Is sexual assault the latest ISIL weapon?

Posted 9 Jan 2016 by Walaa Idris


I ask because sexual assault has been used throughout history as a weapon by attackers and invaders to humiliate subjugate and imprison their captives.

Last summer when hundreds of refugees filled boats docked in the Continent loaded with young and healthy men from North Africa and the Middle East many asked: if all the young men are coming to Europe who is staying back to fight ISIL?

Despite that and talk about ISIL supporters and fighters infiltrating genuine asylum seekers to enter the EU, and in spite of the risk and the danger the journey to Europe’s shores, Germany opened its doors and unconditionally welcomed all comers. The German people offered their homes, gave up their spare rooms, extra cloth, toys, and books, they opened their school halls and asked the rest of Europe to do the same.

Only six month after that selfless welcome, on New Year’s Eve, over one hundred women, while celebrating in the streets of Germany, were sexually assaulted by what was described as Middle Eastern looking men. The streets of the same Germany that opened its doors and hearts in kindness to people they thought were in dire need.

Or were they people in need?

In Islam rape is haram. True Islam condemns all kind of violence without exception. I know many will disagree with me. But as a Muslim brought up in an Islamic country by a Muslim family, I know what true Islam is. This, what ISIL is doing is not what most of us belief. A true Muslim will never attack his or her host. A true Muslim will show gratitude. Sexually assaulting random women on the streets of the country that opened its doors to you and housed you in your hour of need is not gratitude.

That is why I suspect earlier intelligence that said ‘ISIL fighters managed to infiltrate refugees to gain entry into Europe’ to be accurate.

Rape is a vile crime, and comes from a dark place were the attacker is hateful. So far everything ISIL did to fellow Muslims and non-Muslims is hateful and vile. So is it too farfetched to think they might use sexual assault as a weapon?


Categories: ,

EastEnders shows the true face of Islam

Posted 18 Nov 2015 by Walaa Idris


Last week’s Paris attacks were attacks on freedom, liberty and civility. And, though these barbaric and dreadful attacks were carried out by Muslims they do not represent or reflect the beliefs and feelings of the majority of Muslims.

But most of all those attacks are un-Islamic.

Despite of what the likes of Daesh, Al-Qaeda and Boko Harm portray, Islam is a religion of peace that teaches harmony, love and equality. In times like what we are experiencing now, it is paramount for Muslims to speak up against the atrocities wickedly carried out in the name of Islam but also openly speak about the true meaning of Islam.

Surprisingly, on Monday night, EastEnders (a popular long-running BBC weekly soap) beautifully highlighted the true meaning of Islam during that night’s episode. Now, while EastEnders is not your typical platform for religion education, it has a long history of sensitively addressing social issues. On Monday one of the characters Tamwar Masood played by Himesh Patel, explained to his girlfriend Nancy played by Maddy Hill what his favourite passage in The Quran meant.

“Do good to relatives, orphans, the needy, the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who’s a stranger, to the companion at your side, and to the traveller.” He then added: “That to me is what Islam is about. Be kind to people, family and strangers alike, and love them.”

To Muslims, those words are not particularly revelatory, but the scene, its timing and the words are a very subtle reminder of the views shared by the majority of us. They also offer comfort at a very uncomfortable time, at a time when the religion is used as an excuse for barbaric attacks – and peaceful Muslims are wrongly targeted.

My thoughts and prayers are with those who lost their lives in Friday’s attack and their loved ones.

Thank you EastEnders!


Categories: ,

Has Netanyahu lost the plot?

Posted 22 Oct 2015 by Walaa Idris


Or is there something far more sinister behind his recent comments?

Benjamin Netanyahu insisting a Palestinian leader persuaded Hitler and the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust is an extremely dangerous and irresponsible allegation.

Particularly as every historical document, journal and historian confirms Hitler’s feelings towards the Jews were apparent from his early days in the army. What’s more, his plans for Europe’s Jewish population began in 1939 a whole two years before his meeting with the Palestinian leader.

