Lord Ahmed Threatens Parliament Into Submission
Tuesday January 27, 2009
Lord Ahmed is a repugnant individual. Not only in appearance, but in association, character and morality. And to hear that he has threatened jihad on the House of Lords if their lordships should fail to meet his demands only serves to intensify Cranmer’s loathing of the man.
It appears that a member of the House of Lords had invited the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to a private meeting in the Palace of Westminster. She had intended to invite her colleagues in the Lords to a private viewing of his “˜documentary’ Fitna, followed by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion. This is, after all, a liberal democracy, and their lordships enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, not to mention certain parliamentary privileges for the protection of their function in the legislature.
But no sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he “˜threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’.
And so Fitna has been cancelled: it shall not now be screened in the House of Lords on 29th January.
The Pakistani Press is jubliant, and Lord Ahmed is praising Allah for delivering “˜a victory for the Muslim community’.
It is a sorry state of affairs indeed that a parliament whose liberties have been forged through centuries of religious intolerance should succumb to the threats of one intolerant Muslim. Lord Ahmed is manifesting a notion of Divine Right, and one suspects it is precisely the sort of defence of Islam that Prince Charles shall make when he is sworn “˜Defender of Faith’. The blasphemy laws are being re-forged to protect one god, one faith and one prophet; they no longer defend YHWH, Christianity, Jesus Christ or the Church of England. Lord Ahmed is not functioning as a Labour peer; he is the self-appointed khalifa of all things Islamic. He is not concerned to protect freedom of expression or freedom of speech, but to stifle debate and ensure that Parliament submits to the Dar Al-Islam.
It is for moments such as these that one might hope the Lords Spiritual might enter the fray and defend the right of the noble baroness to extend an invitation to a democratically-elected Dutch MP. Their silence is deafening. They no longer believe anything strongly for fear of causing offence; they no longer defend anything for fear of being abolished.
If Lord Ahmed had threatened Cranmer with ’10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House’, His Grace would have assured his Lordship of 100,000 people of all faiths and none to prevent the Muslims from preventing Mr Wilders from entering the House.
There are occasions when turning the other cheek is sheer folly.
