Read more here:
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ANDERS BEHRING BREVIK ADMITS HE WROTE HIS MANIFESTO IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE COUNTER-JIHAD MOVEMENT
SIOE blames those in the mainstream Western media who wallow in lying, duplicitous, propagandising and self-censorship for all the murders Breivik perpetrated and for all the deaths by violence, in the world. Such people see their role not one of disseminating unexpurgated truth, but one of manipulating public opinion. Innocent people die as a result.
Thankfully, this is not true for all the media, there are still some beacons of honest reporting. SIOE has experienced both the good, but unfortunately, mainly the bad.
With thanks to Robert Spencer Director of Jihad watch and Stop Islamisation Of America (SIOA)
Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE) was founded in 2007 to stop and reverse the replacement of the European democratic system and law-making with Islam and Sharia law.
SIOE’s slogan is “Racism is the lowest form of stupidity; Islamophobia is the height of common sense.”
In an open letter to the media Anders Behring Breivik says that he used “counter-jihadist” rhetoric in the manifesto to protect “ethno-nationalists” and instead provoke a media campaign against the anti-nationalist counter-jihad supporters. He calls this a strategy of “dual psychology.”
Eighteen months before he committed his act of mass murder against innocent youngsters on Norway’s island of Utøya and other innocents in Oslo on 22 July 2011, SIOE rejected Breivik’s attempts to join SIOE’s Facebook group. Organisers were aware of Breivik’s Nazi sympathies.
SIOE organisers are convinced that Breivik committed his mass murder to specifically destroy SIOE due to SIOE’s overtly expressed anti-Nazism and anti-racism, and also for rejecting his advances to join SIOE. SIOE believes that his manifesto was written and his act of mass murder perpetrated to directly and uniquely target SIOE in order to eliminate its active presence in Europe.
Anders Breivik has now openly confessed as much.
In its many protests against encroaching Sharia and Islamic practices, SIOE has stated that any display of Nazi, communist and Islamic symbols would not be tolerated. On the single occasion when Nazis sneakily infiltrated one demonstration those Nazis were forcibly ejected from the protest, with police approval.
Each one of SIOE’s demonstrations has been peaceful, and fully approved by law enforcement authorities. Even when SIOE’s inaugural and eponymous demonstration on 11 September 2007 in Brussels was banned by Mayor Thielemanns, SIOE was permitted to hand in a 20,000 signature ‘Stop Islamisation’ petition to the EU Parliament, hold a conference and also to commemorate the 9/11 victims of Muslim terrorism.
SIOE’s refusal to permit Nazis made it popular with the public.
However, SIOE received open hostility from politicians such as British MP John Denham, who likened SIOE to Moseley’s fascists, despite our repeated, and truthful, anti-fascist assertions. The only violence displayed at any SIOE demonstration was from opposition groups such as Muslims, Unite Against Fascism and Antifa.
Breivik’s confession has now made our opponents look not only ridiculous, but also untruthful in their claims that Breivik was inspired by SIOE.
Most of the media were unhelpful because they distorted the facts, for example claiming Breivik was “an extreme Christian fundamentalist” even though he stated he was not even a practising Christian. Most of the media either censored or distorted SIOE’s ripostes and rebuffs of claims made in the same media, that Breivik had associations with, and was inspired by, SIOE. Breivik’s own confession proves that SIOE was telling the truth and our accusers in the media were lying.
So, Breivik was neither a SIOE supporter nor a practising Christian.
However, he was indisputably a Freemason. This makes him infinitely closer to senior police officers, senior military, gangsters, journalists and even Royalty, than he ever was to SIOE. Breivik maybe even shared a Masonic lodge with Norwegian Royalty and senior police officers.
Breivik allegedly visited the United Kingdom and was mentored by someone he called “Richard the Lionheart”. For all we know this man could have been the Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen’s husband, or Britain’s most senior Freemason, the Duke of Kent, cousin to the Queen. True, this is highly improbable, but no more absurd than Breivik being inspired by SIOE.
In fact Breivik was so uninspired by SIOE he uniquely tried to destroy SIOE.
