London's Trocadero center looks like it'll become a mosque

A notable commercial center in the UK that's been defunct for nearly a decade has sadly been bought for the sake of becoming a branch for the Religion of Peace:

A defunct London landmark could soon become a mosque after getting the final approval from local city authorities, the UK media reported over the weekend.

Well-known businessman Asif Aziz, who was born in Malawi, seeks to turn The Trocadero into an Islamic prayer facility, potentially infuriating anti-Muslim circles and right-wing groups. The area where this is located, the City of Westminster, is considered to be the capital's entertainment borough, replete with alcohol-serving bars and clubs, as well as gay venues and strip clubs – all of which are considered by many Muslims to be against Islam. [...]

Aziz's charitable arm, the Aziz Foundation, has been leading the effort to repurpose the place. Under Islamic tradition, prayers are to be held five times a day, although they don't have to be carried out in a mosque.

The plans for a larger mosque – which would have the size to accommodate 1,000 worshippers – were dropped after this triggered opposition from local residents and far-Right organizations. Under the current plan, the modifications and repair works are likely to span several months.

Will there be enough people this time to protest against its construction? With the way quality of life in London's been going down over the past decade, who knows? This is another sad example of how the UK has been deteriorating badly in all the time Islam's made significant gains there.

UK allows illegal immigrants from Albania to remain

More examples of illegal immigration to the UK in motion, and here, it's those coming from a mainly Muslim country:

Despite initial claims to the contrary, Albanian migrants who illegally enter Britain on small boats will not be sent home if they claim asylum, the UK Home Office has now admitted.

Illegal migrants from Albania who cross into Britain on small boats will not be sent back home if they decide to claim asylum, the UK Home Office has now admitted.

With the number of illegal arrivals from the country spiking in recent months, the British government had previously planned to put illegal Albanians on the fast track to deportation, having made an agreement with the European Muslim majority state to streamline the process for removing the migrants.

However, in what appears to be the latest example of the so-called “Conservative Party” failing to secure the UK’s borders, the Home Office has now admitted such a plan is not legally possible.

Yup, the pseudo-conservative party has done it again, and demonstrated how un-devoted to vigilance and security they really are. Truly pathetic.

Britain's continued funding of the PLO will not stop evil from reigning

Melanie Phillips makes a vital point regarding the UK government's continued backing of the PLO's Mahmoud Abbas:

For many in the west, it has long been an article of faith that peace will only come to the Middle East when the Palestinians gain a state of their own.

Along with the EU and America, successive British governments have promoted a “two-state solution” to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

Central to this thinking is a key distinction. Hamas is considered beyond the pale as Islamist extremists who throw gay Palestinians off rooftops to their death and make no bones about their aim to destroy Israel. But the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas is deemed “moderate” and entitled to run a future state of Palestine that would be part of the community of nations.

The JC has now exposed this faith in the PA as an excruciating misjudgment.

For while Britain has been investing millions in it in the arrogant belief that it can teach it western values, Palestinian officers have been murdering and torturing dissenters who campaign for their human rights.

Last year Nizar Banat, a leading Palestinian campaigner for freedom and democracy, was dragged from his home in Hebron by a squad of 14 PA officers and beaten with a hammer so severely he effectively drowned in his own blood. His murder triggered weeks of protests that were in turn violently crushed by the PA security forces.

Now the JC has revealed that for the past 14 years a “British Support Team” under the command of a brigadier has been training PA officers in human rights — including “inclusivity and gender awareness”.

The JC investigation shows that, in PA-controlled territory, torture by these forces is routine and systemic. People are arrested for their political views; lawyers are beaten; women are sexually assaulted.

A senior PA official said torture was justified to gather intelligence and that Banat deserved to be killed. Yet the British are solemnly teaching such people “inclusivity and gender awareness”. Maybe someone should teach the British “humility and self-awareness”.

It sounds, most unfortunately, like the UK sources working on this supposed inclusivity are making the mistake of resorting to "wokeness". And that's exactly why it'll only fail at the end, and all the while, the PLO will continue receiving funding they don't deserve. It's an absolute waste of the UK public's tax pounds to boot.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II'S DIAMOND JUBILEE

The Diamond Jubilee Celebration begins today and continues through June 5.  The only other British monarch to celebrate a diamond jubilee was Queen Victoria in 1897.


The schedule is HERE.


I plan to watch some of the live coverage. I know that I will enjoy the pageantry and the elegance, both of which will surpass the pageantry and elegance of the royal weddings.

