News blackout on Lord Ahmed's threat of 10,000 Muslims at the House of Lords
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/lord-ahmed- threatens-to-mobilise-10000-so-wilders-visit-off/
29th January, 2009
Tonight peers should have been gathered in the House of Lords for a private viewing of Geert Wilders' film 'Fitna'. Wilders himself would have been present to answer questions. Instead it has been cancelled because this peer, Lord Ahmed, threatened to mobilise 10,000 if Wilders dared to show his face in Britain's parliament.
WHY HAS THE MAINSTREAM PRESS SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS? I understand that for some reason there is a blackout on news of Lord Ahmed's delayed sentence for a serious driving offence. I fail to see what that has to do with his threats against our parliament. This denial of free speech is something Ahmed and the powers-that-be in the Lords have in common with too many others in Britain (and Holland) today.
Lord Nazir Ahmed
Lord Nazir Ahmed - "I will mobilise 10,000" if Geert Wilders comes to the House of Lords. Who the heck does this man think he is? A tin-pot military dictator? In GREAT Britain?
It beggars belief that this has happened over the last few days and yet we have heard little of it. It is as though freedom of speech no longer matters in our land.
The Brussels Journal reported this on Monday. Cranmer used it on Tuesday but it appeared in Pakistan's Daily Times on Saturday, straight it seems from the horse's mouth - Lord Ahmed.
NOT in the UK press as far as I can source. But it IS in Pakistan's press:
Pakistan Daily Times: The Far-right Dutch politician will now be put on trial for his public statements against Islam. As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been cancelled Lord Ahmed termed the decision as 'a victory for the Muslim community.
Titled 'Lord Ahmed threatens Parliament into submission' this post at Cranmer's is disturbing for several reasons.
1. That he or anyone can threaten parliament in this way and get away with it.
2. That the Labour leader in the House of Lords (who is already under some little local problem over four fellow peers) can be intimidated in this way, and both she and thus the perpetrator of this threat can get away with it.
3. That the government is not disowning him, and is getting away with it.
4. That he thinks he can say that he will 'mobilise 10,000', and get away with it.
5. That the mainstream press have not covered it at all, and have so far got away with it.
'Lord Ahmed is axxxxxxxxxxxxxxx individual. Not only in appearance, but in association, character and morality. And to hear that he has threatened jihad on the House of Lords if their lordships should fail to meet his demands only serves to intensify Cranmer's loathing of the man.
It appears that a member of the House of Lords had invited the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to a private meeting in the Palace of Westminster.
She had intended to invite her colleagues in the Lords to a private viewing of his 'documentary' Fitna, followed by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion.
This is, after all, a liberal democracy, and their lordships enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, not to mention certain parliamentary privileges for the protection of their function in the legislature.
But no sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he 'threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court'.
And so Fitna has been cancelled: it shall not now be screened in the House of Lords on 29th January.
The Pakistani Press is jubilant, and Lord Ahmed is praising Allah for delivering 'a victory for the Muslim community'.
It is a sorry state of affairs indeed that a parliament whose liberties have been forged through centuries of religious intolerance should succumb to the threats of one intolerant Muslim. Lord Ahmed is manifesting a notion of Divine Right, and one suspects it is precisely the sort of defence of Islam that Prince Charles shall make when he is sworn 'Defender of Faith'. The blasphemy laws are being re-forged to protect one god, one faith and one prophet; they no longer defend YHWH, Christianity, Jesus Christ or the Church of England. Lord Ahmed is not functioning as a Labour peer; he is the self-appointed khalifa of all things Islamic. He is not concerned to protect freedom of expression or freedom of speech, but to stifle debate and ensure that Parliament submits to the Dar Al-Islam.
It is for moments such as these that one might hope the Lords Spiritual might enter the fray and defend the right of the noble baroness to extend an invitation to a democratically-elected Dutch MP. Their silence is deafening. They no longer believe anything strongly for fear of causing offence; they no longer defend anything for fear of being abolished.
If Lord Ahmed had threatened Cranmer with '10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House' His Grace would have assured his Lordship of 100,000 people of all faiths and none to prevent the Muslims from preventing Mr Wilders from entering the House.
There are occasions when turning the other cheek is sheer folly.'
Posts
