But now I have returned, and it seems apt to return to the blogosphere by briefly discussing the stunning recent revelations by the Mail on Sunday that schools, hospitals, pubs and famous sporting venues such as Ascot and Twickenham are controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public.
All the beef, chicken and lamb sold to fans at Wembley has secretly been prepared in accordance with sharia law, while Cheltenham College, which boasts of its ‘strong Christian ethos’, is one of several top public schools which also serves halal chicken to pupils without informing them. Even Britain’s biggest hotel and restaurant group Whitbread, which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains, among many others, has admitted that more than three-quarters of its poultry is halal.
As the Mail article outlines:
Animal welfare campaigners have long called for a ban on the traditional Islamic way of preparing meat - which involves killing animals by drawing a knife across their throats, without stunning them first - saying it is cruel and causes unnecessary pain.
Sharia law expressly forbids knocking the animal out with a bolt gun, as is usual in British slaughterhouses. Instead, it must be sentient when its throat is cut, and the blood allowed to drip from the carcass while a religious phrase in praise of Allah is recited.
The animal cruelty aspect of this investigation is certainly a valid concern. I am sure that there are many people who would choose not to eat this food if they knew the truth of its origins and preparation. But perhaps the more important aspect is that this represents yet another step in the stealth Islamisation of Britain - aided and abetted by our own treacherous political leaders. Bat Ye'or has chronicled how Western policy-makers have deliberately sought to integrate Islamic laws into European societies for years - without ever consulting their largely disapproving populace.
Some may say that it is an exaggeration and even an absurdity to suggest that serving halal meat represents the first step in some kind Islamic conquest of Britain. However, one must consider that Islamic law does not lend itself to partial implementation. Indeed, according to some mainstream Muslim authorities, anyone who only implements sharia in part (for example, by limiting its application to "family law" such as marriage and divorce) is in fact no longer a Muslim at all, but a kafir: an unbeliever; while others insist that Muslims who dare to suggest that brutal sharia punishments such as stoning are barbaric and out of date in the modern world are apostates.
British authorities have already shown that they are willing to apply some aspects of sharia law in this country, even when those laws conflict with our own, and even when they cause harm and division. Once they implement some Islamic law, how do they decide when to draw the line? Indeed, once they have begun, and the sharia supremacists, encouraged by what they see, become more vocal, is it even possible for politicians to stop advancing sharia, without damaging their own support bases and making themselves look like hypocrites? That slippery slope is what has me worried.
And given that sharia principles are the primary source of human rights abuses in all Islamic countries, that should make all true British patriots - and lovers of individual freedom - worried, too.