FREE SPEECH FADES AWAY IN BRITAIN

Robert Spencer writes on Human Events about how Britain is shutting out free speech in discussing Islam and jihad (Hat tip: The Hot Joints):

The current state of Britain came most clearly into focus, however, not when we visited the mosques, but when we tried to have dinner. I had an illuminating dinner with a group including the notable British author and freedom fighter Douglas Murray that turned out to offer a bracing introduction to British dhimmitude: the dinner had to be moved at the last minute since the proprietors of the George Restaurant in the aptly-named Isle of Dogs district of London didn’t like us discussing jihad and Islamization on the premises. This was despite the fact that the dinner had been planned to be on-camera and had been cleared with the George in advance.

In fact, when I returned to the George the next night with the producers of the film, we were not allowed entry because the previous night we had been discussing jihad and Islamic supremacism.

Were the proprietors of the George Restaurant hard-line Leftists who viewed jihadists as their allies in the struggle against American imperialism? Or were they frightened by the prospect of the local Muslims, who live in that area in considerable numbers, exacting revenge against the place for daring to host a meeting of the Resistance?

Most likely they were afraid of their own government, which frowns upon those who question the wisdom or viability of the multicultural paradise they are intent upon creating. For when we finally tried to assemble in another place a roundtable of concerned British citizens to discuss the problem of the Islamization of Britain, one by one the British participants dropped out. If they appeared on camera, we were told, the government could and probably would threaten their livelihood.

On a related note, some may accuse Scotland's local government body of freeing the horrific terrorist Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, of the masterminds in the Lockerbie bombing, but if they're under control of the government in England, then one has to wonder if the decision to release the vile creature came from the main government, though I fully agree that Scotland's own local government must still shoulder considerable blame for their willingness to release a monster who was also responsible for the murders of many Scots back in 1988. Read this topic at Hot Air, which focuses on the questions of whether al-Megrahi was released as part of a trade for oil contracts. And read also Debbie Schlussel's topics on the Dearbornistan connection to the tragedy at the time.

MUSLIM "HEROES" OF KUWAIT'S 99 COMIC HEADED FOR BRITISH TELEVISION

The UK Telegraph reports that Britain's dhimmis are helping to spread the propaganda of Kuwait's ludicrous so-called comic book over to the UK:

Named the 99, as each possesses one of Allah's 99 attributes, the characters include a burka-clad woman named Batina the Hidden and a Saudi Arabian Hulk-type man named Jabbar the Powerful.

They have proved a hit from Morocco to Indonesia and were recently named as one of the top 20 trends sweeping the world by Forbes magazine.

Now they are being brought to British television by Endemol, the production company behind Big Brother, with a mission to instill Islamic values in children across all faiths.

Or, more precisely, to indoctrinate the children of Britain with this frightfest. If George Orwell knew about this, he'd be spinning in his grave.

UK MUSLIMS COULD GET THEIR OWN POLICE UNIT

And we can only guess where that'll go. From the Daily Express (via Jihad Watch):

MUSLIM crime victims could gain the right to have their cases overseen by police from their own religion, it emerged last night.

Police in London already give victims the right to ask for a Sikh officer to be involved in an investigation but the scheme could be introduced for other religions elsewhere.

Chief Supt Joanna Young, from the Met’s Criminal Justice Policy Unit, said: “If it’s a success, I would encourage the other (police) associations to do likewise.”

The project is intended to help investigate “honour” killings and forced marriages but Metropolitan Police Federation chairman Peter Smyth said: “We’re stretched thin enough already. Are Sikh officers going to have their rotas changed so there’s always one on duty?

“It’s political correctness gone mad. We talking about the creation of a separate force within a force.”

And how many members of this madness will actually end up assisting honor murders rather than preventing them?

MUSLIM CONVERT IN UK CONVICTED OF PLOTTING SUICIDE BOMBING

The Yorkshire Post (via Interested Participant and The Jawa Report) tells of another Muslim convert in the blighty who planned to cause chaos:

A former public schoolboy who planned a suicide attack after becoming a radical Muslim was jailed yesterday.

Isa Ibrahim, 20, was in the "advanced" stages of planning an attack on a shopping centre before a tip off from the Muslim community prompted police to swoop.

When armed police stormed his Bristol flat they found he had made high explosive HMTD – the same substance used in the July 7 attacks – and had started work on a suicide vest.

The night before his arrest in April last year he had even gone to his father's house to get ball bearings to use as shrapnel. And he was working on a detonator.

