TWO men who allegedly tried to hijack a plane in China were beaten to death by passengers and crew.
The Global Times newspaper reported that two of the suspects died in hospital from injuries they suffered during the ensuing fight with passengers and crew on board.
The men were part of a six-strong gang involved in the foiled hijack of a Tianjin Airlines flight bound for the regional capital of Urumqi last Friday.
Just minutes after the flight took off from Hetian, southwest Xinjiang, the men, all aged between 20 and 36, stood up and announced their plans to terrified passengers.
The gang reportedly broke a pair of aluminium crutches and used them to attack passengers while attempting to break into the cockpit, Hou Hanmin, a regional government spokeswoman said.
They were tackled by police and passengers who tied them up with belts before the plane, carrying 101 people, returned to the airport safely just 22 minutes later.
Hanmin added that police were still testing materials they had been carrying, thought to be explosives.
The men were reported to be Uighurs, the local Muslim ethnic minority. There have been clashes between authorities and Uighurs resentful of government controls over their religion and culture.
Dilxat Raxit, spokesman for the German-based World Uyghur Congress which campaigns for Uighurs’ rights, said that it wasn’t a hijacking attempt, rather an in-flight brawl over a seat dispute.
“We warn China not to use this incident as another excuse for crackdown,” he said in an emailed statement.
Two more suspects are reportedly being treated in hospital after mutilating themselves.
Archive for islam
TWO men who allegedly tried to hijack a plane in China were beaten to death by passengers and crew.
Ban on burqas first introduced by Belgium’s government last year
Move follows riot sparked by arrest of a woman for wearing the full face covering
Belgian right-wingers have offered to pay a bounty to anyone who reports a veiled woman to police.
The Vlaams Belang political party made the 250 euros (£200) offer today in the wake of face veil riots in Brussels.
Filip Dewinter, a senior figure within the right-wing party, told Reuters the riots had made police apprehensive about enforcing the burqa ban.
He claimed that the payment should put pressure on authorities to further enforce it.
Mr Dewinter said: ‘It’s a textile prison for the women who have to live under it.’
The anti-immigration nationalist party’s stunt follows protesters hurling bins and metal barriers at a Brussels police station last week.
The riot broke out after a Muslim woman was arrested for refusing to remove her face veil, or niqab.
A Brussels police spokesman said he was unaware of the money being offered.
But added that any officer who sees a woman wearing a niqab would issue a penalty.
He said: ‘When someone is breaking the law we always have to intervene, demonstrations or no, the niqab is prohibited.’
Women in Belgium risk a maximum fine of 150 euros (£120) if they wear a full face veil in public.
Mr Dewinter said he was not aware how many people had already responded to the offer of a bounty.
A spokeswoman for Belgium’s federal police said the legality of the bounty was a question for the judiciary, but if someone felt insulted by it they could file a complaint with the police.
Police in Belgium are investigating last week’s riots and arrested 13 members of the Islamist group Sharia4Belgium on Sunday, the police spokesman said.
Sharia4Belgium was not immediately available for comment.
Belgium and France both banned the wearing of full veils in public last year.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who was French president when the ban was brought in, had commented that the outfits oppress women were ‘not welcome’ in France.
Canada announced in December that new citizens had to remove any face coverings, including the niqab and burqa, when they take the oath of citizenship.
Social workers hid fact they knew teenage mother was at risk from sex grooming gangs SIX YEARS before she was brutally murderedPosted in British Government, Enemy's of Britain, immigrants, islam UK, Murders, Nonce cases, police and the legal system, scum with tags bnp, bolton casuals, casuals united blog, charlene downes murder, english defence league, eu, halal, heroin, immigrants, INFIDEL, islam, islamic terrorists, Islamist militants, muslim rape gangs, Rotherham, Tower Hamlets on June 7, 2012 by britishloyalist
Laura Wilson, 17, from Rotherham had been groomed for sex by a string of British Pakistani men
She was stabbed and thrown into a canal to die for informing her abusers’ families of their sexual relationships
Council published review of her case but redacted key passages which reveal they knew she was at particular risk from Asian men
Social workers knew for six years that a teenage mother, murdered for bringing shame on the families of two Pakistani men who had used her for sex, was at clear risk from predatory Asian gangs.
Laura Wilson, 17, from Rotherham had been groomed by a string of British Pakistanis before she was stabbed and thrown into a canal to die for informing her abusers’ families of the sexual relationships.
Her killer Ashtiaq Asghar, who was 18 at the time, was given a life sentence and will serve a minimum of 17-and-a-half years after he pleaded guilty to murdering Laura in October 2010.
But it has now emerged that Rotherham County Council’s social services were well aware she was at risk and had received information about certain adults suspected of targeting her from the age of 11.
