Friday, 29 June 2007

A superficial, unprincipled, moral weakling

A quote from Conservative Home, regarding public attitudes to David Cameron:
"A Populus poll for today's Daily Politics programme on BBC1...found that 48% agreed that Mr Cameron was "superficial and lacks any clear convictions". 40% disagreed. 36% said Mr Cameron had the "strength and judgment to be a good prime minister". 49% said he did not. 54% agreed that it was "no longer clear what the Conservative Party stands for". 36% disagreed."
Looks like the public has the measure of the man.

Oxford academics condemn UCU boycott

Oxford University academics have voted overwhelmingly to call a ballot on whether to boycott Israeli universities and expressed opposition to the general value of boycotts.

The University and College Union sparked international controversy last month when members voted to debate the possibility of boycotting Israeli academics at their annual conference.

The majority of Oxford's union members - 96% - wanted to call a ballot on the contentious issue, piling more pressure on the union to have one. A similar number - 94.8% - supported the view that Oxford is opposed to academic boycotts per se.

Nice to see academics at the UK's best university (discuss) showing commendable common sense in this matter.

Also, it seems to me that the more distinguished the academic, the less likely they are to support the boycott. For example, while academics at Oxford are overwhelmingly anti-boycott, the motion supporting the boycott was put forward by academics from the universities of Brighton and East London, which presently languish in 66th and 99th place (out of 100) respectively in the Times Good University Guide. Coincidence?

Bad News

Shahid Malik has been appointed junior minister for international development, the first ever Muslim MP to be appointed to ministerial level in this country.

On its own, this doesn't really mean very much: Malik is comparatively reasonable, for a Muslim, and he is in a pretty unimportant post. But he is nonetheless a Muslim, and as such he is a part of the religion that poses an enormous and unparalleled threat to this country, its people, and their way of life, and his appointment to a ministerial position is yet another sign of the encroachment of Islam into our society. Put simply, Islam is our enemy, and we should not voluntarily give its adherents power over us.

"Shocked and distressed"

Ian Murray, a magistrate based in Manchester, has precipitated a row after refusing to sit on the trial of a Muslim woman who attended court wearing a full veil. The woman, Zoobia Hussain, who is charged with causing £5,000 of criminal damage, apparently intends to make a formal complaint against Mr Murray.

Magistrates and judges are supposed to tolerate women wearing the full veil in court unless it "interferes with the administration of justice". Quite how allowing a defendant to wear the full veil in the dock would not interfere with the administration of justice is unclear to me. After all, it is presumably rather an important aspect of the administration of justice that justice be administered to the right person, something that can't be guaranteed if the apparent defendant is completely covered from head to toe. One somehow doubts that a Christian defendant who arrived at court wearing a balaclava helmet would be allowed to keep it on.

Hussain's solicitor described her client as "shocked and distressed" by the incident, adding:
She suffered hurt feelings and felt intimidated and deeply embarrassed by the treatment she received at court.


Really, though, I can't see what the problem is for Hussain. Mr Murray gave no reason for withdrawing from the case; perhaps he should have done. But if he does share the common aversion to the Muslim veil, in all its various forms, then his decision to recuse himself from the case can be seen as simply ensuring that, despite her dubious and offensive choice of clothing, Hussain receives a fair trial. Certainly, she's hardly going to lose out because Mr Murray personally will not be on the bench for her case.

And as for her "hurt feelings": well, if I were facing trial, with the possibility of conviction and a criminal record, I think that my concerns would lie with matters more weighty than the question whether the magistrates treated my sartorial foibles with sufficient sensitivity. Besides which, given the widespread dislike of this item of clothing, and given the anti-British and anti-Western message that those wearing it commonly intend to send out, she can't really expect to be treated any better, particularly when the problems of identification that I have already mentioned are taken into account.

I really doubt whether her feelings are actually hurt one jot. Indeed, she's probably enjoying the attention she's getting, and the delicious feeling of being a poor oppressed victim for Allah. However, like the Shabina Begum case, I imagine that the whole row has been blown up out of proportion by Hussain, probably encouraged, as Begum was, by professional agitators, in an attempt to push an Islamist agenda. Simply put, if they can succeed in their machinations against Ian Murray, then it's unlikely that any other judge or magistrate will dare to raise any objections next time a Muslim woman enters their courtroom - whether as defendant, lawyer, juror, witness, or anything else - wearing a full veil. And that will be another little victory for the forces of Islamification.

Tories in good idea shock!

Brace yourself (as my mother always says before announcing bad news). Sit down (another of the Mater's usual instructions on the occasion of misfortune). Have a glass of Scotch at the ready (my own idea). Because the Cameron Tories have actually had a good idea.

Have you recovered yet? I must say that it surprised me too.

The idea in question is one which seems so simple as to be a non-starter: deport immigrants who bring TB into the country. In the light of the rise in the number of cases of TB in the UK - a rise fuelled (pdf) by TB infected foreigners entering the country - one would think that the government would already have put in place measures to do this very thing. But apparently not. Rather, when those with TB enter the UK, they automatically become entitled to NHS treatment for their condition, which, as the Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green says, clearly gives rise to an increased risk of health tourism, on top of the health risk that these people pose to the established residents of this country.

Really, I can find no quibble with the Tory proposal of immediate deportation for immigrants with TB, particularly given that Mr Green also appears to have revived Michael Howard's 2005 call for immigrants to be screened for diseases such as TB before entering the country. Actually, I can think of a quite major quibble, which is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants entering Britain should not be allowed in at all, healthy or not. But Mr Green's comments are nonetheless to be welcomed, both as a proposed improvement on the status quo, and as a rare deviation from the generally liberal-left line pursued by the Cameronites.

Of course, whether the Tories would actually do anything about the problem, should they come into power, is unclear. It is, after all, well known that a newly elected government takes its pre-election promises no more seriously than a surly child takes his commitment to do his homework...

Thursday, 28 June 2007

A Problem Child

A 11-year-old boy who has admitted carrying out 26 offences in 13 weeks near his Bristol home has been put under curfew and electronically tagged.

Police had asked a court to name him, but magistrates rejected the request.

On Wednesday the boy, who has claimed to be "untouchable", admitted crimes including burglary, theft and indecent exposure at Bristol Youth Court.

He was also warned that the courts could apply for permission to lock him up before his 12th birthday in March.