Winchester Crown court heard he wanted to blow up the Broadmead Shopping Centre in Bristol – potentially inflicting massive casualties – and CCTV footage showed him making a reconnaissance.

And there we have yet another Muslim convert in the UK who's suggested that they're even more dangerous than converts in other parts of Europe. If someone from the Muslim community there really did alert the police, that's amazing, but doesn't mean there aren't more there who would turn a blind eye and deaf ear at the crime by contrast.

The Telegraph says he was also a cannabis addict. Another reason why venomous drugs like those can be dangerous to the mind.

THE DAUGHTER OF THE ABUSIVE IMAM IN THE UK

The Times has a very frightening report about a woman who'd fled from an abusive Pakistani family and converted to Christianity, and was persecuted by her abusive father, who'd even raped her during her childhood (Hat tip: Betsy's Page):

We are all too familiar with the persecution of Christians in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet sitting in front of me is a British woman whose life has been threatened in this country solely because she is a Christian. Indeed, so real is the threat that the book she has written about her experiences has had to appear under an assumed name.

The book is called The Imam’s Daughter because “Hannah Shah” is just that: the daughter of an imam in one of the tight-knit Deobandi Muslim Pakistani communities in the north of England. Her father emigrated to this country from rural Pakistan some time in the 1960s and is, apparently, a highly respected local figure.

He is also an incestuous child abuser, repeatedly raping his daughter from the age of five until she was 15, ostensibly as part of her punishment for being “disobedient”. At the age of 16 she fled her family to avoid the forced marriage they had planned for her in Pakistan. A much, much greater affront to “honour” in her family’s eyes, however, was the fact that she then became a Christian – an apostate. The Koran is explicit that apostasy is punishable by death; thus it was that her father the imam led a 40-strong gang – in the middle of a British city – to find and kill her.

Hannah Shah says her story is not unique – that there are many other girls in British Muslim families who are oppressed and married off against their will, or who have secretly become Christians but are too afraid to speak out. She wants their voices to be heard and for Britain, the land of her birth, to realise the hidden misery of these women.

[...]

Hannah’s description in the book of the moment when her “community” discovered the “safe” home where she had fled after becoming an apostate is terrifying. A mob with her father at its head pounded and hammered at the door as she cowered upstairs hoping she could not be seen or heard. She heard her father shout through the letter box: “Filthy traitor! Betrayer of your faith! Cursed traitor! We’re going to rip your throat out! We’ll burn you alive!” Does she still believe they would have killed her? “Yes, without a doubt. They had hammers and knives and axes.”

Why didn’t you call the police after-wards? “First, I didn’t think the police would believe me. That sort of thing just doesn’t happen in this country – or that’s what they’d think. Second, I didn’t believe I would get help or protection from the authorities.”

Hannah had good reason for this doubt. When, at school, she had finally summoned the courage to tell a teacher that her father had been beating her (she couldn’t bring herself to reveal the sexual abuse), the social services sent out a social worker from her own community. He chose not to believe Hannah and, in effect, shopped her to her father, who gave her the most brutal beating of her life. When she later confronted the social worker, he said: “It’s not right to betray your community.”

Hannah blames what is sometimes called political correctness for this debacle: “My teachers had thought they were doing the right thing, they thought it showed ‘cultural sensitivity’ by bringing in someone from my own community to ‘help’, but it was the worst thing they could have done to me. This happens a lot.

“When I’ve been working with girls who were trying to get out of an arranged marriage, or want to convert to Christianity, and they have contacted social services as they need to get out of their homes, the reaction has been ‘we’ll send someone from your community to talk to your parents’. I know why they are doing this, they are trying to be understanding, but it’s the last thing that the authorities should do in such situations.”

Melanie Phillips once spoke about this, and how, if there's anything most terrifying about the Islamisation of Britain, it's that of the police: they have recruited tons of officials whose default religion is Islam, and who've practically cooperated with the families of the girls fleeing from abusive families, which has made many women's rights groups in the UK reluctant to turn to the authorities because they can't trust "Asian" officers not to betray them.

This is the sort of cultural sensitivity displayed by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year when he suggested that problems within the British Muslim community such as financial or marital disputes could be dealt with under sharia, Islamic law, rather than British civil law. What did Hannah, now an Anglican, think on hearing these remarks?

“I was horrified.” If you could speak to him now, what would you say to the archbishop? “I would say: have you actually spoken to any ordinary Muslim women about the situation that they live in, in their communities? By putting in place these Muslim arbitration tribunals, where a woman’s witness is half that of a man, you are silencing women even more.”

