Dispatches - Undercover Mosque
 

Dispatches - Undercover Mosque

“UK Channel 4, aired 15th January 2007.
Radicalisation of UK mosques by Saudi Wahabbism”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCLC8kjWCI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5t5EqWX92k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMztM0Z7BYE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zv3BUmwqs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvjvNScmTQA


Cracks me up… The BNP and their bands are illegal when public, but this is not “hate speech”?
Hilarious!
Personally, I say allow it all, up to insight harm… which much of this does and would be illegal in the US. Telling people to harm others is insight to do harm, riot and violence and has nothing to do with religion, race or politics, it is assault and intent to battery/murder and needs to be addressed.
Funny, the UK is down on free speech but is so hands-off when it comes to Muslims… I don’t get it?

I might point out that this particular programme was hauled over the coals by the body that regulates broadcasting in the UK. It was hauled over the coals for the way it was edited. That programme and another Ch4 programme from the same makers involved interviews and recorded footage of speeches that had been edited in such a way as to significantly misrepresent the subject.

When I watched the programme, some months ago, I was horrified. I generally hold this particular programme maker in high regard and my opinion of the state of British Islam was significantly altered by it. I was extremely angry to discover that the programme had apparently used such disingenuous tactics.


Oh and you're quite right. In the UK we've banned all free speech unless you are a moslem or have brown skin. Oh and we all live in constant fear of the Big Brother state and the ever-possible 'knock on the door'. Heck, can't talk to your neighbours freely, in case they inform on you and then you disappear. It's hell.


(except of course that the BNP isn't illegal. It's a legal political party with representatives in local government. They can publish whatever material they like as long as it doesn't cross the line into incitement to racial hatred/violence.)

Cock.

In 2006 the leader of the BNP and one of his activists was found not guilty of incitement, despite having made comments like "we need to get rid of all these ethnics" and referring to moslems as cockroaches "and what do you do with cockroaches?".

In 2003 Sheik Abdulla el-Faisal was tried at the Old Bailey and sentenced to 7 years in prison for "fanning the flames of hostility" when he told his followers that it was acceptable to kill non-moslems, especially Americans and that chemical weapons are acceptable in the global struggle for Islam.

IN what way, does the British legal system allow Moslem hate-speech and disalow white hate-speech?

Y'know what Rk, you'd get along well with the far right in my country: you use the same arguments.

Nope, I see no difference between those statements and feel that both are assault and insightment.
What I do not see as a problem is the nazi salute, wearing a swastika or stating that hating someone is how one feels. That is just free speech.
One is a statement of action another is not and the line is clear.
How people "feel" about something is meaningless.
I feel very strongly about white supremacy, it disgusts me, I was raised around it... but they have as much right to speak as I do.
In fact it is the SAME RIGHT that gives them the right to speak that gives me my right and when you take theirs away you have taken mine away.
Some are too dim to see that and now they are learning because they are being denied entry to pubs based on how they SMELL and being filmed on private property 24/7. Have fun when the dress-code hits.

Well as long as they know they're being filmed then what does it matter. It then becomes the persons choice to enter the private property.

Grooming is part of a dress code. If a person stinks like a pile of horse shit they should be denied access because there are more people who don't smell like a pile of horse shit than there are.

rkz, you harp on about British freedoms being limited, but your own country is no better. People in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

That's the second time you've asserted that people are being filmed on 24/7 private property. What do you base that assertion on?

It is not illegal for people to say they hate someone. It is not illegal to say they hate all Pakis, niggers or kikes. It is illegal for them to put out a leaflet, or hold a meeting in which the message is given to cause harm to other races.

You have very strong views on something you know jackshit about.

The reason I said you use the same arguments as the far right over here, is because you do. You may not realise it....but it's pretty clear to me. The far right racist groups stir up hatred by lying to white people about the additional benefits or freedoms that are afforded to asians and blacks and denied whites. You've just done exactly the same: you've lied on this board about what the BNP aren't allowed to do and what the Islamists are allowed to do. NO different to the BNP guy saying "Yeah, but you'd have had everything paid for if you had a brown face".

How are people being denied access to pubs because of how they smell? Are you referring to the drugs testing? Maybe if those people weren't atempting to take illegal drugs into the pub they'd be okay? Or are you suggesting that the police ignore illegal drugs and the people who deal them? Personally I'd like to see drugs legalised, but as lng as they are illegal and dealing involves guns and violence, then its the police's job to police that. The local community where that police force operates will almost certainly have raised the issue of drug dealing in that pub at the Police Community Forums. Perhaps the police should just ignore the pleas of ordinary law abiding people to tackle the drugs war going on in their midst?