Breivik also professed membership of the Order of the Venerable Order of St. John which, if true, again brings him into contact with Royalty because Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II is at the apex of the Order.
Maybe Freemasons and the Venerable Order of St John should be as scrupulous as SIOE in vetting its potential members so as to more protect its high profile members?
Interestingly, Nelson Mandela, now revered as a demigod, was also convicted for offences concerned with violence directed at his own government. Mandela was also a Freemason and member of the Venerable Order of St John. We can only wait to see if Breivik eventually comes to be as honoured and revered as Nelson Mandela. Both, it seems, were motivated by race, something SIOE evidentially is not.
SIOE is in no doubt that Freemasons and the Venerable Order of St John are as dismayed and angered at being associated with Anders Breivik as SIOE was, and still is, with the smearing of it by some unscrupulous parts of the Western mainstream media.
SIOE is delighted at being exonerated at last.
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APPLICATION FOR A PROHIBITORY COURT INJUNCTION TO BE SERVED AGAINST THE MUSLIM ACADEMIC TRUST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MEGA-MOSQUE, ISLAMIC TEACHING FACILITY WITH MUSLIM DWELLINGS IN MILL ROAD, CAMBRIDGE
The application is to be heard in Cambridge County Court at 10.00am on 17th January 2014 by His Honour the District Judge Underwood.
The application was madeby Miss Sareeta Webra and who is being assisted by Stephen Gash.
When requested, copies of documents will be forwarded as attachments to emails as pdf documents. Such documents include detailed reasoning and examples which are summarised below.
The application has been made broadly for the following reasons:-
- Gathering of public voting data on the Mill Road Mosque construction has not been conducted lawfully, if at all.
- A significant number of complaints have been forwarded to Cambridge County Council about the mosque’s construction. It would appear comments in support of the mosque have been replicated to make it seem as if support outweighs objection.
- It is well documented that many so-called Muslim charities are fronts for Islamic terrorism and that several of those cited are based in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, mosque construction must be halted until Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposed legalisation of sharia-based finance in the UK, including the first sharia finance bond outside of a Muslim country, is investigated by police, the National Audit Office, Financial Ombudsman, the Financial Conduct Authority and any other authority responsible for preventing money laundering and the financing of terrorism
- Islamic practices contravene numerous sections of the Sex Discrimination Act 2010 and such discrimination is openly preached and practised in mosques.
Claimant Sareeta Webra founder of Sikhs Against Sharia (SAS) said, “As a first generation English Sikh I am alarmed at how Islamic discrimination against non-Muslims is defended, condoned and even encouraged, by the British establishment. Sikhism was founded in 1469 specifically to combat violent Muslim oppression and persecution of non-Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent. The bravery of those Sikh founders has been punished with the partition of the Sikh homeland in India. Now it seems the British establishment is sowing the seeds of sharia in England. As a consequence the thistles of social division will spring up and choke the flowers of freedom my parents came to England to savour”.
In over 1000 years of Islamic invasions of India the concept of “Moderate Muslim” was never created because it simply is not true. Islam dictates its followers to put their religion before the defence of the realm within which it resides. That is a fact. If anything, they are better described a “Sharia Muslims” because that is indeed, their PRESCRIPTIVE religion’s true title, and the only one of this type remaining in the world today.”
“David Cameron’s Sukuk Dream Team has seriously overlooked the fact that there are absolutely no provisions for Sharia-Law based fiat-financial instruments found in any legislation or statute. A remarkable move by a desperate cabinet grappling to hide the proceeds of Saudi-Oil Barons’ baksheesh barter; by making the entire general public guilty of the same financial crime?
Moreover, England is a COMMON LAW JURISDICTION where EQUALITY is mandatory, and therefore even if such ridiculous separatist financial products were granted; they would only be allowed if they were available to EVERYONE, including NON-MUSLIMS i.e. Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Jedi, etc.
Sharia finance doesn’t just mean interest-free loans. Muslims say it is decreed by allah and it will be Muslim clerics deciding how the money is distributed. We wouldn’t let Christian vicars decide who gets a loan and who doesn’t, so we should not let Muslim clerics discriminate against non-Muslims, as they surely will.”
