• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

UK

The Politics of the NIQAB BAN

On the 1st August 2018, Denmark banned the face veil that some Muslim women wear as part of their beliefs. A 28-year old women became the first person to be charged with wearing the full-face veil in public. She was fined 1000 Danish Krones after refusing to take it off. Last year the European Court of Human Rights upheld a similar Belgian ban, saying that communal harmony trumped an individual’s right to religious expression. Full or partial bans are also in place in France, Austria, Bulgaria and the German state of Bavaria.

In reaction to the Danish legislation, former British Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson wrote in his column for the Daily Telegraph “If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree…I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes.” He added that if a female student turned up at school or a university lecture looking like a bank robber, he would ask her to remove it. The inflammatory remarks have sparked debates over the choice of Boris Johnson’s words and if a similar ban should take place in the UK.

In this video we are not going to discuss if the veil should be banned or not, but we are going to demonstrate a classical political tactic that Boris has used called Dog-Whistle politics. Make no mistake, the language Boris used is not an accident. It is a calculated and tactical method designed to achieve a particular objective.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Support our content by donating to fundmypage.com/kjvids

Website – www.kjvids.co.uk
Facebook – www.facebook.com/KJVids
Twitter – www.twitter.com/kjvids2016
Instagram – www.instagram.com/kjvidsofficial

All Rights Reserved. Contact info@kjvids.co.uk if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising or working with us in other ways.

UK and US: The myth of the special relationship

▶ Check out my gear on Kit: https://kit.com/kjvids

The wreckage of WW2 left Britain effectively bankrupt and militarily overextended, whilst America emerged as the new superpower.

In order to stay relevant in global politics, Britain considered it essential to continue Churchill’s wartime alliance with the US.

In order to stay relevant in global politics, Britain considered it essential to continue Churchill’s wartime alliance with the US.

Britain allowed America to establish bases for B-29 bombers initiating foreign military bases on British soil.

The Secretary of State, Ernest Bevin, acknowledged the gravity of this decision and said “Permanent peacetime bases involved quite new principles.”

By 1950, the Americans were basing bombers carrying nuclear weapons in Britain as well as established NATO.

Even though WW2 ended, Britain took an unprecedented decision to continue conscription into peacetime.

Britain paid a “blood price” to show their commitment to US foreign policy and to project itself as a global power like the US.

This came at the peak of the Korean War when the Communist North invaded the South in June 1950.

British chiefs were opposed to sending troops to Korea to avoid harming relationswith Mao Zedong’s Communist China.

British chiefs were opposed to sending troops to Korea to avoid harming relationswith Mao Zedong’s Communist China.

“Refusal to provide troops would harm Anglo-American relations.” The cabinet decided that “British land forces should be sent in order to consolidate Anglo-American friendship and to placate American public opinion.”

In 1956, Britain’s futile attempt in invading Egypt in alliance with France and Israel was cut short by American political pressure.

Yet the British remained fully committed to maintaining an alliance with the USAregardless of the post-war humiliation.

Similarly, besides the strong opinion against America’s Vietnam war, Britain supplied military hardware and troops.

There are countless more examples in recent history that show that the “special” relationship only benefits one side.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Support our content by donating to fundmypage.com/kjvids

Website – www.kjvids.co.uk
Facebook – www.facebook.com/KJVids
Twitter – www.twitter.com/kjvids2016
Instagram – www.instagram.com/kjvidsofficial

All Rights Reserved. Contact info@kjvids.co.uk if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising or working with us in other ways.

The Decline of the British Empire

For two centuries an Island twenty miles off the European mainland had acquired an empire spanning every continent.

By 1900, it encompassed modern-day India, Pakistan, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, along with much of the African Continent.

It exerted a strong influence, sometimes equivalent to de facto control, over Latin America, the Persian Gulf, and Egypt.

The birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, Britain had become the “workshop of the world,” and by 1880 it accounted for almost a quarter of the world’s manufacturing output and trade.

Its investments powered global growth, and its fleets protected global trade. Niall Ferguson explained, Britain was “both policeman and banker to the world . . . the first true superpower.”

