Saturday 31 March 2007

Our wonderful state schools

RAPE probe cops arrested three boys after a girl of 13 said she was forced into sex acts during an unsupervised music class.

The girl claims two boys attacked her while others cheered them on.

One, aged 13, has been charged with oral rape and false imprisonment. A 14-year-old was quizzed on the same alleged offences. The third, also 14, is suspected of encouraging the attack.

The victim was said to have been left “distraught” and alerted teachers at the South London school the following day.

A source said: “The girl says two boys turned on her and forced her to give them oral sex. There was no teacher there, when there should have been. The description of what happened is horrific and deeply shocking”

All three boys were suspended from school and are on bail.

A police source said: “Questions must be asked about safety of children at school. It is bad enough that pupils are stabbed and murdered as they leave school. The circumstances in this case are another low.”

I have no comment on this. It's simply beyond belief.

It'll never catch on

A Muslim woman is about to publish a new translation of the Quran, which challenges one of the fundamental human rights of Muslim men - the right to beat their wives:
Laleh Bakhtiar aims to reignite one of the most divisive debates in Islam by rejecting the idea that chapter 4, verse 34 of the Koran grants a husband the divine right to beat his wife.

Physical punishment is held widely to be an acceptable last resort in cases of disobedience after admonition and banishment from the marital bed. Dr Bakhtiar, 68, told The Times that anyone adhering to this interpretation of the verse had denigrated Islam.


Imams on Arab television stations discuss frequently what one Qatari preacher called a “wondrous verse” and have even given details of rules for wife-beating. In Germany, the verse was cited by a judge as the reason that he refused a fast-track divorce to a Moroccan woman who was seeking to escape a violent marriage.


Aisha Bewley, who translated the Koran with her husband, said that they had opted for the translation “beat”. She said that the verse should be read only with a commentary that placed it in context.

“The best advice is that of the Prophet, who said ‘the worst of you are those who beat your wives’,” she said. Neal Robinson, a professor of Islamic studies, said that the translation of “daraba” as “hit” was inescapable.

He said: “There is a need to put passages like that in their historical context.”

While it would be nice for an Islam to develop in which women were not routinely beaten by their husbands, I doubt that Dr Bakhtiar is going to succeed in her aim. After all, she is going against 1,400 years of wife-beating, and, it would appear, against the opinion of every other Quranic scholar on earth (note, though, how Mrs Bewley and Professsor Robinson seek to avoid the truth about the Quran, by saying that the passages supporting wife-beating have to be read "in context", whatever that means).

The Times report also reveals that Dr Bakhtiar's family fear for her safety. It is interesting, isn't it, that merely suggesting that domestic abuse is bad can offend good Muslims sufficiently to put your life at risk?

The "justice" system fails again

Readers may recall that a few weeks ago the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, was tub-thumping about Ian Huntley, and proudly saying that he would never be freed from jail. I was sceptical about his motives for doing this at the time, and my suspicions were subsequently justified when it became apparent that some particularly loathsome murderers were up for parole that week, and Falconer needed to create a distraction, and keep up the pretence that our government is "tough on crime".

Now, Falconer is back in the media, indicating that judges may be obliged to consider the availability of prison spaces when sentencing. Given that we are constantly being told that our prisons are full up (a claim of which I am very sceptical - it's not as if it's standing room only in there, is it?), this is likely to mean that criminals who would currently get jail will be let loose on our streets, probably with a community sentence.

I'm not intransigently opposed to community sentences, provided their use is strictly limited. They do, perhaps, have their place, and may sometimes be a reasonable response to, say, a minor crime committed by a first time offender. But the kind of people who would currently be getting prison (and not enough criminals get prison as it is) are likely to be hardened recidivists or those who have committed pretty heinous crimes. Letting such people out on the street is simply not acceptable. If we are not going to properly punish even repeat offenders, what is the point of having a justice system at all?