She believes the British government is making exactly the same mistake as Rowan Williams: “It says it talks to the Muslim community, but it’s not speaking to the women. I mean, you are always hearing Muslim men speaking out, the representatives of the big federations, but the government is not listening to Muslim women. With the sharia law situation and the Muslim arbitration tribunals, have they thought about what effect these tribunals have on Muslim women? I don’t think so.”

Indeed, now that I think of it, there's very few cases where you hear a Muslim woman speaking unless it's in the favor of the Ummah.

I do know that a lot of those girls saved from this repulsive abuse should leave the UK if they can, and maybe they should go to America if it provides them with better safety. But they should not remain in Britain, where this abuse is bound to continue for years to come.

FINALLY, BRITAIN CAN DEPORT ABU QATADA UPDATE: AND THEN AGAIN, MAYBE NOT

But then again, will they actually do so? Well first, let's take a look at the following news excerpt (via Hot Air):

In a victory for the Home Office, law lords today decided that Qatada - who is wanted in Jordan on terror charges - could be deported from the UK.

The Government had appealed against a court decision preventing his deportation on the grounds he may face unfair treatment in Jordan.

The 48-year-old, once dubbed Osama bin Laden’s right-hand-man-in Europe, has claimed evidence against him was extracted by torture. [...]

Human rights groups condemned the decision, which also favoured the Home Office in its efforts to deport two Algerians.

Amnesty International urged ministers not to take the judgment as a “green light” to deport more people to regimes where they risked unfair trial and torture.

Ahem. These are savage criminals in focus here. Who cares what happens to them? I've got a feeling that, depending on what circumstances come up next, those regimes might not do anything to such scum in the end. And yet, why do I get the feeling that, even with this victorious ruling, they won't actually deport the vermin? It ain't over till its over.

Update: quite predictable, I'm telling you (Hat tip: Jihad Watch):

Radical cleric Abu Qatada will stay in Britain for months despite a House of Lords ruling that he should be deported to Jordan where he faces terror charges.

The Law Lords said Qatada, dubbed "Osama Bin Laden's right hand man in Europe", could be sent back to Jordan where he faces terror charges after overturning a Court of Appeal decision.

But the extremist could still remain in the country for many months if he takes his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

And one can only guess how that'll turn out. Right? He'll appeal to the overlording court of Europe, we can be sure, but even if they don't reverse the verdict, it's possible that Britain may just forget to bring him to the airport, and he'll go into hiding within the country. And to make matters worse:

The move is likely to delay any moves to deport him for months and even years.

I figured as much.

FRENCH-JEWISH COMMUNITY DEMANDS AL-DURAH PROBE

The JTA reports that the Jewish community in France is demanding a probe of the al-Durah case by the president's office.

Paris ( JTA) -- The organized Jewish community in France is publicly calling on President Nicolas Sarkozy to launch an investigation into the controversial television broadcast of an alleged Israeli shooting of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy.

Last week’s call by CRIF, the umbrella Jewish organization, increased the pressure on the French government to intervene in the 8-year-old debate over the authenticity of the September 2000 video report by France 2 TV and its Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin.

The call for a probe lent new legitimacy to concerns that the broadcast was staged and sparked a new debate in the French media over the issue.

The video helped fan the flames of the second Palestinian uprising and spurred anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment across the globe.

What the president should do is whatever possible to see to it that Enderlin is fired for aiding and abetting propaganda. He does not deserve his job, and should be removed for his crime.

I recommend to read also Melanie Phillips' article for Standpoint, one of the few articles on the subject to appear in the British press, if at all, which also tells quite a bit of interesting things.

BRITAIN'S FAKE WAR ON TERRORISM

Michael Burleigh tells what's wrong now in Britain: they're not really combatting the threat of Islamic terrorism at all:

After spending time recently with senior Pentagon officials and other Americans involved in counter-terror-ism, I was struck by the global scope of their concerns. Above all I was reminded how different their attitudes are from those of their British counterparts, still obsessed with “community cohesion” and the “radicalisation” of young Muslims.

In Britain the views of the nonMuslim majority are largely ignored - or lead to them being branded as potential “Islamophobes”. In the United States the unthinkable and unsayable are debated openly.

