UN, UK Treating Persecuted Christians as "Enemies"

by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute

"You have this absurd situation where the scheme is set up to help Syrian refugees and the people most in need, Christians who have been 'genocided,' they can't even get into the U.N. camps to get the food. If you enter and say I am a Christian or convert, the Muslim U.N. guards will block you [from] getting in... and even threaten you..." — Paul Diamond, British Human Rights Lawyer, CBN News, December 4, 2019.

Lord George Carey is suing the UK Home Office for allegedly being "institutionally biased" against Christian refugees and therefore complicit in what he calls "the steady crucifixion of Middle East Christians."

When it comes to offering asylum, the UK "appears to discriminate in favour of Muslims" instead of Christians. Statistics seemed to confirm this allegation: "out of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian...." — Barnabas Fund, November 2, 2017.

A number of other Christian orderlies were also denied visas, including another nun with a PhD in biblical theology from Oxford; another nun denied for not having a personal bank account; and a Catholic priest denied for not being married.

Christian "infidels" need not apply, but radical Muslims are welcomed with open arms.

When three Christian archbishops from Syria were invited in 2016 to attend the consecration of the UK's first Syriac Orthodox Cathedral (an event attended by Prince Charles), Britain's Home Office not only denied entry to them, but also mockingly told them there was "no room at the inn." Pictured: St Thomas, Britain's first Syriac Orthodox Cathedral. (Image source: John Salmon/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 2.0)

Church of England Decries Home Office for Denying Asylum Over ‘Violence’ in Christianity

The Religion of Peace - or, the Prince of Peace?

A Christian speaker holds a copy of the Bible at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, London

© REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

The UK Home Office has refused asylum to an Iranian convert, saying that Christianity is not as ‘peaceful’ as he claims. It even cited Bible verses to support its position. Now the Church of England is stepping in.

The letter from the Home Office now making the rounds on social media uses out of context Bible verses from books like Revelations to disprove the Iranian national's claim in his 2016 asylum request that he abandoned Islam and converted based on the peaceful nature of Christianity.

The letter describes the Bible as being “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence,” and therefore “inconsistent” with the asylum-seeker’s claim that Christianity is peaceful “as opposed to Islam.”

Nathan Stevens, the asylum-seeker’s caseworker, tweeted an image of the rejection letter, stating he was “genuinely shocked” to read such “unbelievably offensive diatribe.”

He is not the only one who found the letter distasteful. The Church of England has even gotten involved, stating its “extreme concern” over the “profound misunderstanding” of biblical texts.

To use extracts from the Book of Revelation to argue that Christianity is a violent religion is like arguing that a government report on the impact of climate change is advocating drought and flooding.

The Church also said that the religious literacy of Home Office staff needs to be improved considering how critical religion is to the asylum process.

The Home Office has responded to the widespread outcry, promising to investigate while noting the letter “is not in accordance with our policy approach to claims based on religious persecution.”

So, can Home Office provide examples of Christian violence from the recent past? I can provide examples of hundreds of Muslim acts of violence, extreme violence, just in the past month. Home Office should also know that converting from Islam to Christianity, or any other religion, leaves you condemned to death by Mohammed, in the Quran. And such conversions have resulted in the murder of ex-Muslims quite recently. I've never heard of the murder of a Christian who converted to Islam.

Even though Sajid Javid is technically a Muslim, I have great respect for him, and I don't believe this is his doing. I hope I don't have to adjust my feelings for the Home Secretary.

Below is an extraordinary testimony from a former Imam who converted to Christ based entirely on the Quran. His reasoning is impeccable. The reaction of his family is hardly believable and begins a little past 8 minutes in. It's an amazing video, please watch.

Iraqi Christian Archbishops Barred from Entering Britain for Ceremony

Did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed?

Is someone flexing his power?

Is someone anti-Christian? 

    Mor Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf © Safin Hamed / AFP

Two Iraqi archbishops were denied entry to Britain for an important Syriac Orthodox Christian ceremony because they could not prove they had sufficient funds to support themselves while in the country.

