out. Paul Golding, chairman of ther organization Britain First, has posted a YouTube video giving London's Metropolitan Police an ultimatum: if they didn't arrest Anjem Choudary by the now-expired deadline of 29 May he would.

Now even The Sun newspaper has joined the chorus of disapproval, by forming a panel of experts to investigate Choudary and compile a dossier of evidence which lists all his offences. Its conclusion: he has clearly already broken the law and it's now time to act and arrest him for inciting hatred.

The paper's expert panel includes a legal academic, an MP, a former Flying Squad chief, an Islamic scholar and the father of a 7/7 victim.

And it's not all. Anjem Choudary stands to lose his welfare benefits, claimed to be nearly £26,000 a year:

Any claimant whose behaviour is ruled to be deeply offensive or harmful to society would be stripped of their handouts under a new law planned by ministers.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith’s move is aimed at extremists like Choudary — and hate preacher Abu Qatada, who is fighting deportation.

IDS met Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday to plot a joint approach.

Choudary scoops up nearly £26,000 in state giveaways a year — leading to accusations British taxpayers are being forced to fund terrorism.

A source said: “Iain and Theresa have been bothered about the likes of Choudary spewing his bile while taking whatever he wants from the state for some while. But the terrible events in Woolwich have given them fresh impetus to sort out this mess.”

Choudary said murdered soldier Lee Rigby will “burn in hell” and suspect Michael Adebolajo was a “nice man”.

The ex-lawyer, 46, yesterday goaded the police as he boasted of preaching hate without law-breaking.

He taunted top Scotland Yard cop Cressida Dick after she said he uses his legal training to avoid over-stepping the mark.

He wrote on Twitter: “Perhaps she’d be happier if no one knew the law?” But one of his followers was last night charged with inciting terrorism in an online lecture and text.

Secularism’s ‘Progress’: Western Churches-Turned-Mosques Segregating Women

If you've ever had the great fortune of seeing the entrance to a mosque, you'll have noticed that there are two doors: one, the main, huge, is for men, another, small and lateral, for women (as in the picture below of the East London Mosque).

Apparently we need "right-wing groups" now in England to protest sexism, because the Left totally condones it.

The recently-formed England National Resistance (ENR) felt outraged that the North West Kent Muslim Association’s mosque in Crayford High Street has separate entrances for men and women.

Particularly offensive is the fact that this was once a church, now converted into a mosque. Our society, dominated by atheist and Leftist "progressive" ideologies, is certainly making big strides in its advancement from Christianity to Islam, which this Crayford church-turned-mosque well symbolizes.

And everybody knows, or at least our comrades do, that Islam is more progressive than the religion on which the Western civilization was built (Christianity, for those who may not know).

Having separate entrances for men and women, the former much larger and central to represent the higher standing and greater power that Islam gives to the males of the species, is a good way to walk into the 21st century by harking back to the 7th-century cult of Mohammed.

Here are a few examples of how advanced and enlightened Islam is regarding the equality between sexes, which is why it is defended and supported by all good comrades:

"and the men are a degree above them [women]". Qur'an (2:228)

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." Qur'an (2:223)

"And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." Qur'an (2:282) In court, the evidence given by a man witness is worth that of two women.

"The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" in children's inheritance. Qur'an (4:11)

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee". Qur'an (33:50) Women are sanctified by Islam to be kept as sex slaves ("those whom thy right hand possesses").

These quotes from the Qur'an are by no means exhaustive of the plethora of recommendations from Allah on how to keep women in a condition of inferiority. But they can be a good introduction.

Let's go back to those reactionaries and retrograde Nehanderthals (they must be, otherwise they would not be "far-right", and if they were not "far-right" they would not be reactionary: perfect Leftist logic, you must agree) of the ENR.

Referring to the mosque in Kent with its separate entrances they said: "To find that fundamental medieval attitude on the streets of Crayford in an ex-Christian church, we were appalled.”

This comment followed complaints on Facebook about the "sexist signs" and the Muslims praying in the street outside the mosque.

So the ENR’s national organiser, Paul Golding, and another member asked the mosque’s imam to remove what the group describes as "sexist and offensive signs" and to cover the Christian cross on the front of the building. According to Golding, the imam agreed to cover the cross but refused to remove the signs.

The ENR, therefore, has started a campaign against the Crayford mosque, which should have included a protest march of 50-100 people through Crayford town centre on Saturday 18 May. The march was cancelled, but the sustained campaign, by leafleting the whole area and staging a series of smaller demonstrations outside the mosque's front door, continues until the place takes down the signs and halts any further segregation of women.

Paul Golding is quite an active chap. As chairman of another organization, Britain First, he has posted on YouTube a video (that you can see above the article) in which he gives London's Metropolitan Police time until the now-expired deadline of 29 May to arrest radical Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, the leader of Al-Muhajiroun, the banned group which one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade were either members of or linked to - including the two jihadists who beheaded British soldier Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, East London -, and vows to arrest Choudary himself if the Met Police don’t.


Raymond Ibrahim Blog