Stephen Gash, co-founder of top Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE) said, “Obviously, checks and balances are not currently in place to ensure that Muslim charities based in England, in particular, are not siphoning cash to fund terror. Sharia finance does not outlaw the funding of Islamic paramilitary action through compulsory zakat. Indeed, it is clearly mandated in the Koran that Muslims must make war on the infidel who dwell around them (Sura 9:123).
We have recently seen the fruits of Islamic teachings with the muder of Lee Rigby. Those found guilty clearly explained their actions were motivated by Islamic teachings, only for David Cameron to skip out like “Buttons” in a pantomime and say ‘Oh no it isn’t.’ “
Sareeta Webra explained “Elephants are a sacred animal in India, so it pains me to say this, but until British politicians stop skirting around the elephant in the room, namely sharia and Islamic teachings in general, then we can never have a grown-up debate about the place, if any, of Islam in English society. Mosques across the Islamic world teach Muslims that they are superior in every way to non-Muslims. Parliamentarians need to accept that all Islamic teachings are sharia law based, which flagrantly oppose Human Rights legislation confirmed in both EU and English law, so no more mosques must be built in England until English law is made superior to sharia law with all its inherent discrimination.
Sharia Law must be eradicated in its entirety. Anyone wishing to eat meat, marry, work, reproduce etc must do so like the rest of us under the law of their respective country. The Scottish for instance, live under English Law in England, and are not subject to Scottish Law. The same is compulsory for all Muslims. No alien religious laws must be allowed in England.”
Stephen Gash continued, “No Muslim country is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but each has signed the Cairo Declaration that enshrines sharia law, that in turn ensures the dominance of Muslims over the ‘kuffar.’ This is intolerant attitude is evidenty being taught in mosques in England.
Islam is a problem for Muslims to solve and because they wilfully refuse to solve their problem, Muslims have made themselves a problem for everybody else.”“
Sareeta Webra said, “The English Reformation and foundation of the Church of England started in Cambridge and is celebrated with a plaque on King’s College. Cambridge is the last bastion of Christianity in England and must not fall to Islam, which the construction of the Mill Road mosque clearly intends for Cambridge. I am myself a believer in Jesus Christ the Saviour and have become so without in any way abandoning my Sikhism and love for the Khalsa. Cambridge University has immense respect across the world as an academic institution which is why Cambridge has been targeted as the location for what can only be described as a symbol of Islamic dominance.”
Stephen Gash said, “Cambridge must not become a hub for funding international terrorism by having a triumphalist mosque dumped within it.
Fine words are not enough.
Proper financial accounting must be employed within existing mosques before any more mosques are built in England, including the proposed Mill Road Mosque.”
Sareeta Webra concluded,
“Children born in England, a country renowned for its fairness and equality, ought to be brought up solely subject to English Laws. We must not allow this to be jeopardised by a doctrine that promotes hatred for fellow humans under the guise of a religion. As practicing Sikhs, Hindus & Buddhists originating from India we are not allowed to ignore the law of this land or try to supersede it!
Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, something that the proper constabularies of yesteryear enforced very well.”
Some sources for background notes served with the application.
Stephen Gash takes full responsibility for the following article “The Sinister Case of Sareeta Webra” which is based on conversations between Stephen and Sareeta and dozens of documents concerning her claim that Sareeta showed to Stephen.
This is only a fraction of what actually occurred.
Perhaps Sikhs reading this article might consider taking their financial and insurance business elsewhere and telling fellow Sikhs about how the British legal system has treated a Sikh woman in such a cavalier fashion.
The Sinister Case of Sareeta Webra
Sareeta is a thirty nine year old English Sikh woman who just one week before her twenty eighth birthday was mown down in London by a car, in what authorities described as a hit and run. Indeed, authorities initially considered whether to treat it as a case of attempted murder. Some still believe it was attempted murder. The impact propelled Sareeta some sixty feet along the road and several feet into the air, causing her to sustain severe injuries including broken bones and lacerations. Even more seriously, Sareeta suffered a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury which has permanently affected her life and for which she is now forced to claim disability benefits.