The Home Office barred the two clergymen from the consecration of the Cathedral of St. Thomas in Acton, west London, the first Syriac Orthodox Church in the city, fearing the men would overstay their permits and claim asylum.

And, after-all, we don't want their kind in our country, right? Another Christian church in London? Good grief, aren't there enough? 

Mor Timothy Mosa Alshamany, archbishop of Mosul, and his north of Mosul counterpart, the archbishop of St. Matthew’s, Mor Timothy Mosa Alshamany, were said to have been left “very upset.”

“Why did this happen?” asked Syriac Orthodox Church UK archbishop, Mor Athanasius Toma Dawod.

“They have a role in the church. I invited them to share with us the consecration of the cathedral. Our people are still there in the Middle East and I wanted them to share it with me.”

According to Archbishop Dawod, the clerics were told:“First, you might go and not come back; you might apply for asylum. Second, you don’t have enough money to spend there.”

How much money does an Archbishop need to be a guest in England? These are Archbishops of Mosul which is at this moment being reclaimed from ISIS. No Archbishop could abandon his church just when his people need him the most. Was someone looking for an envelope under the table, perhaps?

He added that the decision was “ridiculous” as the men had visas for the United States and Europe’s Schengen area, as well as enough money to travel.

“Why did the British refuse?” Archbishop Dawod asked. “They give visas to people who don’t deserve them.”

A third archbishop, Mor Selwanos Boutros Alnemeh, of Homs and Hama in Syria, was also said to have tried to apply for a visa, only to be told by the British embassy in Lebanon that he was unlikely to succeed given his Syrian nationality.

Prince Charles, who attended the ceremony in late November, said it had been “deeply encouraging” as Christians went through “appalling suffering” in Iraq and Syria.

“All visa applications are considered on individual merits and applicants must provide evidence to show they meet the requirements of the immigration rules,” a Home Office spokesman said.

Over 60 percent of Iraqi visa applications and just under 50 percent of those by Syrians were rejected over the last year. The figure was up from 36 and 32 percent respectively in 2010.

I wonder how many Muslim clerics were allowed in during the past year. It's great that Britain is keeping terrorists from entering the country, but Christian Archbishops are not terrorists, or doesn't Home Office know that?

Iraqi Christian Deacon Forced to Fight Deportation as Thousands Join March for Refugees

© Kevin Coombs / Reuters

An Iraqi Christian who fled Islamic State executioners in Mosul says he faces ‘slow-motion genocide’ if deported from Britain. He spoke to RT as thousands prepare to march in central London, demanding Prime Minister Theresa May do more for refugees.

Sarmad Ozan, 25, who was a deacon at his church in Mosul before Islamic State seized the city in summer 2014, is appealing a Home Office decision to deny him asylum.

He was rejected despite evidence of the widespread persecution of Iraq’s Syriac Orthodox Christians and a bloody sectarian war.

“I’m still appealing because it’s impossible to go back to a place with nothing. Our house is taken by ISIS. Everything taken by ISIS. Even our neighbors are now supporting ISIS,” Sarmad told RT.

“It’s like someone going back to die. That means if they want to send me back, they want to kill me.”

Thousands are expected to march to Parliament Square on Saturday, September 17, to demand the British government do more in response to the global refugee crisis.

Vulnerable asylum seekers like Sarmad instead often face a culture of disbelief and incomprehension when processed by the Home Office.

“They call it a slow-motion genocide for the Christians inside Iraq,” Sarmad explains, recounting the rise of sectarian killings that followed Britain and America’s disastrous 2003 invasion.

“They are killing them day after day, 10 people in one day. Or maybe they will bomb a church. From 2003 until 2014 they used to bomb churches inside Mosul. They killed bishops and priests inside Mosul and even Baghdad and everywhere in Iraq. And the government cannot do anything for them.”

