Christianity is cratering in Britain. Church attendance is well under 10% and most are attending “woke” churches in which little of Christianity remains other than parts of an ancient liturgy.
To make matters worse, Britain is headed toward majority Muslim status within the next 25 years. “Brexit” has effectively been nullified, because even though Britain is no longer formally part of the European Union, its political parties still take their marching orders from Brussels or, more importantly, from the WEF, which has firm control of all significant political parties in the Western world.
Although Britain could avert its fate and remain part of Christendom if it immediately closed its borders and began deporting Muslims, this will never happen; no political party advocates such a course, and the ruling Labor government, which will remain in power for the next five years, is making it illegal to complain about the policy of mass transformative immigration.
As the video below mentions, the Labor government is planning an “Islamophobia” bill that will criminalize any criticism of Islam. Below is a partial list of what the new law will criminalize:
a. Inciting by word or deed hatred or violence against Muslims, including calling for or justifying actual or threatened harm towards Muslims.
b. Engaging in derogatory or dehumanising stereotypes about Muslims, for example, by suggesting that Muslims in general have a particular propensity to commit, or to support, acts of terrorism; or that individuals who are Muslim are necessarily socially or politically illiberal or regressive; or that Muslims have particular physical characteristics, names, dress or moral or ethical values; or that Muslims have a propensity for violence or are incapable of living peacefully in a democratic society; or that is not used to those of other backgrounds.
Obviously, this will criminalize mentioning uncomfortable truths about Islam, including:
(1) that Muhammad said, “I have been made victorious through terror,
2) that Muslims do not consider “man-made laws”, i.e., laws made by elected representatives in a Western-style government, to be binging; only Sharia law, God’s law, is binding on the Muslim believer, and
3) that the non-Muslim world is the dar al harb” (house of war) because believing Muslism are religiously bound to make war on non-believing societies until the latter surrender and accept dhimmitude (which, admittedly, Britain under Labor is ready, willing, and anxious to do).
Here is what a Muslim website says, authoritatively, about Islam and man-made laws:
“Islam does not [empower the government with] the right of creation of novel legislations. Rather, legislation is the right of God alone, and religion must be pivotal in deciding the validity of any new law. Bypassing this right of God amounts to the unforgivable sin of polytheism, for it from the basis of the belief in the Oneness of God that He and only He has the right of legislation. What this means is that the people or their elected officials do not have a right to make permissible what God has forbidden, or to declare forbidden what God has made permissible. Both in granting them such a right and then following their legislation is their elevation, making them lords like God, and this is what is meant by polytheism. No-one has the right to change the Law of God, and His Law is superior to and supersedes all man-made laws.”
Why would anyone think that people who hold this doctrine would fit into a Western society which is organized around the central idea that law is made by elected representative in democratic bodies like parliaments?
c. Suggesting that Muslims, individually or as a group in British society, pose a threat to British or European society, civilisation or values, for example, by claiming that Muslims are a demographic threat to British people, by claiming that Muslims are taking over British society or civic or political institutions through their presence in the same, or by “catastrophising” [sic] immigration from Muslim majority countries.
So there is to be no criticizing (or criticising) mass Muslim immigration. Yet, mass Muslim immigration is exactly and precisely a “catastrophe” to the Western, Christian Britain of recent memory, and any future Britain that would retain any of its Western, Christian values.
Does anyone think the following categories of people will make good citizens of a United Kingdom that wishes to live in a culturally Christian society under the unwritten constitution, with elements going back to Magna Carta, that provides for lawmaking through an elected parliament?:
Those who believe that “man-made” law—law passed by elected representatives—is not legitimate, and that only the laws given to a desert chieftain 1,400 years ago are legitimate and must be obeyed.
Those who believe that Britain’s unwritten constitution must eventually be replaced by Sharia Law as the supreme law of the land.
Those who believe that all other religions are subordinate to Islam, and that Muslims should have certain civic and judicial advantages that non-Muslims should not have.
Those who believe that freedom of speech must be subordinated to the rule that Islam and the Prophet Muhammad may not ever be criticized.
Those who believe that there should be no separation of church and state.
Those who believe that anyone who leaves Islam must be killed.
Those whose primary political loyalty is to the Muslim nation, not to the UK.
Those who believe non-Muslims must pay a per capita tax that Muslims are exempt from.
Those who believe that polygamy is permissible or even mandatory.
These are all tenets of sharia law, widely subscribed to within Islam.