Adolf Hitler did not meet the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini until 1941, so how can he be the instigator of the most horrific event in that century?

Why then did Netanyahu blatantly lie?

Is it because he hates Palestinians so much he is willing to absolve Hitler from exterminating millions of innocent Jews? Or is there another reason for this calculated declaration?

Angela Merkel immediately responded to his comment by saying “Germany abides by its responsibility for the Holocaust. We are very clear in our minds about the Nazis’ responsibility for the break with civilisation that was the Shoah.”

Besides that, the timing of his remark is very peculiar. Some would say it is even reckless. With all the turmoil in the region not to mention the trouble in his own backyard…., his remark could not have come at a worst time. Historically the relationship between the two nations has always been volatile. However, recently they are the poorest they have been.

So I ask you again, what was the reason behind the comment?

For years Zionists have been trying to rewrite history. Change how Israel came about, redraw legal boundaries and renege on agreed promises. While failing to address how Palestinians are oppressed and terrorised in their own home and how Israel is an unkind neighbour.

The alarming thing is Zionists will stop at nothing to push every Arab out their own home. I say Zionists because most Jews inside and outside Israel accept and even welcome the two state solutions. Historically the two people happily lived side by side long before Hitler, World War II and Netanyahu came about.

So what can the reasons for this comment be? Please, someone, explain to me the one positive thing that can come out of this deliberate story.


Categories: ,

Corbyn’s ascent to Labour’s Leadership should not have come as a surprise.

Posted 22 Sep 2015 by Walaa Idris


Yet, it seems it did. For many the Labour party began shifting further left five years ago when they elected as leader Ed and not David Miliband. The 2010 leadership election was the strongest indication the Blair project was on its last leg and drawing its final breath. For five years following that election we watched as Miliband hovered over the centre ground not quite knowing whether to be true to his political beliefs or appease the Blairites and the centrists in his party. His reluctance stemmed from the struggle between what his mind supposed and what’s in his heart. As you can imagine, the two were pulling in opposite directions and it showed. His leadership was littered with mishmash policies that neither gelled with each other nor made a great deal of sense.

So when politicos and pundits say we didn’t see it coming, I wonder if they were watching the same political arena the rest of us were watching.

Besides, didn’t it become clear this May after terribly losing in Scotland that the only way Labour can win back Scottish seat, a core of their electoral majority, is by shifting away from the centre and to the left?

I might be wrong here, yet I don’t believe that I am. Labour electing Jeremy Corbyn as their head is nothing more than the party going back to its roots and returning home to its truth. Now whether his election will make Labour more or less electable remains to be seen. However, it definitely makes it a genuine opposition – one that will give the current government a few headaches – but nonetheless an authentic leftist party.

The question everyone is asking, can a hard left Labour Party offer Britain a better suitable alternative? That too remains to be seen.

There is no doubt Corbyn has embarked on a rough and some would say a brave ride. His politics is of the past. He is not friendly with reporters. He never ran or managed a department nor held a ministerial post before. He spent the majority of his political existence opposing his own party. And, on top of all that he didn’t expect and some would say even intended to win; this is all too new and overwhelming for him. The same goes for most of those he appointed to lead with him. But all of that can be solved by having the right advisers and getting the council of seasoned experienced elders. Even his disrespect to the monarchy and veterans can be rectified by future more positive actions.

Having said that, Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest problem isn’t his old politics or being a novice. Nor is it his lack of experience in frontbench politics, nor avoiding the media and disrespecting the realm plus a large proportion of the very people that elected him leader. His problem is the Labour Party. Will it accept him and his proposed changes, will it collectively stand behind him and support his vision of over taxing, higher welfare bills, anti-aspiration anti –austerity, anti NATO …., and the rest of it. Or will it fight him every step of the way and even fragment?


Categories: ,

Will Labourites elect a Blairite or Jeremey Corbyn?

