Peppa Pig petition by Muslims who want her banned is gaining strength

Peppa Pig’s new PC look – no silly, I don’t mean police constable

Peppa, the kids’ all-time favourite cartoon pig could soon be toast (or should that be roast?) after a British Muslim father started a petition to get  Peppa Pig removed from the DVD shelves of supermarkets and scuppered on our TV screens.

A Facebook page set up for the protest, Muslims against Peppa Pig, racked up almost 3,000 followers in a short space of time. Worse still, a Change.org petition that lobbies for the show to be pulled from children’s TV is also attracting anti-Peppa party-poopers.

Zayn Sheikh, who set up the Facebook campaign, maintains that the pig, forbidden in Islam, is luring little kiddies from the straight path and into the ways of the devil (on horseback presumably) stopping them from becoming good Muslims. He claims that his son has abandoned his goal of becoming a doctor though it is difficult to imagine that he hankers after being a pig farmer.

“For us Muslims it is very important that we do not eat meat of the pork,” Sheikh from Bradford said in a video posted online. “It is completely wrong that our kids are being shown these things on TV,” He want to see the poor piggy replaced by an ‘Abdullah the Cat’ cartoon.

“Children still need cartoons to develop their minds. I propose we introduce Abdullah the cat. I think that if we had a good Muslim cartoon then our children would be better Muslims.”

In an attempt to deflect the Muslim uprising against her, Peppa has taken to wearing a burqa in the hope that she will be seen as ‘more Islamic’.

In the meantime, there is a groundswell of people who are trying to save Peppa’s bacon by criticising the protest and petition.

“I’m sorry I am Muslim and really do not see the problem with Peppa Pig at all. My children watch it and will soon grow out of it, it isn’t like there is a pig on screen saying eat me,” said one dis-grunt-led fellow. The Muslim Council of Britain said the Peppa protest wasn’t something most Muslims would follow.

No no no no no!

Let them eat pork!

 

In what seems to be a Marie Antoinette, food edict moment, the leader of the French far-right National Front has annouced that her party will prevent schools from offering non-pork alternatives on religious grounds.”We will not accept any religious demands in school menus,’ Marine Le Pen said during a radio interview, “There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere, that’s the law.” Quite what Le Pen thinks this will achieve has not really been explained.

There are, however, two rather grave errors about the supposedly Marie Antoinette quote, ‘Let them eat cake’. The first is that Marie Antoinette didn’t say anything of the sort. We know because biographer, Lady Antonia Fraser, spoke at length about this at the 2002 Edinburgh Book Fair, declaring that “It was said 100 years before her by Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV,” Fraser explains. “It was a callous and ignorant statement and she [Marie Antoinette] was neither.” As I said, the attribution is doubly erroneous in English, because the word ‘cake’ is a mistranslation. In the original French the alleged quote reads, ‘Qu’ils mangent de la brioche‘, which is not cake but a kind of sweet loaf or bun.

Le Pen might have had a stronger argument to expound had she argued the cruelty of hallal meat, rather than focus solely on the Islamic viewpoint on pork. It may be, however, that I am looking at the matter from a British perspective and that the French might be more indifferent to animal cruelty. Ironic too that the words ‘pig’ and ‘Pen’ are a natural couple for our culture.

No! That’s my toy, not yours!

It’s not yours … leave it alone now!

 

Many a parent will recognise the headline as the mantra of bossy toddlers seeking to reinforce the concept of ownership as a new-found device that is useful in exercising authority over their peers. Parents that want the best for their children will tell them to share and not to be silly, but the sad fact is that adults frequently behave like this as well.

The recently enacted Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has brought about a rash of this sort of behaviour. Those of faith have sought to defend their ‘property’ by claiming that marriage is enshrined in faith as being between a man and a woman and that the state should not attempt to re-write an institution that has existed ‘for thousands of years’. No, really, this is qualitative opinion central to the faith-based argument for marriage, from no lesser a person than Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who observed “For thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman has been the bedrock of societies across cultures, all around the world” and sadly this nonsense doesn’t stop with him. Lyle Shelton, from the Australian Christian Lobby, recently asserted “Our democratic freedoms give us the right to prosecute the case for retaining marriage”  though I am unaware that anyone is suggesting anywhere that marriage will not be retained.

The sad fact is that this simple act of bring equality to the civil act of marriage has spawned anti-gay legislation in Uganda, Nigeria, Zambia, Russia and many other states from the developing world. The focus in Africa has been supported by many right-wing, Christian organisations from the United States. In Russia it has been cynically used by President Putin to focus his nation on anything other than the amount of money he has embezzled from the state, or through oligarch’s who seek his continuing support. Whatever, the social hegemony of American born-again churches is crass and will be responsible for much harassment, imprisonment, torture and even deaths. Putin? I have long since referred to him as President Boot-in. Anyone who has worked for his country’s government all his life and is a billionaire is not worth consideration in terms of opinion.

