In 2007 the Daily Mail’s Richard Littlejohn investigated the anti-Semitism which had become an essential feature of the British political Left. His research was broadcast in July of that year on Channel 4, with the programme The War on Britain’s Jews. Normally the anti-Semitism of the Left is couched in anti-Zionism. Yet it is so omnipresent that it takes a seasoned and indeed reasoned observer to sort the wheat from the chaff, such as recognising how Israel is held up to impossibly high-standards simply by virtue that is exists. Now Littlejohn’s report revealed how anti-Semitism came not just from the Left but also from Islamic groups. This is where the issue reaches an impasse because anyone who states this obvious fact is labelled racist and Islamophobic, as indeed Littlejohn is. Once that label sticks, it really does stick. No matter that on the aforementioned television broadcast our journalist was given an unsympathetic short-thrift by the British National Party when wanting to conduct an interview regarding their anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Notable among this was a book entitled Who are the Mindbenders? where Gaby Roslin and Vanessa Feltz are part of this brainwashing Jewish nexus exercising control over the British public. In any case the BNP revamp of classic Nazi anti-Semitism has been taken over within British mainstream, because while this extreme outfit cannot shelve its national socialist foundation which is its raison d’être to exist, with certain figures in Britain’s Parliament anti-Semitism itself is gaining acceptability. Only when it becomes too blatant is there reaction and outrage.
Such is the case with Lord Nazir Ahmed. Born in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, he emigrated to Britain at the age of 12. In 1990 he became a councillor for the Labour Party and eight years later was appointed to the House of Lords as Baron Ahmed, of Rotherham, South Yorkshire. He has been vociferous in fighting for equality, especially issue of faith, race and gender. Lord Ahmed has also advocated legislation against religious discrimination and forced marriages. But his talk of equality has always had a more sinister tone, especially on his support for self-determination in Kashmir, a glib and nice sounding term which ignores the wholesale destruction of the Valley’s indigenous Hindu population of Pandits. For Ahmed, as so many others, Kashmiris can only be Muslims. Hindus do not exist in Kashmir, hence he has always turned a blind eye to their annihilation. Instead on BBC’s Hard Talk in 2001 he blamed India of harbouring terrorists such as LK Advani, elderly statesmen in the BJP, whose very own family had been forced to Sindh in 1947 because it became part of Pakistan and Hindus were not welcome in that ‘land of the pure’, for Muslims only. Faced with a rather useless self-styled Hindu leader in the pathetic form of Dr. Girdhari Lal Bhan, Ahmed had a field day riding roughshod all over him, claiming that if India demanded the extradition of terrorist being harboured in Pakistan, India should handover terrorists such as Advani. Bhan as much as Ahmed ignored the obvious fact that while India faces well-armed jihadis, how exactly was Advani a terrorist when at his age he could barely walk? The poignancy of it all was that Bhan is a Kashmir Pandit, and victim of Pakistan backed terrorism himself.
Lord Ahmed’s support for laws against religious discrimination in 1999 was of course part of the stealth jihad process. It is obvious exactly which religion he wanted to protect. In 1992 he had founded the British Muslim Councillors’ Forum. Now he was casting doubt on reports that British Muslims were being recruited to fight jihad abroad. It was all part of an Islamophobic mindset. That word ‘Islamophobia. Updating the Pact of Umar which enforced dhimmi status on vanquished peoples that refused to convert to the religion of the imperialist Arab master race, it is now used to crush all comment and reasoned enquiry into a major world faith. Unsurprisingly the peer also opposed the war in Afghanistan. In August 2006 he was a signatory to an open letter to Tony Blair criticising the UK’s foreign policy. He was also among the founders of The World Forum, a non-governmental, independent and voluntary organization set up in London and Dubai to promote world peace in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York. On 25 July 2005, Lord Ahmed, while interviewing with Robert Siegel on National Public Radio, said that the London suicide bombers of 7/7 had an “identity crisis” and that “unfortunately, our imams and mosques have not been able to communicate the true message of Islam in the language that these young people can understand.”
