Homosexuality is unacceptable to 95% of Muslims
An in-depth survey into the attitudes of Muslims living in London has revealed that less than 5% think homosexual acts are "acceptable," compared with over 65% of the general population
The Gallup poll, reported in The Times, found that Muslims differed significantly with the rest of the capital's population in their attitudes to a range of social questions.
More than 80% of the public think sex outside marriage is acceptable, with only 10% of Muslims agreeing.
There were similar wide discrepancies on abortion and pornography.
Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on human rights, said: "To imply that homosexuality itself was unacceptable is a form of intolerance that's deplorable."
Wait a minute… Did the Lib Dems just say that 95% of Muslims are intolerant and did they say they are deplorable? That’s not a very PC thing to say. If all cultures are equal (which they aren’t) doesn’t that make their viewpoint that homosexuality is unacceptable equally valid?
If Muslims take over I wonder what they will do to homosexuals. I don’t think they will be safe anywhere. The homosexual hope lies with the BNP who wouldn’t persecute anyone for being homosexual. Whatever goes on in the private lives of adults is none of our business. Can you say that Muslims would do that? If Muslims are willing to kill other Muslims for reading the bible what do you think will happen to homosexuals?
12 comments:
The Muslim percentages would most likely reflect those of the general population 50-60 years ago.
And culturally, that was the England that the BNP seeks to restore. Members have to face up to this fact.
Of course, profession is one thing, practice is another, but in the old days, folk knew when they were committing devilment and sought to hide it.
Standards have slipped abysmally since then and it is tragic that Muslims at least know what is right, compared to most ordinary Brits, according to the survey.
And like a stopped clock twice a day, the Muslim professions are correct, at least superficially*.
*They still believe in polygamy, which is 'sex outside marriage' according to English law - see Mel Phillips's column - and they still believe in abusing non-Muslim female captives, so their professions have to be seen in that light. But their expressed views are right, nevertheless.
The trouble with BNP policy w.r.t. sodomy and sodomites is that all victims of sodomite multiple or serial killers, including Ian Brady and Dennis Neilson, were killed 'in private.'
The Party can never hope to eliminate child molestation unless it outlaws sodomy. To attempt one without decisive action on the other is like trying to get rid of spiders' webs by simply brushing them away.
You need to eliminate the spiders.
P.S. Before Harold Shipman, who was able to abuse a position of trust, the record for serial killings was a Russian sodomite with 52 known victims.
Banning sodomy is unenforcable.
Not entirely unenforceable.
It used to be outlawed and prosecutions were carried out.
No crime can be totally eliminated by enacting laws against it but that is not a justification for relaxing or repealing those laws.
Unfortunately, successive governments in the last 50-60 years have thought otherwise, which is why we no longer have hanging or birching.
It is to the BNP's credit that it will re-introduce those forms of punishment, to be at the disposal of the courts as required.
Hang on a sec...did you just say that the BNP will bring back hanging & birching as a punishment for sodomy?
Totally different subject. The BNP have never said that they would punish people for being homosexual. Infact at the last conference I think they passed a motion to allow gay couples to inherit eventhough they won't allow them to marry.
The distinct difference between Muslims view of homosexuality today and the British view of 50-60 years ago is that (to my knowledge) the Brits didn't kill homosexuals simply for being homosexuals.
alanorei: they not only 'abuse' their non-muslim female captices, they abuse their own females, they abuse males; then end-game to most captivities with them is a beheading.
Lord Nazh said:
"alanorei: they not only 'abuse' their non-muslim female captices, they abuse their own females, they abuse males; then end-game to most captivities with them is a beheading. "
Totally agree. Even Crimewatch has to admit to Muslims inflicting 'honour' killings and 'honour' beatings on members of their own families, e.g. fathers murdering daughters, brothers beating up their own sisters etc. (A real 'religion of peace,' don't you know.)
(The BBC maintains that Sikhs and Christians also commit similar crimes but thus far has been unable to furnish any relevant case histories, to my knowledge.)
The remark in my earlier post on capital and corporal punishment was in the wider context.
I have no hesitation in saying, though, that where child molestation is concerned, the perpetrator should pay with his life.
Sodomites would suffer disproportionately in this respect, however, because they constitute a third of all child molesters and are approximately 20 times more likely to be guilty of this particular crime than 'straights.'
That is why, as and when it comes to power, the BNP will be left with significantly enhanced problems of child molestation unless it outlaws sodomy.
I fail to see why 'gay rights' should in any way be respected at the expense of appreciably increased risks to vulnerable children.
Just because you ban something doesn't mean it will go away. There will still be just as much child molesters even if sodomy is banned.
Not if you take 1/3 of them out of circulation.
That is what outlawing sodomy implies.
Of course, that still leaves the other 2/3. This is where the Party has to start dismantling the pornography industry.
It depends on whether you put self-indulgence before the welfare of children or the reverse.
The NVALA published a report many years ago that revealed how paedophiles got started by means of pornography.
Serial killer Ted Bundy started out with 'soft core' pornography.
Rupert Murdoch has a lot to answer for.
Not if you take 1/3 of them out of circulation
And if you ban homosexuality the homosexuals won't tell you if they are homosexual and then you are back where you started.
Of course, that still leaves the other 2/3. This is where the Party has to start dismantling the pornography industry.
It depends on whether you put self-indulgence before the welfare of children or the reverse.
No it isn't.
Read this and follow the link on it:
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2006/10/pornography-and-rape.html
It shows that access to porn reduces the amount of rape.
"And if you ban homosexuality the homosexuals won't tell you if they are homosexual and then you are back where you started."
Criminals of any persuasion don't usually publicise their crimes, or their intention to commit crimes (unless they are terrorists seeking publicity, though even they usually wait until the bombs have exploded) but they can still get caught.
The means is there, provided the will is also there. Moreover, it would not be difficult to close down 'gay' clubs and terminate 'gay' publications etc.
The 21/7 bombers were operating on a 'don't ask, don't tell' basis but when law enforcement was prepared to exert itself properly, even they got caught.
Likewise former Welsh Secretary (or whatever he was) Ron Davies, for example. Also Nancy Astor's son Bobby (back in the 30s when sodomy was illegal) and numerous paedophile priests - I have a list.
Thanks for the report although 56 pages is a lot to get through.
However, the writer admits his data could be biased and his thesis conflicts with the NVALA report which is based on actual police experience.
As a general rule, be wary of any academic trying to 'prove' something that goes against generally observed trends from other data sources.
If this academic's thesis is correct, sexual assaults ought to have diminshed drastically over the last 50 years, with the upsurge of available pornography since the 1960s.
They haven't. Home Office figures indicate 300-400 cases of rape annually in the late 1950s. In 2005-6, the equivalent figure was over 14,000.
(It is possible that the true situation is worse, insofar as crime is increasingly becoming unreported.)
Moreover, in spite of modern anti-biotics etc., STIs have increased 8-fold since the 1940s.
Pornography enhancement has not arrested that trend and will not.
You have to take in the big picture.
The 21/7 bombers were operating on a 'don't ask, don't tell' basis but when law enforcement was prepared to exert itself properly, even they got caught.
They didn't hide the fact they were muslim though.
If this academic's thesis is correct, sexual assaults ought to have diminshed drastically over the last 50 years, with the upsurge of available pornography since the 1960s.
They haven't. Home Office figures indicate 300-400 cases of rape annually in the late 1950s. In 2005-6, the equivalent figure was over 14,000.
Overall crime has risen too.
Post a Comment