The boy, who lives in the north of the city, pleaded guilty to seven offences and asked for 19 more to be taken into consideration.

He was also made the subject of a 36-month supervision order.

Speaking after the hearing, Det Insp Guy Worrall said: "Because of his age, the courts are limited in their powers to deal with this boy, who commits crime across two police districts.

"He is not concerned about being disturbed inside someone's home and continues to commit crime while on bail.

"Officers continue to arrest him, but our advice to the public living in South Gloucestershire and Bristol is to make sure doors and windows of their homes and outbuildings are secured and valuables locked away."

Even his own solicitor admitted she had no "useful suggestions" for how to deal with him after previous community orders had failed.
In this case, the police and the solicitor genuinely cannot be blamed for their lack of ideas. It is very difficult to incarcerate a child under the age of 12: generally it can only be done where the little thug has committed an offence that carries a sentence of at least 14 years' imprisonment. As this is, presumably, not the case here, there really isn't a lot that can be done.

Which, of course, is a problem in itself. In my opinion, with children like this, you need to be prepared to step in early, and give them a good, sharp, and prolonged shock. He's already committing two crimes a week: imagine what he might be doing in six or seven years. It's odds on he'll break the curfew, and a tag won't physically stop him doing anything. Rather, what children like this need is boot camp. This boy needs to be taken away from his family, away from all those who might encourage him to offend, and, indeed, away from any possibility of offending, for at least a year. If nothing else, then this would mean that he would be unable to plague the law-abiding public while he was incarcerated. But, more importantly, only the martial discipline of a boot camp (allied with education, and, perhaps, rehabilitative treatment) has any hope of turning a child like this into anything other than a young hooligan.

Wednesday, 27 June 2007

Cometh the hour...

...cometh the lying, Stalinist, deluded control freak, with the big clunking fist.

Actually, in a way I feel almost bereft seeing Blair leave. He has, after all, been in charge for ten years. The election he won in 1997 was the first I really paid any attention to as a politically-interested young person/precocious brat, and I can barely remember anyone else leading the Labour Party. I suppose the feeling is something analogous to hearing about the death of a much-detested neighbour or relative: someone who has been a major presence in one's life, but whom one absolutely cannot stand.

No, it might feel somewhat odd thinking that Blair is no longer infesting 10 Downing Street, but I for one certainly won't miss him. In my opinion, for his total failures on immigration, the EU, crime, and education, he has some claim to be the worst Prime Minister this country has ever experienced. Certainly, I can think of no other PM in history who has done so much to sell the native population of this country down the river, and to destroy the very fabric of our society and our culture, as Blair has, through mass immigration and multiculturalism. But if any readers can think of a PM worse than Blair, then they are welcome to put their suggestions in the comments box.

Having said that, I really don't expect Brown to be any better, and should Cameron come to power at the next election, I can envisage that he might well set a new record in terms of Prime Ministerial incompetence. The problem we have today is not so much with Blair as an individual, but with a political class that has become so bound up in itself and its own petty obsessions, and so detached from the reality facing this country, that whoever it spews up as its chosen leader will almost inevitably be disastrous. Forgive me, therefore, if, while delighting in the passing from power of the dreadful man himself, I don't get overly excited about the dawn of the post-Blair era.

Postscript: As a mildly interesting point of trivia, it should be noted that, with the ascension of Brown to the position of First Lord of the Treasury, we will have our first PM since Neville Chamberlain (another contender for worst PM ever) who went to university at an institution other than Oxford. Will this signify a sea-change in the way our society is run? No.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Justice is Injustice?

The latest installment in the story of the government's war on prison numbers comes courtesy of the Telegraph:

Thousands more convicts are to spend less time in jail as a result of law and order measures published by the Government yesterday.

A new Criminal Justice Bill will limit prison terms faced by released offenders who breach the condition of their licences.

They will serve a maximum sentence of 28 days, instead of being sent back to jail for the duration of their term.

Putting these former prisoners back in jail has helped to push the prison population to record levels.

Greater use of cautions and ending suspended sentences in magistrates' courts will also reduce prisoner numbers.

The Ministry of Justice revealed that the Bill would free up 1,380 prison places at any one time.

This Orwellian-sounding ministry appears to believe that this is a good thing. However I would remind readers that each of those prison places is currently occupied by a criminal, and, moreover, by a criminal who has shown a sufficient continued disregard for the law on being granted early release from prison, that they have been deemed worthy of reincarceration. So, what the Ministry of Justice is really trumpeting, is that 1,380 extra thugs and other assorted lowlife will be loose on our streets, who are presently locked away where they can do no harm.

War is peace, indeed.

More Common Sense on Immigration

Responding to Lord Carey's recent comments, Sir Max Hastings, who I would generally consider something of a wet Cameronite, writes more common sense on immigration, in the Daily Mail:

By the Government's own projections, immigrants will account for 83 per cent of our future population growth, and will require us to build more than 200 houses a day for the next 20 years to provide them with roofs.

Most native Britons fiercely resist and resent the influx, and feel betrayed by the entire political class which is allowing it to happen.

The Government professes to believe in restricting entry, but refuses to enforce effective controls. It is unnecessary to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that many Labour ministers and MPs simply do not mind.

They told us in 1997 that they intended to bring about "an irreversible change in the nature of British society". Wholesale immigration contributes mightily to this process, as few newcomers vote Tory.

The use of immigrants - who are more likely to support leftist parties - to effect social change is far from being an exclusively British phenomenon. In Belgium, for example, socialist parties have rushed to give voting rights to immigrants, in order to halt the rise of the right-wing Vlaams Belang.

To return to Sir Max's article, he continues:

While almost all emigrants are, of course, professed Christians, a huge number of those who come in are Muslims.

And there's the rub. Since so many have no desire to adopt the values and customs of our society, their presence has drastically altered the appearance and character of Britain's inner cities.

Lord Carey said on Sunday that he hopes Gordon Brown "will not forget the importance of Christian identity at the heart of being a part of the United Kingdom". It seems fanciful to suppose that his wish will be fulfilled.

The point which so much of the political elite seem unable to grasp is just this: that the main problem with immigration is the unwanted social change it is bringing to this country. They believe that people are only concerned about pressures on housing, or on the job market, and so, on the rare occasions when they deign to address this vital issue at all, they only talk about those things. And of course, jobs and housing are important concerns. But the most obvious, and simultaneously the least talked about, aspect of immigration for most people is that large parts of Britain are beginning to seem like a foreign country to the native population.

