TIM BURTON VIDEO: Five Minutes to Midnight: Reform, Renounce or Repatriate

TIM BURTON VIDEO: Five Minutes to Midnight: Reform, Renounce or Repatriate



Part One

Welcome to Five Minutes to Midnight from Liberty GB. My name is Tim Burton, and I am here today to present the second in a series of videos highlighting some of the problems that we in the UK are experiencing with Islam.

The videos are based on the premise that our freedoms, particularly freedom of speech, and democracy itself, are under threat from a process of increasing Islamisation in this country. If Islam were, as Muslims often say it is, a religion of peace, then we would have very little to worry about. However, as we explained in our first video, the reality is very different.

In the first video, we explored the reasons why Islam is best described as a political ideology: firstly, because it doesn't follow the Golden Rule, which all religions must if they are to be considered as religions; and secondly, because 51 percent of the Islamic scriptures (that is to say, the Trilogy, including the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira) are devoted to commanding Muslims as to how they should treat the 'kuffar' (non-believers), rather than guiding Muslims on a path towards spirituality, goodness, beauty and truth.

Not only that, but 64 per cent of the Koran itself is similarly devoted to commanding Muslims as to how they should treat the kuffar (non-believers), and that is with a certain degree of hatred and enmity, ruthlessness and harshness.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the above is that this makes the Koran primarily a political instruction manual rather than a holy book, and another reason to describe Islam as a primarily political ideology rather than as a religious ideology.

For these reasons, we advanced an argument that Islam should be re-classified as a political ideology rather than a religion, so that we can more effectively deal with the threat that it poses to our predominantly Judaeo-Christian civilisation. This threat is primarily due to a radically different set of morals, values, ethics and worldview (which Muslims must necessarily hold in order to be considered as true Muslims) combined with a rapidly increasing Muslim population, currently predicted to double in this country every 10 to 15 years.

Like it or not, our Judaeo-Christian civilisation has provided us with a stable structure within which our freedoms and democracy can flourish. It may not be perfect (no man-made civilisational structure ever will be) but it arguably provides the greatest good for the greatest number in terms of almost every material indicator - health, longevity, child mortality, education, innovation, science, art and literature - and on those terms, there is no comparison. The quality of the civilisational structure dictated by the political ideology of Islam does not come anywhere near our Judaeo-Christian standard, and without reform, quite possibly never will.

Just recently, I happened to be watching a drama on Channel 4 television. It is an account of life in the Islamic State, allegedly based on real events, and is extremely illuminating. I highly recommend that you watch it if you haven't already seen it. It is set in 2015, and follows the lives of several young Muslims who leave behind their families in Britain and travel to Syria to fight for the Islamic State. The first episode on its own has been described by some as merely a slickly produced recruitment video for ISIS, but the subsequent episodes are somewhat more nuanced, if at the same time depicting extreme brutality, and at the end of the fourth episode one is left in no doubt as to the barbaric, totalitarian and genocidal nature of the Islamic State.

Although the brutality displayed in the drama is supposedly only carried out by so-called 'extremist' Muslims, there is no room for complacency. This is the political ideology of Islam at work, red in tooth and claw, and it continues to play an important part in the lives of so-called 'ordinary' Muslims. Although many Muslims in the West deny it, because they do not want non-Muslims to form an unfavourable view of Islam, the characters in the drama emphasise that the Islamic State was founded on pure Islamic principles, based on the Koran, Sharia, jihad and the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. On that basis, the Islamic State is demonstrably far more Islamic than most Muslims care to admit, and it becomes apparent that the distinction that many non-Muslims make between Islam and 'Islamism' is completely artificial.

The message of unspeakable barbarity by which the Islamic State conducts its business comes through very clearly, with graphic examples of torture, executions, rape, slavery, misogyny and casual violence that we would find unacceptable in any enlightened Western society today, but which pass without a second thought in an Islamic environment. As the events in 'The State' unfold, much is made of the concept of so-called 'radicalisation' which implicitly suggests that those individuals who travel to fight for the Islamic State are inspired by 'radical' Islamic ideals - ideals which are presented as being somehow different from 'mainstream' Islamic ideals. To treat this assumption as the basis for formulating domestic and foreign policy is an error of catastrophic magnitude, with dire consequences that will soon become apparent to us all if nothing changes in this respect.

The assumption held by many non-Muslims in the West is that there is a difference between Islam and 'Islamism', and this premise forms the entire basis of our counter-terror efforts here in the UK. However, it is a completely false premise, which is why the problems due to Islam appear so intractable. Instead of acknowledging that the political ideology of Islam is behind these problems, and that it is completely incompatible with our freedoms and democracy, those in authority continue to assert that everything is under control and that it only requires us to show a little love and understanding - and perhaps a few billion pounds to be spent towards the education of Muslims in the West to reinforce the so-called 'peaceful principles' of mainstream Islam.

