- Image via Wikipedia
A CHARITY praised last week by Gordon Brown and the Prince of Wales has channelled hundreds of thousands of pounds to groups linked to Hamas, the banned terrorist organisation, according to security sources.The Prime Minister and the heir to the throne personally praised Muslim Aid, whose own accounts show it has paid at least £325,000 to the Islamic University of Gaza, where leading Hamas figures teach, and £13,998 to the al-Ihsan Charitable Society, designated by the US government as a “sponsor of terrorism” and a front for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group.
Security sources also claim that Muslim Aid has helped channel a further £210,600 to six other organisations in the Gaza Strip since July 2009, all of which they say are linked to Hamas.
Muslim Aid is banned from the West Bank by the Israeli government, which says it is a member of the Union of Good, an alliance of charities that raise money for Hamas. Hamas is banned throughout the EU as a designated terrorist organisation.
… Muslim Aid, based at the hardline East London Mosque, has close links to the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), a fundamentalist Muslim group based in the same offices.
Muslim Aid raised more than £24 million last year and has been given at least £830,000 of public money. It claims to serve humanity “regardless of political affiliation” and only supports lawful organisations.
"Huancavelica is colder because the glaciers are melting". Yeah, that is what the Guardian says…
"Weather patterns were more like those in the late 1970s, experts said, while Met Office figures released on Monday are expected to show that the country is experiencing the coldest winter for up to 25 years."
"[The U.S. is] becoming more juvenile as a nation. The guys who won World War II and that whole generation have disappeared, and now we have a bunch of teenage twits,” the Academy Award winning actor and director told the magazine. "The world needs this kind of story nowadays. It's just … everybody's so screwed up. It seems like our country's in kind of a morbid mood, because of the recession or whatever."
in Copehangue’s hotel during the climate change summit :
The chancellor has given Muslim leaders private assurances that he wants to create a “level playing field” in the economy, so that more and more “sharia compliant” financial products can be offered to British Muslims.
To comply with sharia law, financial products must not charge or earn interest, which is regarded as usury.
Brown hopes his proposed changes would remove barriers to many British and foreign Muslims participating fully in the financial system. They would help make London the natural home for Islamic funds from around the world, and increase the inflow of investment from oil-rich Middle Eastern countries.
“Making the UK and London a centre for Islamic finance means putting in place the tax and legislative framework that is supportive of Islamic products,” said a senior Treasury official.
“On top of this, we’re also looking at promoting the City abroad as a centre for Islamic finance.”
via Brown to boost Islamic banking – Times Online. This article dates back to March, 2006, but it’s importance has not diminished. Because in the present situation of global economic crisis Western countries are having similar ideas: for exmple the US:
The Risk of Shariah Finance: While Americans are selling their positions in U.S. companies, Middle Easterners flush with petrodollars are aggressively gobbling up these stocks at fire sale prices. Moreover, as American financial institutions report the losses that forced them to deplete their cash reserves, CEOs are begging for loans from oil-rich Middle East nations that have benefited from the rise in oil prices in recent years from $30 to nearly $100 per barrel. As one former Wall Street executive lamented, U.S. business leaders are “lining up to kiss the ring.”. (…) How might this harm America? If any of these investors, or a bloc of investors, gains enough controlling shares of a company, they can exact a dangerous influence. This might include the insistence that a corporation’s activities are halal, which would mean jettisoning business interests that include: banks charging interest; firms that are either based in Israel or are working with the Jewish state; firms developing weaponry used in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern states; casinos and other gambling companies; businesses that involve pork products; alcohol distillers and bottlers; publishers that release books critical of Islam; and even entertainment companies that could offend Muslim sensibilities or appear incompatible with Muslim values.
Melanie Phillips h/t Shariah Finance Blog was very clear as to the extent of the dangers: [Western leaders] don’t understand that the spread of sharia banking in Britain and America is a significant part of the attempt to Islamise Britain and America. Acceptance of sharia finance furthers the Islamist objective of gradually legitimising Islamic sharia law more generally in the west. (…) The most important point to grasp is that Islam recognises no authority superior to sharia. Sharia banks will therefore not recognise the superior authority of the law of the land. When trillions of pounds and dollars are locked into them, who will argue with them?
The curious thing of this “new” movement is precisely that it is not only aimed at people coming from countries outside Europe but also from other parts of Europe.
Sometimes it is just ridiculous. Italian city Lucca has ordered that all restaurants should have an Italian decoration, waiters should wear elegant clothes and speak English and (the important thing) they should serve Italian food. While the first requirements weren’t very much disputed, the latter has caused a lot of criticism. The opposition has even considered this as “meal racism”, or “racism considering that the restaurants that are going to be closed serve non-Italian meals”. Of course, the mere consideration from a etimological point of view of “meals/cooking’s racism” is just a total absurd. But the real thing is that the opposition is worried mainly about the Turkish döner kebabs but not about French, Spanish or Hindu restaurants, which normally tend to be owned by Italians, or about McDonalds or Burger King’s which are also included in the measure
Meanwhile, in Great Britain the situation is not as “ridiculous” but rather is much more worrying. Expat Yank points out the real problem:
Absolutely disgraceful reporting on the part of the Beeb. For as of that 11:10 report, nowhere in that piece is it made clear that those “overseas” and “foreign” workers are Italian EU nationals. Nor was it mentioned in yesterday’s initial piece. Nor is it gently pointed out that the protesting British workers themselves clearly don’t understand that those Italians have as much right to those jobs as do Britons.