Last week the council’s Safeguarding Children Board published a serious case review but key passages which reveal they knew she was at particular risk from ‘Asian men’ had been blocked out with black lines.
The council went to court in an attempt to tried to suppress the hidden information after a uncensored copy of the report was leaked to the Times newspaper but they have now abandoned legal action.
The uncensored report confirms that Laura, identified as Child S, had dealings with 15 agencies and identified ‘numerous missed opportunities’ to protect her.
It states that she eventually became ‘almost invisible’ to care professionals.
WHAT THEY TRIED TO HIDE…
That Laura had been referred to a child exploitation project just three months after her 11th birthday.
That at one point she had been ‘taken into a car with men who encouraged her to drink alcohol’.
That when Laura was 13, she and a friend ‘were given alcohol by men at a local takeaway and were asked what they were going to give them in return’ and that her mother had immediately notified the police
That her mother ‘was shocked when it looked as though Child S was involved with older men ‘ and that ‘she had tried to get the police and social care to do something about it.’
Another censored passage which read: ‘At the centre of the Child S case is the issue of Child S’s potential involvement in sexual exploitation.
Details hidden included the knowledge that at the age of 13 Laura and a friend had been given alcohol by men at a takeaway who then asked what she would give them in return.
She had also been referred to a child sexual exploitation project just three months after her 11th birthday.
Another censored passage reveals that Laura had been ‘mentioned’ during a 2009 police inquiry that eventually led to the conviction of five Pakistani men for sex offences against three underage girls.
While the published report mentioned the fact that a friend, who Laura knew when she was 10, was ‘thought to have become involved in sexual exploitation’, it concealed the succeeding passage which read: ‘with particular reference to Asian men’.
Laura was murdered in October 2010. She was repeatedly knifed by 18-year-old Ashtiaq Asghar before pushed her into a South Yorkshire Canal, where he used the point of the knife to force her head below the surface as she fought to stay alive.
Asghar was furious after the young mother revealed details of their sexual relationship to his Muslim family and was on ‘a mission to kill’.
He exchanged a series of texts with married friend and mentor Ishaq Hussain, 22, who had also had an affair with Laura, and who the judge described as a man who regarded white girls as ‘sexual targets, not human beings’.
In one message, sent a day before he killed Miss Wilson, Asghar wrote: ‘I’m gonna send that kuffar (non-Muslim) bitch straight to Hell.’
In another he wrote: ‘I need to do a mission.’ He talked of buying a pistol and ‘making some beans on toast’, a reference to spilling blood used in Four Lions, a satirical film about suicide bombers.
Asghar is serving life in prison after he pleaded guilty to murder and was jailed for life. Mr Hussain was acquitted of murder by joint enterprise after a retrial.
Sentencing Asghar, Lord Justice Davis told him: ‘I take the view you came under the influence of Mr Hussain who is something of a mentor to you.
‘He seems to have regarded girls, white girls, simply as sexual targets. He does not treat them as human beings at all. You got into that mindset yourself.
‘You no doubt once had feelings for Laura but treated her with contempt in the latter stages.’
In 2007, when Laura was 13, she and her family appeared on The Jeremy Kyle Show. During the programme – about out-of-control children – her sister warned her that ‘your attitude is going to get you in big danger’.
Workers at a child sexual exploitation project later sent a report to social services, but no action was taken to remove her from what became a continuing spiral of sexual abuse.
By the time she was 16, she had embarked on an affair with Mr Hussain, who was then 20 and already married.
She gave birth to a daughter in June last year, but Mr Hussain refused to accept that the child was his.
Four months later, and just days before she was murdered on October 12, she ‘shamed’ Asghar and Mr Hussain by informing their families of her relationship with both men.
She told Asghar’s mother she loved her son and ‘wanted to have babies’ by him. But Mrs Asghar was furious and attempted to hit Miss Wilson with a shoe, branding her ‘a dirty white bitch’ who should ‘keep your legs closed’, the trial was told.
Alan Hazell, Chair of the Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children Board, said: ‘We refute in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that information was redacted from the published report for any reason other than to protect the interests of Laura’s daughter, immediate family and other third parties.’
In a statement following the publication of the review Mr Hazell denied that more could have been done to save Laura.
He said: ‘This is a wide ranging study which shows a very complex situation surrounding Child S and her child which made it difficult for agencies to engage with her.
‘There is no suggestion that anyone could have saved Child S from what ultimately happened to her but clearly her care could have been improved.
There were chances for those agencies to be more proactive in how they dealt with the case and all agencies involved accept that and apologise that the standards of service were not as high as they should have been.