Last month, for example, the Senate committee on homeland security heard evidence about the likely effects of a terrorist nuclear attack on Washington. It started with a chilling scenario: a 10-kiloton bomb in a truck beside the White House. First, the committee was told, it would kill about 100,000 people and erase a two-mile radius of mainly federal buildings. Most of the casualties would be burn victims, the majority of them African Americans who worked for the government.

About 95% of them would die in agony, because capacity to treat such cases is limited to about 1,500. Since the winds blow west to east, the ensuing radioactive plume would drift towards the poor black neighbourhoods of the capital’s southeast, where there is only one hospital. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the committee, concluded: “Now is the time to ask the tough questions and then to get answers as best we can.”

I can’t help wondering what preparations for such a nightmare scenario are being made here in Britain. Does anyone know if our parliamentarians are asking similar questions?

Read the rest of it, but I've got a sad feeling the answer is easy to guess.

Via Hot Air Headlines.

THANK GOODNESS: RED KEN LIVINGSTONE IS OUSTED FROM MAYOR'S OFFICE

London's creepy commie mayor, Red Ken Livingstone, has thankfully been voted out of office (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin). His successor is Boris Johnson.

It's fortunate, because this awful, disgusting man has embraced the PLO, Chavez, the Islamofascists of London and just about any other fascist/communist entity possible. I don't know if Johnson is any better, but that Livingstone is out of office is most definitely fortunate, because he was one of the worst politicians to be found in England. Good riddance.

UK'S HIGH COURT KNOCKS DOWN ANTI-TERROR STRATEGY OF FREEZING TERRORISTS' MONETARY ASSETS

So many ludicrous things in England work together to make it almost impossible to fight terrorism properly in that country. From the Telegraph:

The Government’s anti-terrorism strategy was dealt a devastating blow today as the High Court ruled that its powers to freeze suspects’ assets were unlawful and unconstitutional.

Geez, just look at those two words they used to describe the government's steps. Truly, if this is how things are going to be there, then there is no constitution and no justice in England.

A judge said the measures, introduced when Gordon Brown was Chancellor, had not been thought through properly and Parliament had been “bypassed”.

Around 70 suspects are currently subject to orders freezing bank accounts containing about £500,000.

The Treasury immediately announced it will appeal the ruling and the judge agreed that suspects’ assets will remain frozen until the outcome of the appeal.

If the appeal fails ministers are considering rewriting anti-terrorism legislation to incorporate asset-freezing powers into the Counter Terrorism Bill.

Well, let's hope they do, but somehow, I just can't feel optimistic that proper justice will prevail.

At the High Court Mr Justice Collins allowed legal challenges by five men, all British citizens, who have never been charged with terrorist offences but have had their assets frozen.

[...]

The five men making the legal challenge - referred to as A, K, M, Q and G - denied terrorist links and said there had been a “humiliating and devastating” effect on their lives.

The article isn't really clear here about whether the men are terror-suspects. Do I detect a possible sob-story in the works for them?

At the Counterterrorism Blog, Jonathan Winer says:

There is thus a growing risk that the entire international regime to freeze terrorist assets is in a process of disintegration.

In light of this risk, the U.S. and other countries seeking to maintain the ability to freeze terrorist assets need to proceed quickly to develop mechanisms that would provide those subject to sanctions with baseline elements of the right to be heard by by an independent and impartial authority that has the power to grant appropriate relief with procedural guarantees for affected individuals or entities. Some of the most obvious possibilities were laid out two years ago by Professors Thomas J. Biersteker and Sue Eckert of the Watson Institute in a paper for the UN.

That's right, some kind of special legislation is required, perhaps to make it impossible for potential terrorists to use funds within what countries wisely take measures to combat terrorism. However, I'd advise against trying to make any such proposal at an entity as corrupt as the UN. They simply cannot be trusted to follow through on any of that.

JUST JOURNALISM FOR THE UK

Now, if you'd like to know some good news from the UK, there's a new independant non-profit outfit called Just Journalism (via Melanie Phillips), whose job it is to monitor distortions and bias by the British media's middle east coverage; the first such organization in the UK to work on a forensic and objective approach. I'm glad they're here.

Good news!: Islamic Preachers To Teach Koran In Schools

In British state schools (hattip: thereligionofpeace):

STATE schools should be forced to open their doors to Islamic preachers teaching the Koran, the largest classroom union demanded yesterday.

...

The union’s general secretary Steve Sinnott said that allowing Muslim imams to preach in schools would be a way to reunite divided communities.

Choose the Islamic preachers wisely:

Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.