Actually, when I say "the least talked about", I am perhaps wrong. After all, the political elite are quite happy to praise "multiculturalism" when it suits them, or to tell us how
"wonderful" it is that the country is being transformed. What they won't acknowledge is that most people, without being fascists or racists, object to multiculturalism, and that they rather like their own way of life, and don't want to see Britain transformed. Perhaps the politicians should consider this point, and respond accordingly, by stopping the immigration that is wreaking this destructive transformation. Forgive me, though, if I don't hold my breath.

Tuesday, 26 June 2007

Idiotic Proposal of the Day

Immigration officers should wear pastel-coloured clothing when attempting to deport families, so that they are less intimidating to children, Home Office officials have recommended.

The proposal to dress officers in clothing that is less like a uniform came in a government review of attempts to remove families from Britain. It urged a change of clothing for those involved in trying to deport families, to make the process less frightening.

The review by the Border and Immigration Agency said: “Consideration should be given to providing standard-issued clothing in softer colours (currently issued in navy) for enforcement officers involved in family work to reduce the appearance of a ‘uniform’ and be less intimidating to children.”

Obviously it's not the fault of the children if their parents choose to enter the UK illegally, and they should suffer as little as possible for their parents' crime. But how on Earth is dressing immigration officers up like participants in a gay pride parade going to help anything? I would imagine that most of the fear and intimidation comes from the fact that they are being forcibly removed from the country. This won't change just because the people doing it are dressed in a very tasteful shade of mauve, rather than in navy blue.

Also, it has to be pointed out, that the process would probably be a lot less stressful for all concerned if the parents complied with the immigration officials at all stages. After all, the immigration officials only need to start using strong-arm tactics if the immigrants aren't prepared to go peacefully.

It also suggested that if a child was close to school examinations it would be a factor in determining whether a family was removed.

I would have thought that being deported would be bad enough without having to sit a bloody exam immediately beforehand! Particularly when the result of that exam is likely to be completely irrelevant to them in their home countries.

The proposal to clothe immigration officers in pastel colours came as ministers abandoned a controversial policy of removing welfare benefits from failed asylum-seeker families in the hope that it would encourage them to leave. The Government dropped the blanket operation of the policy after a pilot project found that it led to no significant increase in voluntary returns or removals from Britain.

Of course, the thought that the British taxpayer shouldn't have to give his money to criminals who entered this country illegally and have absolutely no right to be here doesn't seem to have crossed the government's collective mind.

Anyway, having seen this proposal, I've come up with my own idea for a uniform which could be worn by the Home Office officials who had the "pastel colours" idea. It consists of a piece of headgear to be worn by them at all times, and it looks like this:

The Invasion of America

Mexican immigrants tear down the American flag flying outside a California school, and haul up the Mexican flag in its place, in a startling display of their disloyalty to America.

These disgusting images bring to my mind nothing so much as the scenes of Muslims burning the Cross of St George in Regent's Park last Friday. In both cases we have immigrants entering a country in such large numbers that they threaten to overwhelm the existing population, and in both cases these immigrants are, in large part, openly hostile to the host country, and the host population.

And in both cases, the particular immigrants pictured should be shot...

Hat-tip: The Gunslinger

Monday, 25 June 2007

Think-tank calls for more grammar schools

More grammar schools and low-cost private schools are needed to raise the "dire" standards of the education system, a report by one of the most respected economic think-tanks says today.

Millions of people cannot read, write or count and millions more can barely do so because of the "socialist" state-directed system and comprehensive education, the Economic Research Council says.

Better off parents have escaped the worst aspects of comprehensive education by paying private fees, buying tuition or moving home to be close to the best schools, says the report. It is families on the lowest incomes that have suffered from the progressive theories and dumbing down of standards.


Prof Dennis O'Keeffe, the report's author, says leading Tories who claim grammar schools no longer offer a ladder of opportunity for poor, bright children fail to understand the importance of selection.

"Unlike David Cameron's parents who sent him to Eton, certain members of the modern Conservative Party appear not to understand the dramatically effective way competitive education encourages, identifies and rewards talent and consequently increases social mobility," he says.

"Comprehensive schools with soft and easy access for all have not served the community well. They have served only to eradicate upward mobility, and done so, perversely, in the name of eradicating privilege," adds Prof O'Keeffe, the professor of social science at Buckingham University.

Of course, all this flies in the face of the policies of the Tory Party, which has become virulently anti-grammar school under David Cameron. Cameron's policy of playing exclusively to the liberal-left gallery, while ignoring the views of the majority of the public, seems to be beginning to fail, however, with the Tories 3% behind Labour in the latest opinion poll. Of course, this is only one opinion poll, but for the Tories to be behind at this point, ten years into a Labour government, does suggest that Cameron's policy isn't really working. Perhaps if he were to come out and advocate policies which actually resonate with the public, then he might do rather better. Given that grammar schools are not only an area of particular importance to traditional Tory voters, but are actually supported by an overwhelming majority of people across the country, he might like to consider whether he would be doing better had he pledged to build more, rather than attacking the few we still have.

To be fair, Labour are no better on education (or, indeed, on anything else). Today, in a spectacular display of joined-up thinking, one Schools Minister, Lord Adonis,
pledged that by 2020 80% of schoolchildren would get five good GCSE qualifications, while another Schools Minister, Jim Knight, announced that schools would have to make efficiency savings in line with planned cuts (in real terms) in funding levels. Now, it is of course the case that the solution to the problems of the education system is not to simply throw money at it, but it is still rather inconsistent to, on the one hand, call for an increase in standards, and, on the other, reduce the funds going to the schools which are supposed to be the motor driving that increase.

Another Mega Mosque

A while back, I wrote about the continuing shenanigans surrounding the Mega Mosque which the highly dubious Islamist organisation Tablighi Jamaat plans to build in East London. That mosque, it will be recalled, was to have a capacity of 12,000, making it four times the size of Britain's largest Anglican cathedral.

Now I read in the Telegraph of a planned new mega mosque in the German city of Cologne. This will not be on quite the same scale as the London mega mosque. However, with space for 2,000 worshippers, it will hardly be minute. In a particularly provocative move, the Cologne mosque will be built within two miles of Cologne's historic Catholic cathedral. I am not sure of the exact capacity of the cathedral, but certainly a mosque of the size proposed will at least come close to rivalling it in scale.

