Muslim fanatics have warned they may burn Union Jack flags on the day of the Royal Wedding
Posted on 04/19/2011 8:56:51 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Muslims Against Crusades has applied for permission to protest outside Westminster Abbey on the day of the royal wedding, Scotland Yard said.
Muslim fanatics have warned they may burn Union Jack flags on the day of the Royal Wedding
The force said it had rejected the application by Muslims Against Crusades to stage the demonstration outside the historic venue on April 29.
But officers said they were in "on-going discussions" about whether demonstrations at other nearby locations would be blocked.
Police have powers to ban any major protests along the main route that Prince William and his bride-to-be will take.
But they are unable to rule out "static" protests taking place at other nearby locations in central London.
Officers have also been contacted by the English Defence League, which has warned it could protest as a result of the Muslims Against Crusades action.
At a briefing with reporters, police said 5,000 officers will be on duty on the big day.
Earlier this month Firebrand cleric Anjem Choudary warned that a terror attack is 'highly likely' at the Royal wedding.
He told all Muslims to stay away from Westminster Abbey on April 29, describing it as 'a prime target'
Choudary said: "All Muslims should stay away from the public gatherings like the Royal wedding and the Olympics because there is a very high likelihood of an attack.
"Prime targets most probably would be public gatherings like that, so I think Muslims in general should stay away to avoid injury.
"Maybe when the priest says "is there anyone who objects to this wedding speak now or forever hold your tongue" - who knows what will happen at that time?
"If my brothers decide to use the opportunity when the world is looking at the Royal Family to
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
"Go ahead....Make our day!!!"
Yo Moose-Limbs, England quit “crusading” several centuries ago. There is nothing to protest now. This makes you look stupid and ignorant. On the other hand, maybe you are stupid and ignorant.
Islam is a religion of peace because none dare publicly say that it is not. Even the POTUS is too frightened to say that Islam is not a religion of peace, both GWB and Obama. Three fronts are open now and nobody can even say what the name of our enemy is after nearly a decade of open warfare in Afghanistan.
Speaking as a friend of the Prince of Wales, he most certainly has not converted to Islam. He remains an adherent of the Church of England.
You know, American conservatives seem to be well aware that the media lies and tries to smear conservatives in America.
But many believe any sort of garbage that appears in the foreign press about their national leaders.
The Prince of Wales is, except on environmental issues, which I agree is a big area, but it is only one area, a conservative.
For this reason, large sections of the British press try to paint him as some sort of fool.
He isn’t much like their portrayal.
I’m not a big fan of Charles and I think royalty is a bit passe, but I hope this lovely couple have the wonderful and peaceful wedding they deserve.
Hmm interesting. I’ve been reading for years he is very much interested in Islam. Frankly I don’t like your prince. I think the whole Diana bit was very sad & he should have married his Camilla. Even had he had to give up being King like his Great Uncle...I hope he is never King & one of his sons is chosen instead. I do hope the wedding is lovely & there are no terror attacks.
Is he interested in Islam? Yes, he is. He will, if he becomes King, be the Head of a Commonwealth that contains around 200 million Muslims. He will also be King directly over millions of Muslim citizens of the Commonwealth Realms. He is interested in their faith, just as he is interested in Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism, and other faiths as well, despite being a Christian himself.
He despises terrorism and extremism in all its forms - but the man he was closest to, outside of his immediate family, his Godfather and mentor until adulthood, was brutally assassinated along with two children and an 83 year old woman by terrorists who called themselves Roman Catholics. In his lifetime, he has also seen crimes committed in parts of the Commonwealth by terrorists who call themselves Hindus, and terrorists who have claimed to be serving a variety of religious causes. He makes a distinction between those who follow a religion peacefully, and those who use it as an excuse for murder.
Should he have married Camilla? If he had done so in the 1970s, it would have involved him failing to do his duty. It also would have, incidentally, placed the burden of being Heir to the Throne on his brother, Andrew, who was still a child. He chose to put his country above his personal desires, and he chose not to saddle his brother with a task he would not face himself.
When he married Diana, they were in love - but, yes, that didn’t last. That wasn’t just his fault and it was a tragedy for all involved, but he - and she - entered that marriage intending to make it work.