But was the peer’s ‘understanding’ of Islam any better than the terrorists he claimed to condemn? On 23 February 2005, he hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for the controversial Swedish writer Israel Shamir, during which the latter claimed, among other things: “The Jews like an Empire… This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance… Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” Although this invitation raised some controversy, Ahmed firmly refused to discuss the matter. Now Shamir it must be remembered has made statements opposing both Zionism and Judaism. He is a supporter of the proposed one-state solution which would mean the annihilation of the Jewish people in Israel. Shamir has argued that there is organized Jewish control of the media and public discourse and his writings diverge fully into anti-Semitic hatred. On 19 June 2007 Lord Ahmed criticised the honouring of Salman Rushdie with a knighthood because of what Lord Ahmed saw as Rushdie’s offensiveness to Islam. He was reported to have said, “It’s hypocrisy by Tony Blair, who two weeks ago was talking about building bridges to mainstream Muslims, and then he’s honouring a man who has insulted the British public and been divisive in community relations…. This man not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world. Forgiving and forgetting is one thing, but honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of, because of what he did, I think is going a bit too far.” He also said on BBC Radio 4’s PM programme that he had been appalled by the award to a man he accused of having “blood on his hands”.On 11 February 2009, the Daily Mail’s Melanie Phillips claimed that Lord Ahmed had threatened to “bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if the Dutch MP Geert Wilders was allowed to speak” at a broadcast of the film Fitna. Just like Goebbels boasted of how the Nazis were openly going to destroy German democracy and it was the stupidity of the government for inviting them in, Lord Ahmed became increasingly bolder and unambiguous about his Islamist agenda to enforce dhimmitude on the infidels who had stupidly honoured him. A Pakistani newspaper, The Express Tribune, alleged that Ahmed said at a business meeting in Haripur, Pakistan, on 15 April 2012:
“If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of 10 million pounds on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush.”
On learning of these allegations, the Labour Party immediately suspended Ahmed pending a formal investigation. Video footage of the meeting, released on 18 April, showed that Ahmed had been misquoted and instead had said:
“Even if I have to beg I am willing to raise and offer £10 million so that George W Bush and Tony Blair can be brought to the International Court of Justice on war crimes charges.”
That same day, the Express Tribune offered a “clarification” that it had “erroneously reported” Ahmed’s statement and that their reporter had incorrectly cited the name of Obama. The article stated that the newspaper “deeply regretted” its mistake. His suspension was later revoked on 25 June 2012.But Ahmed was playing dangerously close to the edge, seeing how far he could push the Islamic supremacist agenda. In November 2012 he claimed that the attempted assassination of Malala Yousafzai was carried out by Pakistan’s civilian government as part of an effort to discredit the Taliban. The came the final crunch.
On 25 December 2007, Lord Ahmed was involved a crash on the M1 near Rotherham in which Martin Gombar, 28, was killed. He had been text messaging on his mobile phone just before the crash. The peer was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison but served just 16 days. A lenient sentence, but one nevertheless which led Ahmed on to blame a Jewish conspiracy for his custody:
“My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians. My Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels opposed this.”
The Times reported this on 14 March 2013. Ahmed is also accused of claiming that the judge who jailed him for 12 weeks was appointed to the High Court after helping a “Jewish colleague” of Tony Blair’s during an “important case”. The quotes are taken from an Urdu-language TV interview Ahmed gave in Pakistan in April 2012. This time Labour did act more forcefully and Ed Milliband, suspended Ahmed from the party. He also stepped down as a founding trustee of the Joseph Interfaith Foundation, which promotes Muslim-Jewish relations, on Sunday, following last week’s reports of his alleged remark. Yet this was not even his first flirtation with anti-Jewish hatred. Shortly before he was jailed, Lord Ahmed had claimed that university societies in this country had recruited young British Jews to join the Israeli army and fight in Operation Cast Lead. He said the Jewish students should be prosecuted for war crimes on their return to this country. Labour MP Louise Ellman, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel, said: “I’m appalled. If true, these comments reflect basic antisemitism and I welcome the party’s decision to suspend Lord Ahmed”. The Labour leader Ed Miliband later said:
“I think that the comments reported by Lord Ahmed are disgraceful comments….There’s no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and frankly anybody who makes those kinds of comments cannot be either a Labour lord or a Labour member of Parliament.”
Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, blogged:
But why be surprised? Ahmed’s comments have not appeared in a vacuum. They have clear ideological and indeed theological foundation. His hatred of Hindus was merely a prelude to the real target: the Jews. We need to understand the framework in which we are operating. On 30 November 2006, the New Statesman reported a claim by fellow Muslim and Labour parliamentarian Shahid Malik that Lord Ahmed had campaigned against him during the Dewsbury election in 2005. He alleged that Ahmed instead backed Sayeeda Warsi, vice-chair of the Conservative Party, the daughter of a personal friend. According to the New Statesman’s report, Warsi “welcomed Lord Ahmed’s support”. The New Statesman also printed Lord Ahmed’s refutation, saying “I never told any constituent of Dewsbury to vote for the Tories” But in fact Ahmed has worked very closely with Warsi. In November 2007 Ahmed was involved in a diplomatic effort to secure the release of Gillian Gibbons from custody in Sudan, after this British teacher allowed her class to name a teddy bear Muhammad. The two peers had a meeting with the President of Sudan. Miss Gibbons, who had been given a fifteen-day prison sentence, was released after eight days following a Presidential pardon and allowed to return to the UK. Warsi also manages stealth jihad. Just 2 days after the London bombings of 7 July 2005, BBC One Politics Show interview that new anti-terror laws should not prevent support among Britons for “freedom fighters” in Kashmir. Comparing Islamic rebels in the disputed region with Nelson Mandela and the ANC, Warsi observed that:
“We have a community in Britain, a Pakistani and Kashmiri community, who holds a very, very strong view about Kashmir and the scope of freedom-fighting in Kashmir. It would concern me if… the definition of terrorism was to cover maybe (the) legitimate freedom-fight in Kashmir.”