Although the car was not registered to the driver at the time, a valid insurance policy still covered the vehicle concerned. This was ascertained by the Motor Insurance Bureau who stated that the company providing cover was Barclays Insurance. Sareeta herself had no life insurance and held no drivers licence which placed her in a special category as a pedestrian, for insurance purposes.
The Politics and Discriminatory Sharia Finance
It is historical fact that Sikhism was started to combat Muslim aggression in India. Consequently, Muslim countries have little love for Sikhs.
It is both Sareeta’s and my belief, that the apparent hostility shown by Barclays insurance against her is less to do with Barclays representing its clients and more to do with her being a Sikh.
Sareeta actively pursues her intention to remove the 1947 Partition of India which created the Muslim state of Pakistan and split the Sikhs’ homeland, the Punjab, placing most of it in Pakistan.
This was done with much bloodshed and displacement of people and has left a lasting legacy of hostility between Pakistani Muslims and Sikhs. Naturally, the world’s Muslims side with their Brotherhood in Pakistan.
Barclays has received substantial financial backing from Middle Eastern Muslim countries, not least Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia a Muslim country, it is the centre of world Islam and contains Islam’s holiest site. Saudi Arabia is one of the UK’s largest recipients of weapons including a significant number of fighter jets. Some arms sales in the past have reportedly involved bribes, but investigations were closed down by Blair’s government under the guise of national security.
Unfortunately, the Barclays connections with Saudi Arabia and Qatar have allegedly resulted in dodgy financial events, arguably bordering on corruption that required official investigations.
It seems that the British establishment has prostituted the United Kingdom’s economy to oil sheikhdoms. Its once proud financial services industry, that the UK’s economy now depends upon, is in tatters. Even London’s historic stock exchange is largely owned by Middle Eastern potentates.
Firstly as Chancellor of the Exchequer, then as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown stated he intended for the UK to be a world centre of sharia financing.
Anybody who knows even a smidgeon about sharia understands that it is profoundly discriminatory against non-Muslims. This is especially so concerning Sikhs who are not even “people of the book,” as are Christians and Jews who, in theory, are offered a modicum of protection from Muslim aggression, which however, rarely manifests itself in practice. So, Sikhs are considered to be of even lowlier status than Jews and Christians by holier-than-thou Muslims.
As far back as 2007 it was being reported that Barclays was moving aggressively into sharia financial services.
This submission to Islamic practises has since increased exponentially.
It is a sure thing that Sikhs and Jews will come off worst where sharia finance holds sway.
This is probably, if not assuredly, the case with Sareeta who proudly runs her Facebook Blog
It was some time before Sareeta’s case first appeared in a court room, during which time she convalesced and literally got herself back on her feet. Her original litigation specialist, Stephen Thorpe, handled her case so well that Barclays Insurance admitted “full and complete commercial liability”, so one would assume that it was an open and shut case. Indeed, this has been stated several times to Sareeta by lawyers. However, even after nearly thirteen years her case has not yet been resolved.
This is in large part due to Stephen Thorpe being replaced by a solicitor within the same firm, named Marc Folgate, who essentially sat on proceedings and effectively stopped progress. When Sareeta started a complaint against her solicitor, the firm concerned promised to resurrect her case if she dropped her complaint. She duly dropped her complaint only to be told in not so many words “to go away”. This would be an appalling way for a solicitor to behave towards any client, but to dupe a brain-injured and vulnerable woman, who absolutely needed somebody to act on her behalf, is contemptible.
The legal firm concerned was Scrivenger Seabrook, Vernon House, 26 New Street, St Neots, Cambridgeshire, PE19 1XB
Things had really looked promising in 2009 when court proceedings began in earnest after Sareeta appointed a barrister specialising in incidents resulting in brain injuries. At a meeting with her legal advocates it was agreed that Sareeta would pursue her claim through the courts who would determine the level of any damages to be awarded to her.
Unfortunately, things took a downturn when Sareeta was informed that she would have to meet her own costs privately because Barclays Insurance stated it would only meet the costs of the defendants, using a legal mechanism known as Article 75. As she was uninsured, Sareeta was unable to call upon an insurance company to fight her side and meet her costs.