“The situation there is unsafe and unstable. Even the Home Office admit that it is unstable inside Iraq and don’t advise anyone to travel to Iraq, but they want us to go back.”

video 3:48

Human rights NGOs have condemned Britain’s failure to take its fair share of refugees fleeing conflict and repression. They have also alleged a number of failings in the government’s asylum processes, including outdated and misinterpreted country profiles, a lack of resources and poor training.

Speaking to RT ahead of Saturday’s demonstration, Asylum Aid spokeswoman Zoe Gardner said Britain is failing to pull its weight, instead spending ever greater sums of money keeping refugees out, including the recent decision to build a concrete barrier around the port of Calais.

“If someone has fled ISIS from Iraq or somebody has fled Sudan and the repressive government there, and they’ve crossed deserts and they’ve ridden in trucks and they’ve escaped human traffickers and they’ve possibly experienced sexual assault along the way and they’ve crossed the Mediterranean and they’ve slept in lorries and they’ve arrived in Calais and we’ve built a five meter wall – is that going to be what stops them? No. But that’s what gets a good headline for the government, ‘we’re being tough, we’re building a wall,’” said Gardner.

“It doesn’t do anyone any good, it doesn’t help, it costs a lot of money to the taxpayer and that money could be better spent on well-functioning, humane systems to work out who these people are and how we can help them.”

video 3:40

Gardner further criticized Britain’s poor humanitarian contribution, especially compared with its military commitments.

“The UK is now the second-biggest arms dealer in the world and two-thirds of the arms we’ve been selling since 2010 have gone to the Middle East. So we’re number two in terms of arms dealers but we don’t even make the top 50 in terms of refugees per thousand population. We’re not even close, actually.

“So our priorities in terms of how we intervene in the Middle East and in other unstable regions seem to be very much skewed towards war, guns, death, bombs, drones. These things make a lot of money for a lot of very powerful companies.

“I think it’s pretty stark when you see how much we are contributing to the instability globally and then how little we are willing to pick up the pieces.”

RT has approached the Home Office for comment on its refugee policy. It is yet to respond.

Part One of a Look at the Intriguing Murder of Alexander Litvinenko

President Putin 'probably' approved Litvinenko murder

From BBC UK

The murder of ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 in the UK was "probably" approved by President Vladimir Putin, an inquiry has found.

Mr Putin is likely to have signed off the poisoning of Mr Litvinenko with polonium-210 in part due to personal "antagonism" between the pair, it said.

Home Secretary Theresa May said the murder was a "blatant and unacceptable" breach of international law.

But the Russian Foreign Ministry said the public inquiry was "politicised".

It said: "We regret that the purely criminal case was politicised and overshadowed the general atmosphere of bilateral relations."

Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesman, said Moscow's official response to the report will happen through "diplomatic channels", the Russian news agency Interfax was quoted as saying.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the UK would have to go on having "some sort of relationship with them [Russia]" because of the Syria crisis, but it would be done with "clear eyes and a very cold heart".

David Cameron said the murder of Alexander Litvinenko had been shown to be "state-sponsored"

The long-awaited report into Mr Litvinenko's death found that two Russian men - Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun - deliberately poisoned the 43-year-old in London in 2006 by putting the radioactive substance polonium-210 into his drink at a hotel.

Sir Robert Owen, the public inquiry chairman, said he was "sure" Mr Litvinenko's murder had been carried out by the two men and that they were probably acting under the direction of Moscow's FSB intelligence service, and approved by the organisation's chief, Nikolai Patrushev, as well as the Russian president.

He said Mr Litvinenko's work for British intelligence agencies, his criticism of the FSB and Mr Putin, and his association with other Russian dissidents were possible motives for his killing.

'Send a message'

There was also "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Mr Putin and Mr Litvinenko, he said.

The use of polonium-210 was "at the very least a strong indicator of state involvement" as it had to be made in a nuclear reactor, the report said.

The inquiry heard evidence that Mr Litvinenko may have been consigned to a slow death from radiation to "send a message".