And that, really, is the point. The building of these mega mosques (a failed attempt was made to build one in Amsterdam, as well) constitutes a permanent physical reminder of the Islamic religion, and, by building them bigger than the largest Christian cathedrals, they symbolise, not only that the Islamic religion is here, but that it is here to dominate.

Work will start on the German mega mosque in the autumn, and it is expected to be completed by 2009. A broad coalition of German groups is opposing its construction, and I for one hope that they succeed.

Sunday, 24 June 2007

Tough on crime?

The Observer gives the latest update on the long-running saga of the government's battle against prison "overcrowding":
The Government will this week spark a new war with the judiciary by stripping England and Wales's 30,000 magistrates of powers to hand out suspended jail terms, in a fresh bid to ease the prisons crisis.

The move is likely to prompt an angry reaction from magistrates who fiercely guard their sentencing powers.

It will also be interpreted as a climbdown by the government which introduced suspended sentence orders (SSOs) for summary offences - 'minor' crimes, such as common assault or driving while disqualified, which are heard in the magistrates' court - only two years ago. Under the order an offender receives a custodial punishment if they commit a further crime while the suspended sentence is running.

But the government has been alarmed by the number of times magistrates have used suspended sentences and by how many have been converted into custodial sentences for reoffenders.

We really do seem to be living in a world that has gone totally mad. How else do we describe a society where the government - which is supposed to exist for the protection of the populace - will use any trick in the book to try and keep criminals out of prison, and on the streets?

My own views on claims that prisons are overcrowded have been set out here before: essentially, I will not accept that prisons are full up until there is no longer one inch of floor space in one cell in the country which does not have a convict lying, sitting, or standing on it. And I also feel that a liberal application of the noose would serve the purpose of reducing the prison population rather well.

Somewhat ironically, however, the government's latest attempt to reduce the prison population may well have the effect of increasing it, at least according to Harry Fletcher, of the National Association of Probation Officers, who "warns" (because it is something we all fear) that magistrates could use immediate custodial sentences, if they are prevented from using suspended ones. Whether this will actually turn out to be the case is unclear (personally, from my limited experience of seeing magistrates in action, I'm surprised to learn that they ever send anyone to prison), but it is a pleasant thought.

Germany: Abortion opponents jailed

Paul Belien at the Brussels Journal has the deeply disturbing story of Pastor Johannes Lerle, a German Lutheran cleric who was last week sentenced to a year's imprisonment for the crime of Volksverhetzung - inciting the people. He apparently did this by denying that the Holocaust took place.

Now, I think that the criminalisation of holocaust denial in countries such as Germany and Austria is ridiculous in itself, and is on something of a par with the laws in Turkey which have resulted in people facing jail for talking about the Armenian genocide. However, the case of Herr Lerle is particularly ridiculous because he did not, in fact, deny the Holocaust. Rather, he compared the annual killing by abortion of 150,000 unborn children to the Holocaust. This statement can in no way be seen as a denial of the Holocaust; indeed, it holds up the Holocaust as the yardstick of evil, against which all other evil may be measured. What has in fact happened is that Herr Lerle has gone to prison for opposing abortion.

This is not the first time Herr Lerle has gone to jail for challenging the abortionists. He had previously served eight months jail-time for describing abortionists as "professional killers". Another German pro-life activist was jailed for describing abortion as "unjust", on the grounds that non-lawyers would interpret 'unjust' as meaning 'illegal', and that therefore she was, in common parlance, wrongly accusing abortionists of breaking the law. It seems that the German courts rely on logic that would shame a ten year old in order to silence the enemies of the state.

I will refrain from further comment on this at this moment: suffice to say that if anyone denies that the above cases are deeply unjust, and indicative of a high level of totalitarianism, then they probably have something severely wrong with their moral compass. I would strongly urge readers to go over to Paul Belien's article, and read the whole of it, in which you will find many more examples of the suppression of the free speech of those who oppose the agenda of the liberal-left, across Europe.

Lord Carey talks sense

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has called for tighter controls on immigration. In so doing, Lord Carey, who has previously talked good common sense on the subject of Islam, once again sets himself apart from the far-left line taken by his successor, Rowan Williams, who considers "causing anxiety" over immigration to be racist. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy O'Connor, has also adopted the views of the far-left, calling for a complete amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Interestingly, Lord Carey emphasised the importance of Britain's Christian heritage and culture. As I have pointed out many times before, if you flood Britain with every type of person under the sun, and particularly with Islamic immigrants, then you will inevitably undermine that heritage and culture, ultimately to the point where it could be supplanted by Islam. Lord Carey clearly recognises this; it would appear that Williams, Murphy O'Connor, and John Sentamu do not.

Lord Carey did call for more "clemency in the case of some people who need refugee status", a position I could quite agree with, if we had any genuine refugees coming into Britain. However, as I and others have repeatedly pointed out, we don't. Genuine refugees flee the country where they are suffering persecution, and go to the first safe country they can reach. If they then pass through a dozen or more other safe countries, aiming always for Britain, then they cease to be refugees, and become plain and simple illegal immigrants, who should be deported at the earliest opportunity.

Notwithstanding this last point, however, Lord Carey's remarks are still to be welcomed. It's just a shame he doesn't occupy the Chair of St Augustine anymore, but has been replaced by a burbling fool.

Postscript: The response of Tim Finch, the spokesman of the Refugee Council, to Lord Carey's remarks, was particularly interesting to observe. Mr Finch averred that "controls on immigration were so strong already" that he could see no reason for Lord Carey to speak out on the issue. Now, given that we have around half a million immigrants entering the UK each year, given that 200,000 illegal immigrants have been granted a de facto amnesty because the government can't find them, and given that even the most fervent advocates of mass immigration acknowledge (and, indeed, celebrate) the fact that the Blair years have seen a paradigm shift in government policy in favour of mass immigration, one can only conclude that Mr Finch is one of two things: an unutterable idiot or an unconscionable liar. Which do you think, dear readers?

Personally, I'm going with both.

Saturday, 23 June 2007

The latest Islamic conspiracy theory

According to the Iranian newspaper Jomhuri-ye Eslami (The Islamic Republic), Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses at the request of the Queen, who paid him £500,000 for doing so.

