Islam is what I say it is! It says so right here!
A law code or legal code, is a type of legislation that purports to exhaustively cover a complete system of laws or a particular area of law as it existed at the time the code was enacted, by a process of codification. Though the process and motivations for codification are similar in different common law and civil law systems, their usage is different.
In a civil law country, a code of law typically exhaustively covers the complete system of law, such as civil law or criminal law.
Britain is fatally infected by Islam. Bill Warner, founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, tell why
The subject is the 72-page All-Party Parliamentary Group’s Islamophobia Defined.; Warner stresses that in it Islamophobia is not defined. The legal beagles of Britain in every district have been ordered to weigh in on the meaning and ramifications of “Islamophobia” with the aim of not only banning it at the behest of resident Muslims, but recommending punishments for its expression . Warner also stresses that no definition of Islamophobia has been settled or what the term means by definition, nor what Islam is.
Warner says, “It is whatever the Muslims say it is.”
The purpose of the Group is:
To combat Islamophobia by investigating the forms, manifestations and extent of prejudice, discrimination and hatred against Muslims in the UK, while reviewing legislation and policy, the recording and prosecution of hate crimes, the role of the media, and the use of social media platforms as a means for spreading hatred.
Nor does the Koran, the Hadith, or the Sunna occur in the document. Experts, activists, and Islamophobia “victims are all cited in the paper, except for Allah and Mohammad. Neither does it distinguish between Islam and Muslims.
“Muslims are people, Islam is a doctrine.”
Warner notes that 94% of British Muslims say that Islam is compatible with the British way of life. How can that be? he asks. But wife beating is against British law, whereas Islam condones it in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunna. It is a key element of the Shania.
Islamophobia causes harm, if it offends Muslims.
An Islamic “expert” states that Islamophobia is racist, it is bigoted, it causes Muslims harm, suffering, or hurt feelings. Warner makes the same point as I’ve made elsewhere, that Islamophobia has no metaphysical power to physically harm anyone. It has the potency of the term “jerk” or “doofus.”
The Group paper does not argue against freedom of speech. It upholds freedom of speech, as long as the speech or written word not against Islam or Muslims, or critical of it.
“This is all about Muslimology, a social study. It’s all about opinion, not fact. They see it as a pure social construct….Islamophobia is rooted in racism that targets Muslimness or perceived Muslimness. I didn’t know that Muslimness was a word. But it is now.”
Justice to the Muslims means bringing punishment to the Islamophobes.
The document even states that all the U.K. is Islamophobic….that the entire society is Islamophobic. They say that arguments over freedom of speech is “subtle racism.” They also add that to say that Islam it not a race, is a racist argument.
“This document is purely subjective, instead of being objective. The term Muslim is used in virtually every paragraph, but Islam rarely. This whole paper is about victimology.”
“Everything that’s right wing is negative, and not one leftist organization is bad. All suffering and shortfalls in the U.K. caused by Islamophobia. Nothing that Muslims do is bad. This is an elitists document that attempt to limit free speech while saying that we don’t want to limit free speech. This is all globalist, elitist talk. It’s all about feelings, Muslims’ feelings.”
The Group document cites “one ‘expert’ after another, but not Allah or Mohammad. Not one fact about Islam is cited.”
“Everyone gets free speech, but Muslims can’t be offended. This is some kind of pseudo science that depends on surveys. Islam is said to be purely religious and without fault. There is some mention of the ‘Other,’ but never mentionsthe Kaffir.”
Warner says that this is a strategic totalitarian plan. They want to make Islamophobia a crime, and wants to make it a crime to say anything that offends Muslims’ feelings. Facts are irrelevant, and blasphemy laws are enforced by the State. Everyone in Britain becomes a dhimmi. This whole document is a vast lie.
“Out of the 21 members of Parliament listed in this document, 14 are Muslim, 2/3rds of them. If you want Islam to be a jihadist document, you ask a jihadi Muslim. If you want it to be peaceful, you ask a peaceful Muslim. In short, Islam will be whatever the 14 members want it to be.”
Jihad Watch reported on December 4th that U.K. Muslims
“demand criminalization of “Islamophobic” “racism” that targets their “Muslimness.”
Muslims in the UK are demanding full legal protection from “Islamophobia,” and the definition of “Islamophobia” has finally been articulated:
Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
There are already hate crime laws in the UK:
A hate crime can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment, assault and bullying, as well as damage to property
What exactly are the Muslim Council of Britain and other Muslim groups seeking that is not already covered by British law?
Another site, reports on Islamophobia being regulated on or banned from the Internet. Jonahtan Turley , on October 5th reported, “Britain Moves to criminalize extremist material on the Internet.”
For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison. It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet. As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.” UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign….
Prime Minister Theresa May has previously called for greater government control of the Internet. Now, the government not only would make reading material on the Internet a crime, but would not necessarily tell you what sites will be deemed the ultimate click bait. Rudd told a Conservative Party conference that she wants to crackdown on people “who view despicable terrorist content online”….
But, whose government? Pakistan’s?