Nanny Jowell: hypocrite!

A week ago I mentioned the news that Labour MPs Sadiq Khan and Andrew Slaughter had been caught campaigning to keep post offices in their constituencies open, while voting in favour of the government's plans to shut thousands of post offices nationwide. Now, I read that Tessa "Nanny" Jowell has been doing the same thing:

Tessa Jowell has been accused of "breathtaking cynicism" after she vowed to keep her local post office open despite voting in Parliament for its closure.

The Labour Minister attended a demonstration in support of the branch in Herne Hill, South London, only last week, and accepted a 3,000-signature petition from its customers.

At the event, she pledged to "go on campaigning to keep your post office open until its future is secure".

But just one week earlier, Miss Jowell, Labour's Olympics spokesman and MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, voted in favour of a Government scheme that will see 2,500 post office branches shut across the country - including hers.

Postscript: The Telegraph has full details (almost - they missed out Andrew Slaughter) of how the ninety Labour MPs who have been campaigning against post office closures in their constituencies voted when the matter came before parliament. I particularly note that among the numerous hypocrites was that paragon of virtue, Keith Vaz. Vaz has been making great play of resisting post office closures in his Leicester East constituency, but he still voted to shut them all down in parliament. Still, what more do you expect from the smarmy little toad?

Quotas for judges?

Monday's paper edition of the Guardian bore, at the top of the front page, pictures of the bewigged visages of the ten newest appointees to the High Court. These, the headline informed us, were the "first 10 high court judges [appointed] under [the] new diversity rules".

The report then went on to complain that the new high court judges were all white, male, barristers. Such oppressed groups as non-whites, women, and, um, solicitors were still dangerously under-represented, we read. In support of this contention, they cited that renowned paragon of virtue and goodness, Keith Vaz. With such moral authority as his name confers, can we doubt that the Guardian is right, when it implies that there is a significant problem?

Well, yes, of course we can. For a start, neither Vaz (who, lest we forget, has something of a track record of making unevidenced claims of discrimination, in respect of the legal profession, as elsewhere) nor the Guardian has actually produced any evidence of discrimination. They simply infer, from the fact that the new appointees are all white men, that some form of discrimination must have taken place. And this simply is not sufficient evidence on which to base any reasonable claim.

Their implicit suggestion that there was anti-female discrimination is particularly dubious. Judicial appointments have, since 2006, been the business of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). The creation of the JAC marked a move away from appointment of judges by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with other judges, and was created because it was alleged that the existing system was leading to an insufficiently diverse judiciary (hence the reference to "new diversity rules" in the Guardian headline). A cursory examination of the JAC's website reveals that seven of the fifteen commissioners are female, as are three of the five members of the commission's "leadership team". Presumably they all engaged in discrimination against their own sex. On the ethnic front, two of the commissioners are non-white, including the chairman, Baroness Prashar. Although this is obviously a minority, it does nonetheless constitute 13% of the entire body, which means that non-whites are, in fact, over-represented. So, in essence, what Vaz and the Guardian, not to mention numerous outraged letter writers ("disgusted of Islington"?), are alleging, albeit only by implication, is that a body composed of roughly equal numbers of men and women, in which non-whites were over-represented, and which was headed by a non-white woman, discriminated against, um, non-whites and women.

One has to wonder what the Guardian are hoping to achieve. After all, they stuck their (implied) allegation of discrimination on the very front page of the newspaper. One assumes that they feel that some change is due. And, since the JAC asserts that it appoints by merit, one can only assume that this change will involve racial and sexual quotas. This approach has previously been advocated by Britain's first black woman High Court judge, Mrs Justice Dobbs, and it is as idiotic now as it was then. As idiotic, indeed, as demands for such quotas always are. And the reason why they are idiotic is clear. Since there is no evidence to contradict the JAC's claim that is selects on merit, we can only assume that quotas will either have no effect (if the number of non-white/female candidates who are the best candidates meets or exceeds the quota), or will lead to the appointment of inferior candidates over superior candidates. If it's the former, it will be pointless, and if it's the latter (as I suspect it would be), then it will be positively harmful. After all, it is important that any job should be done as well as possible, and this applies doubly when the job is one so vital as the administration of law and justice.