(In addition, many Muslims have domestic cultural practices—not core tenets of Islam, it should be stressed—that are not compatible with Western values, like “those who believe that pubescent girls should have their clitorises cut out” and “those who believe that male family members may with impunity murder female family members who have brought dishonor on the family.” But let’s leave those to one side, since they are specific to certain regions and/or schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and are not core tenets of Islam.)
But to return to our Islamophobia “no no” list:
e. Requiring Muslims to criticise terrorist acts more vociferously than other people, or requiring Muslims to apologise for terrorism committed by extremists in the name of Islam, or holding Muslims collectively responsible for the acts of Muslim majority countries, paramilitary groups or terrorists.
Heaven forbid anyone should want Muslims to disavow specifically Islamic terrorism. That would be equivalent to requiring a Muslim to deny his faith, because Muhammad, who is the model for all humanity, said, “I have been made victorious through terror.”
f. Using slurs or grossly offensive imagery about Muslims, portraying Muslims as sexually untrustworthy or dangerous, or that Muslims or their contemporary religious practices are cruel or violent.
The undeniable fact is that Muslim males, when put into a Western society, are not sexually trustworthy, but are dangerous. Anyone unfamiliar with Britain’s “Asian” “grooming gangs”—which are actually Muslim rape gangs—ought to familiarize himself with them, starting here.
Sweden made itself the rape capital of Europe by mass importation of Muslims. The typical Marxist “fact checking” sites, like “Snopes,” have tried to debunk the Muslim rape epidemic, but even the most conservative figures indicate that the Muslim immigrants to Sweden were 250%, that is, two and a half times, more likely to commit rape than native-born Swedes.
h. Objecting to the presence of Mosques or Koranic scripture because of their association with Islam or Muslims is very likely to be considered prejudicial. However, an objection to the presence of religious symbols, places of worship or religious scripture on the basis of secularism or atheism is very likely to be protected by the rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression and should not, by itself, be considered Islamophobic.
Here is viewpoint discrimination that is baked into the proposed law: If you are Christian and criticize Islam, you go to jail. If you are an atheist like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Daniel Dennett, you are good.
i. Making irrelevant references to the protected characteristic of being Muslim. This practice is often a form of discrimination and stereotyping. It is perpetuated in media reports of alleged crime, routinely referring to the perpetrators as “Muslim”, when no other equivalent reference would be made to any other faith.
The Labor government deems it “not relevant” that the person committing a crime, say a knife attack or rape, is a Muslim. You are not entitled to know or share that information, and if you do, you go to jail. The regime does not want you to know that the Muslim hoards they have imposed upon you are raping and killing, are the main sources of crime; that would reflect poorly on their policies. So they just make it illegal for you to notice who is doing what to whom.
j. Accusing Muslims of being a “fifth column” or of lying or acting in ‘stealth’, and/or implying a Muslim, or Muslims in general, are inherently antisemitic, homophobic and/or misogynist.
According to unassailable religious authority, all true Muslims must be fifth columnists when they immigrate to a Western country that believes in separation of church and state, and government by elected representatives, because these things conflict with Sharia law, and must ultimately be replace by Sharia. Consider the warning of Wafa Sultan:
"No one can be a true Muslim and a true American simultaneously. Islam is both a religion and a state, and to be a true Muslim, you must believe in Islam as both religion and state. A true Muslim does not acknowledge the U.S. Constitution, and his willingness to live under that constitution is, as far as he is concerned, nothing more than an unavoidable step on the way to that constitution's replacement by Islamic Sharia law." Wafa Sultan, A God Who Hates, p. 234.
k. Minimising or justifying the persecution, oppression or denial of the human rights of Muslims on the basis of concerns about ‘Islamic’ terrorism, or national security. This may manifest itself by using stereotypes in an international context (for example, in respect of the position of Palestinians or Kashmiris, to deny the right to self-determination) or in a domestic context.
Clearly, Israel’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon after the October 7th terror attacks qualify as “Islamophobia,” and if you publicly agree with what Israel has done, Keir Starmer will put you in prison.
l. Denying, or minimising the significance of, discrimination against Muslims may demonstrate hostility or prejudice because of religion.
Anyone who does not discriminate, for purposes of immigration, against Muslims is a fool—or else he despises Christianity and Western, Christian Civilization, and is actively working to destroy it. Unfortunately, this perfectly describes our ruling elites in the West.
In the video below, Pastor Chris Wickland argues that house churches are perhaps Britain’s best hope for reversing the catastrophic decline of Christianity in that country. He also discusses the proposed Islamophobia law: