Robert Spencer in FrontPage: London’s Muslim Mayor Introduces the Thought Police

In FrontPage today I show how Sadiq Khan’s new initiative against “hate speech” demonstrates how the Left serves the Islamic supremacist agenda:

Sadiq Khan MP at Westminster, London, Britain  - 11 Oct 2012

London’s new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, is allocating over two million dollars (£1,730,726) to an “online hate crime hub” enabling police to track and arrest “trolls” who “target…individuals and communities.” There can be no doubt, given the nature of the British political establishment today, which “trolls” these new Thought Police will be going after, and which “communities” will be protected from “hate speech.” “Islamophobia,” which David Horowitz and I termed “the thought crime of the totalitarian future,” is now going to bring down upon the hapless “trolls” the wrath of London’s Metropolitan police force — and this totalitarian new initiative shows yet again how easily the Leftist and Islamic supremacist agendas coincide and aid each other.

“The Metropolitan police service,” said a police spokesman, “is committed to working with our partners, including the mayor, to tackle all types of hate crime including offences committed online.” Given the fact that Khan, in a 2009 interview, dismissed moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms” and has numerous questionable ties to Islamic supremacists, it is unlikely that he will be particularly concerned about “hate speech” by jihad preachers (several of whom were just recently welcomed into a Britain that has banned foes of jihad, including me).

And the “partners” of the London police are likely to include Tell Mama UK, which says on its website: “we work with Central Government to raise the issues of anti-Muslim hatred at a policy level and our work helps to shape and inform policy makers, whilst ensuring that an insight is brought into this area of work through the systematic recording and reporting of anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes.” Tell Mama UK has previously been caught classifying as “anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes” speech on Facebook and Twitter that it disliked. Now it will have the help of the London police to do that.

“The purpose of this programme,” we’re told, “is to strengthen the police and community response to this growing crime type.” This “crime type” is only “growing” because Britain has discarded the principle of the freedom of speech, and is committing itself increasingly to the idea that “hate speech” is objectively identifiable, and should be restricted by government and law enforcement action. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 criminalizes “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and no groups are better at manifesting public annoyance than Islamic advocacy groups. A pastor in Northern Ireland, James McConnell, ran afoul of this law in 2014 when he dared to criticize Islam in a sermon; he was acquitted after an 18-month investigation and a trial, but the Metropolitan police will not want to be seen as wasting their new “hate speech” money; others will not be as fortunate as McConnell.

Behind the push for “hate speech” laws is, of course, the increasingly authoritarian Left. Increasingly unwilling (and doubtless unable) to engage its foes in rational discussion and debate, the Left is resorting more and more to the Alinskyite tactic of responding to conservatives only with ridicule and attempts to rule conservative views out of the realm of acceptable discourse. That coincides perfectly with the ongoing initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam.

This is not the first time that a Sharia imperative and a Leftist one coincided during the relatively brief (so far) mayoral tenure of Sadiq Khan. The London Evening Standard reported on June 13 that “adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.” This was because “Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Said Khan: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”

And so no more ads featuring women in bikinis on London buses. People often puzzle about how the hard Left and Islamic supremacists can make common cause, when they have such differing ideas of morality; Khan’s ad ban showed how. The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

What next? Will London women be forced to cover everything except their face and hands (as per Muhammad’s command) so as not to put others “under pressure over body image”? And if they are, will anyone who dares to complain about what is happening to their green and pleasant land be locked up for “hate speech” by London’s new Thought Police?

Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s London. Shut up and put on your hijab.



  1. Debi Brand says

    August 18, 2016 at 3:27 am

    Prime example of why, in our fight against those that have so awfully “twisted” a “noble and praiseworthy” peace ensuing “religion,” we must empower, and amplify the voices of, and thus press into leadership positions, the “Moderate Muslim.”

    It is by them, and by our leaders and laymen who fall prey to the myth of two Islams in the “Book of Allah,” we will know safety and peace from the “radicals,” as we learn Allah’s limits and the Sunnah of the “beloved prophet” of Islam, and thus, learn, and adjust accordingly to our terms for peace.

    As did proud strong nation after proud strong nation before us.

  2. worldcitizen1919 says

    August 18, 2016 at 3:29 am

    Just like the west wants the world to accept democracy and freedom so the Muslim world is working to build societies based on Islamic principles.

    So we are faced with two main prospects, a western democratic world order or an Islamic Shariah Order or something in between.

    But neither will accept the other completely as we have seen , so it will probably be a mix.

    • G. R. Gunning says

      August 18, 2016 at 3:57 am

      Like oil and water. Our governments are trying to effect the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan as we speak, yet no-one ever mentions it in the press or TV/radio. Even mentioning it in some newspaper comments gets it “moderated” – that is to say not accepted. It’s not going to work – oil & water do not mix – so we will land up with two parallel populations – one living in the 21st. Century and one in the 7th. Century. And it’s purpose is ……….. what exactly?.

  3. Georg says

    August 18, 2016 at 3:54 am

    When he’s not busy with the Muslim preoccupation of saving females from suggestive advertistising, he’s making sure nobodys critical of Islam on the internet. He’s exactly the Islamic entryist evolution would expect: He’s only as overt as he can be… no more and no less. Khan’s not held back by his intentions, but by Western concepts of general sensibility; as those erode, the Islamic will advances.

    Freedom of speech, as many point out, is really about the freedom of unpopular speech; in effect, it’s about the ability to criticize and instigate. If we’re unable to forefully criticize something as outlandish as Islam, we’re in a lot of trouble and better go back to the fundamentals of the civics that made for Western civilization and its prosperity that is the envy and attraction of the world.

    Here one can immediately see the sensibilities and aspirations of a Khan:

  4. Jay Boo says

    August 18, 2016 at 4:04 am

    He is declaring SHARIA war.
    When this literally all blows up in their faces they will whine how the backlash they instigated is not FAIR.

  5. Charli Main says

    August 18, 2016 at 4:39 am

    Coming soon. London’s Muslim mayor orders all Metropolitan women police offices to wear burkas. while conducting their duties on the streets of London.

  6. islam the religion of killers says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:16 am

    And how long has this muslim been in charge, I thought it would have been a woman’s right to be in advertising, an advertisers right to advertise wherever it can and a viewers right to not look at public displayed imagery …

    Next thing we’ll me like all muslims with Mohamid telling us how to wipe our ass….

  7. Kumi Ho says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:23 am

    I spoke with my cousin living in London. She thinks this is a common sense decision because ‘children have suicided because of online bullying’. She doesn’t see it, this creeping, cultural Sharia.

  8. Son of the West says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:25 am

    This is where poor education and intellectual laziness have created such fertile soil for civilizational disaster. There is a gulf between bigotry on one hand, and genuine criticism of policy and practices of a group of people on the other. No one had a problem understanding that opposing communism was not the same as being bigoted against Russians. Likewise, people should be able to understand that opposing Islam is not the same as anti-Arab bigotry, especially since anyone can be a Muslim. (Either way, bigotry should not be a criminal offense, just poor manners)

    However, when the intellectually stunted mind of the average Western citizen is confronted with the truth about Islam, they experience cognitive dissonance, and react with scorn or anger to the person who makes the comment that has caused this condition in their minds. It doesn’t matter how nicely you present the truth, how well reasoned your points are, they have been told over and over by the media and elites that Islam is a peaceful religion, etc, and hold on to this idea as a gospel truth. You will especially notice the irrational nature of their reaction, as you will never get a coherent counter argument out of them. At best, it will be some incoherent bromides about the crusades or how all religions are violent or something.

    I point this out to bring some hope. As much as the scale is tilted toward the Religion of Hate in the media, it means there is little substance in the minds of most why they should favor Islam, as there is no good truth to back of the propaganda coming from Muslims and their fellow travelers and useful idiots. Even if the discussion is forced offline, there is still ample opportunity to communicate the truth in person, by physical media such as posters and print, and so on.

    • Lesley says

      August 18, 2016 at 6:00 am

      @Son of the West:
      Hear, hear!

      I lost a budding friendship with a neighbor who in the scenario you described about Leftist emotional over reaction to logic could only talk about how she had Muslim neighbors 20 years ago when she lived in another state, and they were so nice.

      Never mind that there were Islamists a few years ago weapons training in our rural area and arrested for a Muhammad- approved evil plot.

      No matter how I agreed with her that I’m sure her neighbors had been nice, and reiterated over and over that I was talking about the ideology and not her old neighbors, she couldn’t hear me.

      I offered her a link to read the Koran and Hadith online for herself, and suggested that as a better idea rather than swallowing the narrative the mainstream media is feeding us; read their texts and make up your own mind.

      She was suddenly very offended and upset, and I was not upset and kept trying to redirect the conversation back to facts and ideas.

      It all started with me expressing concern about safety in our area, and the news I had found about the Islamists a few years back; very strange :-/

  9. mortimer says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:34 am

    The Islamic war against freedom of expression is now out in the open. What will the British people do now? The barbarians are taken the capital city of the UK will the help of British insiders who have no idea they will be the next victims of the totalitarians they aid and abet.

  10. mortimer says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:38 am

    Sadiq Khan has revealed to anyone with the power of thought that Islam is incompatible with freedom of expression and incapable of reasoned debate. He is imposing totalitarianism with the help of Leftist useful idiots.

    • Lesley says

      August 18, 2016 at 6:12 am

      Yes, they voted Khan in, but the problem with the “suck it” attitude is that the less we care about the free world shrinking in another place, the less vigilant we may be about our freedoms shrinking in our own countries.

      I really hope I’m wrong, but I think this time is a lead-in to another world war to save the civilized world. Every war requires allies to help each other, and the UK is starting to look crippled…

  11. Angemon says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:51 am

    The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

    I suspect it was no accident that the left pushed for removing pics of attractive women in bathing suits rather than forcing companies to make ads with “size plus” models in bathing suits. You know, to make chubbier women feel good about their bodies and stuff.

  12. StuartG says

    August 18, 2016 at 6:32 am

    Incredible, but unsurprising. His first action as Mayor is to use public money to stop people being critical of Muslims.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Robert Spencer in FrontPage: London’s Muslim Mayor Introduces the Thought Police

  1. θ says:

    It is hypocritical that the bloggers and website owners are the most restrictive persons with a power to ban those who don’t follow the rules. The words such as “This is my blog”, “Your comment shall be deleted”, “I have to block your comments”, et cetera are like a though police.

    For long time Europe has a sure penalty for the Holocaust denial, and where’s the outrage of pro- “Free Speech”? But when it comes to just a preliminary proposal of initiative to oppose (not yet to penalise) Islamophobes, suddenly it has made the Anti-Arab Anti Moslem community react and rage. Actually they hate to hide like the chicken criminals simply because they don’t want to take any responsibility of hateful words they say. What a coward.

    Holocaust Denial:
    Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 16 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.[188] Romania officially denied the Holocaust occurred on its territory up until the Wiesel Commission in 2004.[189][190] The European Union’s Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia states that denying or grossly trivializing “crimes of genocide” should be made “punishable in all EU Member States”.[191] Slovakia criminalized denial of fascist crimes in general in late 2001; in May 2005, the term “Holocaust” was explicitly adopted by the penal code and in 2009, it became illegal to deny any act regarded by an international criminal court as genocide.

  2. Anonymous says:

    All criticism of Islam is labelled as hate speech to shut it down by force of law. In society the population has the right to question and criticize all ethical propositions put forward by any group in society. The teachings of Islam have been weighed in the scales and found wanting by a large section of the populace and they are now being hunted down as criminals for exercising their right to a free expression of their dissent. The reaction of Muslims to criticism is to be insulted and demand the criminalization of criticism or to physically punish in vigilante style if they are able to do so. Both reactions are admissions of guilt in the face of the charges brought against Islam. It seems the best you can do is point to the bible and try and wriggle your way out of it by deception.

  3. θ says:

    Aside from utopian philosophy of freedom of expression, the realist rationale is not all patrenalistic Arabs (Sunnis) and Persians (Shiites) can accept their great great grandfather to get insulted by the mouth of Non-Moslems. Prophet Muhammad is more than any man else according to Qur’an, and there are thousands or millions of descendant of Prophet Muhammad. Act of dishonoring a big family can’t go unpunished. Money and permission will be given to give the insulter a lesson. That’s real. That’s a consequence of having a paternalistic culture. Deal with it first.

    Moslems are free and have the right to defend Islam as well. I agree that the “right to insult Islam” of Islamphobes need to be “protected” literally. They have to hire bodyguards.

  4. θ says:

    In other words, if you say Islam is more than just a religion, yes it is. On the insult, Islam turns more or less like a paternal sensitivity.

  5. madmanna says:

    In the OT Jehovah manifests his realness by visiting plagues upon the evildoers. In the same way Allah should prove his existence and punish the criticizers of his religion. Until he does so he has not earned the right to demand the implementation of his laws.

  6. madmanna says:

    “On the insult, Islam turns more or less like a paternal sensitivity.”

    Sensitivity in the form of a violent response is against the law of Moses. Mohammed was just a man. Therefore his honour does not have the value of a human life. We must not destroy or damage the image of God to protect the reputation of a man, however great he may or may not have been.

  7. madmanna says:

    It’s just the thin end of the wedge progressing to the full blasphemy laws that we see in Pakistan.

  8. madmanna says:

    This is what the vast majority of Muslims want to see because they apparently don’t think their religion is convincing enough, through the power of reason alone, to survive without the assistance of this draconian and orwellian repressive legal system.

  9. θ says:

    Be consoled, the paternalistic Arabs and Persians are staunch supporters of the “protection” of the Free Speech, especially 24 hours 7 days a week protection for freedom of insulting Islam. Literally.
    Just do not let the insulter unprotected.

  10. θ says:

    Blasphemy law? Not so fast. Arabs and Persians switch to be pro Free Speech when it comes to Anti Semitism.

  11. madmanna says:

    I can’t afford a bodyguard. Shucks.

  12. θ says:

    Don’t you agree to have a “protected” Free Speech?

  13. madmanna says:

    In the West Muslims have religious freedom to worship and their lives are protected by law. The Jews who were killed in the holocaust were in a different situation. It is deceptive and dishonest of you to try and identify with them. Shame on you.

  14. θ says:

    “madmanna says In the West Muslims have religious freedom to worship and their lives are protected by law.”

    The West tolerance is appreciatively a good Islamic value. For us Moslems, the religious freedom of Moslems in the West is a proof that the West itself is already very much friendly to our Shari’ah Law. Hence, why not expand it just a little bit further, such as with the Anti-Arab racism?

    However, the Shari’ah Law is not applicable for the Non-Moslems as they wouldn’t be automatically the Moslem converts overnight for just granting us Moslems the basic rights of having a religious freedom. If the Medieval History can be made to predict the future America and Europe, the Islamisation of the West would follow the example of Turkey, that is thru a peaceful democracy, not a civil war. There’s no Islamic empire which may support any possible civil war between Moslems and Non-Moslems in the West.

  15. madmanna says:

    Sounds hopeful but I am not so optimistic. No one knows in Islam who has the right to rule. So wars break out for the right to rule whenever the ruler is too weak to subjugate the population. The West pokes it nose in all over the place and just keeps the wars going on for ever because each faction is supported by a western power.

  16. θ says:

    “madmanna says: So wars break out for the right to rule whenever the ruler is too weak to subjugate the population. ”

    Oligarchy (duoviri, diarchy, triumvirate, tetrarchy, decemvirate, et cetera) is a pragmatical solution for it. If Arabs learn the life and death of Dhul-Qarnayn or Alexander as Qur’an named in Sura 18th, they would have stopped fighting a civil war among themselves since after Alexander’s death his Macedonian empire is ruled by 4 non-belligerent kings or tetrarchy. They read Qur’an yet without learning a wisdom or secret of success of the believers from it.

    Current diarchies are Andorra and San Marino.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s