Britain thus saw itself, and expected others to see it, as number one.

But there were alarming signs by the end of the 19th century that Britain was declining relative to other powers.

In 1899, war with the Boers (descendants of Dutch settlers in what is today South Africa) broke out. Britain had not fought a well-trained adversary with modern weapons for a half century.

The numerically inferior but determined Boers inflicted a series of humiliating defeats on their more powerful enemies.

As he had done earlier in India and Sudan, Churchill rushed to join the fight, only to be captured by the Boers.

The world’s newspapers followed the tale of his subsequent escape and flight to freedom.

Britain eventually won the war, but at immense cost, shaking its imperial reputation.

The German general staff studied the Boer War carefully, concluding, as Paul Kennedy puts it, that “Britain would find it impossible to defend India against a Russian assault,” and “without a total reorganization of its military system, the empire itself would be dissolved within two decades.”

Meanwhile, a host of rivals were chipping away at the substantial head start in science and industry that had cemented Britain’s number-one position following its hard-fought victory over Napoleonic France in 1815.

After the American Civil War and Bismarck’s success in unifying Germany in 1871, Britain watched others adopt its technologies, grow their economies faster, and emerge as peer competitors.

London worried about four rivals in particular: Russia, France, the United States, and Germany.

With the biggest army in Europe, its third-greatest fleet, a rapidly growing industrial base, and the largest landmass of any nation, Russia cast quite a shadow.

New railways enabled Moscow to project power farther and faster than ever before, while its continuous expansion moved its borders steadily closer to British spheres of influence in central, western, and southern Asia.

Despite its weak industrial base, France was an imperial competitor—indeed, the world’s second-largest empire. Colonial disputes led to frequent friction with London and occasional war scares. In 1898, France was forced to back down from a confrontation over Fashoda (in the modern state of South Sudan) when it realized it had no chance of winning a naval conflict.

But maintaining the Two-Power Standard to match the combined power of the expanding French and Russian navies put increasing pressure on British budgets.

The United States, meanwhile, had emerged as a continental power that threatened British influence in the Western Hemisphere

With a population almost twice that of Britain, seemingly endless natural resources, and a hunger for growth, America would have surprised the world had it not outstripped Britain’s industrial might.

The US economy overtook Britain’s (although not its empire overall) by about 1870 and never looked back.

By 1913, Britain accounted for only 13 percent of global manufacturing output, down from 23 percent in 1880; the US, by contrast, had risen to 32 percent.

Backed by a modernizing navy, Washington had begun asserting itself ever more aggressively in the Western Hemisphere.

After London and Washington went to the brink of war over Venezuela’s borders in 1895 (see chapter 5 ), the British prime minister advised his finance minister that war with the United States “in the not distant future has become something more than a possibility: and by the light of it we must examine the estimates of the Admiralty.”

He warned that war with the US was “much more of a reality than the future Russo-French coalition.”

Another industrial phenomenon with growing naval ambitions lay much closer to home.

Since its victory over France and unification under Bismarck, Germany had become the strongest land power in Europe, with an economic dynamism to match.

German exports were now fiercely competitive with British products, making Berlin a formidable commercial rival.

Before 1900, however, the British Empire saw it more as an economic than a strategic threat. Indeed, a number of senior British politicians favored a German alliance, and some tried to broker one.

By 1914, London’s calculations had changed completely. Britain found itself fighting alongside its former rivals Russia and France (and later the US) to prevent Germany from gaining strategic mastery in Europe.

In Britain’s case, that fear was concentrated by a growing German fleet that could only be intended for use against the Royal Navy.

Extract from the book “Destined for War” by Graham Allison. If you are interested in purchasing this book, buying it using the link below will generate KJ Vids a small commission towards our venture which would be very helpful. Thank you.

Muslim groups hit back at Ofsted claims of fundamentalism at UK schools

Amanda Spielman, chief of Ofsted, claimed that some community leaders had been attempting to inculcate ‘extremist ideology’

Armed British Transport Police officers patrol the Eurostar platforms at St Pancras railway station (AFP)

Muslims groups criticised a warning by the head of England’s school inspection body for saying that religious fundamentalist groups were attempting to inflitrate schools and “pervert education”.