Vaz and the terrorists

I see that my favourite MP is in the news again:

The MP who heads the parliamentary body scrutinising Britain’s counter-terrorism laws addressed a rally at which a plea for support for suicide bombers was broadcast, The Times has learnt.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, addressed the annual Tamil rally in the ExCel centre in East London.

He spoke after participants watched a televised address by Velupillai Prabhakaran, the commander of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a terrorist organisation banned by the Home Office.

Mr Vaz, the MP for Leicester East, was joined by a fellow Labour MP, Joan Ryan. Their presence drew an angry response from the Sri Lankan High Commission, which released a statement claiming that the event was a “clear violation of the UK terrorism laws”.

The rally was organised by British-based Tamils on the birthday of the Tamil Tiger leader. In his address, Mr Vaz told an audience of more than 10,000 people: “I understand the demands made by some for an independent Tamil state. They will grow, unless there is justice.”

The arch-Europhile does not, however, feel the same way about demands for an independent Britain.

Ms Ryan, the MP for Enfield North, told the rally: “I am sorry to have to remember the 70,000 innocent Tamils who lost their lives in the struggle. We must pursue the aims and values for which they lost their lives.”

Earlier in the day, Mr Prabhakaran, in full military dress and in front of the LTTE flag, appeared on six giant screens calling for “the entire Tamil-speaking world to rise up for the liberation of Tamil Eelam”.

In a reference to the LTTE’s use of suicide bombers, he said: “The immeasurable dedication and sacrifice of our heroes is delivering a message to the Sinhala nation.”

The Sri Lankan High Commission accused Mr Vaz yesterday of being “partisan to a proscribed terrorist group” and claimed that the event was organised by apologists for terrorists. “This event was organised by a front organisation of a terrorist group for fundraising and propaganda purposes,” a spokesman said.

When told of the contents of the LTTE leader’s speech and of the criticisms of the Sri Lankan Government, Mr Vaz, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils, responded: “I’m not really interested in [the contents of Mr Prabhakaran's speech].

“I was there to deliver a message from the all-party group, which is what I do. I was there to deliver a message from my constituents. I have many Tamil people in my constituency.” Mr Vaz said he was unaware that the Tamil leader was going to speak.

[...]

Ms Ryan also said that she did not realise that Mr Prabhakaran had spoken.

It would not have been difficult for them to work out that he might speak, however:

The date of the rally, November 27, Heroes Day, is linked with the LTTE. It falls on the birthday of Mr Prabhakaran, and it is marked by Tamil Tiger sympathisers around the world. Mr Prabhakaran’s speech from the Sri Lankan jungle has been televised at every previous UK Heroes Day.

So, either Vaz and Ryan agreed to speak at this event, without bothering to find out anything whatsoever about it, or they are lying (and you can't imagine Keith Vaz doing that, can you?). Either way, it doesn't reflect particularly well on them.

But then, what has Keith Vaz ever done that did reflect well on him?

Postscript: This is not the first time that Vaz has been associated with representatives of the Tamil Tigers. As documented by the Green Arrow back in July, he has in the past campaigned to have the UK-wide ban currently imposed on the political wing of the organisation lifted.

Definitely not goodthinkful

I am indebted to Mr Smith for bringing the following story to my attention:

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full".

Is that a threat? As Mr Smith puts it:

Somehow I can't shake the feeling that 'studying the remarks in full' translates to 'seeing if we can jail this one after the Nick Griffin fiasco'.

Personally, I doubt that even the EHRC would go so far as to seek the prosecution of a Nobel Prize-winning scientist for making comments that have at least a degree of support among those who have done research in this area. But you never know with these race relations industry nutters. Each time you think that they have reached the absolute nadir of sanity and decency, they manage to surprise you by going lower still.

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really".