The reality is that those of faith do not own marriage. The separation of church and state in terms of marriage came in 1837 when registry office marriages were introduced by act of parliament. It should be up to the relevant religious bodies as to whether they will conduct same-sex marriages, but the state has every right to legalise the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill as it has done. The petulant ‘it’s not yours, I won’t let you’ stance by those of faith does not do their intellect justice.

Me personally? I cannot see why a gay couple would want to do this. Marriage is a failing, outdated institution being increasingly abandoned by the straight community.

 

 

 

Will the Muslim-on-Muslim war now come to Britain?

When listening to the news about Islam in the UK, a term that is frequently heard is ‘British Muslim’, but I have been saying for almost a decade now that such a notion – certainly not just a name – is anathema to those who live in Muslim lands. Islam does not recognise frontiers and neither does it allow the gradation of being Muslim, which is exactly what the term implies, that is, if you are a British Muslim, then there must be something about the Islam that you follow that is different from other Muslims and their beliefs. In short it is considered heretical.  We in the West have acknowledged this subtle distinction for over a decade now, as it has been currency since the aftermath of 9/11, but the shift is not so subtle for hard-line Muslims abroad. Their core belief is ‘either you are a brother, or you’re not’. 

Muslims based in western democracies have had a hard time since 2001, as non-Muslims have attempted to elicit from them the condemnation that most people in a democratic society would want to hear, from those who share a religion with fundamentalist terrorists. That can’t have been easy as they grappled with the political and religious implications of what was taking place. Worse was to come.

British police issued a warning on Friday to prominent Muslims in the UK of a video made by extremists linked to Somalia’s al-Shabaab militants, which reportedly threatens the lives of prominent British Muslims who it claims are “enemies of Islam.” Don’t underestimate the threat therein: it is not just aimed at Britain and the deportation of Abu (the Hook) Hamza as it names several prominent Muslims that condemned terrorist attacks, such as the murder of Lee Rigby. They argue that  ‘British Muslims’ have assimilated into British society, thereby acquiring a bastardisation of the straight path – al mustaqeem – that the radicals deem is Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad is supposed to have lead a perfect life and the Qur’an is supposed to be the ‘perfect word of Allah’ thus neither can be changed, not by a covenant nor failure to emulate the Prophet in all his beliefs and deeds. An example of this is the Prophet’s marriage to 6 year old Aisha, which he consummated when she was 9. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that that is what happened 1,500 years ago and, indeed, many European kings contracted marriages to children in the middle-ages, though normally for the purposes of ensuring peace. However, the Prophet’s ‘protected’ and ‘perfect’ life leaves many arguing that what was good enough for the Prophet is good enough for them. This is but one example of the difficulties facing Islam in the 21 century.

The fact that Muslims are making jihadist death threats to other Muslims means that they no longer consider them to be following the faith – al mustaqeem – and thus they are kafireen because they are deemed to be ‘denying’ their religion.  This is indeed a serious and unprecedented development because now the intimidation and even execution of ‘British’ Muslims may well follow in the wake of this watershed threat.

Garrulous George Galloway blocks me on Twitter – I must have ruffled his feathers!

I saw a piece on the BBC today about Respect Party founder George Galloway, who is calling for a planned march through Tower Hamlets on Saturday by the English Defence League (EDL) to be banned.  That may or may not be necessary, I have no idea, although I am sure the appropriate authorities will have their opinion and hopefully take the appropriate action. I am not an EDL supporter as you will know if you give this blog anything more than a cursory glance.  

To give you a small background perspective, I have now started to follow Tweeters that I would usually rather not read about. Two days ago I started following Nigel Farage, reasoning it was better to know your ‘devils’ than ignore them. I duly received a tweet from UKIP’s leader this morning saying that today is the 20th anniversary of the foundation of his party. I sent a curmudgeonly tweet back saying that this milestone served to demonstrate the tolerance of the great British public. Well I hope Mr. Farage has a better sense of humour than his understanding of foreign affairs, or I will feel his wrath no doubt.  Incidentally, why do so many people call Mr. Farage a ‘kipper’ when he is much better suited to ‘flounder’?

So when I read about garrulous George’s latest march – well George is certainly energetic, even if a political stooge to Islam’s peace-loving followers – I decided to follow him on Twitter, hoping to ask him why he was always banging on about Islamophobia, after all, I am an ex-Muslim and I ought to know his reasoning. I didn’t get the chance because garrulous George has banned me, yes, banned me! Back came the message “You have been blocked from following this account at the request of the user”. A pre-emptive strike no less. Maybe old gee-gee is learning from Obama.