Many killed as Christians riot over "Chocolate Jesus"

Or not, as the case may be. Because it seems that members of some religious groups can restrain themselves when confronted with things they find offensive:
A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ.

The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled "My Sweet Lord", depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross.

Catholic League head Bill Donohue called it "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever".


"The fact that they chose Holy Week shows this is calculated, and the timing is deliberate," Mr Donohue said.

He called for a boycott of the gallery and the hotel which houses it.

He didn't call for anyone to be killed, however.

There were some angry e-mails, though. Which means that Christianity and Islam are really just as bad as each other, etc.

This story illustrates a fundamental difference between the civilised Christian West and the barbarity of Islam. If this were a sculpture of Mohammed, you can bet that by now there would have been at least death threats.

Also, if this "work of art" was shown in Britain, do you think that it would prompt a police investigation?

Friday 30 March 2007

Newspeak Alert, or When the Islamic Fundamentalist launched a Jihad

"The only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year."
The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

The word "jihad" is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term "Islamic terrorism" to be replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam".

An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, "common lexicon", is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe.


Meanwhile, UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten claimed that the EU was in denial over the true roots of terrorism.

"This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality," he said. "The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam."

Oh dear, what a wicked man. All three of the forbidden words in one go. Doubleplusungood.

Iranian Embassy Protest

Any London-based readers who are within reach of Kensington at 3pm tomorrow might like to head down to the Iranian Embassy, where a protest has been organised, calling for the release of the British sailors seized by Iran. More details are available at EU Referendum.

I'm not really sure whether this will actually do any good. In order to send a real message to the Mullahs you'd need at least a few thousand people to turn up. Because of the short notice at which this has been organised, that won't happen, and a particularly small protest would, perhaps, only serve to emphasise the decadent lack of interest with which much of our population seem to regard Iran's act of war. Nonetheless, at least the organisers of this protest are doing something, which is more than can be said for the government.

A crime worth prosecuting... least according to the police and Crown Prosecution Service. They may not feel that attacks by Muslims on Jews are worthy of their attention, but a 60 year old shopkeeper who gave a young thug a clip round the ear - now that's something they deem really heinous. The Daily Mail reports:

Mr [Fred] Brown also criticised police who failed to come to the scene despite three 999 calls. It was not until the following morning that a police community support officer arrived to inform him a complaint had been made against him.

A Cambridgeshire police spokesman said: "If Mr Brown wishes to make a complaint or speak to an inspector, the matter will be looked into."

Mr Brown lives in Littleport, Cambridgeshire, where he owns several shops.

Ely Magistrates Court heard how, on August 22 last year, he and his wife Vivian, also 60, received a call from a neighbouring optician about youths causing trouble in his launderette, the windows of which have been broken 60 times in recent years.

When he arrived shortly after 5pm, he found 14-year-old Luke Rainford sitting on a washer "kicking the hell out of one of the machines".

He told the teenager and two friends to "clear off" and they walked into the optician's. When he followed them and told them to leave, Rainford spat at him and made headbutting gestures. Outside, the court heard, the boy walked towards him waving a fist.

Fearing he was about to be hit, Mr Brown pushed him away with one hand and slapped him away with the other, striking the boy around the side of the head. When Mr Brown's wife stepped in, the teenager called her a "fat cow" and spat in her face.

After reading this, one might think that Rainford would be arrested, and hopefully given a good spell inside. But no, it was Mr Brown, who has a heart condition, arthritis, and skin cancer, who was arrested, charged, and subjected to seven months of legal proceedings before finally being acquitted by Magistrates. Rainford did go to court, but as a prosecution witness.

Fred Brown is a Conservative councillor. I wonder whether he wants to hug this particular hoodie?