‘It is vital that agencies learn from what happened here and there is clearly a commitment in Rotherham to make that happen. As the report comments, there are already many initiatives in place to ensure that services are now improved.’
Last month following the trial of nine men, mainly of Pakistani origin, who were found guilty of raping and abusing up to 47 girls – some as young as 13 – after plying them with drink and drugs Tory cabinet minister Baroness Warsi hit out at the ‘small minority’ of Pakistani men who see white girls as ‘fair game’ for sexual abuse.
She told London’s Evening Standard newspaper: ‘There is a small minority of Pakistani men who believe that white girls are fair game.
‘And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first.
‘This small minority who see women as second class citizens, and white women probably as third class citizens, are to be spoken out against.’
Over two decades after Satanic Verses sparked a never-ending controversy and provoked a fatwa for his head, author Salman Rushdie has only one thing to say to his detractors: ‘I did not write it for the mullahs.’
The India-born controversial writer, who has lived for years under the shadow of his 1988 book, now liberally jokes about the issue.
Speaking at the Hay Festival of Literature and the Art in London, the 64-year-old Rushdie said books are intended for people who like them. Joking about the fatwa during an interaction, he said he did not write it for the mullahs.
‘I didn’t think they were my target audience. The only thing worse than a bad review from the Ayatollah Khomeini would be a good review from the Ayatollah Khomeini,’ he remarked.
The author, who is best known for his Booker-winning marvel Midnight’s Children, said a book’s popularity did not depend on people’s dislike for it or the controversy it creates.
‘The reason why books endure is because there are enough people who like them. It’s the only reason why books last. It’s the people who love books that make them last, not the people who attack them,’ he said.
Satanic Verses sparked widespread outrage among Muslims when it came out in 1988 and even led to Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, issuing a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death in 1989.
Later in the well-attended interaction, he said: ‘I don’t read my books. Once I’ve finished the many years it usually takes me to write them, I can’t bear to read them, because I’ve spent too long with them already. I’m not advertising them very well, am I?’
Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.
In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.
It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work.
A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.
The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.
The Government’s refusal to say that Christians have a right to display the symbol of their faith at work emerged after its plans to legalise same-sex marriages were attacked by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain.
A poll commissioned by The Sunday Telegraph shows that the country is split on the issue.
Overall, 45 per cent of voters support moves to allow gay marriage, with 36 per cent against, while 19 per cent say they do not know.
However, the Prime Minister is out of step with his own party.
Exactly half of Conservative voters oppose same-sex marriage in principle and only 35 per cent back it.
There is no public appetite to change the law urgently, with more than three quarters of people polled saying it was wrong to fast-track the plan before 2015 and only 14 per cent saying it was right.
The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols.
They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion.
The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9.
Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.
They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.
Last year it emerged that Mrs Eweida, a British Airways worker, and Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, had taken their fight to the European Court in Strasbourg after both faced disciplinary action for wearing a cross at work.
Mrs Eweida’s case dates from 2006 when she was suspended for refusing to take off the cross which her employers claimed breached BA’s uniform code.
The 61 year-old, from Twickenham, is a Coptic Christian who argued that BA allowed members of other faiths to wear religious garments and symbols.
BA later changed its uniform policy but Mrs Eweida lost her challenge against an earlier employment tribunal decision at the Court of Appeal and in May 2010 was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court.
Mrs Chaplin, 56, from Exeter, was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after she refused to hide the cross she wore on a necklace chain, ending 31 years of nursing.
The Government claims the two women’s application to the Strasbourg court is “manifestly ill-founded”.
Its response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”
The response, prepared by the Foreign Office, adds: “In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”
The Government has also set out its intention to oppose cases brought by two other Christians, including a former registrar who objected to conducting civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples.
Lillian Ladele, who worked as a registrar for Islington council in north London for 17 years, said she was forced to resign in 2007 after being disciplined, and claimed she had been harassed over her beliefs.
Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.
Christian groups described the Government’s stance as “extraordinary”.
Lord Carey said: “The reasoning is based on a wholly inappropriate judgment of matters of theology and worship about which they can claim no expertise.
“The irony is that when governments and courts dictate to Christians that the cross is a matter of insignificance, it becomes an even more important symbol and expression of our faith.”
The Strasbourg cases brought by Mrs Chaplin and Mr McFarlane are supported by the Christian Legal Centre which has instructed Paul Diamond, a leading human rights barrister.
Judges in Strasbourg will next decide whether all four cases will progress to full hearings.
If they proceed, the cases will test how religious rights are balanced against equality laws designed to prohibit discrimination.
Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “It is extraordinary that a Conservative government should argue that the wearing of a is not a generally recognised practice of the Christian faith.
“In recent months the courts have refused to recognise the wearing of a cross, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and Sundays as a day of worship as ‘core’ expressions of the Christian faith.