Amanda Spielman, chief of Ofsted, warned that some community leaders had been attempting to inculcate “extremist ideology”.

“Rather than adopting a passive liberalism that says anything goes, for fear of causing offence, schools leaders should be promoting a muscular liberalism,” Spielman told a conference held by the Church of England in London.

“That sort of liberalism holds no truck for ideologies that seek to close minds or narrow opportunity. Occasionally that will mean taking uncomfortable decisions or having tough conversations.

“It means not assuming that the most conservative voices in a particular faith speak for everyone.”

Miqdaad Versi, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), described the conference as “appalling”, citing a lack of consultation.

“Not again by Ofsted: no consultation, no empathy with Muslim children/parents, disproportionate focus on Muslim children, falling into the trap of ‘muscular liberalism’ & at venue at Church of England schools conference. Appalling,” he tweeted.

Spielman’s comments came off the back of a controversy in east London where a head teacher tried to stop girls under the age of eight from wearing a headscarf in the classroom.

Zubaida Haque, of the Runnymede Trust, told BBC News that there was a disturbing lack of consultation with local communities in east London where children attended the school.

She added that in most cases young girls wore the headscarf because they wanted to emulate their mothers.

View image on Twitter

Neena Lall, of St Stephen’s state primary in east London, was subjected to abuse after trying to get young girls to stop wearing the headscarf. She also attempted to get some children to stop fasting during Ramadan.

Spielman told the conference that she would be defending the rights of head teachers to dictate uniform policy in their schools.

“It is a matter of deep regret that this outstanding school has been subject to a campaign of abuse by some elements within the community,” she said.

“I want to be absolutely clear – Ofsted will always back heads who take tough decisions in the interests of their pupils.”One of Britain’s leading counterterrorism officers has warned of the threat of children trained by the Islamic State group returning to the UK.

Danger of returning Islamic State children

The news comes as Commander Dean Haydon, the head of the Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism command, told the London Evening Standard that police needed to safeguard children returning from Iraq and Syria – but warned that they also posed a “risk” as well.

“Some terror groups are training children to commit atrocities,” he said.

“We need to not just understand the risk the mother poses but the risk that any child poses as well. We look at them on a case-by-case basis and they may be arrested.”

He said that police were carrying out DNA tests on children who had been born in IS-controlled territories so as to establish their identity and right to live in the UK.

[UK terror threat level] currently stands at severe, which means an attack is highly likely

– Dean Haydon, Metropolitan Police

“If a mother turns up with a stateless child, born in Syria, we need to be satisfied that that child actually belongs to that mother because we have had instances of kids trying to be smuggled back into the UK but not actually belonging to that parent,” said Haydon.

Less than five potentially stateless children are thought to have returned to the UK with British mothers who had gone to Syria and married IS militants.

Haydon said police had identified all of the 850 or so British citizens who travelled to Syria in the past three years. Around 50 percent have returned and 15 percent were killed in fighting.

He said there was a “a plan in place for every single person” and that fewer than 10 people returned from Iraq and Syria last year, primarily women and children.

According to the Evening Standard, officials are also monitoring 3,000 “subjects of interest” and 20,000 individuals are still “potentially a concern” in the UK.

“I cannot give a timeline when I think the threat will come down,” said Haydon.

“It currently stands at severe, which means an attack is highly likely.”

 

When the Ottoman Caliphate Saved Britain

When the Ottoman Caliphate Saved Britain

From her accession to the throne in 1558, Queen Elizabeth began seeking diplomatic, commercial and military ties with Muslim rulers.

In 1570, when it became clear that Protestant England would not return to the Catholic faith, the pope excommunicated Elizabeth and called for her to be stripped of her crown.

Soon the might of Catholic Spain was against her, an invasion was imminent.

English merchants were prohibited from trading with the rich markets of the Spanish Netherlands.

Economic and political isolation threatened to destroy the newly Protestant country.

