Islam Is A Harmful Ideology

Homeopathy is a harmful ideology. Sure, the majority of the time it is harmless. You take a homeopathic remedy for a common cold, some aches and pains or a phantom illness and nothing too bad is going to happen. But sometimes it has serious consequences and the general credulity of homeopathic believers has a negative effect on the advance of logic, reason and good sense in our society.

I hope no one can infer from the above that I wish ill upon those who believe in homeopathic remedies. I'd love for them to recognise the danger they put themselves and others in and embrace a more rigorous approach to making medical related life choices. If they don't... what am I going to do about it? It is a choice they make and I'm powerless to do anything about the choices of others beyond persuasion.

Yet criticising Islam seems to be a lot more difficult. Granted, there's a lot more evidence of real danger to Muslims from violent reaction against them than in the case of homeopaths. But that still doesn't mean Islam isn't a harmful ideology. Sure, the majority of the time most Muslims are just as nice/bad/flawed/generous etc. as the rest of us. You pray to Allah a few times a day then get on with your job and nothing too bad is going to happen. But sometimes Islamic teachings have serious consequences and the general credulity of believers has a negative effect on the advance of logic, reason and good sense in our society.

I hope no one infers from the above I wish ill upon those who believe Mohammed was a prophet of Allah. I'd love for them to recognise the danger they put themselves and others in and embrace a more rigorous approach to their study of ancient texts.  If they don't... what am I going to do about it? It is a choice they make and I'm powerless to do anything about the choices of others beyond persuasion.

But when a homeopath allows their child to die because of their beliefs or someone murders another human being because of the influence of Islam in their lives, I'm going to criticise those beliefs and the terrible effect they have on society.

I'm troubled that those who will tell you that toxic masculinity is a major problem in society and that we can't avoid being sexist/homophobic/ableist/transphobic etc. due to our socialisation (even if we are brought up by the most liberal of parents) will go out of their way to suggest that an Islam influenced upbringing has absolutely NO connection to the homophobic murders in Orlando. This is the sort of hypocrisy that makes people think a Trump victory would be a good thing for America.

I'm not one of them by the way, Trump is awful, but until we start actually calling out Islam in the way we do Christianity then we're no closer to a saner society.

Tommy Robinson's Change Of Heart Leads To... More Muslim Apologetics

I've never met Tommy Robinson, but I have a feeling we wouldn't get on. He's spent the last few years leading a bunch of thuggish, football hooligan-esqe malcontents from protest to protest and not saying much when they chant racist slogans. And I'm a unionist snob who dislikes outrageous displays of "Englishness" (you know, where they deface their own flags and treat them like rags... so patriotic!).

So, no, Tommy Robinson may have decided to stop supporting a bunch of yobs but I'd guess we'd still not have that much in common. And speaking of changes of heart... I've not got much hope for Quilliam Foundation when it is led by former Islamist extremists. I'm quite an unforgiving sort really I suppose...

However... Tommy Robinson's recent linking up with the Quilliam Foundation has not brought relief to Muslims it would seem. Far from it. Rather than being relieved Robinson has gravely injured the EDL (perhaps mortally, but I'll believe that when the deface St. George's flags are thrown in the bin) they are angry that he's linked up with a group that they see as opposing Islam generally (rather than just extremism).

Yvonne Ridley compares the tactics of the Quilliam Foundation to McCarthyism, because they keep a list of Muslims they feel are extreme. And Ridley queries their definition of extreme with a ready example of Salma Yaqoob (I can't argue there, Yaqoob seems like a rather decent and principled person) and... Haitham al Haddad. He's just some decent natured guy who wants to criminalise homosexuality. Yes, he would like to "punish" me for falling in love with another man. He's not extreme at all! And that is just one of his rather dodgy positions. So forgive me if I think that having a go at Quilliam Foundation for having a go at al Haddad is a bit like criticising the Stasi (to use a description from her article) for capturing a murderer. I'd say it was a fair cop, even if one disagrees with Quilliam, and it is a very poor attempt at making them seem evil.

