Sadiq Khan is not the sort of person any capital city in any free nation should have as a Mayor. It’s not just that he’s Muslim, and therefore could be seen by some as having questionable allegiances that should shift Londoners from in front of their TV’s, it’s the content of his character.
Khan is a bad man, with bad views, bad associates and who has been put forward to the position of mayor by a bad political party. His view that moderate Muslims are ‘uncle Toms’ does nothing to change the perception of many that Islam is a threat. Khan’s long term, and well documented, associations with extremist mosques and extremist Imams, also marks him down as someone who should not be given the considerable level of power that being Mayor of London will bring. In the legal field he has gone out and defended and supported some of the worst of the worst when it comes to Islamic traitors, criminals and seditionaries.
Khan has attended conferences run by Islamic extremists, not once but many times. He has also appeared on a platform of an event organised by a Holocaust-denying Islamic group called Al-Aqsa. He has blamed the 7/7 attacks on London, not on Muslim extremists fired up by the violence in the Koran, but on British foreign policy, especially support for Israel. He has, when legal affairs director of the Muslim Council of Britain, defended the extremist preacher Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a man who believes that wife beating is acceptable, and that it is desirable to murder gay people.
This person should not be running any entity or organisation at all where decisions of security for Londoners need to be taken. Sadiq Khan has sided with the terrorists and Islamists so often that it is correct and in no way ‘Islamophobic’ to question whether these long term and ongoing associations with questionable groups, causes and people, are a problem for London.
Khan has an advantage in this election. In some of the more Islamised areas of London such as Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Newham and others, the fraudulent Islamic postal votes have already been cast and the Muslim community leaders have instructed their charges who to vote for. This is a serious problem and a distortion of the democratic and electoral process. Someone who is voting for a candidate because their Imam told them they’d go to hell or not be a proper Muslim if they didn’t, is not exercising a free choice at the ballot box.
This dishonest and sometimes criminal advantage that Khan has can be to a large extent neutralised. However it can only be neutralised by opponents of what Khan stands for getting off of their arses and voting. It also means that those who vote may need to vote counter to what they would normally do. It means voting for Zac Goldsmith, even if you dislike the man’s politics, personality or social class. Although people may hold their nose and vote for Goldsmith it’s much better than staying at home and letting the whipped and fraudulent mosque vote propel Khan and his even more dodgy friends into City Hall.
If you are a traditional Londoner, black white or whatever, then you owe it to your children to vote against Khan. If you are a Londoner whose family have lived in the metropolis for generations then you owe it to the memory of those who died defending this city to vote against Khan. A vote for Khan is a vote to throw under the Islamic bus all the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of all those Londoners who stood firm whilst fire and death rained down from the sky.
If you stay home tomorrow then it will not just be a win for the ‘Apathy Party’, but will be a win for the Islam Party and all the horrors, discrimination and cultural vandalism that such a party will bring.
Link
Excellent article from Toby Young of the Spectator outlining just how dodgy Sadiq Khan really is