Posted 11 Sep 2015 by Walaa Idris

Labour Leadership

After months of speculations, agitations for some and jubilation for others, we are only a few hours away from knowing who will become the next Labour leader.

Will it be a Blairite or Corbyn?

If it’s the former then it will be business as usual for the Labour Party and their supporters. The leader will be less left-wing than Miliband, most of the Parliamentary Labour Party will back him or her and the other three candidates will most likely each have a position in his/her Shadow Cabinet. He or she will work hard to occupy the centre ground and the opposition will agree with some of the government’s policies and disagree with others.

However, if Jeremy Corbyn is elected, the Labour Party and the country are in for a very rough ride. He is as far left as they come. So as a matter of principle he will oppose almost everything the government proposes, and call for most services to become public and tax anything under the sun. In other words, he will promise the moon and expect taxpayers to foot the bill. I expect he will struggle to put together a Cabinet, since many already indicated they won’t serve under him. But he will nonetheless continue to spread the Corbyn gospel of tax and spend.

All of that could be fun to watch, if as a nation we didn’t have a deficit to reduce, debts to repay, new homes to build and an influx of refugees to settle. Not to mention the global migration crisis our world is facing today. Someone like Corbyn, who takes being in opposition literally, can make things extremely difficult to run and manage.

Andy Burnham, who for most of this leadership race was the front runner, is a seasoned frontbench operator. But Corbynmania exposed him as the status quo candidate plus I’m sure his insane flip-flopping on issues didn’t help. Towards the end he appeared robotic and predictable with nothing new to offer. Some still feel he talks a great deal of sense and is the best person to lead Labour to victory in 2020. But many see him as a continuation of the past and the candidate who offers nothing new.

Yvette Copper on the other hand was slow off the blocks, yet she managed to push ahead steadily. Throughout this contest she showed stamina and resilience plus it seems in recent days she found her passion. But for some being Mrs Balls somehow works against her. Having said that, just as this contest is Corbyn’s to lose it is now Copper’s to win. A few weeks ago, when Corbynmania was at its peak, I asked The Sun Political Editor who he predicted will win and his answer was Yvette Copper will win it on the second ballot. If that happens, she will make history for her Party.

As for Liz Kendall, I am sorry, but her campaign never got off the starting blocks. It seems she was finished before she even started. However, as the newest MP of the four candidates she is in a good position for next time. In my opinion, the three things she should take from this race is to pace herself like Cooper, stay visible throughout like Burnham, but most of all be real and authentic like Corbyn and do it all with genuine passion.

Like Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn speaks human and does it from the heart. He is an ordinary approachable decent guy who answers all the questions asked, and does it without any airs and graces. Will he win? If he wins can he lead the party? Can he win a General Election? I don’t know. He probably can. I don’t think so. But what I do know for sure last general election, everybody predicted and expected one thing and the outcome was another thing altogether. Either way it’s not long to go now.


Categories: ,

Jeremy Corbyn, Jeremy Corbyn, Jeremy Corbyn......

Posted 22 Aug 2015 by Walaa Idris

Jeremy Corbyn

These days, all we hear, reed and watch is Jeremy Corbyn this and Jeremy Corbyn that. Form total obscurity in a few short months he is now the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of politics, understandably some love him while others loath him. For me his politics is very peculiar but then he won’t lead me or my party and if in September he wins the Labour Party leadership contest I will do everything in my power to see he never leads this great country.

Having said that, I, a Tory, cannot understand what Labour is doing to itself! They seem to be tearing chunks off each other because Corbyn (who a few months ago almost did not get enough Labour MPs to nominate him to stand for this contest) is now ahead in every poll.

But isn’t this democracy?

Not according to Andy Burnham and Liz Kendell.