Over at the Guardian, Matthew Goodwin engaged in another attempt to use this story to whitewash genuine concerns about Islam in general and especially its more extreme adherents. It stinks, as ever, of the strange way left leaning folk in this country have of putting Islam on a pedestal above the criticism that they they would see as perfectly legitimate when thrown at any other religion.

Lennon plans to establish a new anti-Islamist movement, which we assume will adhere to his slapdash generalisations of sharia law and misinterpretations of the Qur'an.

Goodwin doesn't elaborate on this. Is it really Robinson's (Lennon's) generalisations that are slapdash or al Haddad's? Because I'm pretty sure Robinson would oppose al Haddad's views... and I'm pretty sure al Haddad would claim to be quite in line with both sharia law and the Qur'an. Goodwin goes on to smear those who repent of their views as becoming equally radical in the opposite direction.

This helps explain why so many ex-terrorists and ex-extremists never manage the transition. Instead, they hurl themselves to the other side of the spectrum, becoming just as fanatically obsessed with the promotion of democracy, fighting their former extremist brethren – or selling their latest book.

You know what... I'd quite like more ex-terrorists to become obsessed with democracy, fighting terrorism and selling books. It sounds absolutely DELIGHTFUL. I'm not sure exactly what is wrong with any of those propositions. Apart from the selling books stuff I think Goodwin's just described Peter Tatchell.

Ultimately it seems that Goodwin just doesn't like the concept of anyone being anti-Islamist. He should avoid us secular atheists. We just like to extend our reach and be anti-extreme religious people of all descriptions. What will Goodwin dislike next? Anti-Scientology protesters?

It is quite possible to hate fascism, dislike the tactics of Quilliam, find Tommy Robinson repellant AND dislike Islamists. Unfortunately both Ridley (understandably) and Goodwin have bought into a strangely illogical position of thinking that ANY criticism of a Muslim or Islam is unacceptable and that to oppose racist yobs one must support allsorts of dodgy religious dogma.

Well I wouldn't accept a Christian supporting the stoning of adulterers or the locking up of homosexuals. And I won't be accepting that sort of stuff from any other religion either. All religions should be open to criticism and there should be no special protections for whichever one is flavour of the month with the left.

Student Unions Opposing Atheist Freedom Of Expression

Students just aren't what they used to be. Maybe they never were the rebellious, course work shy, last minute crammers stereotypes portray. I remember my brief stint at university being fairly memorable, involving the removal of bras in record time (undefeated champion, I'll have you know) and a disturbing game known only as "Nervous". Good times, good times. 

Alas such fun seems completely beyond the comprehension of the stony faced union enforcers who rule at fresher's fairs. 

Last year the University of Reading's Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society was kicked out of their fresher's fair for naming a pineapple Mohammed. It is hardly the most sophisticated way to start a conversation but I can see what they were aiming for. But they didn't just provoke a debate about blasphemy, they were basically accused of it (blasphemy is showing contempt for that which is held as holy which, by definition, upsets believers and the RAHSS was accused of upsetting people). The Reading University Student Union has now forced out the RAHSS by attempting to get them to agree to not upset anyone ever again ("Just shut up you blasphemers!"). 

Meanwhile, in another rather unsophisticated move, the LSE atheist group decided to wear "Jesus and Mo" t-shirts to their fresher's fair this year. I find the Jesus and Mo cartoon strips pretty boring and don't really see the attraction. But different strokes for different folks and all that. Well it hasn't gone down too well. Even when they covered up the t-shirts with censored stickers today they appear to have been intimidated by student union officials and security whilst leaving the fair.  