Thursday 29 March 2007

The System fails victims of racism

As anyone who hasn't been living in a cave will have noticed, the police and Crown Prosecution Service are very keen to prosecute "racist" crimes. Indeed, the CPS has boasted of its success in doing so. You can go to jail for revving your car engine in a "racist" manner, or for suggesting that there might be anti-white racism in Pollokshields (remember - only those evil white people can be racist, and suggesting otherwise is itself racist), but saying "bloody foreigners" will only get you community service. Jade Goody and fellow contestants in the televised freak-show Celebrity Big Brother were investigated by police for calling an Indian contestant "the Indian", while Nick Griffin went on trial twice for telling the truth about Islam, and the government now wishes to expand the scope of the law to ensure that next time he'll be convicted. There are no doubt many, many, more examples.

Given all this, it was interesting to read in the Telegraph that fewer than 10% of anti-Semitic incidents are prosecuted. Indeed, some police forces, while being ever-so-keen to keep track of anything that causes the slightest upset to favoured groups (a category including, but not limited to, blacks, Muslims, and homosexuals), don't even bother to keep records of the number of attacks on Jews.

Why is this, I wonder? The answer relates to the preferential treatment that some groups receive, and that others don't. Blacks or Muslims, for example, are, in the mindset of the ruling PC liberals, always victims. White people, and Jews, whether white or not, are always perpetrators. This means that attacks by the 'perpetrator' groups on the 'victim' groups are exaggerated and severely punished, while the more frequent attacks by the 'victims' on the 'perpetrators' are denied and brushed under the carpet. And this means that a white person can go to jail for revving their car engine, but a Muslim can call for murder, and be left in peace.

In the case of attacks on Jews, the victims are part of a 'perpetrator' group. But what of the attackers? Their identity has generally been brushed under the carpet, as this article by Rod Liddle last month points out:

The trust’s report was carried by quite a few national newspapers; but the curious thing is not one dared to mention why these attacks had increased nor speculated as to what group of people might be responsible for them. The impression one was left with was that any of us might have been out kicking Jews at night, perhaps because there was nothing good on the box. This was despite one or two strongish clues: the war in Lebanon and the graffiti that accompanied the desecration of Jewish graves in north London. The words spray-painted read “Hitler” and “Kill All Jews” and “Allah”. Now, call me Inspector Barnaby, but that last one is a bit of a giveaway.

A spokesman for the trust, Mark Gardner, said the usual suspects, white right-wing extremists, were not responsible — yet conceded, almost as an afterthought, that Muslims were “overrepresented” in identifiable attacks. That’s overrepresented in the same way that elderly middle-class white men are overrepresented in the Long Room at Lord’s, I’d guess.

So - it was, not just a 'victim' group, but the ultimate 'victim' group. A group who, we are given to believe, are subjected to an unbearable barrage of unprecedented persecution, 24 hours a day. In the minds of the PC liberals, who, sadly, seem to be gaining increasing influence over the police, as they have over the rest of our public services, even arresting a Muslim for something they've done is bordering on racism. So the Jews will just to have to get used to getting beaten up by Muslims. It's all about Israel anyway, isn't it?

Incidentally, it would be interesting to see figures for the percentage of racist attacks that are prosecuted, arranged by race of victim. I imagine we'd see plenty more discrepancies.

Wednesday 28 March 2007

The "John Doe Manifesto"

Those readers who hail from, or like to keep an eye on, the USA, will almost certainly have come across the "non-flying Imams" controversy. Essentially, a group of six Imams were thrown off a plane in Minnesota, after behaving in a deeply suspicious manner (shouting "Allah" as they boarded the plane, arranging themselves in a pattern similar to that used by the 9/11 highjackers, asking for seat-belt extenders, and then not using them, etc). Various "civil rights" groups, such as the terrorist-supporting Council on American-Islamic Relations swiftly got involved, and legal action is now underway against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Bad enough. But the Imams and their friends escalated matters considerably this week by threatening legal action against passengers who raised the alarm (nicknamed "John Does" in America). The House of Representatives yesterday took steps towards preventing these latter lawsuits, which is of course good news.