Corbyn, a straight talker who doesn’t hold back, unlike most modern politicians, has a knack for answering every question put to him and engages easily with reports and people from all walks of life. He is a calm mature looking and behaving decent man, who holds very, very strong socialist beliefs. It seems this and his willingness to engage has struck a chord with many, plus his politics are a hit with the left. Same as Sarah Palin and Nigel Farage before him were on the right, as a result of that he is ahead and the Blairites don’t like it one bit.

As an outsider, I see why Blair, Mandelson, Brown, Campbell and Labourites of their ilk don’t like him. His leadership will take the party further left back to its pre-New Labour days. However, some would say a Corbyn leadership will bring Labour back home, to its rightful place.

My late father used to say “anger is man’s biggest enemy, because it clouds judgment.” And that is what I see happening with Labour. The New Labour types are angry and panicking that their beloved project is in danger of being axed. Sadly, in their fright and fury they lost sight of the bigger picture.

Jeremy Corbyn, like Farage and Palin, given time sooner rather than later will go away, because when it comes down to it what matters to most people is bread and butter issues not what sounds and feels good.

Take his latest promise. He said if elected leader he will apologise for the Iraq War. Now, who in their right mind will say that? When there is an ongoing independent enquiry into the matter. Secondly, does he really think Blair, Brown and Cameron did not consider offering an apology and ramifications of that offer? Or does he think he is the only person who sees the wrong in that war?

Furthermore, did he even consider what an apology by a leader and potential a PM might means? Apologising for the Iraq War is a slap on the face to our Armed Forces and disrespects all the men and women who fought in it. An apology might vindicate those who marched against the war, but it will dishonour the memory of those who gave their lives, their limps, their sanity and mental well-being to that war. An apology might feel good to some, but its implication and legacy are dire to those who were sent to fight it.

After two consecutive defeats, the last thing the Labour Party needs is to talk to itself, especially when it should be showing the public what a Labour government can offer them. And, explain how it can be different. It needs to show how a Labour administration can create better jobs, leave more money in peoples’ pockets, give children a better education and makes us all happier and healthier.

It seems the biggest fear the Blairites now have is Corbyn winning the leadership. As a result they are doing everything to stop him, accusing outsider infiltration, discrediting him and putting doubt in their own electoral system, all in hopes to put a stop to this election. While failing to realise that what they are doing is discrediting the whole Labour Party and making all of us ask: How can Labour run Britain if it can’t manage a simple leadership election?


Categories: ,

Tact and diplomacy are definitely not Obama’s forte

Posted 25 Jul 2015 by Walaa Idris

Obama 2015

Looks like President Obama has put his foot in it. Friends, allies and partners care for one another. They are usually careful when and how to offer advice and support. And, when they do, they do it without publicly showing off one another. This is exactly what Mr Obama failed to do. As an ‘ally’ and a ‘special friend’ he should have been a little more sensitive about Britain’s feelings and considered them before speaking out, but he did neither.

By sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong and telling the BBC “having the United Kingdom in the European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union” Obama didn’t only show his arrogance he also confirmed his lack of diplomacy and his inability to handle matters of Foreign Affairs.

A true friend would have carefully considered the matter before expressing their view. A diplomat would not have interfered at all.

The issue of the EU membership is for the British people to decide and not anyone else to tell them what they should or should not do. Interfering in this way shows a lack of precaution and a selfish desire to put his country’s interest before ours. Which is understandable, after all he is the president of the United States. But it is insulting. It is offensive because he sees the UK as only useful in speaking to all the countries of Europe so he doesn’t have to.

There are many bad things about the Obama presidency. But for Britons Obama will be remembered as the self – important president that caused the most damage to the special relation of our two nations. Personally, I’m glad his term will soon be over. January 20th, 2017 cannot come soon enough.

Categories: ,

LBC and Iain Dale hosted a very energetic Labour leadership debate.

Posted 23 Jul 2015 by Walaa Idris

Lab Leadership

First let me start by congratulating both for hosting the best Labour Party leadership debate. After weeks of bland predictable hustings, finally last night LBC and Iain Dale put on a very engaging debate. It was clever to allow listeners call in and directly ask their questions. Despite some candidates slight resistance to opening up, listeners’ questions livened the discussion because they were the question the public liked to ask.