Having your beliefs insulted isn't nice. We all accept that, and understand it. But having my relationship dismissed and insulted by other's beliefs is also not very nice. That is the world we live in, one where grown ups have to put up with some people not being nice. We can moan about it, shout about it, but silencing others just because you don't like what they say isn't a sign of a healthy free society. It is the sign of a disturbing authoritarian mindset that is creeping into a lot of "progressive" thought (again).

One Law For All's excellent document "Siding with the Oppressor" shows how the left are starting to move from preaching tolerance for all beliefs into actively siding with the more extreme wing of Islam over pretty much everyone else (including Muslims and ex-Muslims alike). 

Thankfully Maryam Namazie isn't going to let the LSE just ban free speech without at least a token fight, and will be attend a debate on the burqa there on the 15th of October in a Jesus and Mo t-shirt. I hope there will many people there to support her.  

Women! Put On Some Clothes! No, Not That Many!

We know I've been following the #losetheladsmags debate for a while. "No it's not about nudity!" scream supporters as they continue to quote parents saying things like "I don't want my little one seeing those pictures when I go shopping!" (because who can turn down an opportunity for a proper "Won't somebody think of the children?" scare quote, even if it undermines your stand that it isn't the pictures that are the problem?). I'm currently playing a game of pointing out objectifying comments made by people who support #losetheladsmags. Great fun, almost as much fun as "spot the puritanical Christian supporter".

Well now that the New Puritans are winning a few battles there, we have a new front in the war against women getting to choose how much clothing they wear opening up. Again. "Ban the burkha" has now become "We should have a national debate on the niqab". I totally agree with Simon Jenkins who hopes we can be spared such horrors. Absolutely the niqab shouldn't be a "get out of doing anything a reasonable person should be expected to do" card and individual organisations should discuss how it may effect the way they work (as we've seen today with a judge ruling, relatively fairly, on whether a woman could testify in her niqab). But the idea that the Government should help police bans on what clothing someone can wear is not just absurd (though it definitely is that) it is fundamentally disturbing. 

I do not understand this urge people have to control what people (mainly women) do with their bodies and what clothes they wear. We need people to stand up against these disgusting campaigns to undermine women's right to choose. Look at this update from a #losetheladsmags/Labour meeting today

Sophie: this is not about individual women's choices, it's about a culture which defines women by their appearance #losetheladsmags
— Josephine Suherman (@Jo_Suherman) September 16, 2013

Wasn't feminism about freeing women from having decisions made FOR them rather than letting them individually decide? Deciding how many clothes a woman must wear before she can be let out of the house should be something we left in the last century. Sigh.

Muslim Leaders Come Out Against #EqualMarriage, And Yes They Are Wrong!

One of the most annoying criticisms one receives as a gay liberal is that, in some bizarre way, I must thus be some Muslim fanboy who wouldn't dare criticism Islam because obviously everyone politically to the left of Nigel Farage must be in kahoots with fundamentalist Muslims! "Oh you criticise us Christians but you'd never dare criticise a Muslim!" is the commonest formulation of this argument (usually used by UKIPpers who, on this issue, are ironically allied with Muslims!).

The main reason I spend less time moaning about Islam than I do Christianity is that we live in a Christian country (our Head of State is the head of the Church of England, if we weren't so damn British about it all we'd be living in a Christian theocracy!). Most of the powerful and organised vocal opponents of LGBT rights are Christians. The people physically attacking the police in Paris and attacking LGBT rights activisits in Tblisi weren't Muslims, they were Christians led to the protests by their priests!

But that doesn't mean I think Islam isn't just as silly as Christianity is. And I know some Muslims are just as dangerous to LGBT people as Christians are. Here in Britain some Muslims have called for us to be tortured, to be put to death and have even threatened to kill Muslim politicians who support our rights. It is in the light of this that one must look upon the recent letter to the Telegraph from ranking Muslims. Where was their letter condemning the death threats or the incitements to violence? What makes them angrier: my prospective marriage or my prospective murder? 