Meanwhile, American conservative commentator, and leftist hate-figure, Michelle Malkin, wrote this piece, which I found via Jihad Watch. It is centred around what Mrs Malkin calls the "John Doe Manifesto", which should be an inspiration to all those who oppose Islam. Like Jihad Watch, I take the liberty of reproducing it in full:

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.

I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.

I am John Doe.

I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

I will act when homeland security officials ask me to "report suspicious activity."

I will embrace my local police department's admonition: "If you see something, say something."

I am John Doe.

I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing "scholars."

I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.

I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.

I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.

I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.

I am John Doe.

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.

I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.

I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderates' clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about "profiling" or "Islamophobia."

I will put my family's safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

Surprise, surprise, something upsets Muslims

To be precise, the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, has upset Muslims, by suggesting that Muslim GPs pass information about female patients back to their families. Apparently, Miss Hewitt has been told by a number of her female Muslim constituents in Leicester that they fear to reveal personal information to their GPs, for this reason.

Hewitt has been backpedalling furiously, with a Department of Health spokesman saying that she did not say that Muslim GPs breached confidentiality, but that Muslim women feared they would. Now, we all know that Muslims are greatly given to paranoia and conspiracy theories, but, given the common Muslim attitude to women (they are chattels), isn't it very possible that the fears of these Muslim women are based in truth? This quote from one woman would certainly indicate this:
"When I was younger - I grew up in Essex, a mixed community - there were only a few GPs the young women would go to - because GPs in the community felt able to pass information about your sexuality to your parents."
And, presumably when they get married, confidential information finds its way back to their husbands/new owners.

We already know that their extreme concepts regarding familial honour lead Muslims to avoid reporting child abuse to the police. We also know that at least some Muslims are quite prepared to kill their own female relatives in order to protect the family "honour". This is, it would seem, just another story in the same theme.

Policeman Memorial Smashed

Detective Constable Stephen Oake died in January 2003, after being stabbed repeatedly by Islamic terrorist Kamel Bourgass. Bourgass is now serving a 'life' sentence for the murder, and for plotting to murder thousands more with ricin.

In the aftermath of DC Oake's death, a marble monument was erected close to where he died, in the Crumpsall area of Manchester. Now, this has been desecrated. The vandals ripped the monument from its plinth, broke it, and hurled the pieces into the car-park of Cheetham Hill police station, damaging three vehicles.

It is unclear who committed this repulsive act. Whoever it was, they are a disgrace to humanity, and should be severely punished. But it is noticeable that 14% of people in Crumpsall are Pakistani - no doubt many of them "youths" - while neighbouring Cheetham has been especially enriched, with no fewer than 27.6% of the population being Pakistani. It may well be that this was the work of white thugs - Heaven knows there are enough of them - but I certainly wouldn't bet against this being the work of Muslims.

Tuesday 27 March 2007

Protect your child: buy them body armour

The Times reports that parents have been responding to the increasingly dangerous nature of state secondary schools by buying their children body armour. So far, 60 parents have placed orders with VestGuard UK, a firm which is more used to supplying its stab and bullet-proof vests to governments than to teenagers. A further 100 have made enquiries, in London alone.

One mother, whose 13-year-old daughter goes to a school where a pupil has been shot to death, has saved up to buy her child of the best vests available after she was targeted by a gang of older girls. She is now saving up for another vest for her 11-year-old daughter who has also been abused by the gang.

Too scared to give her or her daughter’s real name, the woman, a chemical engineer, explained why she felt she had to resort to buying body armour.

“My daughter is being attacked by girls who are much older than her and the problem is continuing. I have never seen them with a knife but you never know when they are going to use a gun or knife until it is too late.

“The vest is very expensive and we do not have a lot of money but I have no choice. My daughter has been attacked five times in a few weeks and I would rather be safe than sorry."


Camila Batmanghelidjh, who works with disadvantaged children at the charity Kids Company, says she can fully understand the parents' concern and warns that street violence is only going to get worse.