“What next? Will our courts overrule the Ten Commandments?”
Growing anger among Christians will be highlighted today by Delia Smith, the television chef and practising Roman Catholic, who will issue a Lent appeal on behalf the Church’s charity, Cafod, accusing “militant neo-atheists and devout secularists” of “busting a gut to drive us off the radar and try to convince us that we hardly exist”.
ICM Research interviewed an online sample of 2,001 adults between March 7 and March 9. Interviews were conducted across the country and results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.
Police said they were negotiating with the protesters staging the “sit down” protest outside the Buxton Road police station.
It comes after a young Sikh woman, who has not been identified, was reportedly beaten and sexually assaulted in the Bedfordshire town by a “Muslim man”.
On Wednesday night, Bedfordshire Police confirmed they were “in talks” with the protesters to try and “resolve the situation” amid fears of rising tensions.
Reports suggested that more than 300 locals were involved in the protest because of “lack of action” from police over Monday’s attack.
There were reports that members of the English Defence League were also among the crowd.
Inmates at HMP Whitemoor told researchers commissioned by the Ministry of Justice that they changed their faith for protection or because they were bullied into it.
Prison guards said they had a policy of “appeasement” towards the powerful and growing Islamic population, particularly convicted terrorists who were feared to be recruiting future extremists.
Non-believers avoided confrontation with any Muslim in case it led to retribution from the wider group, and said they even avoided cooking pork or bacon in communal kitchens or undressing in the showers in case it caused offence.
The report, written by researchers at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, said: “Conflict and tension existed between and within faith groups.
“There were some intimidating ‘heavy players’ among the Muslim population, who appeared to be orchestrating prison power dynamics rather than propagating or following the faith. Many physically powerful prisoners ‘re-established their outside identities’ as leaders in the prison and used their (newly acquired) faith status as a tool for establishing influence.
Non-Muslim prisoners described wearing underpants in the showers on some spurs (out of ‘respect’ and fear) and some Muslim prisoners described a form of intimidation exerted (‘they probably do feel shamed’) relating to cooking (especially frying bacon) in the kitchens.”
HMP Whitemoor is situated in a “remote Fenland town” far from most inmates’ families, and is home to 440 Category A and B prisoners, almost all of whom are serving more than 10 years behind bars and seven of home are convicted terrorists.
Opened in 1991, three years later it was the scene of an escape by six prisoners including some IRA members.
Following concerns over Islamic radicalisation in a 2008 report by inspectors, researchers visited Whitemoor between 2009 and 2010 to interview staff and inmates.
They found that more than a third (35 to 39 per cent) of prisoners are now Muslims, compared with 11 per cent across all jails.
Many of those they spoke to had converted while inside but they had mixed motivations for doing so, and not all had done so voluntarily.
Reasons included “seeking care and protection”, “gang membership” and “coercion” as well as “rebellion” since Islam was seen as the “underdog”.
Prisoners told the researchers that becoming Muslim was a “cover” for power and influence.
Loners including sex offenders gained safety from joining a large and dominant group, as fellow members would defend them.
Non-Muslims and prison officers claimed that it was an “organised gang” and a “protection racket” rather than a religion, which “glorified terrorist behaviour and exploited the fear related to it”.
Others said they had felt under pressure to convert, with people leaving Islamic literature in their cells and telling them to “read this”, or promising they would be safe from physical assault if they changed faith.
“The threat of assaults motivated by religious fanaticism or extremist ideology added weight to the atmosphere at Whitemoor.”
Guards said there were “proper Al-Qaeda” members in the jail, who were regarded with “awe” by younger inmates, but they avoided confrontation and had “runners” to do their bidding.
Some prisoners described the place as a “recruiting drive for the Taliban” and fertile ground for hatred and a new generation of extremists.
One inmate said he was targeted because he wore a Remembrance Day poppy and his brother served in the Army, with people shouting “your wife’s burning in hell because she’s not a Muslim” at him.
But it was also claimed that non-Muslims felt “envy” at the preferential treatment, including better food, given to Muslims.
The report concluded: “The new population mix, including younger, more black and minority ethnic and mixed race, and high numbers of Muslim prisoners, was disrupting established hierarchies in the prison. Social relations among prisoners had become complex and less visible. Too much power flowed among some groups of prisoners, with some real risks of serious violence. There were high levels of fear in the prison. In particular, there were tensions and fears relating to ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalisation’.
“More prominent, in practice, were pressures (and temptations) felt by some prisoners to convert to Islam. Conditions in the prison made participation in Islamic practices the most ‘available’ option for those looking for belonging, meaning, ‘brotherhood’, trust and friendship.”