The letter suggests they are concerned about children, their education and their care. Laudable aims except whilst they feel we want their children educated on marriage equality (a side effect rather than an aim I'd suggest), they themselves imply they would rather our children were taken away from us (and that would appear to be an aim rather than a side effect of their opposition to marriage equality).

Which is worse? I think you know where I stand.

The Muslim Council of Britain: What Do They Want? Government Control!

Farooq Murad made some remarks overnight that left me feeling rather angry this morning. I found them to be so misleading that I just couldn't believe a man who is secretary-general of an organisation as the Muslim Council of Britain could have man them. But make them he did:

Muslim leaders have demanded the same legal exemptions as the Church of England in legislation to introduce gay marriages. 

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), with more than 500 affiliated mosques, charities and schools, said it was "appalled" by "utterly discriminatory" legislation on same-sex marriage set out by the government. 

The proposals would allow faith groups to conduct gay marriages but would ban the CofE and the Church in Wales from doing so.  

The MCB secretary-general, Farooq Murad, said his organisation had strongly opposed gay marriage alongside other religions and was seeking an urgent meeting with culture secretary, Maria Miller, to express the concerns of many Muslims over the proposals. "No one in their right mind should accept such a discriminatory law," he said. "It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions." 

The Guardian itself is still a tad confused over the proposals (which really aren't that difficult to understand) and it's suggestion that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are "banned" is a little misleading in itself. Maria Miller explained how it would really work in this DCMS blog.

But if we ignore that, I can barely understand what Murad is trying to say. He appears not to understand the unique relationship the Church of England has with the state nor the responsibilities it carries out for the state. It is an established church and this press release from the Church of England explains why it isn't getting "special privileges" but just sensible protection.

This call of "discrimination" seems bizarre. No religion will be forced to perform same-sex marriages. All religions will be able to opt-in to doing so if they want (yes, even the Church of England). What exactly does Murad means when he says "It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions."? Does he mean all religions, whether they like it or not, should be banned from perform same-sex marriages? Does he not understand the triple lock which protects mosques from having to do anything that they don't want to do?

What he is asking for is for the Government to take the choice away from the mosques (and everyone else!). Not only does he claim to speak as the religious leader of Islam (which, quite plainly, he isn't) but he seeks to speak for every religious organisation. How very presumptuous  It was at that point I realised he probably hadn't a clue what the Government was proposing. That was when my anger disappeared and was replaced by glee.

I was gleeful because there are two scenarios here:

1) Either he hasn't got a clue. Which would be amusing and make me more confident that we can easily defeat people who don't know what they are talking about

or

2) He knows very well what the proposals mean and is trying to add fuel to the flames of "Church in Walesgate" with some hijinx. If this is the case, I think it shows our opponents have so exhausted their supply of arguments that they are down to silly political machinations to try and derail marriage equality.

So I take heart that we can win against such people as this. And that cheered me up after a week of silliness.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Christianity Is Not The Saviour Of Secular, Liberal Society

There is well-founded concern among LGBT folk of Islamic prejudice against us. And it's a topic not without it's controversy as the East End Gay Pride fiasco showed. It's certainly something that needs more discussion and, even more importantly, action given the anti-gay poster "campaign" and the faux gay "frighten the Muslim vote" leaflets of late.

However I draw the line at what I see as a "brewing" reaction among certain LGBT people; namely a desire to get back to "good old British values". It's the equivalent of a collective thought along the lines of "Bugger, look at what we've done. We beat the Christians into submission and now look what's taking their place!" We saw some of that in the rhetoric from some supporters of the East End Gay Pride. Now we have a Telegraph piece being even more explicit.

Last weekend, the papers convulsed over the case of a Christian GP, whose avowedly Christian approach to medical practice had been found to involve, er, discussing Christianity. I'd rather discuss antibiotics, but still: the overreaction is a displacement activity, isn't it? We can safely worry about peaceable, well-meaning Christians, and demand a more and more un-Christian state, because that's what all rational people want, isn't it?