So, unless she won her claim, and was also awarded costs, Sareeta would have to meet her own legal expenses. Otherwise payments would be made out of her compensation or out of her own pocket.
When this stark reality slapped Marc Folgate in the face, he claimed that he would have to look after his company’s economics and effectively sat on the case. He never completed the instructions given by her very experienced and competent barrister. A judge stated to Sareeta that her solicitor had done no work since 1996.
Worse still, Sareeta says Folgate ordered her to see a “hypnotherapist” unchaperoned at a private residential address and refused to provide a CV for the “therapist” concerned. To a lay person, this might appear an extraordinary way for a solicitor to behave; to place an already vulnerable woman in an even more vulnerable situation. Due to her brain injury, that at times made it difficult for her to cope with proceedings, Sareeta appointed two litigation friends who also acted as lawful advocates to assist her in her dealings with lawyers. Her solicitor refused point blank to allow an advocate to accompany her in visiting the “therapist” and also his office. He did, however, insist that a “student” sit in at a meeting between himself and Sareeta, despite Sareeta’s objections.
Naturally, Sareeta attempted to instruct other solicitors, one even agreeing to pay the £16,000 disbursements for release of the case files from the inactive Folgate. However, the lien placed on the files was increased substantially to around £30,000, and Sareeta maintains that it was increased even further to around £50,000. It begs the question what does this particular solicitor have to hide from others in his profession? Would his inertia be construed as incompetence, negligence or something else?
Sareeta says that her inactive solicitor told her by phone that he would make sure no other solicitor would take her case.
It is extraordinary that someone concerned about the economy of his firm would turn down money offered by other lawyers to take over the case. It begs a further question, was money provided by other sources? The god of money moves in mysterious ways.
The levels of costs may have frightened off all other solicitors Sareeta has approached to represent her, but actual reasons are not forthcoming which increases the stress Sareeta endures. Although at least one set of lawyers said her case was “too dangerous” for them to act on her instructions.
We both suspect that this is due to her status within the Sikh community.
Also, it is well known that Islam condones paedophilia and it is likely that the sinister happenings surrounding Sareeta’s case stem from her involvement in assisting someone in exposing an alleged paedophile within Barclays at senior board level.
So far she has approached over one hundred lawyers and in desperation even asked Cherie Blair and the Archbishop of York for help, both of whom bluntly declined.
The last lawyers Sareeta asked to represent her, earlier this year, provided the familiar scenario of “an open and shut case,” but then declaring they could not represent her. However, these genuinely kind gentlemen suggested that her only recourse is to go directly to the Royal Courts of Justice.
£300,000 is the figure Sareeta’s barrister suggested her case was worth, based on his considerable and successful experience. This figure was arrived at before a second round of medical reports concerning the detrimental effects of the injury on Sareeta having a family of her own and also loss of earnings were taken into consideration. These would make any compensation considerably higher, possibly running into the millions.
As Barclays is an international corporation, it may be possible to persuade competent lawyers in America to act on Sareeta’s behalf. Sadly, some quarters of the British justice system appear to be becoming as worryingly corrupt as British financial services have seemingly become, but there are still good honest lawyers within it, fortunately. We just hope one has the courage to confront the dangers referred to, which make Sareeta’s case so sinister.
Fanish Robert Masih:
19-year Christian Boy Fanish Robert Masih, resident of village Jhethe Key, Distt Sialkot- Punjab Pakistan. He was arrested on 09th September, 2009 , accusers claimed that he had committed blasphemy. A day earlier a Muslim mob had gathered in front of the church in the village of Jaithikey, to teach the local Christian community a “lesson”. Extremists damaged the building before setting it on fire. They also pillaged two homes near the church.
The true cause of this event was a love affair between Fanish Robert Masih and Young Muslim girl. Fanish was accused of provoking the young woman and of throwing away a copy of the Qur‘an she had in her hands. In Pakistan “Muslims cannot stand the idea that a Muslim woman might fall in love with a Christian.”