My point is that people have a right not to like Islam, don’t they? In the same vein they have a right to free speech. I mean, I detest the Catholic church but I don’t see the followers of the Church of Rome yelling Catholiphobia, a word I coined about a decade ago, at atheists like me. Roundly I detest all religion really, although I am not nasty about it.  The other day an old lady approached me in the town as I was getting into my car with my 12 year old son. “Would you like to read these two magazines?” she asked. “Sure” said I, but as soon as they were in my hand I saw that they were religious matter. I approached the group that she was with, some two or three yards away, handing back the magazines whilst asking them “rather than inviting people to read these magazines, why don’t you hand them over whilst meekly observing ‘if you don’t join us you’re going to burn in hell’?” The old lady and one of her companions laughed. They clearly have a sense of humour, which is more than we can say for garrulous George.

In April 2012, to celebrate his re-election to the House of Commons, the in-house magazine for parliament ‘The House’ wrote a lengthy article in his honour, commenting that “George Galloway is perhaps the most experienced ‘newbie’ MP you’ll ever meet”. It’s a very sympathetic article but it’s a shame they didn’t re-title that edition ‘The Louse’ thus fully honouring Galloway’s character.

One of the ghastliest images I have yet seen of war

Evidence of a chemical attack – dead Syrian children

Dr. Nidal Kabal, a former Syrian ambassador said today on the BBC that it would be “suicidal” for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons when the UN inspectors were present in Syria. That rather tells you that it would be the best time because it gives the Assad regime the best possible excuse: “What? Chemical weapons? Us? We would have to be mad do do such a thing at the moment”. Their response is logical, but it is also the sort of superb double-bluff that Arabs mire themselves in.

The UN inspectors are not in Syria to apportion blame but to establish whether chemical weapons have been used. The evidence is overwhelming: dead children in the hundreds, dead goats – whole herds of them, dead chickens and wild birds such as pigeons.  There is only one fact here: This was done by the Assad regime who can see their fate clearly written but are throwing every last ounce of horror into the pit of iniquity they have created.  I challenge anyone to look at the image given here and rationalise why civilised countries should ignore this inhumanly grotesque scene.

Legal jurisdiction is legal jurisdiction: there appears to be no doubt to that, is there?

The United States has finally succeeded in extraditing Abu Hamza Al-Masri, Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha Ahsan, Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled al-Fawwaz. They were taken from Long Lartin prison in a police convoy.  Two armoured vans, a blacked-out police people carrier and three police Range Rovers arrived at the Worcestershire jail on Friday evening just before dusk.

At the same time, two US passenger airliners were waiting on the tarmac at an air base in the east of England. So that would appear to be that and the action is right and proper to a certain extent.

Abu Hamza, Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled al-Fawwaz stand accused of serious terrorist involvement and it is only right and proper that they should be extradited at the earliest possible opportunity. However, Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan are accused of  running pro-jihad website Azzam.com and of helping terrorists. The US government maintains that the  internet site was hosted there because it is a ‘dot com’ registration.

There are two points that I would make about this and the first is simple: UK law should take precedence over US law and Ahmad and Ahsan should have been tried here in the UK. I feel deeply uncomfortable that our government has subordinated UK law by giving precedence to US legal proceedings.

The second point is more complex but bears careful examination. The US are asserting that ‘dot net’, ‘dot org’ and ‘dot com’ registrations are classed as ‘being in the US’ because of their hosting on US soil. Here is some evidence of this argument from The Open Rights Group, which exists to preserve and promote legal rights in a digital context: “the U.S. Government claims jurisdiction because ‘TVShack.net’ used a ‘dot-net’ domain. They claim that the use of the ‘dot-com’, ‘dot-net’ or ‘dot-org’ domains gives them the right to assert U.S laws globally, because these domains are managed by American companies such as Verisign”.

Surely if that is the case, that the US government claims jurisdiction over these websites, then that must mean that all companies and organisations so registered are equally subject to US internal revenue laws too? They cannot cherry pick the bits they want and leave the bits that are not politically palatable. This would mean that companies such as B&Q and Tesco should be liable to pay tax in the US in respect of their online transactions, unless there is a law that clearly defines the liabilities that are attached to these internet registrations.

The US government has also stated that it may legally seize any domain ending in .com, .net, and other popular top-level domains, if it considers the action necessary because they are managed by Verisign, and that is based in the US. Equally, Slashdot observes that  the “State of Maryland prosecutors were able to obtain a warrant ordering Verisign, the company that manages the dot-com domain name registry, to redirect the website to a warning page advising that it has been seized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The message from the case is clear: all dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domain names are subject to U.S. jurisdiction regardless of where they operate or where they were registered. This grants the U.S. a form of ‘super-jurisdiction’ over Internet activities, since most other countries are limited to jurisdiction with a real and substantial connection.”