Not me, not any more. I'm not a believer. But to paraphrase G K Chesterton, when a Christian society stops believing in God, it's not the case that it will start to believe in just anything. If you want to see what does fill the vacuum, get on the bus to the dear old East End.

Well I feel I must cry "Bullshit!" at the top of my lungs to all who can hear. This view of Christianity as somehow "nicer" than Islam is more a case of wishful thinking rather than a sensible piece of political positioning.

I come from the rather coldhearted, but at least consistent, position that ALL religion is (at best) silly. There are many kind hearted souls who believe all sorts of weird and unusual things who I have no personal problem with. There are also all sorts of nasty people who believe all sorts of weird and unusual things who I do have a BIG problem with. Deciding who falls into which (admittedly blurred) category is not a case of finding out which imaginary sky fairy they worship. It's a case of listening to what they say, and seeing what they do and making rational decisions based on that.

Item: Homosexuality is still deeply controversial even among the relatively liberal Christian sects,

Item: Homosexuality's still seen as something to be cured by some true believers

Item: You only need to read some of Warren Throckmorton's writings on what one Christian gets up to in the name of his saviour to see how some Christians give those "radical Muslims" right-wing types are so scared of (and left-wing types a little too eager to court) a run for their money.

Even Richard Dawkins, a man who I find is usually right but damn smug about it, has fallen into this fallacy of "Christianity = good, Islam = bad".

We didn't spend years fighting Mary Whitehouse and her brigade of moralising numpties just to give up in the face of another challenge. This isn't a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" moment. There's just another enemy of secular Britain to add to the one's we've always had. We must work with secular, liberal minded people of all faiths, and of none, to fight intolerance everywhere be it in the form a rabidly anti-religious atheist, a Muslim fundamentalist, the EDL or the Pope.

The saviour of our secular society will be our secular population!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Disturbing Images From The Western World

Whilst the world's attention is focussed on the horrific but also exhilarating revolutions occurring in the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa, other equally disturbing images have been coming from within our own midst.

Hate Comes To Orange County



I find this video almost too upsetting to watch. Muslims families being tormented and insulted by protesters waving American flags whilst elected US officials spread hate among the crowd. I can almost hear the echoes of the fascists in the 1930s and their anti-Jewish rhetoric. Awful stuff, and we are just not condemning this enough.

EDL Thugs

The English Defense League. It's everything I've worried about when I've spoken about English nationalism on here before. Now they bring in violent unionist imagery (no, I do not understand that either, we're English but we support the British cause? Hmm...). They are just a bunch of thuggish little boys terrified of the Other. We must oppose them thoroughly and consistently wherever they go.

The German Question

German interior minister reopens bitter row over Muslim integration. Certainly, Islam is not part of traditional German culture. Nothing controversial there, that's just a historical statement. But I don't think that's what is being said here, and we all know that. The wink, wink, nod, nod of the anti-Islam crowd is almost as disgusting as what they actually say.

"To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history."

Well some interpretations of German history might suggest Jews don't belong in Germany (they've spent more time as pariahs than they have as equal German citizens throughout Germany's complex history). But you wouldn't say that because that would sound pretty damn disturbing. Are we to get rid of everyone in our countries whose presence isn't backed up by history? And what history are we talking about? Modern or ancient? Perhaps the German people don't belong there either as my memory of Germany 65 million years ago certainly doesn't back up their claim on residence either. History is useful, interesting and complicated. But it's not a Bible. We make our own destinies whilst learning from our history. But Germany seems to be just repeating the same old mistakes.

It's time we stood up and said no more. I'm no fan of Islam. To me it's just another silly religion. But that doesn't mean I do not support Muslims rights to their beliefs nor that I think they are some holier than thou angels without any issues themselves. But we must have a frank and honest debate not a "Them and us" one. The West needs to wake up to the hate it is brewing before it's too late.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Burka ban ruled out by immigration minister

Despite my misgivings about the Coalition, I have to say they keep saying a lot of nice things about civil liberties (except on the 28 day detention extension, which makes me quite angry). Damian Green has made clear the Government's stance on any proposed ban of the burqa:

“I stand personally on the feeling that telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do,” he said. “We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society.