Similar comments were made by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics in a paper published last year. That sparked a bit of a row as well, although at least no one tried to prevent him from expressing his views. Dr Kanazawa should perhaps have counted himself lucky. Earlier in 2006 Leeds University's Dr Frank Ellis had been forced out of his job by left-wing student groups for asserting a link between race and intelligence (Dr Ellis, a lecturer in Russian, made his comments in an interview with a student newspaper). Thankfully, the evil racism of Doctors Ellis, Kanazawa, and (particularly) Watson is being challenged by a far more eminent scientific expert, exemplar of moral perfection, and all round good guy:

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

To quote Mr Smith again:

Isn't it nice when unelected race-agitators of such prestigious background know better than Nobel-winning scientists?

Meanwhile, the 1990 Trust, which publishes the virulently racist Black Information Link, has also got its oar in:

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

And, reportedly, they will be backing up their arguments with a paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal early next year...

As I said above, I doubt that even the EHRC will go so far as to prosecute Dr Watson for making these remarks. But the fact that the 1990 Trust is even putting forward the suggestion that he should be prosecuted (a suggestion which, I would point out, even Vaz appears to have shied away from making) really does highlight quite what a bunch of little fascists they are. What other word can describe people who wish to have academics prosecuted for expressing a view, however controversial, on a scientific issue?

Regarding the substance of Dr Watson's claims, I think it more likely than not that he is correct, although I appreciate that arguments have been raised by scholars on both sides of the debate. What I would point out, though, is that while there are those who do not believe that race and intelligence are linked, and who have attempted to disprove such a link by means of calm and rational argument, the far more common reaction, as demonstrated by Keith Vaz and his fellow race hustlers (as well as by PC white liberals), is simply to scream "racist" at anyone who suggests that there could even possibly be such a thing as inherent racial differences. Sadly, the word 'racist' is probative of nothing: it is simply not a rational or objective argument, no matter how often it is repeated, with what vehemence, or at what volume. The fact that we may not like what Dr Watson and others have said about this issue - the fact that we might be happier if what he has said were untrue - does not mean that it is untrue, and simply expressing one's dislike of Dr Watson's views with the cry of "racist" does not disprove anything that he has said. If Keith Vaz or anyone else disagrees with what Dr Watson has said, then let them debate with him on the issues. The attempts of those on the left and in the race relations industry to shut down debate on this issue simply serve to undermine their own position, by suggesting that they are not sufficiently confident in their own arguments to hazard them in debate with their opponents.

Update: Another great scientist has now weighed in on the issue:

The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has today condemned the comments made by scientist Professor James Watson, reported in the Independent newspaper today.

Mr Livingstone said:

'Professor James Watson’s comments about the genetic inferiority of Africans, and of black people being less intelligent than white people, represent racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact.

[...]

That a man of such academic distinction could make such ignorant comments, which are utterly offensive and incorrect and give succour to the most backward in our society, demonstrates why racism still has to be fought.

'His offensive and grossly inaccurate comments will no doubt be seized upon by extreme right wing groups to fuel their campaigns of hatred.

'Such views are not welcome in a city like London, a diverse city whose very success demonstrates the racist and nonsensical nature of Dr Watson's comments.'

Quite how London's success disproves Watson's views is unclear to me, I must say. Indeed, the fact that a successful city like London is situated in Britain, a European country, rather than in, say, sub-Saharan Africa, would seem to give support to Dr Watson's claims, insofar as it has any bearing on the matter.

I'd also point out that, his remarks about London aside, Livingstone also makes no attempt at argument, but simply repeats and rephrases the word 'racist' over and over and over again.

Update (2): Now, via Pub Philosopher, I see that the Wicked Watson has been banned from the Science Museum. Despite the fact that the talk that he was due to give on Friday had sold out, the museum cancelled the event, on the grounds that the evildoer's comments had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate". Personally, I'd always assumed that science was about the fearless and impartial search for truth, and that a museum dedicated to science would be the last place to be intimidated into censorship by the squealing of an irrational lynch mob. Clearly I was wrong.

Racists, racists, everywhere...

...or so Keith Vaz does think.