Rather amusingly, the Persian nutters also claim that the knighting of Rushdie
...can be seen as a cover-up to distract the public’s attention from the sexual scandals of royal princes and princesses who are infamous and detested even among the English population, a population who cannot wait for the end of this hated monarch regime which stinks of the Middle Ages.
There's something of the pot casting aspersions on the paleness of the kettle in this, it appears to me. After all, if a popularly-supported and constitutional monarchy "stinks of the Middle Ages" what is the smell of an undemocratic Sharia theocracy?

What's wrong with the BMA?

On its website, the British Medical Association (BMA) says that it:
- is a voluntary professional association of doctors
- speaks for doctors at home and abroad,
- provides services for its members
- is an independent trade union
- is a scientific and educational body
- is a publisher
- is a limited company, funded largely by its members.
Now, it will be noted that nowhere in there does it profess to be an advocate for nanny statism, or for abortion. Clearly, this is some vast oversight, as two stories in today's Telegraph illustrate:

The first tells how the BMA, whose paternalistic attitudes in respect of alcohol I have already documented here and here, will next Tuesday debate a motion at its annual conference calling for a ban on alcohol consumption in the street, as well as for the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to be raised to 21, except in pubs and hotels. As I've said before, I doubt that the latter measure will have any great effect - most children of even 13 or 14 can get hold of alcohol if they really want to, so I doubt that 19 and 20 year olds would find it problematic. I would say that banning alcohol consumption in the street is unlikely to have much effect either: after all, it's surely not that difficult for people to go indoors.
Dr Christopher Spencer-Jones, who seems to be one of a great number of meddling physicians with nothing better to do than instruct the poor benighted populace in personal betterment, suggests that alcohol should be sold in separate departments of supermarkets, and purchased at separate cash desks. As the old quack puts it:
We should stop having alcohol for sale in supermarkets alongside foodstuffs. If you had different doors and cash desks for alcohol in supermarkets, you would be signalling alcohol is not a safe foodstuff.
If you put it in a different environment you can have messages around safe and responsible drinking.
Clearly he's not a grammarian, but if his point was expressed with crystal clarity it would still be wrong. Does he really think that the public are so stupid that they believe that drinking vodka will produce the same effects as drinking Ribena? Apparently so. And does he also believe that sticking alcoholic beverages in a little side-room, with messages telling people to moderate their drinking, will actually make them more likely to do so? So it seems. And is he right on either of these points? No, of course not. The public know that drinking too much alcohol is bad, which is why most of us don't do it too often. However, we are also adults, who can exercise choice in the matter, with or without Dr Spencer-Jones's wagging finger pointing at us.

However, while the BMA seems desperately keen to do all it can to reduce the actually rather mild social evil of binge drinking, it cares rather less about the huge social evil of abortion. For on Wednesday, the Lib Dem MP and former GP Evan Harris will propose a motion to the BMA conference calling for nurses and midwives to be allowed to carry out abortions on demand, without those women receiving the abortion ever speaking to a doctor. Given that at present around a quarter of conceptions end in abortion, one would hope that doctors, with their supposed commitment to the sanctity of life, would wish to make abortions more - not less - difficult to obtain.

So, there you have it: the BMA favours treating adults like children if they want to have a few beers, but considers that 193,700 dead babies each year is too few. What any of this has to do with the BMA's stated purposes, as listed above, is unclear to me: the BMA exists to look after the interests of its members, not to promote the politics of the left. Sadly, like so many other professional and trade organisations, it seems to have forgotten this.

Friday, 22 June 2007

Some people just aren't that bright

A 73-year-old Indian farmer who vowed not to marry before passing his high school exams has failed to get through for the 38th time.

Shiv Charan Yadav has been taking the exams -- normally given to schoolchildren at the age of 15 -- every year since 1969, without success.
I think that if I were him, I'd probably have given up some time ago.

But perhaps next time he could get this little girl to help him.

Beyond Belief

In 1998 Nazir Ahmed was raised to the peerage as Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, becoming the first Muslim to enter the House of Lords. As such, one might hope that he would prove a model of Islamic integration into British society. However, the very opposite has proved true.

Lord Ahmed has most recently been demonstrating his extremist credentials in the row over the Rushdie knighthood. He had already accused Sir Salman of "having blood on his hands", as a result of his criticism of Islam, but today he really went over-the-top, saying:
This honour is given in recognition of services rendered to Great Britain. Salman Rushdie lives in New York. He is controversial man who has insulted Muslim people, Christians and the British. He does not deserve the honour.

Two weeks ago Tony Blair spoke about constructing bridges with Muslims. What hypocrisy.

What would one say if the Saudi or Afghan governments honoured the martyrs of the September 11 attacks on the United States?

There you have it: a Muslim member of the House of Lords lets the guard slip, and describes the 9/11 terrorists as "martyrs". How much closer to being an open enemy of the country can you get? Such a man really is unfit to have a peerage and should, I believe, be stripped of it forthwith. And preferably deported.

Hat-tip: LGF

Update: It has been pointed out to me that the original transcript of the interview, in the French newspaper Le Figaro appears to have Lord Ahmed describing the 9/11 terrorists as "des hommes morts", which would apparently translate as 'dead men' rather than 'martyrs'. In this case, I'm unsure why the Telegraph has translated it as 'martyrs', but if anyone with a reasonable command of French can offer an explanation, I would be much obliged.

In any event, I still consider Lord Ahmed a highly dubious character, and utterly unworthy of a peerage.

Witch Hunt of the Day

A surgeon has been suspended over claims that he said a white colleague who returned from holiday with a suntan looked like a "jungle bunny".

John Riddington Young, 58, was sent home on full pay pending a disciplinary investigation into the alleged "racist" incident.

A nurse is understood to have complained about the consultant's comments during his daily rounds at the North Devon Hospital in Barnstaple.

He has, however, been allowed to return to work, on the condition that he be supervised at all times, pending an investigation.

I have to say, that I have never before heard the expression "jungle bunny". Apparently it is considered offensive by some Americans, but I am not aware that it has the same connotations in the UK. And what kind of hospital suspends and harasses a surgeon, presumably delaying the treatment of patients into the bargain, simply because he used a term which some people might consider offensive?

Quote of the Day

"Islam does not allow suicide attacks but it would be justified in the case of a blasphemer, who is worthy of death."

Chaudhry Mohammed Afzal Sahi, Speaker of the Punjab Provincial Assembly, on Sir Salman Rushdie.

Remember, it's the Religion of Peace.

