Youths of unspecified faith commit “faith hate crime” against Anglican priest

As reported by Kevin Dowling in the Times of London, three “Asian” youths attacked an Anglican priest on the grounds of his east London church after he asked them to be quiet.

Alan Green, area dean for Tower Hamlets, said … “He was kicked and punched in the head as he lay on the ground, I believe that what was shouted was ‘you f****** priest’ before they attacked him.”

A Metropolitan police spokesman said: “The suspects are Asian … and the incident is being investigated as an alleged faith hate crime.”

Apparently following government directives never to connect Islam with anything bad, the Times never describes the youths as “Muslims.” Showing the bottomless cowardice of today’s Britain, Dowling only indirectly hints that they are Muslims:

The church had previously been targeted when a brick smashed a window during a service. Allan Ramanoop, a member of the parochial church council, said: “On one occasion, youths shouted: ‘This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here’.

See? Previous attackers of the church wanted to replace the church with a mosque, meaning, uh, that they were Muslims. But the Times can’t identify the present attackers—who undoubtedly are also Muslims—as Muslims.

The word Muslim is, however, used once in the article:

The Met recorded an upsurge in attacks against Muslims after the July 2005 bombings in London. There are also numerous attacks against Jews but, according to police statistics, relatively few Christians are attacked because of their faith.

Muslims are only mentioned as victims of an “upsurge” of attacks—an “upsurge” that is three years in the past and is totally irrelevant to this present story. (And, by the way, how many physical attacks against Muslims were there after the July 2005 bombing?) Meanwhile, though this present story tells us that what happened was a “faith hate” crime, the religion of the haters is never mentioned.

The story repeatedly plays and flirts with the truth that the attackers are Muslims, while deliberately refraining from actually saying so, even though it’s obvious to any reader that they are.

It’s one thing to be a rotten stinking coward. It’s another thing to go out of your way to advertise that you are a rotten stinking coward.

Kevin Dowling, you are contemptible. Times of London, you are contemptible. And—though I hate to say it—a certain island nation lying off the coast of northwest Europe, you are contemptible.

You are contemptible for what you’ve let yourself become, a cowardly country actively assisting your own takeover by enemies whose avowed aim is nothing other than to destroy you

- end of initial entry -

Anthony Damato writes:

Pointing out the twisted thinking of that reporter was excellent. The fact that there seems to be no response other than indifference to this shocking Middle Eastern style attack on the church in East London, and its priest, is the most disturbing thing to me.

Can you believe that the clergy were busy fighting with each other over the question of whether “Moslem no go zones” for infidels exist? Well, this is a sure sign that they in fact do exist. The statement that that church should be a mosque by the unnamed “faith hater,” is dhimmification and Islamification in progress. This is how Moslems for centuries sterilized whole areas, then entire countries, of all other faiths, by intimidation, violence and manipulation. Yet, as you point out, the English are utterly stupefied in the face of an invasion force they’ve allowed in, and show no resolve whatsoever to survive.

It sure looks bleak for the Brits.

I asked Karen in England if she felt I had gone over the line in my concluding comment in this blog entry, and she wrote back:

No it is not wrong, it is quite correct. Britain is utterly contemptible and you should say this more often. It is now in a state of social breakdown and chaos with concommitant denial of this from the political class. The native population has been so degraded and alienated that the immigrant groups are seizing the opportunities to make trouble, as in this case. The political class is so wedded to the concept of mass Third World immigration, multiculturalism and diversity that it is loathe to recognise its gross failures. This means covering up incidents such as these. They may also wish the Muslims to wreck the Church of England. As Enoch Powell said, this is a country which is “heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

John D. writes:

This sort of attack should never become commonplace here in America like it has in Britain, as long as we continue to enjoy the constitutional right to arm ourselves. Since Britain imposed a ban on handguns in 1997, violent crimes have risen almost three hundred percent. A similar ban imposed on the people of Washington DC had much the same effect.

The SCOTUS will begin hearing an argument tomorrow pertaining to the recent federal appeals court ruling in DC that effectively overturned that ban. The Supreme Court ruling is expected in June. Bush is opposed to the earlier court ruling out of fears that the overturning of the law could threaten other national gun restrictions (heaven forbid the people might have recourse against tyranny). Cheney has been put on record opposing Bush, instead supporting the appeals court ruling.

If the government takes away our right to defend ourselves, they can and will essentially turn America into the emasculated state which is now become of Britain. This will be one of the most important rulings for continued freedom of the people in the history of our country.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 17, 2008 12:20 AM | Send