Either way after the many hustings in as many weeks since this leadership contest began; it is now clear why Jeremy Corbyn is ahead by 17%. It is even clearer why Tony Blair and his followers are very concerned. And they should be because at this rate Corbyn who is not the darling of the Blairites is on his way to becoming the next leader of the Labour Party. It is also very clear why they don’t want him to lead their party. The man makes Ed Miliband looks like a right-winger. But don’t get me wrong, he is not popular because of his politics. Of course to some it’s his politics, but most people like him for the same reasons many don’t care about Nigel Farage’s or Nicola Sturgeon’s politics yet admire them. Besides being new and different, like the other two, Corbyn comes across as frank, unrehearsed and able to speak human. Which unfortunately for Labour none of the other three have a clue how to do.

God knows Iain Dale tried, more than once, to bring the other three candidates out of their shells, but did not succeed. Even when he nudged them, and he did it more than once, they just could not be themselves. Or did they? Could it be that after years of not being yourself ‘not being yourself’ becomes who you are?

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

After 90 minutes of a very engaging debate – questions came from the presenter, the listeners and even the contestants had the chance to question each other. I came away thinking; Yvette Cooper will never give a straight answer because she is always on the fence and don’t how to take a side. Andy Burnham is everything to everyone – but I have a great deal of respect for him for wanting to unite his party and not refusing to serve in a Corbyn administration – but still he’s everything to everyone. As for Liz ‘I am in it to win it’ Kendell, I feel she is just too green and hugely inexperienced to lead anything let alone Her Majesty’s Opposition. But this contest will help put her in the forefront of peoples’ mind and if she doesn’t make a big mistake, it will be good practice for future contests

In my opinion Iain telling Jeremy Corbyn Chukka Umunna said he won’t serve in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet though cheeky it was a little mean. But it showed Corbyn’s maturity and mettle – age alone makes this man very seasoned and his attitude and calmness gives him a certain gravities the other candidates don’t yet possess.

I know many (mostly the media) say Corbyn is the Conservatives’ preferred candidate because he will put Labour out of office for a generation. First we don’t for sure know that. After all it’s the same media and polls that a few months ago, said the Conservatives will not win outright, so I’ll take what they say with a pinch of salt. But what we know for sure is a Corbyn win will un- blur the lines between the two parties. A Jeremy Corbyn leadership will be as red as Moscow’s Red Square and as left- wing as China before the Berlin Wall came down.

Secondly, why did Labour open their leadership election to the public? How is that fair or democratic to their membership? Didn’t they think some people might register just to tip the election one way or the other? Who knows, maybe they subconsciously wanted to sabotage their own chances?

Categories: ,

When did it go wrong for the LibDems?

Posted 11 May 2015 by Walaa Idris


Five years ago, when everybody agreed with Nick, our nation’s economy was worse than that of Greece. Our debt piled high and we were broke. The Conservatives had the largest majority but not enough to govern with any certain stability. So the Liberal Democrats selflessly stepped up to the plate, and for the national interest formed the first UK coalition government in almost a century. For five years, both parties compromised a number of their own manifesto pledges for raison d‘état and to maintain a secure and stable government. The partnership swiftly began repairing the damaged economy and succeeded in bringing our nation from the brink of collapse.

Five years later, as we saw on Thursday the majority of voters liked what the last government did. And approved what the coalition government had achieved. So, why did one partner of the coalition succeed with a majority though a slim one, and was given the mandate to govern alone and the other was almost wiped out?
Is it because they compromised some of their manifesto pledges? But both parties did. Is it because they went into coalition with a party they regarded as an opponent? Again, both parties faced disagreement from their members and voters against the decision to go into coalition ….

So what went wrong? Why were the LibDems punished so badly for doing the right and honourable thing?