“I see kids of nine who are drug dealing and by ten they are carrying knives, that is not unusual. I have been doing this for eleven years and things at street level are definitely worse now.

“I don’t think vests are a solution as you can get stabbed or shot in the neck.”

Are these parents overreacting? Not really. It seems that scarcely a week goes by without some fresh outrage perpetrated by schoolchildren against other schoolchildren. As the mother quoted above says, it's better to be safe than sorry, and you can no longer rely on teachers or the police to act to defend your children. It's also interesting that the main reason for Miss Batmanghelidjh's objection to this is not that it's unreasonable, but that a mere vest does not provide sufficient protection.

Of course, this is symptomatic of the decline of discipline in schools and, perhaps even more importantly, among society at large. It also reflects the fact that criminals are often left unpunished, while victims who fight back, such as Tony Martin or Linda Walker, are treated as criminals. The problem will continue to get worse until we return to punishing criminals, and allow law-abiding citizens the right to use any force they deem necessary to defend themselves.

Still, I suppose that Iain Dale would say that all this is a sign of society "moving on" and that we should embrace that change.

Update: Two stories from the Daily Express provide a further insight into what is going on in our state schools. The first shows that the 'blame the victim' culture that sent Tony Martin and Linda Walker to prison has also infected the school system, as bullied children who fight back are often expelled themselves, while the bullies are left free to do as they please.

The second reports on the increasing number of cases where school gangs demand "sexual favours" from their victims, in exchange for protection. Something of a change, and not a welcome one, from stealing other childrens' lunch money. But always remember, society's moving on. So everything must be fine, really.

David Cameron is a lying, unprincipled little slug

Yesterday evening, at about 7.55pm, I was rushing home from Sainsbury's in order to be in time for Peter Hitchens' documentary on Channel 4 "Toff at the Top", which began at 8pm. I made it in time, and was delighted with an excellent programme exposing the true dishonesty of David Cameron - a man whose principles change rather more often than his hairdo, and whose sole ambition is to attain power for the sake of power. Probably the best TV I've watched this year.

Various Tory Boys do not agree, however. Iain Dale writes:
The basic attack on Cameron centred around his alleged 'toffness' and that there are 13 Old Etonians on the Tory front bench. He was also attacked for having changed his mind on some issues and his change of language. Big deal. I suspect everyone has changed their minds on several political issues over the last ten years. I know I have. That's politics. Time moves on, the country moves on and politicians must move on. Those that don't move on with the country are destined never to run it. But moving on does not mean abandoning your basic core principles, and Hitchens' biggest failure in the programme was his inability to prove that Cameron had done any such thing.
I've never quite understood this idea, expressed by Mr Dale, that you can change your views on every issue under the sun, and yet remain committed to the same "basic core principles". Surely these principles are reflected in the views you espouse, so that if these views change, it indicates that your principles - if, unlike Cameron, you have, or ever had, any - have changed too. As for the question whether Mr Hitchens has or has not proved that Cameron has abandoned any principles he may once have held: well, it would be interesting to know what Mr Dale thinks those were or are. He does not attempt to set them out.

Mr Dale also writes that:
Cameron's success is that he understands that the country is a different place to the one Peter Hitchens thinks it is. Hitchens harks after a moralistic, socially conservative country which Britain ceased to be in about 1965. Cameron wants to build on Britain as it is today.
These three sentences are wrong in so many ways that it would be impossible to list them all. Essentially, though, these words, written by one of the country's top Tory bloggers, demonstrate what is wrong with the ascendant 'modernising' wing of the Tory Party. They reflect the moral relativism endemic in their arguments - the notion that because people nowadays lack moral values, the government should ignore them too.
There's also the fact that the notion of "Britain as it is today" is based largely on the views of the liberal middle class chatterers, with whom Cameron might commonly mix. One doubts whether the crime-besieged working class people of Birkenhead - to whom Mr Hitchens spoke - would share Cameron's 'modern' view that criminals are the victims of society. But, as Mr Hitchens pointed out, those people don't have a voice among the political elite. Liberal post-modernist nihilists do, and so Cameron chases after their votes, mistakenly believing that the loudness of their voices reflects the popularity of their views.
All this is both wrong and undemocratic. It was recently revealed, for example, that
two-thirds of people support capital punishment. But for Cameron this overwhelming majority does not reflect 'modern' Britain, because it's not a view held by his Notting Hill neighbours. So the agenda of the Tory 'modernisers' results in little less than the disenfranchisement of vast numbers of people.