Update: A picture of my "Angry Muslims of the Day", busily burning a Cross of St George outside Regents Park Mosque, can be found at ATW.

Thursday, 21 June 2007

Parody, meet reality

Perhaps it's just me, but doesn't this (real life) Daily Mail headline sound exactly like a Private Eye parody of a Daily Mail headline:

Did Hitler unleash the Holocaust because a Jewish prostitute gave him syphilis?

If only they'd managed to include a reference to house prices...

Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Racist Conspiracy Theorists

A survey commissioned by the black newspaper, The Voice, has revealed that four times as many black people are worried about crime as about "racism". As well they might be, given such cases as this, this, this, and these, all of which feature the murders of blacks, by blacks.

The fact that far more blacks are concerned about what people within their own community are doing to one another than about the wicked white people is clearly cause for concern for the players of racial politics. After all, the whole basis of their influence, and of their belief system, is the principle that every problem afflicting black people can be attributed to the evil machinations of the white devils. If the number of black people sharing that belief were to decline, then their influence would decline proportionately.

And so, obviously horrified by the tendency of their fellow blacks to be more concerned with actual black crime than with fictional white "racism", the players of racial politics have responded by asserting that, really, black crime and white racism are the same thing. If a black thug stabs someone, the whites made him do it. As Raymond Stephenson, a professional whinger and head of a group called Urban Concepts, put it:
The upsurge in crime is linked to racism and a lack of opportunity for young people, especially in ghetto areas where there may not be any youth clubs and where they are not spending money on us.
"They" are of course the wicked white oppressors.

It's interesting, isn't it, that Stephenson's solution to the problems of black criminality is for white people to give more of their money to blacks. The idea of the black community taking responsibility for its own self-inflicted problems does not occur to him. But, of course, in the minds of the players of racial politics, blacks can never be responsible for anything they do wrong: it's always the white people's fault.

Another professional "anti-racist" who addresses the issue is Herald "Ruggie" Johnson. Johnson is something of an expert on racism, being himself the proud possessor of a conviction for racially-aggravated harassment. Slipping into prose so overwrought as to be almost parodic, he says:
The government and the police need to understand that just like alcoholics you first need to admit your problem before you can change it. You cannot say you will tackle the problem of crime within the black community without recognising the root cause and the way in which the community has been mentally and physically brutalised cumulating in today's Diaspora of people trying to find a place in this post colonial age. The government needs to admit their role in all of this and face up to the real reasons for what is now presented in today's society and not to refer to youth crime as "an isolated problem."
I agree: black criminality is not "an isolated problem". It's caused by a mix of factors, including the "gangsta" culture dominant in black communities, and the collapse in moral standards and traditional values in those communities. And it's perpetuated by people like Ruggie Johnson, who, rather than taking their own advice and acknowledging that, like an alcoholic, they have a problem, persist in propagating their mantra that, whatever happens, the white devils are to blame. People like Johnson, and Raymond Stephenson, are no more than racist conspiracy theorists (imagine a white person attributing to "the Jews" all that Johnson and Co attribute to "the whites"), and I for one am heartily sick of seeing such people given a platform (and a platform commonly described as "anti-racist", forsooth) from which to vilify white people, and blame us for the harm their people are doing to one another.

Tuesday, 19 June 2007

Idiot of the day, part 2

Via the Telegraph's Holy Smoke blog, and Dhimmi Watch, I come across the simply bizarre story of the Rev Ann Holmes Redding, formerly director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle, still an ordained minister, and, for the last fifteen months, a practising Muslim.

Yes, you read it correctly: an ordained Christian cleric, and a practising Muslim. Miss Redding justifies her rather unusual theological stance thus:
At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need.

It wasn't about intellect [that much is obvious - FR]. All I know is the calling of my heart to Islam was very much something about my identity and who I am supposed to be.

I could not not be a Muslim.
Redding also has some pretty anti-Christian views, for a vicar, describing Christianity as the "world religion of privilege". And she's not very keen on white people either, saying that going to a black-dominated Muslim centre reminded her "that there are more people of colour in the world than white people, [which] in itself is a relief".

So, what has the Episcopal Church made of this racist, Christianophobic, Muslim vicar? Oh, they're all for it. The Rt Rev Vincent Warner, Bishop of the Diocese of Olympia, "finds the interfaith possibilities exciting". Well, I suppose that's one way of putting it, although it's not quite the word I'd have used.

Bizarrely enough, there is something of a precedent for this, within the Anglican Communion, of which Miss Redding's Episcopal Church is a part. In September last year, it was revealed that a Church of England vicar, the Rev David Hart, had retained his licence to practise, despite converting to Hinduism. And the Archbishop of Canterbury was famously ordained as a druid, although he has denied that druidism has any pagan connotations.

How this story will progress is unclear. But, from the comments at Dhimmi Watch, I know that I'm far from being the first person to imagine that it might all end in tragedy, as her Muslim half follows time-honoured Islamic tradition, and attempts to behead the wicked infidel with whom it shares a body.

Idiots of the day

According to the Daily Mail, Barclays Bank is considering dropping its well-known eagle logo (which it has had since 1728), if its takeover bid for the Dutch bank ABN AMRO goes ahead. The reason? Well, apparently the eagle logo bears too close a resemblance to the Nazi eagle emblem, and it is feared that this might upset ABN AMRO's Dutch customers.

Well, I can certainly see the problem. There's no doubting that both eagles are definitely eagles. That the resemblance starts and ends there is, of course, completely immaterial.
No doubt we can soon expect to see the USA drop the eagle from its great seal, in order to avoid causing offence. Or perhaps not, since at least some Americans still possess a modicum of common sense. Which is more than can be said for some of the people at Barclays, apparently.

Muslim Anger Watch

First there was Cartoon Rage.

Then there was Pope Rage.

Now, we have Knighthood Rage, and all because of us.

Seeing all those angry Muzzies makes you feel proud to be British, doesn't it?

It's also interesting to note that Lord Ahmed, a Muslim who has apparently made such a vast contribution to British society that he has been awarded a peerage, is actively siding with Britain's enemies over this. He has even accused Sir Salman of "having blood on his hands".
Further evidence, if any was needed, of where the loyalty of even the most ostensibly integrated Muslims truly lies.

British ex-Muslim group formed

Inspired by a similar movement in Germany, a Council of ex-Muslims of Britain is set to be launched on Thursday, according to the blog of the British-based Iranian activist, Maryam Namazie.

