Churchill didn’t care for Muslims.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1592070/posts
That’s what behind this gesture.
More from Chruchill:
Churchill noted the threat of Wahhabism on June 14, 1921 at the House of Commons. At that time, Churchill was Secretary for the British colonies, and he had been involved in the formation of Iraq (in 1921), Jordan (Transjordan) and Palestine, territories which Britain had liberated from the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire.
A large number of Bin Saud’s followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism.
“The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing on the streets.”
“Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.”
The Bin Saud to whom Churchill refers here is King Abdul Aziz bin Saud (c. 1880-1953), who would go on officially to establish Saudi Arabia in 1932. The Wahhabists slaughtered 25 of the Mahmal caravan members at Mina because they played trumpets. Music was forbidden to the Wahhabists. The incident soured relations between Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Churchill said: “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.”
No, this is what is behind the return of the Churchill bust:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” - Winston Churchill - It has always failed and it will fail again.
I have to admit, that you could be right about the reason for the return of the bust. That article is powerful stuff. It would be funny to post a link to that article on a British web site, in defense of Geert Wilder and his film. Ask the Brits, what has changed?