None of the cameras film any private property of any kind at any time? That is impossible. They film the entire street.
It is illegal to display symbols or signs, that is ridiculous.
Only one of the twelve sniffed actually had drugs on them, all of the others just smelled like them.
Here you cannot be searched without a reason. We are not a police state.

Not without permission. I have on numerous occasions mediated between police and residents when residents wanted CCTV installed.

Good to know. So the cameras cannot show the front of their shops? Good.

They show the fronts of shops. They do not impinge on private land.

As I said before Rk, you're quite right. I live in a police state. Hell, people disappear all the time here. They vanish into the night, taken by our security services and sent to other countries to be tortured....oh hang, sorry that's America.

I'm confused. Cameras film on private property all the time in the States. I used to have a job that took me all over the city I once lived in. I'd encounter many notices informing one and all that they were being filmed. I'd always smile and flip the camera the bird.

American cities are taking to filming public areas 24/7, as well. Recently I watched a segment on the local news where a major city to south of me was boasting about the number of cameras now filming the town full time. It sounded Orwellian to me.

BTW, RK, the TV segment showed a number of downtown business establishments which could easily be recognized on the videocams - back doors AND front doors. So what makes the Brits so much more terrible than us? :eyebrow:

Four or five weeks ago, I had to explain to an angry residents' committe why neither the Council or the police were willing to place and monitor cameras on their estate. Why did they want cameras? Because they are plagued with constant anti-social behaviour and crime.

In the town centre there are cameras showing most of the (council owned) public spaces. The decision to place more cameras was taken by a democratic vote in Council. Why? Because Councillors had been petitioned by Police and Public to place them. Councillors are political creatures, we generally try and do the things that our constituents want us to do and avoid doing the things that our constituents don't want us to do....otherwise we get voted out of office.

CCTV is used for numerous reasons. On trains and buses and stations. In Town Centres. They are there to prevent a) wilfull damage to travel company or council property ( a huge problem) and b) attacks on members of the public.

There are countless examples of cases where criminals (often violent) have been apprehended because they were caught on CCTV (including the murderers of a boy of 3).

Generally speaking CCTV cameras are angled so that they do not focus on private property. There are a few exceptions to that, but such footage is not acceptable in court. CCTV has to be identified. There are signs about the place telling you that CCTV operates in that area. On the bus station there is an intermittent announcement saying "For your comfort and safety this station has been installed with Close Circuit television Cameras". Personally, when it's 11pm and I am waiting for a late bus, with very few people around, I find that reassuring.

CCTV is used by, and governed by, the Police at a local level, the Transport police, local authorities and private businesses or individuals. It is very heavily regulated and most of the time it is not admissable as evidence in court. Generally speaking if you ask people about CCTV, they'll have two responses:

first response is "I know, isn't it awful, it's like Big Brother".

Second response is "But, I feel a lot safer in the bus station at night".


In the last year and a half, I have had precisely no complaints about over use of CCTV from my constituents and about 8 complaints about how difficult it is to get CCTV installed.

Whether or not you agree with the use of CCTV is not really important: what's important is whether or not you agree with the right of citizens to choose their environment and seek additional levels of security from their police force or local authority.

Yeah, Dana. I understand about the public safety aspect. It just unsettles me to think that those cams could be used to record who I meet or what establishments I choose to frequent. I've always had problems with authority and that has grown worse with age, not better. The current political climate in the US doesn't soothe my jitters much, either.

Oh I fully understand. I feel a little queasy about them myself. I just object very strongly to the picture Rk paints of some topdown Big Brother state, when this is what people are asking for. On a national level people complain about CCTV, and speeding cameras etc. But at a local level they want cameras in town centres and on stations in order to make them feel safe. Most people have conflicting opinions on the issue.

Rk has spent months characterising my country as a police state verging on fascism. Frankly I find it deeply insulting.

Incidentally, this is from a different thread:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=391473#post391473

Now, Rk, tell me how you feel living in a country that has such flagrant disregard for personal freedom?

The truth is, what RK calls freedom really isn't that appealing to me. I'm not bothered by it when it comes at the price he expects people to pay.

I'd far rather have the welfare state as a safety net and live in what he describes as a police state than the other way round. I'm pretty sure he has said (or implied at least) that we have the amount of freedom we deserve. Fine. Americans have the safety net they deserve.