While I in no way support Miss Namazie's aggressively secularist and communist views, I nonetheless feel that an ex-Muslim association has the potential to make a quite substantial contribution to the struggle against Islam. It is estimated that there are 200,000 people living in Britain who have rejected Islam, for one reason or another, and it must be remembered that leaving Islam is totally unlike leaving, say, Christianity. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for those who renounce Islam, and even in Britain, which is not yet a Sharia state, known apostates from Islam face violence and intimidation at the hands of their erstwhile coreligionists. An organisation dedicated to representing and supporting such people could, if well organised, encourage many more to publicly reject the poison that is Islam. In addition, it could serve to undermine the power of groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, which derive much of their influence from appearing to represent every single person of Muslim heritage in the UK. This could only be a good thing.

Of course, whether the new Council of ex-Muslims will do any of this, or whether it will be a damp squib, is something that we shall have to wait to find out.

Sunday, 17 June 2007

"Institutional Racism" Watch

In its latest bout of self-flagellation, the Church of England has proclaimed itself to be "institutionally racist". In so doing, it joins with, among others, the Metropolitan Police, the NHS, mental health services, universities, schools, the football league, the BBC(!), the Live 8 concert, the armed forces, and British society as a whole, in the proud roll call of institutions which have been accused of institutional racism. I haven't attempted a full list of all those institutions, because to do so would take too long. Indeed, it would probably be quicker to list those institutions which have not been accused of institutional racism, than to list all those that have.

Nonetheless, the CofE's attack on itself has to rank among the most ridiculous of such accusations. The sole evidence that seems to have been adduced to support it is the fact that only 2.2% of CofE clergy are non-white, as against 3.2% of CofE members. That may be a slight under-representation, but it doesn't seem sufficient to indicate institutional racism to me. One might argue that the fact that only 3.2% of CofE members are not white as against 9% of the total population is indicative of racism, but then how many white Muslims, or white members of black evangelical churches, do you see? But, of course, we must remember that only those wicked white people can ever be racist, and, indeed, as any good liberal will tell you, the white race is, like every institution it creates, inherently racist.

Hat-tip: David Vance at ATW

At ATW...

I've written a short post on the subject of the BBC, which today acknowledged its left-wing bias.

Saturday, 16 June 2007

Fingers in the till?

Thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money was spent without documentation by the National Black Police Association (NBPA) on trips abroad, equipment and loans, an audit has revealed.

An internal NBPA report leaked yesterday to Police Review, a professional magazine for the police service, shows cheques for almost £40,000 with no recorded payees.

The Home Office has already sent in auditors to look at the accounts of the association and yesterday confirmed that the Whitehall auditors had begun further investigations.

Tony McNulty, the police minister, is due to meet NBPA officials.

The report, compiled by auditors for the NBPA’s current executive, who started in November 2005, says there is no suggestion of embezzlement but questions what it calls the “appropriate distribution of expenditure”.

The report shows that two satellite navigation systems were bought, costing £1,400, and there was evidence of financial loans, including one of £14,693. Flowers worth £44 were ordered without any evidence as to why, and other expenditure totalling £385 was made on a trip to Zimbabwe.

Not exactly good for the public image of a police organisation for it to be investigated for financial dodginess, is it? Still, some would say it's not exactly good for the public image of the police force to have among its members those who seem more interested in playing grievance politics than in protecting the public, and that hasn't stopped the NBPA.

CBE: Comrade of Britain's Enemies?

One of the most loathsome enemies of this country is Shami Chakrabarti, head of the far-left "civil liberties" pressure group Liberty. This dreadful little woman devotes each and every waking minute that she has to giving aid and succour to terrorists, criminals, and immigrants. If her ideals were allowed to prevail, we would witness nothing less than the destruction of Britain.

So, why on Earth has the government seen fit to award her a CBE? What kind of nation honours its enemies in this manner? Well, I suppose there's precedent for it, in the knighting of Iqbal Sacranie, but it still seems to me that honouring Chakrabarti in this manner is rather akin to giving Lord Haw Haw a real peerage.

Friday, 15 June 2007

Muslims rise against British oppression - British oppressors don't notice

Via a comment at the Pub Philosopher's blog, I find a rare report on the much vaunted "Muslims rise against British Oppression" demonstration, at the New English Review. It seems that the protest was not quite the Earth-shattering show of Islamic strength that certain elements had hoped. Apparently a couple of hundred Muslims, and about fifty National Front members, shouted slogans at one another for a couple of hours, and then went home. Pickled Politics also has a report, as does Battle for Britain.

So, it seems the glorious Islamic revolution is not with us just yet. Nonetheless, we must not become complacent - the Islamic threat is still as real as ever, and it does not come from lone nutters like Anjem Choudhary, but from demographic change, and the slow transformation of our society into a Sharia state.

The spirit of Dr Bowdler

When it first aired 30 years ago in less politically correct times, nobody batted an eyelid at the risque comments made in the prison comedy Porridge.

Ronnie Barker's character Fletcher was always ribbing his fellow inmates, not least Lukewarm, the outlandishly camp chef played by Christopher Biggins.

But three decades on, one particular remark has caused outrage, because it has been removed from a repeat.

Fans of the sitcom, which regularly pulled in more than 10 million viewers, have accused the BBC of "giving in to the politically correct brigade" after a phrase was removed from the programme on Saturday.

They claim the comment "that sort do, don't they", referring to Lukewarm's ability to keep his cell clean, was taken out because it could be offensive to homosexuals.
This decision is ridiculous in a variety of different ways. For a start, picking on this particularly innocuous innuendo is ludicrous, since one routinely hears far more crude and, potentially, offensive innuendo regarding homosexuals (and heterosexuals, for that matter) broadcast by people like Graham Norton, without any efforts towards censorship.

One also has to wonder, since it is apparently now the case that, not only will new shows be prevented from including non-PC content, but that existing TV shows will be retrospectively edited years after their creation, in order to ensure that they conform to the standards of today's PC liberals, where this latter-day Bowdlerisation will end. Will we, for example, see Aristophanes' couplet from The Frogs, "Oh, what's come over Cleisthenes, he looks so full of care/he's lost his lovely boyfriend and his sad cries rend the air" removed, a mere two and a half thousand years after being written, lest it cause offence to homosexuals? In the present climate, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Blogger faces jail for "causing offence"

In Falkirk, a blogger named Andrew Love has pleaded guilty to committing a "racially-aggravated breach of the peace", and may now face imprisonment. What, you ask, were the heinous acts which constituted this offence? Well, he wrote a blog, in which he "directed insults at groups including black and disabled people, Muslims and homosexuals."