Crossposted

MORE ON HOW SAUDI PRINCE BANDAR TOOK BRIBES AND THREATENED UK

It's surprising that the Guardian, of all papers, would report this, but they have (via Israel Insider):

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.

Tony Blair leaves behind a legacy of cowardice and appeasement of the most ludicrious kind, that may only be seen in England.

SHARI'A MONEY BONDS IN BRITAIN

Well, it looks like Daniel Pipes may be right: Britain is continuing its slow walk towards the Islamic brink by issuing Shari'a bonds (via LGF):

A new sharia law controversy erupted last night over Government plans to issue special "Islamic bonds" to pay for Gordon Brown's public-spending programme by raising money from the Middle East.

Britain is to become the first Western nation to issue bonds approved by Muslim clerics in line with sharia law, which bans conventional loans involving interest payments as "sinful".

The scheme would mark one of the most significant economic advances of sharia law in the non-Muslim world.

It will lead to the ownership of Government buildings and other assets currently belonging to British taxpayers being switched wholesale to wealthy Middle-Eastern businessmen and banks.

The Government sees sharia-compliant bonds as a way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community.

But critics say the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain's financial and legal systems.

Senior Conservative MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: "I am concerned about the signal this would send – it could be the thin end of the wedge.

"British Common Law must be supreme and should apply to everyone."

A spokesman for the National Secular Society said: "There are lots of different ways to arrange financing.

"Constructing financial instruments to be sharia-compliant seems to me to involve a lot of unnecessary complication, which will serve only to make a lot of lawyers very rich."

And Islamic clerics too, I'm afraid.

AMERICA SHOULD LEARN A LESSON FROM WHERE ENGLAND IS HEADED

Daniel Pipes looks at developments involving Shari'a in Britain, and says that, as reprehensible as Dr. Rowan Williams' approval of introducing Shari'a in the country is, it could still signal where England may be headed to in the future when you consider their acts of appeasement et al, in recent years.

And that's why America needs to learn from the grave mistakes being made in countries like England now, so that they won't find their way into the US and cause whatever problems haven't been caused already. One way is to take note of how there appear to be Shari'a courts being introduced in Texas, Minnesota and even New Jersey. If there are, that's something that no sensible American should ignore.

ALMOST MISSED THIS GOOD NEWS: NY INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO PROTECT AGAINST LIBEL TOURISM

This news was published two weeks ago, but is still important to mention: it looks like NY's legislation has finally taken steps to protect authors like Rachel Ehrenfeld against libel tourism (Hat tip: Solomonia and American Congress for Truth):

In the wake of two recent highly publicized libel cases against American authors in the U.K., New York State legislators last week introduced a bill that would help protect authors from “libel tourist” cases in plaintiff-friendly foreign courts. Senate deputy majority leader Dean Skelos and assemblyman Rory Lancman announced legislation that they say will make it harder for “libel tourists” to threaten American authors and publishers in New York by bringing meritless defamation actions in overseas courts.

The proposed legislation would amend New York's code of civil practice to prohibit enforcement of a foreign libel judgment unless a New York court determines that it satisfies the free speech and press protections guaranteed by the U.S. and the New York State constitutions. The legislation would also amend New York's “long-arm” statute to allow courts, under certain circumstances, to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who win foreign libel judgments against New York residents in order to grant resident writers declaratory relief in those cases.

The legislation was introduced in response to a Dec. 20, 2007, ruling that New York courts lacked jurisdiction to hear American author Rachel Ehrenfeld's lawsuit seeking to have a British default libel judgment against her declared unenforceable in the U.S. Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It (Bonus Books), was sued by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz in a London court under U.K. libel laws. In her book, Ehrenfeld identified bin Mahfouz as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations. Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld even though the book was never published in Great Britain and neither he nor Ehrenfeld resides there. Ehrenfeld refused to participate in the suit, but was nonetheless hit with a default judgment of $225,000 in damages and legal fees to bin Mahfouz, as well as a “declaration of falsity” against Funding Evil and a promise to destroy existing copies of the book, a demand for a public apology and an injunction against U.K. publication.

Ehrenfeld will not be subject to the U.K. ruling as long as she stays in the U.S. “Why doesn't [bin Mahfouz] sue me here? Because he doesn't have a chance here,” she said. She will not travel to England because the judge there issued a ruling of contempt of court against her. But Ehrenfeld hopes the bill “will encourage others to write about the people who are funding terrorism without any fear of persecution in foreign lands.”

Finally, some common sense - and positive legislation - prevails.