Elizabeth responded by reaching out to the Ottoman Caliphate. Spain’s only rival was the Ottoman Empire ruled by Sultan Murad III.

The Ottomans had been fighting the Hapsburgs for decades, conquering parts of Hungary.

Elizabeth hoped that an alliance with the Sultan would provide much needed relief from Spanish military aggression and enable her merchants to tap into the lucrative markets of the East.

The Caliphate was far more powerful than Elizabeth’s little Island nation floating in the soggy mists off Europe.

Elizabeth wanted to explore her new trade alliances, but couldn’t afford to finance them. Her response was to exploit the obscure commercial innovation – joint stock companies.

The capital from the companies was used to fund the costs of commercial voyages.

Elizabeth enthusiastically backed the Muscovy company which traded with Persia and went on to inspire the formation of a company that traded with the Ottomans and the East India Company which would eventually conquer India.

In the 1580s she signed a commercial agreement with the Ottomans that would last over 300 years granting her merchants free commercial access to Ottoman lands.

As money poured in, Elizabeth began writing letters to her Muslim counterparts extolling the benefits of reciprocal trade.

She wrote as a supplicant, calling Murad “The most mighty ruler of the Kingdom of Turkey, sole and above all, and most sovereign monarch of the East Empire.”

She also played on their mutual hostility to Catholicism, describing herself as “the most invincible and most mighty defender of the Christian faith against all kind of idolatries.”

Thousands of English traders crossed many of today’s regions, like Aleppo and Mosul which were far safer than they would have been on a journey through Catholic Europe where they risked falling into the hands of the Inquisition.

Some Englishman even converted to Islam such as Samson Rowlie, a Norfolk merchant who became Hassan Aga.

English aristocrats delighted in the silks and spices of the East, exchanged it for munitions that were shipped out to Turkey.

The sugar, silks, carpets and spices transformed what the English ate, how they decorated their homes and how they dressed.

Despite the commercial success, the British economy was unable to sustains its reliance on far-flung trade.

After Queen Elizabeth’s death in 1604, the new King, James I, signed a peace treaty with Spain ending England’s exile.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Support our content by becoming a KJ Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/kjvids

Sign up to our website and submit video suggestions:
www.kjvids.co.uk

Like our Facebook page for exclusive updates:
https://www.facebook.com/KJVids

Follow us on Twitter to be informed when we post:
https://twitter.com/kjvids2016

All Rights Reserved. Contact info@kjvids.co.uk if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising or working with us in other ways.

UK not breaking law by selling arms to Saudi Arabia

Read the original article by BBC NEWS or read some of the key points below;

  1. The UK Government is not breaking the law by continuing to sign off the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, the High Court has ruled.
  2. The UN claims strikes on Houthi rebels caused thousands of civilian deaths.
  3. The Government said defence exports would continue to be reviewed but the Campaign Against the Arms Trade said an appeal against the ruling was planned.
  4. Equipment sold to Saudi Arabia includes Typhoon and Tornado fighter jets, as well as precision-guided bombs
  5. The sales contribute to thousands of engineering jobs in the UK, and have provided billions of pounds of revenue for the British arms trade.
  6. Rosa Curling, of law firm Leigh Day, which represented the campaign group, said: “Nothing in the open evidence, presented by the UK government to the court, suggests this risk does not exist in relation to arms to Saudi Arabia.
  7. James Lynch, Amnesty International’s head of arms control and human rights, said the ruling was “deeply disappointing”.
  8. The judges said “closed material”, which had not been made public for national security reasons, “provides valuable additional support for the conclusion that the decisions taken by the secretary of state not to suspend or cancel arms sales to Saudi Arabia were rational”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdCM38mnsxI

Top 5 Muslim Responses in the Media

Top 5 Muslim Responses in the Media

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Become a KJ Patreon so we can produce more and better content
https://www.patreon.com/kjvids

Sign up to our website and submit video suggestions:
www.kjvids.co.uk

Like our Facebook page for exclusive updates:
https://www.facebook.com/KJVids

Follow us on Instagram for our one minute vids:
https://www.instagram.com/kjvids2016