Giving a statement to the House of Commons, Mrs May said Mr Cameron would raise the findings with President Putin at "the next available opportunity".

She said the UK would impose asset freezes on Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun and that international arrest warrants for the pair remained in place. They both deny killing Mr Litvinenko.

Both men are wanted in the UK for questioning, but Russia has refused to extradite them.

Speaking earlier outside the High Court, Mr Litvinenko's widow, Marina, said she was "very happy" that "the words my husband spoke on his deathbed when he accused Mr Putin have been proved by an English court".

She urged the UK government to expel all Russian intelligence operatives, impose economic sanctions on Moscow and impose a travel ban on Mr Putin.

The view from Moscow
By the BBC's Oleg Boldyrev

Andrei Lugovoi, left, and Dmitry Kovtun  Image copyrightAP

For years Moscow rejected allegations of high-level involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

The fact President Putin himself is now associated with this assassination has not changed anything.

Taking their lead from Robert Owen's use of the words "high probability", the second tier of the Russian establishment, mainly Kremlin-loyalist MPs, are dismissing the entire report as a politically-based fabrication.

Russians on social media are making fun of its conclusions by using the hashtag "PutinProbablyApproved" in Russian - that is #ПутинВозможноОдобрил - to include all manner of crimes.

One Russian MP, Nikolai Kovalev, himself an ex-FSB boss, pointed out relations between Moscow and London would not be harmed by the report as there was no room for making them any worse.

How Russian media reported the Litvinenko inquiry

Responding to the report, Mr Lugovoi, who is now a politician in Russia, said the accusations against him were "absurd", the Russian news agency Interfax was quoted as saying.

"As we expected, there were no surprises," he said.

"The results of the investigation made public today yet again confirm London's anti-Russian position, its blinkeredness and the unwillingness of the English to establish the true reason of Litvinenko's death."

Mr Kovtun, now a businessman in Russia, said he would not comment on the report until he got more information about its contents, Interfax reported.

Andrei Lugovoi in hotel where Litvinenko was poisoned

'Harm relations'

London's Metropolitan Police said the investigation into the "cold and calculated murder" remained ongoing.

Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador in the UK, said Russia would not accept any decisions reached in secret and based on evidence not tested in open court.

The length of time taken to come to these conclusions led them to believe it was "a whitewash of British security services' incompetence", he said.

Mr Yakovenko said these events "can't help but harm our bilateral relations".

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said he did not have "any actions" to announce following the inquiry's findings. "But I certainly wouldn't rule out future steps," he said.


Analysis
By BBC security correspondent, Gordon Corera

Alexander Litvinenko, pictured at a news conference in Moscow in 1998,
when he was an officer of Russia's state security service FSB
Image copyrightReuters

The conclusions of this inquiry are stronger than many expected in pointing the finger at Vladimir Putin personally.

The evidence behind that seems to have come from secret intelligence heard in closed session.

Saying that Alexander Litvinenko was killed because he was an enemy of the Russian state will raise pressure on the British government to take real action - the steps taken nearly a decade ago were only limited in scope.

That may pose difficulties given the importance of Russia's role in the Middle East, but without tough action people may ask if the Russian government has been allowed to get away with what has been described as an act of nuclear terrorism on the streets of London.

Mr Litvinenko fled to the UK in 2000, claiming persecution. He was granted asylum and gained British citizenship several years later.

In the years before his death, he worked as a writer and journalist, becoming a strong critic of the Kremlin.

Russian President Vladimir Putin "probably" approved the killing, report says

It is believed he also worked as a consultant for MI6, specialising in Russian organised crime.

The inquiry heard from 62 witnesses in six months of hearings and was shown secret intelligence evidence about Mr Litvinenko and his links with British intelligence agencies.