Charles will take the throne if he is still capable of doing so when the time comes, because, again, he will not force that duty onto his son, William, any sooner than it is necessary. His own life has constantly been one where he has been expected to put duty above all else, including his own happiness, and he won’t force that on anybody else if he can avoid it. And there’s no ‘choosing’ in it - the law doesn’t allow for choice. He will become King the instant his mother dies. He could choose then to abdicate in favour of his son - and at some stage in the future, if he was so infirm, and William was ready, perhaps he might do so.
You don’t have to like him. Nobody has to like him, anymore than they have to like anybody else. But it would be nice if people criticised him and disliked him based on who he is, and what he does, rather than what the media says he is and what he’s done.
They’ll show every single time he visits a Mosque - they don’t show most of the, far more common occasions, when he visits military bases to see serving soldiers. They’ll publicise every single speech when he mentions the word ‘Islam’ - but they’ll hardly ever publicise those speeches where he speaks to veteran’s groups.
And because of his role, he is not even supposed to defend himself against their bias. The crown cannot seek to silence a free press after all. Well, I’m under no such restriction.
The man I know is a man who has spent his entire life utterly dedicated to one task - to serve his country and the Commonwealth in a role he was never asked if he wanted, but was simply told it was his duty to undertake. If he’d had his own choice, he’d have tried to be an artist, or an actor, or perhaps an architect. Instead he chose duty.
“Muslim fanatics have warned they may burn Union Jack flags on the day of the Royal Wedding”
If so, everyone should burn the Koran on that day.
Well thank you for showing him in a different light. Seems sad not to be able to live your life as you want. I wish happiness on his sons. Maybe they will get the life he wasn’t able too. However I truly do not think he or Diana were really in love, she may have been but he needed sons & Camilla was older. I just pray there are no acts of terrorism to ruin this day.
“I say let the Muslims demonstrate and burn the Union Jack and let counter-protesters burn piles of Korans.”
I am very late into this article...like today, Wednesday. I hadn’t had a chance to read through the comments and said something similar a few minutes ago.
Thank you.
Your posts are always a joy to read.
why a Monarch? Why does a country need a Queen or King in the modern world? Why should the people of England pay for the lavish lifestyles of the Royal families? I just don’t understand the snobbish attitude of the Queen especially in regards to Dianna and even some nasty comments towards Kate and her family. After Dianna died the queen was supposed to have been shocked at the affection so many people had for Dianna. Why? The British people were disgusted the way the Queen acted during the days after Dianna’s death. Since Charles was older and decided to do his duty he should have been better with his young naive bride and kept himself out of the bed of Camellia. If he was strong enough to marry someone he had to then he should have been man enough not to sleep with another man’s wife. None of this would matter, all this bad behavior except for the snobbishness and the reeking of elitism from the Royal family. Let us hope William one day will stand on his own.
The bottom line is - because it works. The system of constitutional monarchy that is in place in the United Kingdom and parts of the Commonwealth is a system that has evolved over a period of more than 1000 years to create a nation that has, at times, stood as the most powerful nation in the world, and even today remains a significant power. It is a nation that is, consistently, among the freeest in the world, a nation that consistently, has had one of the highest standards of living in the world, that has had one of the most profound influences on world culture of any nation on Earth. In short, it is a system that works.
The geniuses who wrote the United States of America's Declaration of Independence made the following statement within that profound document:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes
and they worked very hard to try and make the Monarchy continue to work in the United States:
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They only resorted to revolution and replacement of that system of government when all reasonable efforts to reform it failed:
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
You do not lightly replace a system of government that is working well for a people and a nation. If this is not the case - as it was not the case in the American colonies by the second half of the eighteenth century, for example, it is absolutely right and sensible to look for a replacement. But where it is working - and it does work well in the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth Realms - it is not something to be changed purely for symbolic reasons.
Again, to go back to America's Declaration of Independence, because I believe it states the reasons a change may be justified (and indeed, clearly was justified in the case of the American colonies that became the United States of America) better than any other document:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In Britain, and those Commonwealth Realms that have retained the Monarchy, this is the role it serves - the Crown acts as a guarantor of people's rights, as a balance to the power of the legislature. One of the clearest examples of this occurred in my own homeland of Australia as recently as 1975 - a socialist Prime Minister leading a socialist government attempted to continue governing by illegal means, having lost control of the Parliament. The constitutional crisis was ended by the Queen's representative, removing him from office, and replacing him, temporarily, with a Prime Minister who would act within the law, and also call an election so the people could decide the issue once and for all. There have been other less dramatic examples more recently - the power of the Crown has been exercised subtly to resolve issues of who should form governments in hung parliament situations in both Australia and the UK over the last couple of years.