Follow us on Twitter to be informed when we post:
https://twitter.com/kjvids2016

Finsbury Park terror suspect ‘developed hatred of Muslims after watching hit BBC grooming drama Three Girls’

  1. According to a prosecution’s opening note, Darren Osbourne, the supected terrorist who ran over Muslims with his van developed ‘radical anti-Islamic views’ that apparently stemmed from the TV drama ‘Three Girls’, which was broadcast on BBC1 last month.
  2. The harrowing programme was based on the shocking true story of the young victims of the Rochdale child sexual exploitation ring and how they were let down by authorities.
  3. “He [Osborne] started to express hatred towards all Muslims and to research gangs working in Rotherham and Luton,” the prosecution opening note states.
  4. It adds: “He was heard on one occasion to say ‘Fucking Muslims’.”
  5. Grandfather Makram Ali, 51, died at the scene and nine other men were injured after the white vehicle was allegedly driven into the group close to Finsbury Park Mosque on Monday.

Muslim Woman told to ‘get the f*** out’ of office after refusing to change headscarf colour

Read original article on the Independent or read a quick version below;

  1. A Muslim woman is suing her former employers after allegedly being ordered to remove her black headscarf because the garment had “terrorist affiliations”.
  2. The estate agent, who did not want to be named, had been working for Harvey Dean in Bury for almost a year when she says managers took issue with her hijab.
  3. A complaint filed at the Manchester Employment Tribunal says the woman was told that moving from a back office into public view meant “that it would be in the best interest of the business for her to change the colour of her hijab, due to the supposed terrorist affiliation with the colour black”.
  4. A colleague allegedly claimed that the predominantly white and non-Muslim community around the company’s office would “feel intimidated and scared if they saw the claimant”.
  5. The woman, who had been wearing a black headscarf that left her face uncovered since starting at Harvey Dean, said she was not prepared to change her attire for the reasons given. She says she refused again in a phone call and a meeting held the following day with the male manager, who had allegedly brought coloured hijabs into the office for her to change into. Hours later, the claimant says she was reprimanded for sending a text message to her father.
  6. “He then went on a tirade accusing the claimant of not working,” read tribunal documents seen by The Independent. “The claimant informed him that she was on her lunch break but he told her that he did not care [and] then proceeded to tell her to: ‘Get the f*** out of here.’”

 

Three young siblings chose to STAY inside burning Grenfell Tower with elderly parents rather than let them die alone

Read original article on the Mirror or read a summary below;

  1. Three young siblings chose to stay and die with their parents in the Grenfell Tower fire – rather than leave them to die alone on the 17th floor, it’s emerged.
  2. As smoke and flames engulfed the 17th floor, bride-to-be Husna Begum, 22, and her brothers, Hanif, 26, and Hamid, 29, explained their decision to stay to relatives on the phone.
  3. In an emotional conversation more than two hours after the blaze began, the children told them that there was no way they could leave their mother, Rabeya, who was in her 60s, and 82-year-old father, Kamru Miah.
  4. The British-Bangladeshis also told their relatives not to grieve for them as they were ‘going to a better place’.
  5. It’s been claimed they had an ‘opportunity’ of almost an hour after the fire began at around 12.50am to make their way to safety – until about 1.45pm – and were last heard of on the phone at 3.10am.
  6. Ms Begum was due to get married in Leicester next month – and her distraught fiancé and extended family are expected to remember them in a public prayer ceremony at 6pm today.
  7. One brother Mohammed Hakim, who had been at the home earlier in the evening but left before the blaze, is known to have survived. 

    Their cousin, Samir Ahmad, 18, told The Times : “Their dad could barely walk anyway.

    “What were they going to do? Abandon him?”

    Mr Ahmad said he believed “until around 1.45am they could have left their parents, but they didn’t.”

    Of their final conversation, he said: “My auntie spoke to Hanif. He was very calm.

    “He said his time had come, and not to mourn for them, but be happy for them because they would be in a better place.

     

     

Scroll to top