Plus ca change...

So, Red Ken is gone. And in his place we have a left-liberal who fawns over Muslims, favours an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and declared in his victory speech that London "brings the world together in one city". I'm truly delighted to see the back of Livingstone, but forgive me if I don't break out the champagne just yet.

On the plus side, the BNP's mayoral candidate Richard Barnbrook has been elected a member of the London Assembly. That should be one in the eye for the leftists in all three big parties. The Times informs us that "anti-facist [sic] and gay rights groups have called for protests in the capital in light of the win". There's something rather ironic, is there not, in self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" protesting against the result of a free and democratic election?

Whoever wins, we lose

Londoners really are spoilt for choice in the forthcoming mayoral elections. Who can differentiate between the three towering statesmen, those intellectual colossi and ornaments of public life, who have done us the honour of seeking our votes? Not me, that's for sure! To me, they all seem exactly the same. Consider the forthright and insightful approach that they've all taken to the question of Islam:

Boris Johnson was today forced to defend his stance on Islam, insisting he believed it was a "religion of peace".

What an original way of looking at it!

The Conservatives candidate for London mayor, Mr Johnson, has been criticised for an article he wrote in the wake of the 7/7 London terror attacks in 2005 claiming "Islam is the problem".

But in a televised debate today, Mr Johnson said the problem was extremists taking the words of the Koran out of context.

No trite platitudes from independent-minded Boris! He really does offer a fresh perspective. And isn't it impressive that he knows so much more about the correct context for Koranic verses than, you know, actual Muslims?

In fairness, Johnson did then follow up by suggesting that "there has certainly been too much uncounted and unfunded immigration into London". Which is correct. However, one might be inclined to take him rather more seriously on immigration, had he not repeatedly called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Note to Johnson: you do not reduce immigration by rewarding people for entering the country illegally.

But Johnson's genius was more than matched by the wisdom of the incumbent:

The current Mayor, Labour's Ken Livingstone, said London could be a "model for the world" in terms of its ethnic diversity.

But he was forced to justify his decision to share a platform with the controversial preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The cleric has described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating as "a possibility" in certain circumstances.

He's also expressed support for suicide bombers.

Mr Livingstone said: "He is a man who is prepared to say al Qaida is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation."

However, I think that, on this occasion, the award for most idiotic candidate has to go to Brian Paddick, formerly Britain's most senior homosexual policeman, and also, we now discover, a renowned Islamic scholar:

Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said: "What I said in the immediate aftermath of July 7 was that the term Islamic terrorism, as far as I was concerned, is a contradiction in terms.

"In that there is nothing in the Koran to justify the murder of 52 innocent men, women and children."

First, that's patently untrue. There are plenty of verses in the Koran which could be, and are, used by practising Muslims (a category which does not include Brian Paddick), to justify the use of violence against non-Muslims. There are also plenty of Islamic scholars who are prepared to endorse such violence. On what basis, I wonder, does Paddick assert that his knowledge and understanding of Islam is greater than theirs?

Secondly, it it deeply disingenuous to suggest that when devout Muslims commit acts of terrorism, in the name of Islam, it should be called anything other than "Islamic terrorism". But presumably Paddick prefers Jacqui Smith's Newspeak definition of such atrocities as "anti-Islamic activity".

At a time when the majority of British people see Islam - not a "tiny minority of extremists", but the religion as a whole - as a threat to our country, the three leading contenders for the mayoralty of our capital city are bending over backwards, and performing all sorts of linguistic contortions, to avoid saying anything that might conceivably upset any Muslim. On the fortieth anniversary of Enoch Powell's great speech, when the nation is crying out for someone to take a similar stand against Islam, craven politicians of all parties are merely spouting meaningless platitudes about "religions of peace". This applies not only to the mayoral candidates, but to the overwhelming majority of politicians, and certainly to the senior figures in all three main parties. I have no idea whether Livingstone or Johnson will emerge victorious on polling day (at least it won't be Paddick, thank Heavens). But I can be sure of one thing: whoever wins, London and Britain will lose.

Racist conspiracy fells persecuted saint

The Blessed Lee Jasper has finally fallen a martyr in the cause of lining his own pockets and those of his friends freeing the oppressed masses from the chains of post-colonial neo-hegemonic imperialism. And guess what? It's all a racist conspiracy!

The mayor of London's senior aide Lee Jasper has resigned.

Ken Livingstone's race adviser blamed the "racist nature of a relentless media campaign" for his decision.

Mr Jasper had been at the centre of allegations over the misuse of public funds and was due before the London Assembly on the matter on Wednesday.

A Greater London Authority (GLA) statement paid tribute to Mr Jasper's work and said there was no foundation for the allegations against him.

The resignation comes after the Evening Standard newspaper published claims that Mr Jasper had sent intimate e-mails to a woman involved with organisations which received money from City Hall.

In a letter to the mayor, Mr Jasper said: "It has become clear that a number of matters which are not of first importance in London are being used to distract from the crucial questions in the election campaign.