For us, the monarchy is a positive thing.
Why does a country need a Queen or King in the modern world?
Why does a country need a flag? Why does a country need a national anthem? It's not always about need.
But the fact is, while no country needs a Queen or King, in the case of the constitutional Monarchies of the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth Realms, the role is actually an important constitutional one that acts as a balance to the power of the legislature. Simply removing the Monarch would create a massive power imbalance and remove an important control that prevents a Prime Minister or Parliament acting in a tyrannical fashion. Britain and the Realms have such stable governments that it is very rare for the Crown to need to intervene, but a large part of the reason for that is because the Crown could intervene - Prime Ministers and Parliament rarely come close to going too far, because they know it will not be permitted.
And you can not simply and easily replace the Monarch with some other person (say, an elected President, for example) because so many of the Crown's powers are limited by conventions rather than hard and fast laws. The Queen could dissolve Parliament, imprison the Prime Minister, call out the Army and govern by military power enforcing her decrees - there is little to stop her doing that in law. What limits her is the fact that hundreds of years of convention says that she should not (or rather that this would be a last desperate act in an extreme emergency that it never likely to arise). Would an elected President feel so restrained? This is actually the situation that existed in Germany in the early 1930s, by the way - Germany replaced its Kaiser with a President with the same powers as the Kaiser, and so when Hitler achieved the Presidency, he had all the traditional powers but none of the traditional restraints.
The United States has made a Republican form of government work well - very well indeed - but if you look at history, somewhere like Cuba or Venezuela are more typical examples of the Republican model. Abandoning a system of constitutional Monarchy that is working well, for a system of government that historically fails quite a lot of the time makes little sense. The time to change your form of government is when the system you have is no longer working. Not when it is. For the United States, that situation did occur in the late 1700s. In the United Kingdom, and much of the Commonwealth, it did not. Where it did - India, for example, or Ireland, change occurred. If it ever stops working where it is working, change will occur there as well. But for the moment, it works.
Why should the people of England pay for the lavish lifestyles of the Royal families?
They don't. The Crown actually pays more than ten times as much into the British treasury each year than it takes out of it - £200,000,000 in versus less than £20,000,000 out. I could go into this in more detail, but basically the Crown has, since the reign of George III, voluntarily ceded most of its annual income to the Treasury, in exchange for a fixed income to cover the expenses of the Monarch and their Consort, and for a long time, that income has far exceeded that expense amount. In simple terms, the Queen pays about an 80% tax rate on her income at the moment.
I just don’t understand the snobbish attitude of the Queen especially in regards to Dianna and even some nasty comments towards Kate and her family.
No, what you don't understand is what certain sections of the media say the Queen's attitude was to Diana and towards Kate and the Middletons. This is not the same thing at all. There are certain people, and certain media outlets, that enjoy trying to create controversies that really have no basis in reality.
After Dianna died the queen was supposed to have been shocked at the affection so many people had for Dianna.
This however, was not true. Her Majesty knew very well how well loved Diana was - and was very fond of her, herself, as it happens, though I think it would be too far to say she loved her.
Why? The British people were disgusted the way the Queen acted during the days after Dianna’s death. Since Charles was older and decided to do his duty he should have been better with his young naive bride and kept himself out of the bed of Camellia. If he was strong enough to marry someone he had to then he should have been man enough not to sleep with another man’s wife.
I don't disagree - but I will say that both Charles and Diana had relationships outside of marriage that began at about the same time, and only their very closest friends - and possibly not even them - really know who did it first. The fact is, both tried to make the marriage work and both only had affairs after both of them had concluded that there was no chance that it was going to work.
None of this would matter, all this bad behavior except for the snobbishness and the reeking of elitism from the Royal family. Let us hope William one day will stand on his own.
William will do his duty by his country and the Commonwealth, as he sees it to be. If the British people, and those of the Commonwealth Realms, want him to be King, he will be King. If they choose to replace the Monarchy with something else, he will support them in that.
Thank you - you may like the one above this one.
ON THE INTERNET:
twitter.com/anjemchoudary
Quote:
http://twitter.com/#!/anjemchoudary/status/67276857640357888
@anjemchoudary
anjem choudary
See the latest press release on www.muslimsagainstcrusades.com countering the blatant lies from the News of the World & The Daily Mail today
8 May via txt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.