We are frequently told that in Britain, or the West, we are fortunate to enjoy many freedoms, particularly freedom of speech, freedom of belief and freedom of religion.
Tabloids, journalists, columnists and politicians continually boast about how we should be grateful that we live in a free country and are therefore free to wear, say and do what we want in society. We are also apparently encouraged by such sources to respect all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, religion, sexuality or race; yet their hypocrisy could not be any more blatant.
Although non-Muslims are free to wear (or not wear) what they want in public and are free to voice their own political and religious views, recent years, and certainly recent judicial proceedings in Britain, clearly demonstrate that these very same freedoms do not apply to Muslims.
Muslim activists and scholars such as Abu Hamza, Abu Izzadeen, Omar Bakri, Abdullah el-Faisal, Abu Qatada and Anjem Choudary – to name but a few – have been the victims of a relentless vicious media onslaught for merely expressing their religious beliefs.
Samina Malik, dubbed the ‘Lyrical Terrorist’, was also demonised by the media after being the first Muslim woman in Britain to be convicted of a ‘terrorist’ offence – that being writing poetry. However, after world-wide criticism, her conviction was later quashed as the Government, one of the so-called ‘mothers of democracy’, was humiliated on an international level for clearly prosecuting a young female poet.
In early 2006, four men were convicted of ‘soliciting murder’ for carrying ‘offensive’ placards and chanting slogans at a London protest, organised in response to the publication of vile Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet of Islam (PBUH). The men, known as the ‘Cartoon Protestors’, were convicted of a serious offence just for protesting, carrying placards and voicing their anger. Muslims in Britain were, unsurprisingly, ridiculed by the media for taking offence to the cartoons. Yet, ironically, when these four men decided to test ‘freedom of speech’ in the UK, the Government was offended by their speeches and punished them callously.
More recently, in April 2008, six Muslims were convicted of ‘fundraising for terrorism overseas’, even though the prosecution could not prove that the men collected any money, for any purpose. Their ‘crime’ was that they spoke out (in November 2004) against the illegal invasion of Iraq, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and the US-led massacre and genocide of the civilian population of Fallujah, Iraq. In court, a prosecution expert witness, Professor Michael Clarke, Director of RUSI and a UN advisor, acknowledged that the Americans committed war crimes in Fallujah, similar to those committed in Warsaw by the Nazis, some of whom were later hanged in Nuremberg after World War 2. Nonetheless, the trial concluded that the speeches – in a ‘free’ country – were ‘unacceptable’ and an act of terrorism, far worse than the indiscriminate murder of innocent Iraqi women and children via the use of illegal chemical weapons.
Ordinary Muslim women in Britain have also been mocked by the media and attacked by government officials and politicians for the way they dress – in a country where people are supposedly free to wear what they want. And a number of Muslims have lately been convicted of ‘terrorist’ offences for playing outdoor games such as paintball, while non-Muslims are free to partake in extreme sports.
It is now more clearer than ever before that there is an apartheid system in place in Britain today. All of those mentioned thus far (and Muslims in general) have been the victims of a wicked media and government crusade, accused of absurd crimes and handed outrageous sentences for exercising their civil liberties, personal freedoms and expressing their religious views, in the form of speech, verse and legitimate protest. Indeed, if a non-Muslim did any of the above there would be no cause for concern, let alone prosecution.
These cases clearly illustrate that not only are Muslims in Britain vilified, attacked and indicted for what they wear and say, but they are also labelled as extremists for holding ‘unconventional’ beliefs. Moreover, when such discrimination and double standards are highlighted we are told to go back to our own countries – states that are either puppets of the British and American administrations, or under their brutal occupation.
So it can no longer be claimed that ‘outspoken’ Muslims would be jailed for making speeches in countries that are not democratic, as that is exactly what is happening here in Britain. At least in those countries people are well aware that they are not free to air their views and expose the hypocrisy of the state, and can thus avoid prosecution. In Britain, on the other hand, we are led to believe that we are free, but later punished and persecuted if the Government (and its media) is offended by what we say.