What happens? A part of an oil refinery was being constructed, work which was won by IREM, an Italian-based contractor, which brought in its own workforce. So the workers from the Oil Refinery, even if no redundacy was going to be caused by those Italians, went on an unofficial strike. They can’t understand that, under European Union regulations, European citizens, can move throughout the territory of the EU, without restraint, to work.
But the worrying thing is that the BBC, paid by the British taxpayer and under the Government’s supervision, precisely attacks this idea of free movement. The double standard is so worrying that, after the BBC has been reporting in a “italians-are-stealing-British-jobs” mode, Gordon Brown can afterwards say this:
Brown Warns Global Economy Is Slipping into Financial Protectionism
to afterwards saying:
what we’ve got to do over time, as I’ve always said, is that where there are jobs in this country, we need people with the skills, developed in this country”…
In Spain, we have a similar problem. Spanish Industry Minister, Miguel Sebastian, said that we should buy “Spanish products”, to help Spanish producers. So a journalist asked Zapatero if he supported that. As he was in a press conference with Portuguese Primer Minister, our cosmic leader from the Alliance of Civlizations President answered “I chose the ibéricos“, referring to both Spanish and Portuguese products, but not taking into account that in Spain that expression refers to this.
But the problem is aggravated by the influence of the Autonomous Communities. After financing an association which sends letters to firms menacing them with fines in case they don’t write commercial signs in Galician, and after Galician President, Touriño, has spent huge quantities of money in highly luxurious items (nearly €4 million in the reform of three meeting rooms, €26.284 in a table; €2.269 for each chair he bought; €170.212 in the windows of another room and €480.000 in an official car), his Vicepresident, Galician independentist Anxo Quitana, has asked the people to buy Galician products. Why don’t you lower the taxes to help those “producers”??
So the question is: are we really for a globalised economy with the natural competitiveness that it brings or rather are we going to go back to old protectionism? The economical crisis is going to point out which direction we are taking. But seeing President Obama calling for “Buy American products” is not a really good sign.
Un ex-presidnete del Consejo de Abogados, Stephen Hockman QC propone un tribunal semejante al Tribunal Internacional de Justicia de la Haya para que sea la autoridad legal suprema para cuestiones relacionadas con el medio ambiente. El primer papel de este nuevo tribunal será la de juzgar sobre los acuerdos internacionales sobre la reducción de los gases de efecto invernadero que serán ratificados el año que viene. Pero el tribunal también impondría multas a países o empresas que no protegieran especies protegidas o degradasen el medio ambiente natural y reforzaría “el derecho a un medio ambiente sano”.
(…) Gordon Brown, El Primer Ministro, ha aceptado que el concepto del tribunal internacional deberá ser considerado para intentar hacer obligatorios los mencionados acuerdos internacionales. Esta idea está apoyada por un número importante de parlamentarios, expertos y figuras públicas como la actriz Judi Dench
Para mí, esto presenta tres problemas muy graves: el primero, ya sabemos de qué ha servido el Tribunal Internacional de Justicia en la vigilancia de las violaciones de los Derechos Humanos (para nada….). El segundo es que no creo que China, que es el principal responsable (y lo va a seguir siendo) de los gases de efecto invernadero, vaya a pagar ninguna multa. Y el tercero es: ¿a qué irá destinado el dinero que se obtenga de esas multas?
Pero para guardarse las espaldas dicen:
El tribunal estará formado por jueces retirados, expertos en cambio climático y figuras públicas (¿Leonardo di Caprio, Al Gore…? ¿qué se entiende por “figura pública”?). Incluirá un órgano científico para considerar las pruebas y proveer cualquier dato sobre el medio ambiente.
Hmm, nos vamos enterando…
“I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.”
The first is that we should stop treating British people as if they were members of a confessional group, stop trying to mediate the State’s relationship with them through self appointed, and often very politically extreme religious and “community leaders”, and appreciate that true multiculturalism is something different than what Amartya Sen calls “plural monoculturalism”.
The second option is to treat Muslims as a monolithic bloc, and to proceed on the basis that Muslims will go over to Al Qaeda, unless we do a deal with Islamist groups – like Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood – which promise only to advocate and carry out acts of terrorism abroad. The thinking is that Muslims are intrinsically a “problem”, and that we therefore need to cut a Northern Ireland-style deal with their ‘leaders’ who will keep their followers from blowing themselves up, in return for being granted a privileged position by the state, as intermediaries and advisers.
Even if I don’t like multiculturalism, I really believe we agree in much of the content of the two options. So which one do you think that UK politicians support? Just read the post carefully, it’s a very important one…