This is not an anti-American post - I am well aware that the environment you are brought up in colours your thinking, and mine is that I am happy to pay more money in order to have the state help me when I need it. Like Dana I'm not crazy bout the cameras either, but they don't bother me enough to protest them. They are not there to monitor me - I abide by the law. If some lowlife scum gets taken to court (and our court system has been copied all over the world) it's worth it.

Yumyum, police state. I gobble it down like pickles.

Yeahah...that's some damn fine, tasty police state right there.

We have cameras in some areas of our city. I think it's good that they're used to catch the thugs that pick fights with innocent passers by. To my knowledge, there have never been any complaints about the cameras and if so, they've been so minimal as to not even make the news, and believe me, we have some pretty slow news days around here.

I fight this kind of shit.
This is why the UK frightens me so much... I hate to see that we are headed that way. It is disgusting. :greenface
Crime I understand, but WTF does this mean?
Green hair, naughty language? This is the kind of shit that disgusts me... one does not have the right to be insulated from those they "don't like" if they are not breaking the law.

I think they mean a bit more the green hair and naughty language rkz. Something more along the lines of property damage and insulting, derogatory behaviour.

Anti-social behaviour is a catch all term for a variety of behaviours which disrupt and upset the lives of others. It could, for instance, include a gang of youths hanging around the kiddy play park, drinking vodka and smashing the swings. It could refer to someone who consistently intimidates and harrasses their neighbours. There are lots of things which are considered "anti-social". It is a legal term (if someone is found to be acting in such a manner as to terrorise or disturb an estate of people for instance, they may be served with an Anti-Social Behaviour Order)

Okay. That's fine. It's also the last time I will discuss this with you.

Both of you are describing anti-social behavior as crime, but in your original description separated the two. I guess that was a mistake.

Get off your high horse, RK. In the US its usually called a restraining order. Its very easy to get one -at least temporarily- against someone you don't like. I know of instances where abusers actually manage to get restraining orders against those they have abused in order to shut them up.

Open your eyes. The good old USA is going downhill and fast, at that.

What are you talking about?
It takes a bit more than just not liking someone to get a restraining order.
I agree with you about the US and where the UK is now, destroying personal freedoms as fast as they can, is where we are heading.

rkz...I have to say, you seem to have a very romanticized view of what you think your country should be like compared to the reality now or in the past.

I really think you need to accept that just because you think it should be a certain way, everyone else isn't stupid or any other derogatory word for thinking you're being irrational in your approach.

If one person disagrees with me, is it possible I could be wrong? Yes.

If more people disagree with me than agree, is it likely I could be wrong? Yes.

Sanity is not statistical.

Not in my state it doesn't. All you have to do is go down to the courthouse and fill out a simple form. You can tell every lie in the book about the person you target. Doesn't matter. The R.O. is immediently issued, usually for 30 days until the case goes before a judge. The person served then has to go to court, bring any witnesses s/he may have along with any evidence - blah, blah, blah. Its a great way to harass someone with very little cost or time involved on the part of the person obtaining the R.O. against someone else.

And you don't agree with me about the UK, because as far as I'm aware, there's plenty of personal freedom in the UK. Maybe even more so than here.

In no way am I romanticizing anything.
I am often wrong and admit it when given sufficient evidence/logical argument. I am VERY happy when this happens and thank them.
The number of people that believe something means nothing, in fact is often is an indicator as to how stupid it is.

Thanks for the info sam... I guess I was under the impression that the court/proof stage happened much sooner. Wow, that sucks. I have been misinformed and mistaken.

Whatever you say rkz. I've just been reading a lot of your posts lately and from my perspective, it's seems to me that you have one view of things but it's just not the way it is or was or ever will be.

Point in case, religion in all it's forms. Although I agree that church and state should be separated, I recognize the fact that religion forms the basis of culture within the state and therefor, it is almost impossible to separate the two completely. That being said, I don't believe the state should have the right to legislate with religion in mind.

I have to refute this. I responded at least twice that the anecdote you referred to re UK schools not teaching about the Holocaust (Nazi extermination of Jews) referred to one single school where it wasn't even set on the curriculum. You continued to post that the UK were scared of Muslims & amended their curriculum accordingly.

That is like me starting a thread entitled US Employees Won't Employ Men With Moutaches because it was a Disney theme park policy.

You and me both :P