“There are times, clearly, when you’ve got to be able to identify yourself, and people have got to be able to see your face, but I think it’s very unlikely and it would be undesirable for the British Parliament to try and pass a law dictating what people wore.

Amen to that.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

I May Be A New Atheist But...

....I've got no problem with people living their lives as they see fit. I'm anti-religious in terms of religion having any part in Government or control over our legislation. I dislike the idea that someone's unproven beliefs can influence Government policy. Policy should be based on proper research and scientific findings.

But I am never more repelled than when people attack others because of their personal choices. For instance... the idea of banning certain styles of Islamic dress, such as the burqa, is one born from sheer hate.

There are those who argue for such a ban on feminist terms, but their concept of feminism is somewhat silly... denying a woman the right to wear something she wants to IS illiberal. Personally I do not understand why any sane person would walk around covered in a sheet but that is my personal prejudice and not one I would wish to impose on anyone, just as I would expect them not to expect me to pretend to be straight in public. We all have our unique features and must respect them.

I find religious people forcing their beliefs on others to be quite disturbing. But I also find people imposing their beliefs on religious people to be just as disturbing. I'm a liberal, and proud to be one. That means giving freedom to others to be whoever they wish to be... not to conform to others petty bigotry's.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

March For England Seems To Not Understand Respecting Our Troops

When our troops came under verbal attack from some radical anti-war protesters in Luton recently, they maintained their professionalism and dignity in the face of the insults and taunts of the protesters. Some who had come to the parade to pay tribute to the troops were, somewhat understandably, undignified in their response but the police managed to maintain some form of order. That day served as a reminder of the professionalism of our armed forces and police, and our protection of the rights of free speech for all (something we need to see more of admittedly!) no matter how repugnant that speech is.

Alas, some organisation named "March For England" organised a peaceful protest that got out of hand over the weekend in Luton, with slogans such as "No Sharia Law in the UK" and "Respect our Troops". Whilst I very much agree with the sentiments, I somewhat think the organisers missed out on one major thing: this sort of protest is bound to draw in the wrong elements and in so doing bring dishonour upon the troops whom they claim to be defending.

And some of the protesters this time certainly sound like lovely representatives for the cause of respecting our troops:

"Groups of young men in balaclavas and England shirts chanted outside the city centre and one balacava-clad protester held a Rottweiler on a chain, while others clashed with police in riot gear. One Asian man was hit across the face with a banner and left with a bloody nose."

Mmm... English nationalism at it's best. These people should be roundly condemned for allowing this sort of a mess to be carried out in the name of respecting our troops! It is a hideous insult to their courage and reserve.

Our British soldiers deserve a better tribute than this rabble of "English" people.

If we are to stand up for the rights of our decent citizens and our honourable troops then we must do so peacefully, decently and with integrity. If we are to defend our way of life from sharia law, and religious stupidity, we must do so through the proper channels (the law, our Government and the way our society works). We must integrate our communities and not allow differences which sow terror and violence among our population.

Riots, racist attacks and disorder serve only to bring our country into disrepute, and stoke tensions in areas that need few reasons for outbreaks of violence. We must engage with our minority communities and bring them into our society and not show them reasons to avoid integration such as has been done here.

How can we imagine that by showing our way of life to be full of hate and violence we are going to encourage the young minority community member to engage with mainstream society? I'm not a Christian but surely reaching out with love (not tolerance, we don't wish to tolerate people, we need to embrace them as our neighbours!) is far better than doing so with hate.