We Brits are humble, caring and loyal people. We might not always show affection, but we are very loving in our own way. It might sound like I’m going off topic here, but I have a point to make. Let’s take Ed Miliband and why he didn’t sit well with many people. He might be a little awkward, but during the campaign we saw he’s a decent fella and learnt that he’s a conviction politician, and we know there aren’t many of those around these days. By the end of the campaign, more people warmed up to him and his personal approval ratings improved. However, the one thing he could not and will never shake off is what he did to his own brother. And, although we Brits are rather private and don’t like confrontation and many won’t openly say it, but privately many feel they cannot trust someone who publicly went against his only brother in this way – because that behaviour displays a level of alarming self-love.

The Liberal Democrats did a similar thing. While they and the Conservatives are not blood brothers, they made a deal to work as one team. Everybody knew and to some extend understood for the coalition to work compromises needed to be made. That is why many were very surprised Libs leaked a number of private negotiations and behind the door conversations for the sole reason of making themselves appear as the more moderate of the two partners and the ones that cares the most.
That did not sit well with the electorate.

The sad thing in all of that is many of these conversations will sooner or later come out in biographies and make their way into historic books about that period. And, while at the start of the parliament they (LibDems) were seen as selfless patriots, by the end some of their behaviour reduced them to self-serving opportunists.

In Britain as much as we value loyalty we strongly scorn disloyalty.

Categories: ,

What did we learn from last night’s seven way leaders’ debate?

Posted 3 Apr 2015 by Walaa Idris

Leaders Debate 2015

The short answer, very little new, but the long answer ….

Nicola Sturgeon is the 2015 Nick Clegg. Even though nobody agreed with her (leaders learnt from the last general election better not to agree with an opponent even if it was to take a dig at another opponent). She came across knowledgeable, principled and very confident of herself and her message. Whether you agree or disagree with her politics, she handled herself well.

Natalie Bennett thankfully did not suffer a brain freeze, but she was dreadful y forgettable.

Leanne Woods was also forgettable. In the first sentence of her opening statement, she informed the British public who don’t live in Wales to tune her out and I did.

Nick Clegg (whom I like, by the way) came across very disingenuous. After five years in collation with the Conservatives, distancing himself and his party was always going to be a tricky business. His main focus was on promoting the LibDems as “the fairer partner”. That is fine. But not when that “fairness” makes you come across as a two faced opportunist. And, sadly that’s exactly how he came across last night. David Cameron summed him beautifully when he said: “With Nick Clegg, we sat in the cabinet room together, we took difficult decisions together. Nick, I defend all of the decisions we took, and I think your sort of pick and mix approach really is not going to convince anyone.”

Nigel Farage was another disappointment. It appears that the straight talking man who ‘says it as it is’ is a one trick pony. Four questions were asked by the audiences. They covered everything from Immigration, the NHS, Education, Housing and the Economy. But for every question asked and every problem aired Farage had one response and one solution the EU and our membership within it. And, although we expected him to mention the EU and promote getting out of the union plus mention it more than once. No one expected it to be his solution to every issue. Particularly as we saw in the past five years, being members of the EU did not stop the UK fixing its economy and go on to become a leading growing economic power house in the developed world.

Ed Miliband was Ed Miliband. A man in complete denial about his party’s mismanagement of the economy and the role it played in the size of the current deficit. Given half a chance he will repeat the same mistakes because to him they are not mistakes.

David Cameron showed he is the leader who took back the reigns of the economy and turned this nation’s fortunes around. He is the visionary who five years ago put country before party and went into coalition for the security of the UK. Austerity worked and the economy is on the mend with 1000 jobs created in the private sector every day, but the task is far from done. He asked the people of Britain to send him back to Number Ten for a second term so he and his team can finish the job and secure our nation’s future.

The real winner of yesterday’s Leaders’ Debate was the ITV Presenter Julie Etchingham.

Categories: ,