The Litvinenko case

23 November 2006 - Mr Litvinenko dies three weeks after having tea with former agents Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun in London

22 May 2007 - Britain's director of public prosecutions decides Mr Lugovoi should be charged with his murder

5 July 2007 - Russia refuses to extradite Mr Lugovoi, saying its constitution does not allow it

May-July 2013 - The inquest into Mr Litvinenko's death is delayed as the coroner decides a public inquiry would be preferable - but ministers rule out the request

11 February 2014 - High Court rules the Home Office was wrong to rule out an inquiry before the outcome of an inquest

January 2015 - Public inquiry begins

Sharia Courts Creating Dual Justice System in UK?

Creeping Sharia?

© / RT

The rising popularity of Sharia courts in the UK is increasing concerns of a parallel justice system emerging. Authorities say they are conducting a review of the process. RT’s Eisa Ali looks at the arguments of those against and in favor of the system.

Sharia councils in the UK say they deal strictly with family matters, such as marriage and child custody battles, but there is concern that they constitute a parallel legal system.

“We believe that Sharia courts discriminate against women and especially against Muslim women,” Nazira Mahmari, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, told RT.

“We want all women to have the right to access the mainstream system,” she added. Mahmari says she would like to close down all Sharia courts in the UK.

This view is shared by Robin Tilbrook, the founder of the English Democrats Party, who says the British government should be doing more to tackle the problem.

“I think more effort needs to be made by the authorities so that it is simply not allowed that divorce, criminal matters and inheritances are dealt within Sharia courts, particularly where the requirement for women to take part in these is basically being forced on them,” he told RT.

However, there are fears that if all Sharia courts were to be closed down, they would just appear underground, making it harder for them to be regulated.

They are regulated now?

It is said there are some 85 such courts in Britain, but the actual number is unknown, Reuters reports.

So much for regulation! They don't even know how many are operating - they might as well be underground.

Their supporters say much of the criticism concerning these justice systems is due to ignorance about how much power they wield.

Khola Hasan, a scholar from the Islamic Sharia Council defended the need for Sharia courts, saying the English legal system is not interested in certain matters that affect Muslim families.

“English courts are not interested in religious marriages or religious divorces, so we are working alongside the English legal system and all we are doing is providing a religious aspect that English law does not provide,” she told RT.

Home Secretary Teresa May launched an inquiry into these religious councils last month. The Islamic Sharia Council does admit there are issues and say they would welcome government input and regulation of the system.

“There are many Sharia councils that are operating under the radar who do not have any kind of transparency. There is not even a staff sitting [sic], as there is just one person in a backroom,” Hasan said.

© / RT

The minister for Countering Extremism, Lord Ahmad, (a Muslim is Minister for Countering Extremism? Seriously?) said the UK government is looking into whether Sharia courts are misusing the law and are in the process of compiling a report.

"The government is committed to an independent review to understand the extent to which Sharia may be being misused, or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law in the UK. This review will be formally established shortly and we expect an initial report to be issued to the home secretary in 2016,” he said in December.

So, they are not reviewing whether or not the concept of a parallel judicial system is lawful. So, I guess Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Satanists can all start their own judicial system.

Sharia law, practiced in many Middle Eastern countries, is the Islamic legal system, which has been derived from the Koran, as well as taking into account rulings of Islamic scholars. Aside from providing rules for living, such as prayers and fasting, Sharia law can hand down punishments, which can be as severe as cutting off limbs or being beheaded for certain crimes.

In 2014, the Law Society published guidelines under which High Street solicitors would have the ability to write Islamic wills, which can exclude non-believers completely and deny women an equal share of an inheritance.

“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognized,” the document states.

There is nothing moderate about Sharia. It is evil, it comes from a Satanic religion, and it has no business in a society where people are equal regardless of sex, colour or religion. The UK and all European countries must have a ZERO tolerance policy toward Sharia. If we give them a little authority, they will abuse it and assume more and more authority and we may not even be aware of it until people start showing up missing a hand or with scars from lashes on their backs. If Muslims want to live under Sharia, there are plenty of countries where they can do that; the UK should not be one of them.