It stands to reason that if a crime committed on a top-level domain name is legally uniquely under US jurisdiction, then if that constitutes a crime in the US, it must be actionable and enforceable in the US. Moreover, if the crime comes under US jurisdiction, surely purchases must too, in terms of taxation? That being the case, online transactions in companies such as B&Q and  Tesco surely must be liable to pay tax on their profits online to the US Internal Revenue Service?

I would like to see the US government taken to task over their seemingly discriminatory laws. You can imagine the uproar in financial centres across the world.

Hopefully religion is in its final phase of self-destruction …

It is possible – from my viewpoint as an atheist – to rank religions by their ghastliness. For example, the Protestant faith (as in the British one) is likely a lot less ghastly than the tediously superstitious Church of Rome, further up the scale you get Scientology (OK, it’s a ‘cult’, though the difference is almost indiscernible) but the top slot for ghastliness has, for decades now, rested with Islam, that specialises in trumpeting the allusion to peace that is carried in its name, whilst behaving like a homicidal, self-harming drug addict in  the way it manifests itself to the world.

Islam has no spiritual leader – it lacks a Mahdi – the prophesied redeemer in Islamic eschatology,  though god knows Islam needs redeeming and that statement itself is an oxymoron to me as a heathen (I enjoy my heathen status). This leaves Islam in the hands of its followers, who have, in the last few days, submerged their religion into new found depths of depravity, and I chose my words carefully here.

The Taliban suicide bomber who struck in Kabul’s embassy district a few days ago must have known that  most of those who would be killed would be street children, in the neighbourhood to eke out a living selling souvenirs. One of the victims was 14-year-old Khorshid, far too free a spirit in the body of a female ever to survive in the day-to-day mayhem of the backward followers of Islam in Afghanistan. She was a keen skateboarder at a facility that gives refuge to the vulnerable street children that live their lives from one day to the next. Two other skaters from the skategroup were killed  – Nawab, who was 17, and 13-year-old Mohammed Eesa. Another child, Assad, Khorshid’s cousin, also died.

In neighbouring Pakistan, police and national security are moving an 11 year-old child with sever learning difficulties around between safe houses because she has been accused of desecrating a Koran (Qur’an) by burning pages of it with the household rubbish. She was briefly imprisoned for this ‘crime’ a fortnight ago but then released after an international outcry about her plight. Her family, having been threatened with being burnt alive in their home by outraged Muslim neighbours have joined their daughter in being shifted from place to place for their own safety, despite the fact that the Imam of the local mosque where they lived has been accused of planting the pages of the holy book in her bag of rubbish in order to see Christians driven from their homes. The man who blew the whistle on the Imam was one of the other Imams at the same mosque.

In Libya a mob attacked and burnt down the US consulate in Benghazi, inflamed by by a film called ‘Innocence of Muslims’, an anti Islam film posted online earlier this year. Clips of the film have since been shown on Arab TV stations, but it is not a serious piece of cinema in a historical sense, unlike Tom Holland’s Channel 4 documentary ‘Islam: The Untold Story’, which has caused offence among Muslims but not lead to violence. ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ portrays the prophet Muhammad as a womaniser and the bloodthirsty leader of a band of jihadists who enjoy killing. The Benghazi rioters that ransacked the building then set it on fire, killing the American ambassador to Libya and three other US workers in the compound. US state department officials say they are looking into whether the attack on the consulate was premeditated, as there is a strong suspicion that a jihadist, Islamic militant group may have been responsible for organising the sacking of the US diplomatic mission.

All this has left me wondering how it is that a religion that so often sells itself on the strength of its name alluding to peace can incite such grotesquely violent reactions from its followers. Do Muslims not see how ironic this statement is? The prophet Mohammed married Aisha, a 6 year old girl, and consummated the marriage when she was 9, a facet of the prophet’s life that is still copied by many Muslims to this very day. The prophet fought wars with a brutal cost in human life. He had captives that would not capitulate to Islam put to death and established the obligation of jihad, meaning struggle, which is the excuse, I have no doubt, that those who sacked the consulate in Benghazi and the suicide bombers in Kabul who murdered children, defiantly use to justify their sick actions. How Islam can ever put its house in order without a peace-seeking Mahdi is beyond me. My biggest worry though, is what would Islam be like if the coming ‘Mahdi’ was himself the warmongering husband of a 9 year old child? You have to ask what kind of religion would condone a 9 year old girl being married and yet has in the past beaten children for flying kites?