Really, I am starting to wonder whether there is any profession, institution, or organisation which is safe from unjustified and unevidenced accusations of "racism". Apart from organisations set up solely for the benefit of non-whites, of course. The latest "racist" organisation, as identified by Keith Vaz and other race hustlers, is the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The SRA's crime is that they have investigated and closed down a disproportionately large number of black and Asian solicitors' practices. Reportedly, 62% of solicitors investigated by the SRA in 2006 were non-white. This prompted complaints and threats from the Association of Muslim Lawyers (AML) and the Society of Black Lawyers (SBL), and Vaz, himself a former third-rate solicitor of sorts, has now followed suit, asking the justice secretary to investigate the practices, not of the solicitors who are being found to have committed breaches of conduct, but of the regulatory body which is making these findings.

Now, one would expect Vaz, and his friends in the AML and the SBL, to have produced some evidence of actual discrimination taking place, before they started throwing accusations of racism around. However, they have completely failed to do this. Rather, they base their claim that there is widespread racism solely on the fact that a high number of non-white solicitors are being investigated. As the AML's Mahmud al-Rashid put it: "the figures show there must be discrimination at the SRA".

No, they don't show that. Rather, they show that a disproportionately high number of non-white solicitors are being found guilty of incompetence or dodgy dealing by an impartial tribunal. Now, Vaz, the AML, and the SBL may dispute that the SRA is an impartial tribunal, but their arguments are entirely circular, consisting as they do solely in the fact that the SRA is investigating a high number of non-white solicitors, therefore it is racist, therefore the fact that it is investigating a disproportionate number of non-whites is down to discrimination, therefore it is not an impartial tribunal. In the absence of any actual evidence showing discrimination, this argument simply does not stand up. As lawyers, those kicking up a fuss here ought to be able to work that out for themselves. As race hustlers, however, they clearly have no need of such bigoted and Eurocentric things as logic and reason.

Anyway, as I was saying, all that the SRA's investigation really shows is that non-white solicitors are disproportionately likely to be found to be incompetent or ethically dubious. Now, in the circumstances, I would suggest that it would behove both the AML and the SBL to do a bit of soul-searching, and wonder why it is that their members are disproportionately useless or bent. Perhaps it's down to the fact that a lot of those specifically black and Asian law firms that are getting closed down are restricting their recruitment to blacks and Asians (and, indeed, to those blacks and Asians who are either committed race hustlers, or who are unable to get jobs at proper firms), and, in consequence of this severely restricted recruitment policy, are recruiting people of a lower than average standard. Maybe there are other reasons for the discrepancy. But in any event, the SBL and the AML would do well to consider those other reasons, and possibly to consider what they can do to help their members improve their, apparently deficient, professional standards, before they start accusing others of being at fault. Of course, this is never going to happen. Being race hustlers, they adhere to the race hustler's mantra, that whenever a non-white does anything wrong, the first (and, indeed, the only) response should be to scream "racist" at the nearest white person, until they cave in and submit to the race hustler's demands. It is to be hoped that the SRA, and the Law Society, of which it is part, will stand their ground.

More pressure for EU "treaty" referendum

Gordon Brown faces increasing public pressure over Europe with the publication of a new poll for The Daily Telegraph showing that almost two-thirds of voters want a referendum on the European Union reform treaty.

That, by the way, is the "reform treaty" that has been described as being 90% the same as the rejected EU constitution by the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, as 96% the same by the think-tank Open Europe, as "very, very near" to the constitution by the arch-Europhile Valery Giscard d'Estaing, and as "essentially the same proposal as the old constitution" by the European commissioner Margot Walstrom. That "reform treaty" - not a different one.

But hang on, what's this?

Mr Brown has so far rejected calls for a national vote on the grounds that the new treaty is much less far-reaching than the original constitutional treaty abandoned in 2005 after Dutch and French voters rejected it.

Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, and Ed Balls, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary, repeated that view yesterday.

Douglas Alexander is an unscrupulous little liar, and Ed Balls is talking...well, look at his surname and then take a wild guess.

But the YouGov poll discloses that only five per cent of voters agree, with 63 per cent wanting a national vote on the issue.