Muslim mob tortured Raisat Masih (father of Fanish) as well other Christians of the Jaithikey, Fanish and his father was arrested ,they were kept in the police lock-up even the Muslims tried to kill Fanish in the Police station. On 12th September,2009 Fanish was found hang in the police lock-up.
Jail superintendent Farooq Lodhi said the 19-year-old hanged himself using the string that held up his pants. However it was visible in the photographs of Fanish Robert taken at the time of Morgue, shows the clear signs of torture and not the strangulation as the police are claiming was self –inflicted. This was the clear case of extra judicial murder.
Fanish Family left their home village and now they are safely relocated in some safe place in Pakistan by World vision in progress foundation with the help of International organization Walid Sheobat Foundation. Like Fanish there are several others case in which Muslims killed innocent Christians by using this law of Blasphemy as tool against them. As a ground Organization in Pakistan we believe, this law is a great threat to the Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan. The armed religious extremists are playing havoc in the society. A situation of religious intolerance has speared suffocation in our lives; the doors of dialogues are being closed. Religious fundamentalism has grown beyond proportions. Muslims clerics are demanding complete imposition of Islamic Sharia in Pakistan, making it applicable also to all the Religious minorities of Pakistan.
The Christians and other religious Minorities being roped in false cases under the blasphemy law, in the year 2009 and 2010 many cases were registered against Christians in North and South of Punjab and being murdered by zealots to win heavens for themselves. The Judgments and verdicts of the apexes Courts have proved that this law on Blasphemy is being ruthlessly abused for settling personal issues and of course for religious persecution. The law is proving to be a sword hanging on the heads of the Religious Minorities and moderate Muslims. As a Ground organization we strongly condemn these discriminatory laws , We request international Community to put pressure on Pakistan for the abolishment of this law which is being used as a tool against Minorities.
The Original Constitution of Pakistan did not discriminate between Muslims and Religious minorities in Pakistan, but the Amendments made by the Military ruler Zia -ul-Haq as awaken the Islamization and promote extremism in the society , the controversial Hudood Ordinance and Shariat Courts as given so much strengthen to all the radical Muslims .
Later now when Muhammad Nawaz Sharif took the charge of elected Prime Minister of Pakistan he enforced Shariat Bill in May 1991, and again promoted the Anti-Christian Elements in the society. The Amendment made by Zia ,and empowerment provided by the Sharifs Government created new war between the Religious Minorities in Pakistan , this whole system de-stabilized the peace and harmony amongst different Beliefs /Faiths many Christians , Ahmadis , Hindus, even moderate Muslims were effected by these radical Amendments .
Brutal killings of innocent people and the targeting and demolishing their places of worship are not new trend for the minorities in Pakistan .Religious leaders of Christian Churches strongly condemned attacks and demanded for the high level investigation or judicial inquiry and exemplary punishment to all the culprits responsible for this deliberate outrage yet very little has been done in this regard.
The Christian leaders favorable votes in Round Table Conferences in London from 1930-1933 and Boundary Commission made possible the creation of Pakistan. But the hate among different religious communities was created by the government of Pakistan. The Muslim policy makers forgot the positive role of Christians in formation of Pakistan. The touch ability experienced by Muslim of sub continent by Hindus was now diverted towards Christians from Muslims of Pakistan.
The attitude of hate in society was created in such a way that the Christians were unable to dine in public places owned by Muslims. The religion Christianity was taken as second class in Pakistan and Christians faced immense problems in education and employments. As the economic conditions of Muslims of Pakistan improved, they stated working on constitution to legislate such laws against Christians to make them second class citizens.
In such circumstances when the Christian nation in Pakistan who were the son of the soil, not immigrant like Muslims majority who in different periods of history invaded India from middle east and Central Asia and settled. Again, after independence of Pakistan migrated from different parts of India in Pakistan. But after independence these Muslim immigrants declared themselves the owner of this land crushing sons of soil. The Muslims majority very slowly started to make Christians the second class citizens in Pakistan.
Therefore as Christians of Pakistan we have to decide to struggle for the equal basic democratic rights for the Christians of Pakistan.