"The racist nature of a relentless media campaign and the consequent effects on myself and family have placed an intolerable strain on all of us.

"I have decided to put a stop to this by tendering my resignation."

This vile little man's departure can only be considered cause for celebration. However, I wouldn't bank on his disappearance from public life being permanent: in the world of race hustling, scum always floats back to the top...

Update: Livingstone has responded to Jasper's resignation by saying that he hopes to reappoint Jasper some day in the future. As Harry's Place suggests, this day may well be the 2nd May, 2008. If Livingstone is re-elected on the 1st May, that is...

Demonising an entire community

I have to confess that when the news that the Stephen Lawrence memorial had been vandalised broke, I didn't follow the story as attentively as I might have done. I did, however, note that Ken Livingstone had come out and claimed that it was an "outrageous act of racism", and that various race hustlers (such as the lowlife at BLINK) had made the same claim.
But while I read about the claims that evil white racists had been behind the crime, I did not see the following descriptions of the people who are really alleged to be responsible:

Officers, who have studied CCTV footage, said three suspects were seen approaching the £10 million building from a footbridge over the Dockland’s Light Railway before fleeing the scene after the attack.

Two of the suspects are described as white, between 16 and 18 years old, wearing plain dark hooded tops.

See! Evil white racists! See, Ken was right! Only:

The third is described as a light-skinned black man in his late teens or early twenties and shorter than the other two suspects. He was wearing a dark hat and had facial hair.

It's true that the police are continuing to treat this as a racist incident. But that probably says more about the cowed and politically-correct nature of the Metropolitan Police than it does about the truth. After all, one finds it difficult to imagine in what circumstances a black vandal would have an anti-black racist motive for his crime. Furthermore, as the black suspect was a few years older than the two white ones, it seems quite probable that he was, in fact, the ringleader. If this was the case, then the possibility of a racist motive would be further negated.

Regardless of one's views on the Stephen Lawrence case, and, more particularly, on the victimhood circus to which it has given rise, the fact is that vandalising a memorial to a murder victim is a particularly obscene act. Hopefully, the individuals who have done this will be swiftly brought to justice.
However, equally obscene was the speed with which Livingstone and his race hustler friends leapt up to scream "RACISM" at the tops of their voices, without bothering to produce any real evidence to back up their claim. Had they directed their false allegations against any group other than whites, they would, no doubt, have been accused of "demonising an entire community". Indeed, in those circumstances Livingstone and BLINK might well have been among the first to make the allegations of demonisation...

Another one bites the dust

First Rosemary Emodi, now the Blessed Lee Jasper himself. It's a racist conspiracy, I tells ya!

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today demanded a police investigation into misconduct allegations involving his race adviser, Lee Jasper, in the hope that the inquiry would prove his innocence.

The mayor also announced that Jasper, who has faced a series of allegations about his role in suspect spending decisions by the London Development Agency (LDA), would be suspended from office during the police investigation.

Jasper stressed that he had personally suggested to Livingstone that the allegations should be referred to the police.

Livingstone said it was now time for Jasper's critics to "put up or shut up".

"I believe this investigation will exonerate Lee Jasper and show this to be a shameful campaign," the mayor said in reference to the series of media reports about the allegations, mostly run in the Evening Standard.

The London assembly is investigating grants worth a total of more than £2 million that were paid by the LDA to projects run by Jasper's friends or alleged associates.

Jasper said today he had not been given the chance to prove his innocence.

"I am being prevented from clearing my name. Black organisations across London are being weakened by a systematic campaign in the Evening Standard, and a deliberate attempt is being made to divert attention from the real issues confronting London at the mayoral election," he said.

Poor "black organisations"! Still, there is one faint silver lining from which they, and the persecuted saint, can draw some small comfort:

Jasper, who earns about £120,000 a year, will continue to be paid while he is suspended.

Nice work if you can get it!

Meanwhile, up in Scotland, an even crazier set of far-leftists also seem to be having a few small legal difficulties. In this case, it's those pesky perjury laws that are the trouble...

More lies and corruption

Ken Livingstone’s campaign instructed public servants to write articles in support of his last reelection as Mayor of London in a breach of rules forbidding political abuse of taxpayers’ cash.

Documents passed to The Times prove that staff paid for by public money were told to carry out campaign work during office hours. One e-mail to the mayor’s former senior adviser on Asian affairs, Atma Singh, sent at 9.30am, explicitly asks that he write two articles in support of Mr Livingstone by noon that day.

The evidence directly contradicts the Mayor of London’s claim last week that senior public officials could not and did not carry out such work during the 2004 campaign. He said officials could engage in political activity “as long as they obey the law, which is that they can’t publicly campaign, which is they can’t make a speech for me or write an article for me”.

Asked if an investigation would find that no one had used office time to prepare articles in pursuit of his campaign, he replied: “Absolutely right.”