This overlooks the fact that although mainstream Islam may well command Muslims to be peaceful towards other Muslims, the kuffar (non-believers) are to be looked on as always inferior and everywhere to be treated with harshness and contempt, and this is a matter of Islamic doctrine - specifically the doctrine of Al-Walaa Wal-Baraa. It is nothing to do with British foreign policy, nothing to do with American foreign policy, and nothing to do with Israeli foreign policy - Muslims are commanded by Allah to hate non-Muslims because of who we are, not because of what we do.

What is the most likely reason for the unfounded assertion that there is a fundamental difference between Islam and 'Islamism'? Those in authority here in the UK cannot be unaware that the presence of Islam in our democratic society is becoming an increasingly unmanageable problem. The most likely explanation is that they fear the likely cataclysmic reaction on the streets of our towns and cities that would ensue if Muslims en masse perceived that they were being 'unfairly' demonised or victimised.

To paraphrase P. G. Wodehouse, it is not overly difficult to distinguish between a ray of sunshine and a Muslim with a grievance. It would be fair to say that many if not most Muslims would be much less likely than the rest of us to sit down and write a letter to The Guardian, harrumphing and complaining that "something must be done". They would be much more likely to take to the streets in their tens of thousands, with all the public order and security implications that that would entail.

Lord Ahmed, the Labour peer, threatened as much when it was proposed in 2009 that Geert Wilders (leader of the PVV Freedom Party in the Netherlands) should visit the House of Lords to display the film Fitna for the benefit of their Lordships in the House. He threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims on to the streets of London in protest. The Government backed down. For this overtly treasonous and seditious behaviour, Lord Ahmed was allowed to escape without serious penalty, thus reinforcing the idea in the minds of many Muslims that they can get away with pretty much whatever they want. This is not a recipe for long-term community cohesion. Nobody should be above the law, but that is exactly what those in authority are encouraging and perpetuating - a privileged class of people above the law who manifestly do not deserve that privilege.

I would like to close Part One of this episode of Five Minutes to Midnight with a quotation from Winston Churchill, the most famous parliamentarian of the 20th Century: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

We are rapidly approaching the point where we in the UK are going to have to make a decision as to whether we defend our Judaeo-Christian heritage and civilisation, or whether we submit to the steamroller of the political ideology of Islam which will crush all the freedoms that our forefathers handed down to us at enormous expense in terms of blood and treasure. Much as we non-Muslims would like all of us - Muslims included - to co-exist in peace and harmony, as equals in perpetuity, the political ideology of Islam in its current incarnation, without reformation, simply will not allow it. It is - literally - Five Minutes to Midnight.

Part Two

Welcome back to Part Two of Five Minutes to Midnight. In this segment I would like to discuss an article written by the Danish commentator Jeppe Juhl, which was published on the Gates of Vienna blog in 2016. This article, which was referred to in an email, made an appearance during a recent trial at Southwark Crown Court in March 2017. It was presented as undeniable evidence that the defendant was indeed the 'racist', 'bigoted', 'Islamophobic' and 'far-right extremist' that the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that he was.

The article was entitled "Reform, Renounce or Repatriate" - and it was a serious proposal designed to focus minds on the intractable problems of Islam in Denmark. I quoted it (in my email to the plaintiff's organisation) because we have very similar problems here in the UK to those that they have in Denmark. My quoting of that article in my email was interpreted as "grossly offensive" by the judge in his sentencing remarks after the trial. Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the judge hadn't even read the article before making those remarks. The article should not be in the remotest sense "grossly offensive." to any reasonable person.

The thrust of the article was that in order to establish and maintain long-term community cohesion, Muslims themselves should take positive steps to reform their ideology. It is simply not good enough any more for Muslims to hide behind the veneer of religion in order to avoid having to do anything about an ideology which is unacceptable in its current form for a modern 21st-century Western democracy. At the very least we non-Muslims have a right to expect Muslims to cast aside those bits of their ideology which call for the death and subjugation of non-Muslims if they aspire to live in peace and harmony with us as equals in perpetuity.

The problem with this lofty notion, of course, is that reform has been tried before. The St Petersburg Declaration of 2007, for example, which was signed by many prominent Muslims and which called for the expunging of the 109 violent verses in the Koran calling for death to the kuffar (non-believers) was almost completely ignored by Muslim communities worldwide. For if Muslims consider the Koran to be the perfect word of Allah, then how can you improve on perfection? The answer is of course, that you can't.

The next logical step, according to Jeppe Juhl, would be for Muslims who genuinely wanted to live in peace and harmony with their non-Muslim neighbours, as equals in perpetuity, to renounce Islam altogether. It is, after all, primarily a political ideology rather than a religion. As we have explained before, it does not follow the Golden Rule and has a so-called holy book which is in reality first and foremost a political instruction manual. Renouncing Islam on a wide scale would be a welcome demonstration of intellectual honesty and should be encouraged, as it would enable Muslims to free themselves from a totalitarian seventh-century belief system based on divinely sanctioned lies and deceit.