With more than one in five (22 per cent) still uncertain on the issue, the number could rise far higher as the pro-referendum campaign gathers pace.

I think that Brown will fight tooth and nail to avoid any public vote on the matter. After all, no politician wants to call a referendum that he is more likely to lose than to win. However, it is true that the campaign for a referendum is gathering pace: as the Telegraph points out, even some strongly pro-EU figures, such as the vile Keith Vaz, have called for a referendum. It will be interesting to see how well attended the pro-referendum rally, due to be held in London on the 27th October, will be.

Of course, getting a referendum is only the first half of the battle: having got it, we will need to win it, and preferably by a large margin. I believe that this can and will be done, but it should not be regarded as a foregone conclusion. The likes of Vaz have not come over to supporting a referendum out of any respect for the public voice; rather, they see a referendum as inevitable, and accordingly wish to make a virtue of necessity, and gain brownie points for professing a willingness to listen to the public. I note that Vaz has said that he wants to turn the referendum, from being focused on the constitution, to being a de facto referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU. While I believe that we must one day have such a vote, now is not the time. Vaz wants to turn the referendum into one on EU membership, rather than the EU constitution, because he believes - rightly - that a vote on EU membership will, for now, be easier for his side to win. If and when a referendum comes, pro-EU elements must not be allowed to distort the question in such a manner.

But all that is in the future: the question of whether we will get a referendum at all still hangs in the balance, and the increased momentum of the pro-referendum campaign is something to be thankful for.

Keith Vaz: Hypocritical Racist Scum

It has long been my belief that if there were a prize for the most loathsome of all the loathsome scum currently floating around the Palace of Westminster, then Keith Vaz would probably win it. The passport-flogging former Europe minister and current MP for Leicester East, who in 1989 led a 3,000 strong mob against the publication of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, has made something of a career for himself as a professional "anti-racist". Earlier this year, for example, his experience of leading a lynch mob no doubt stood him in good stead when he led the witch hunt against the white Celebrity Big Brother contestants accused of racially-abusing the Indian actress Shilpa Shetty.

Today, I read that he has called for a new law to be introduced, enabling the Labour Party to impose all non-white shortlists on local constituency associations selecting parliamentary candidates, and has pledged that he, the Valiant Vaz, Champion of the Oppressed, will personally introduce this proposed law into parliament. Why is this new law needed? Well, at the moment discriminating on the basis of race when selecting parliamentary candidates would fall foul of laws against racial discrimination. The exact laws, in fact, that people like Keith Vaz profess to champion. Of course, those who genuinely champion anti-racism legislation don't tend to demand that that legislation be overridden the moment it inconveniences them.

Personally, I'd be happy to see all anti-racism laws abolished. It's true that if I were a member of the Labour Party, I would certainly not be at all happy if the party started imposing all-black shortlists, but I'm not a member, and if those who are members decide that they want all-black shortlists, then that's nothing to do with me. If I, as a non-party member, object to this, then I am free to vote for another party. Equally, if a white businessman wishes to employ only white employees, then he should be free to do so - if other people don't like that, they are free to boycott his products.

So, on the first issue, the right of the Labour Party to impose all-black shortlists, I would actually agree with Vaz that they should be allowed to do so, although that is of course not the same as saying that they should do so. But I rather doubt that he would share my view that a white business owner should be free to hire only white employees. Anti-white discrimination is more than okay, anti-black discrimination is evil!

The reason for this discrepancy, is that Vaz is, like most race baiters, an utter hypocrite. His belief in racial equality, which he expresses loudly and often, really amounts to little more than, to paraphrase Orwell: "all races are equal, but whites are less equal than others". Of course, even his commitment to advancing the interests of non-whites in general (at the expense of the interests of the majority population, if need be) comes only a poor second to his commitment to advancing the interests of Keith Vaz in particular. In a parliament and a Labour Party stuffed full of intellectual and moral pygmies, Vaz still contrives to appear Lilliputian. He may not have done as much damage to the country as the likes of Tony Blair, but for his own smug, hypocritical, and utterly amoral personality, he is the most loathsome MP around.