We might achieve a little more.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Iraq: Our Beacon Of Democracy and Freedom In The Middle East

Grainy footage taken on a mobile phone and widely distributed around Baghdad shows a terrified young Iraqi boy cowering and whimpering as men with a stick force him to strip, revealing women's underwear beneath his dishdasha (Arab robe).

"Why are you dressed as a girl?" roars one of the men, brandishing his stick as the youth removes his brassiere.

The sobbing boy, who appears to be about 12, tries to explain that his family made him do it to earn money, as they have no other source of income.

This boy has been abused by his parents, by paedophiles and now by homophobes. He is twelve years old. Where was he when this scene was filmed? A police post.

The BBC report is just one more report of semi-legal homphobic murder and abuse in Iraq. We destroyed a broadly secular Arab nationalist regime and replaced it with a broadly religious Muslim democracy. And these are the results.

Another blow for freedom thanks to Dubya and Bliar

Banning Dissent?

When Geert Wilders was banned from the UK, because he might incite hatred against a certain group and this create a public disturbance, I felt a wave of discomfort come over me. What was being said was "we are so fucking scared that a bunch of violent extremists might be so upset at what he preaches that they might cause trouble". And to avoid that the UK Government decided to remove the freedom of movement of an elected representative of an EU state within the EU. Unless he was calling for death to all Muslims then I can't see why he was banned. The reggee singers who preach murder against homosexuals have not been banned, so why him???

But now the Government has gone a step further banning the Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, famous firstly for www.godhatesfags.com, from entering the UK to protest a play. So probably homegrown religious crazies are ok to protest against Jerry Springer The Musical and get it stopped but it's not ok for these folks to come over from America and try the same thing?? How does that make sense? As a gay man I beg for the Government to rethink this decision (not that they read this nor that my feelings will ever reach their ears). We should have the right to confront the Phelps, not just the lesser members of the WBC, here in this country and show them that their hatred is NOT the way forward. Whilst they celebrate the death of homosexuals, and others, they do not actively encourage violence or murder. And unlike some other minority groups it is unlikely their precence will push our countries now rather integrated LGBT community into acts of general violence. So what is the reason for banning them???

At least my favourite person has his brain switched on:

Peter Tatchell, from gay rights group OutRage!, said: "The Phelps are odious, homophobic bigots. They give Christianity a bad name.

"Objectionable though they are, I don't agree with them being banned but since the Home Secretary banned the Dutch MP Geert Wilders at least she is being consistent by also banning these Christian preachers of hate.

"It makes it all the more odd that the Home Secretary has not banned Jamaican reggae singers who incite the murder of gay people.

"Why are they allowed in to the country but not the Phelps?

"Inciting murder is even worse than inciting hatred. Why the double standards?"

I think the site Phags for Phelps has the right idea... allow them the freedom to spout their nonsense because every word shows homophobia up for what it is... STUPID.

Muslims Call Homosexuals Silly Names Shocker!

It's hardly news worthy stuff really is it? Channel 4 claim that preachers in Mosques are homophobes! Wow! Also people in gyms like to work out and people in McDonalds often eat burgers! Hold the front page!

It is time we stopped playing the "Islam is soooo awful" card. Islam is no worse than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. All say stupid things, most call for the "execution" (read murder) of homosexuals. Either start showing shows about the evil of all skygod fantasy religions or shut up and leave them alone. Stop attempting to pander yet again to racists and morons who think that Christianity has some sort of moral highground over Islam.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting all religious folks are evil (or even that they are not nice). Sure I don't agree with their beliefs but that doesn't mean I don't find religion absolutely fascinating and love to talk to people about their beliefs. I used to work with a Latter Day Saint and my discussions with her about God, evolution and life were sometimes the only sane conversations I had all day.

So let's either accept others right to be hateful, stupid bastards (a right we all have) or start shutting down all places of worship; and let's not pretend that Islam has a uniquely prejudiced outlook. Just look at our friend Stephen Green, the most hateful man in all of Britain and he preaches about the love of Christ. The irony appears to be lost on him.