In deferring sentence, Sheriff William Gallacher, the presiding judge, told Love that:

You should be under no illusions that this is a charge of great gravity.

The offence you caused, and might have caused, was very grave indeed, and may need to be marked by the court.

Now, it may well be the case that Love's blog was vulgar, juvenile, and, as the Sheriff said, offensive. The BBC report does not provide any details regarding the blog's content, beyond the fact that it "featured a film clip of a disabled colleague playing a mouth organ and captioned it with an insulting remark", which doesn't sound particularly horrific to me.

However, regardless of the content of the blog, the fact is that all that Love has actually done to merit a criminal record and a possible prison term, is to write things that people found offensive. That, moreover, the wrong kind of people found offensive, for I doubt that he would be in his present predicament had he directed his offensive remarks at white Christian men. To me, it appears that this whole case represents a grotesque violation of Andrew Love's free speech, and is indicative of the increasing extent to which non-PC views are not merely criticised, but are actually criminalised.

Cross-posted at ATW

Thursday, 14 June 2007

How to promote community cohesion: discriminate against whites

The Commission on Integration and Cohesion has today published its report (pdf) on how to bring everyone together in a wonderful multicultural paradise. Apparently, if we follow their instructions, by 2020 we will all be joining hands and singing Kumbaya, as we celebrate the wonderful transformation of Britain, into a country which is home to everyone, except the native British.

Among the Commission's recommendations that have attracted publicity are:

1. Immigrants should be given guidance on the British way of life.

Well, this seems like a quite good idea. Unfortunately such guidance will not address any real discrepancies between the behaviour of immigrants and the traditional British way of life, but will focus on such minor things as telling immigrants not to jump the queue at the post office, or spit in the street. While, it is, of course, desirable that those who do such things should be discouraged, I would far rather see immigrants taught that, for example, in Britain, criticising a dead paedophile is not grounds for beheading.

2. Political parties should ensure that they pick candidates who reflect the ethnic make-up of the local electorate.

We do sometimes hear calls for this. These are usually couched in terms of the candidates being "too white". It seems that the common perception among players of racial politics is that a white candidate can never represent a community which is less than 80% white, but that it is racist to suggest that a non-white candidate cannot represent an overwhelmingly white constituency. This would appear to be the view of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion as well. After all, when they talk about representatives reflecting the ethnic make-up of those they represent, I doubt they were talking about Adam Afriyie representing the approximately 92% white people of Windsor.

3. "Targeted recruitment" to increase the number of non-white council employees.

So, to increase community cohesion, councils should discriminate against white people. Actually, this seems pretty much par for the course for the race relations industry.

4. Establishing a "rapid rebuttal" unit to counter criticisms of immigration.

This again is quite typical of the response of the liberal elite to any criticism of its multicultural social experiment. Rather than pay attention to people's legitimate concerns, they simply try to trick people into believing that all is well. It's the game they've been playing for years and years without success, but that doesn't seem likely to stop them.

There are a few decent ideas in there, such as plans to put more pressure on immigrants to speak English. But as ever, the report seems more concerned with minor matters, or with propagandising on behalf of mass immigration than with really dealing with the concerns of the populace. We now have close to 600,000 immigrants coming into Britain each year. Perhaps cohesion would be better promoted by limiting this number, than by trying to inculcate in people's minds a false belief that immigration on this scale is a good thing. And perhaps more efforts should be made to understand why a native population which is seeing its culture constantly undermined and eroded, and itself constantly vilified, is not overly keen on experiencing more of the same. But I don't think we can expect to see any of that from the race relations industry, for whom there can never be too many immigrants, nor too strong an assault on the indigenous culture.

Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Academia: A rare burst of sanity

I read in The Times that 250 leading academics have signed a statement condemning the Universities and Colleges Union's move towards a boycott of Israel.

There's not really a huge amount to say about this, beyond the fact that it's good to see at least a few people in the academic world who are prepared to come out and challenge the shrill-voiced extreme-left/Islamic alliance. Although, I did find the claim of the boycott's chief proponent, Brighton University's Tom Hickey, that the boycott "would enhance the international reputation of British academics", intriguing. Quite how does he think it will do this, I wonder?

Anti-Semitism Rises: No one is responsible

In a speech in the House of Lords, Lord Moser has said that anti-Semitic attitudes in Britain are now at their highest level since the 1930s. His Lordship expressed a particular concern about the levels of anti-Semitism found in British universities, as well he might, given the recent actions of the Universities and Colleges Union.

Lots of people seem willing to talk about how terrible anti-Semitism is, and how we must oppose it, and a few people are even willing to link anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism. But no one seems willing to come out and say that a certain group in particular seems predisposed towards anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviour, and that this group is fuelling the national rise in anti-Semitism. And no, it's not the Methodists.

Tuesday, 12 June 2007

The Enemy Within

A British Army officer has been abused by Asian women while on a hospital visit to troops injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Company Sergeant Major Neil Powell was surrounded and heckled by three young women in the unprovoked verbal attack at Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham.

The women, in traditional Asian dress, ranted about the presence of British troops in Muslim countries.


A colleague said: "He is normally a very placid character, a gentle giant. But he was fuming, understandably, after what happened.

"He couldn’t believe it. CSM Powell just had to stand and take abuse from these screaming and very aggressive women. I don’t think a guy would have got away with it."

Personally, I think he should just have thumped them anyway. But then no doubt we'd be hearing all sorts of whining about "Islamophobia".

What this does demonstrate, once again, is that Muslims are not loyal to Britain, whatever protestations their leaders, and their leftist abettors, may make. People who are loyal to a country do not scream abuse at those who put their lives at risk to defend that country. Be under no illusions that these women were an anomaly: they simply did what most Muslims want to do.

Hat-tip: Jihad Watch

Postscript: Note, also, how the Daily Mail refers to these women as being "Asian". While this is no doubt accurate, nonetheless they did not do this because they are Asian but because they are Muslim. Accordingly, it would make more sense to describe them as such. But, of course, to call a spade a spade in this manner would be "Islamophobic".