Muslims have renounced Islam in the past, for this and various other reasons, and continue to do so today, although the numbers to date are too insignificant to make a difference. Part of the reason for this apparent reluctance is the unrelenting groupthink and peer pressure among Muslims, not to mention the death sentence for apostasy, which as Sheikh Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood explained, ensures that Muslims are kept within the fold of Islam through fear and intimidation.

Very well - if Muslims cannot reform their ideology, and they cannot bring themselves to renounce it, then why should we in the West continue to put up with the ever-growing problems that the political ideology of Islam brings with it? Jihad terror on our streets, as evidenced by the attacks in Manchester, London and in so many other places; the abuse of tens of thousands of our vulnerable young children by predominantly Islamic grooming gangs; tens of thousands of cases of female genital mutilation; the unwillingness of far too many Muslims to integrate within our societies; the disproportionate presence of Muslims on welfare; the disproportionate presence of Muslims in our prisons; the widespread ghettos and no-go areas where Sharia law has effectively replaced British law; and the rampant third-world manipulation of our electoral system.

Richard Mawrey QC memorably said in 2005 during a case involving Muslim electoral fraud in Birmingham that the vote-rigging involved would disgrace a banana republic; and more recently, Lutfur Rahman, former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, was exposed as the prime mover behind another egregious example of widespread Muslim electoral fraud.

Why should we in the West continue to put up with conditions which have reduced a once free and tolerant society to one that is infinitely less pleasant, less secure, less free, and more intimidating for a great many non-Muslims? Repatriation in one form or another - perhaps with financial assistance - should certainly be on the table as an option, even if most people would consider it to be a last resort in the current political climate. Yet even to refer to such a recommendation is apparently considered "grossly offensive" in the eyes of the law. Well, as we at Liberty GB might say, let Muslims take offence as much as they like - it's not for nothing that Islam has been referred to as "The Religion of the Perpetually Offended" -, but that will never stop lovers of freedom from speaking the truth. Who do you think will win in the end - Islam or the truth?

Back in 2009, the then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, named 16 "undesirable individuals" who were to be banned from entering the United Kingdom over their alleged threat to public order. These included not only convicted murderers and advocates of violence, but also the American radio talk host, Michael Savage. Jacqui Smith defended the banning of these individuals by declaring: "If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country."

Well, what is the difference between someone like me saying: "Reform or Renounce your belief system, or we will consider Repatriation" and the Home Secretary saying: "If you can't live according to our values, you should be excluded from our country"? Clearly, what I was saying was that if people have reformed and accepted our values then they can stay; it is only if they do not accept our values that they should leave. Wasn't Jacqui Smith saying exactly the same thing in 2009? So why wasn't she arrested, charged and prosecuted?

Interestingly, the government's official guidance on becoming a UK citizen (Life in the United Kingdom: A Guide for New Residents) states: "Applying to become a permanent resident or citizen of the UK is an important decision and commitment. You will be agreeing to accept the responsibilities which go with permanent residence and to respect the laws, values and traditions of the UK."

I would like to finish up by saying, as always - it really doesn't have to continue to be this way. Liberty GB would introduce, as a matter of the utmost priority, policies that would allow us to comprehensively discard the insidiously paralysing concept of political correctness which has now infected every level throughout our society. This in turn would allow decisive and effective action to be taken to stop the Islamisation of our country. Moreover, if our existing crop of politicians can't bring themselves to take the appropriate actions, then maybe we are well overdue for the introduction of a refreshingly different political party with refreshingly different political principles and policies to show them the way.

It must be emphasised that we at Liberty GB categorically do not condone violence towards the Muslim community or towards individual Muslims. We would prefer that all of the problems described above, no matter how serious, be resolved through the ballot box if our political elites do not come to their senses. However, the rapidly increasing Muslim demographics in this country indicate that we are running out of time. Things simply cannot continue the way that they have continued over the past few decades, with the increasing frequency of jihad terror on our streets, the organised abuse of our young and vulnerable children, and the systematic loss of our freedoms. These problems are due solely to the appeasement of a particularly vocal minority who have a propensity to threaten violence towards the rest of us if they don't immediately have every request granted, no matter how unreasonable. Ordinary men and women in this country can only be expected to tolerate so much. It is - literally - Five Minutes to Midnight.

Please join us and help us to stop the Islamisation of the UK. Your support can make an enormous and positive difference to the future of this country, to the future of our children and grandchildren, and to generations of children yet unborn. Sign up to Liberty GB today, or make a contribution to our cause via the big red button on our website. You can find us at www.libertygb.org.uk.

This has been Tim Burton on behalf of Liberty GB, and I would like to thank you for watching this presentation.