Only 13 days after the 7/7 bombings in London, Sayeeda Warsi, at the time prospective Conservative candidate for Deswbury said:
On 27 January 2006 BBC Any Questions? debate, Warsi welcomed the election of Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hamas, a brutal movement officially proscribed as a terrorist group by the British government:
“I think what’s happened in the Middle East with the election of Hamas is actually an opportunity and I think that’s the way we’ve got to see it. When groups that practise violence are suddenly propelled into power through a democratic process they get responsibility and responsibility can be a tremendously taming factor. And I think that Hamas, when it realises that it wants a safe and stable and prosperous Palestine for its people, will realise that the way to deal with that is through dialogue and democracy and not through violence. And also I think if you look historically, I mean, for example, if you look in India when the far right part were there they made far more progress on the Kashmir issue, Ariel Sharon made far more progress on the peace process because if you have the extremists not in power then the more moderate groups find it very hard to come to a solution on contentious issues. But when those very parties who are so vociferous about these issues come into power they have a better mandate from the people to have a solution. And I actually think that Hamas has been given a mandate and I think it will now hopefully adopt a responsible position because that is the only way.”
Now a fully-fledged member of the House of Lords there was no stopping this Islamic behemoth. On 20 January 2011 at Leicester University, Baroness Warsi, now party chairwoman, warned that hatred of Islam had “passed the dinner-table test” and become widely socially acceptable in Britain. She warned of the danger of distinguishing “moderate” Muslims from extremists because it creates a discrimination test for Muslims to pass that no one else has to endure. In other words do not indulge in the crime of what the Khmer Rouge called “thinking too much”.
For her subtle anti-Semitism and her open anti-Hindu remarks Warsi was rewarded with her failure to be elected MP by being granted a peerage as Baroness Warsi. This should come again as no surprise. Why did the Conservative Party ennoble Warsi despite her support for terrorism, genocide and ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir? Now let us compare what happened in the election year of 2005 to Adrian Hilton. This was a very able and intelligent Conservative candidate for Labour-held Slough. Yet he was de-selected for writing allegedly, I repeat allegedly, anti-Catholic comments. In fact his main thrust was Eurosceptic, which may have seemed laughable and even extreme back in 2005, but with the Eurozone crisis and the narrow loss by UKIP in the recent Eastleigh by-election, not to mention the dire circumstances now felt by Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, it really is no laughing matter at all. Yet the Conservative Party lost no time at all in cutting its nose to spite its face as Hilton was unceremoniously jettisoned for having his words taken out of context. So why the harsh treatment of Hilton who warned of the threats to British sovereignty, with the cringing dhimmitude shown to Warsi, who was promoted for supporting anti-Hindu terrorism and prejudice? In an ideal democratic system people will vote as individuals. Of course the reality is different. But while vote bank politics was largely a preserve of the Left (such as the welfare dependency and surrogate fatherhood favoured by socialists, the volkisch racial identity bolstered by the ‘national’ socialists) along with its unholy axis with radical Islam to destroy the hated bourgeois capitalism which gave rise to its prosperity in the first place (and allowed there to be Eu money with which to bail out Greece and now Cyprus), it seems that the infection has gone viral. Unlike their Muslim counterparts MPs with Hindu sounding names do not lobby for Hindu interests. Instead they disown them as an embarrassment in their desire to be acceptable, and above all modern. Conservative MPs Shailesh Vara and Priti Patel, themselves from families expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin in 1972, soon forget what it was like to be powerless and destitute. While I would not advocate Hindu lobbying or vote bank politics, the ‘Uncle Patel’ attitude of such figures allows the Ahmed-Warsi axis to scatter all before it. However the chilling response of one the Conservative Party’s token brown faces with an Indian name, haunts me to this day:
“Listen Hindus and Sikhs have less votes than Muslims in this country. So I would advise you to keep your mouth shut.”
Nasty, brutish, and full of double-standards. Yet very candid, explaining the reality of the situation.