Yet on May 27, 2004, Mr Singh received an e-mail from the campaign office of the Ken4London based in the headquarters of the London Labour Party. It said: “We are still waiting for your article for the Asian Post . . . and the East Muslim News (400-500 words on Why should Muslims vote for Ken Livinsgtone? – this is urgent, publication date June 1st). Both required 12 noon today.”

Mr Singh also told The Times that he spent up to 90 per cent of his days during the campaign working for Mr Livingstone’s reelection, in contravention of electoral rules.

The e-mail, along with others, is being handed over to the Electoral Commission today as part of a formal complaint against Mr Livingstone.

Well, at least now we know where Rosemary Emodi (Livingstone's former "race adviser", who resigned last week after it was revealed that she used her position to get a free holiday at an expensive African resort, and then lied about it) got her inspiration from.

Public money well spent

Following on from the triumphant release of last week's report into "Islamophobia" in the media (cost to the taxpayer: £30-50,000; written by a team including such impartial analysts as the Muslim Council of Britain's Inayat Bunglawala), Ken Livingstone has now found another, equally excellent, way to spend public money.

To be specific, he has initiated a survey enquiring into the "experience of Muslim students in further and higher education in London". As well as asking Muslim students to give their views on the extent to which "homophobia" and sexism (as well as, of course, "racism", and the cardinal sin of "Islamophobia") are tolerated or confronted at the institutions they attend, respondents are also asked for their views on "what needs to be done to effectively tackle Islamophobia against students in London". Now, this question would seem to imply that there is widespread "Islamophobia" occurring in London's universities. And since Red Ken and Co apparently already know this to be the case, one has to wonder what the point of the whole survey is! But leaving this aside, my answer to the question, were I eligible to take part in the survey, might well include such points as:

Muslims should stop demanding preferential treatment at every available juncture.

Or:

Muslims should stop crying "Islamophobia" given the slightest (or indeed, in the absence of any) excuse.

But then, I'm not a Muslim student, so I'm not eligible to take the survey. However, Livingstone is very keen for as many Muslims as possible to give their responses, so I would urge all my numerous Muslim readers to get ahead and respond. Of course, it would be very bad of any infidels who may be reading this to take the survey, and I trust that you will all refrain from doing so. Good dhimmis, know your place.

Hat-tip: Harry's Place

All the fun of the mayor

I read that the probable Tory candidate for Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has had his bid for election "spurned" by black MPs. Well, that's what the headline at al-Beeb ("Black MPs spurn Boris mayoral bid") says. What they mysteriously omit to mention until the second paragraph of the article is that the two black MPs who have attacked Johnson, Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler, are both from the Labour Party. Indeed, not only that, but they are both from the party's far-left fringe. And I would hardly say that for a Tory to find two Labour MPs to be opposed to his campaign constitutes "spurning". Nor, indeed, can I see that two far-left nutters represent "black MPs" collectively, as the BBC headline implies. Looks like yet another little example of BBC bias to me.

But, if one looks past the BBC's misleading headline, to the claims made by Abbott and Butler, then, well, one rather wishes one had stuck at the headline. Because the whole basis of their objection is the usual song-and-dance about "racism". That's right, Boris Johnson is, in essence, a veritable goose-stepping Nazi, just biding his time before unleashing a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Brixton (I mean, a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Brixton other than the one directed against the borough's white populace, which is ongoing). And what is the basis of this revelation? Well, Johnson once used the word "piccaninnies" in an article in 2002.

Well, so what? Until I saw that Abbott and Butler had kicked up a fuss about it, I had no idea that "piccaninnies" was even deemed offensive. And, frankly, it doesn't upset me that Boris Johnson has used the term, and it wouldn't make me any more or less likely to vote for him. But if anyone is so offended by the word, that they feel that they'd rather keep Ken Livingstone in power, then let them vote for him. That's what we call democracy, something that Abbott and Butler, both supporters of the Venezuelan dictator Chavez, may not know very much about.

I would also point out, that Livingstone's own conduct on racial matters has hardly been exemplary. Aside from accusing a Jewish journalist of being equivalent to a concentration camp guard, he has also literally embraced the terrorist-supporting Islamic cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. If Abbott and Butler were really interested in having a mayor who represented the people of London then they wouldn't be supporting such a man.
But of course, all they're really engaging in when they criticise Boris Johnson is party-political sniping, using their status as designated victims in an attempt to invest their attacks with a moral force that they would otherwise lack.

Personally, I am not great fan of Boris Johnson. I find his politics rather wet, albeit better than those of his friend David Cameron, and the buffoonish character he adopts irritates me, although he was good on Have I Got News For You. But, should I be living in London when the election comes round, then he will certainly have my second preference vote. Even a friend of Cameron's is a significant improvement on Red Ken.

In related mayoral news, I note that Brian Paddick has come out (boom boom) and professed a desire to come a poor third in the election (or, as he put it, to be the Lib Dem candidate). Paddick, it will be recalled, was the most senior homosexual police officer in the country, until he left the Met after falling out with his boss. Now he's working on a book about his experiences as a poor oppressed victim in the institutionally evil police force. Perhaps he could have Ali Dizaei as his running-mate...