Mr Hitchens has published a response to the attacks on his programme at his blog. He writes:
I do not think the front lies between the Labour and Tory front benches, where men of broadly similar education and views churn endlessly in the narrow strip of cratered mud they christen the centre ground - each claiming to be better than the other at running hospitals and schools. In fact, none of them is the slightest good at either of these tasks, since - as all proper conservatives know - governments cannot run such things anyway.

No, the front is in the great war for civilisation which is being comprehensively lost at the moment. Mainly, that war is about behaviour. How are we to bring up our children? What ideas should guide their upbringing? What moral system should guide their behaviour?What should be the purpose of their education(This is something governments can influence while then leaving teachers and schools to get on with pursuing it).


In that war, the Tory Party is an active threat to the good side. It lures voters with false promises of action, especially near election times. If it wins, it then does the work of the enemy. Who is the traitor, the Lord Haw-Haw?Me, or the people who repeatedly lie to the British people that they will 'reform' the EU (you might as well try to 'reform' the Alps or the Atlantic Ocean)? Me, or the people who flatly refuse to consider the only measure that would put rigour, discipline and quality back into British state education - selection? Me, or the people who have always been, and continue to be, soft on narcotic drugs? me or the people who are happy to see more mass immigration? Me, or the people who refuse to see the importance of punishment and preventive patrolling in the battle to restore order, because they are blinded to the obvious by political correctness?
The whole thing is almost as good as yesterday's TV programme, and I would strongly recommend taking the time to read it all.

Immigrants and the NHS

The Daily Mail reports that the increasing number of immigrants is straining the resources of the National Health Service. The focus is particularly on Eastern Europeans, of whom 579,000 have come to this country since 2004:

A spokesman for the Royal Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said: "We have noticed that there has been an increase in the number of Eastern Europeans accessing services, and it does raise a question about finance.

"These women are extremely vulnerable. They are extremely dependent on out-of-hours clinics, and there has been a significant reduction in these because of the financial-problems in the NHS."

The NHS as a whole does not collect figures on the country of origin of those who use the NHS. The vast majority of surgeries have no information either.

But GPs in Luton say one in four women asking for an abortion is Eastern European. Dr Nina Pearson from the Lea Vale Medical Group, which runs four GP practices in the town, said that in one of their surgeries 400 patients register a month - and 80 per cent of them are Eastern European.

Maternity care is 'an area of work that we are struggling to keep up with at the moment'.

At the same time, Dhimmi Watch reports that the Muslim birth rate across Western Europe is three times that of the native population. I doubt many of them are going private. Pakistanis in Britain also account for 33% of all children with birth defects, as a result of the extraordinarily high number of them (at least 55%) who marry their cousins. That must surely impose a considerable strain on the NHS, especially in places like Bradford, which have considerable Pakistani populations.

But don't worry. Immigration benefits the economy. It must do - surely those liberals can't all be wrong?

Monday 26 March 2007

Vote for me!

Readers may recall that at the beginning of this month I was made "Blog of the Week" by Central News. Now I am up for "Blog of the Month". This title is decided by public vote, and I am currently a distant second. Should any readers wish to vote for this blog, they may do so at Central News (the poll is on the left).

Weird Pride

I have been tagged by Mr Smith, and am apparently now bound by the venerable traditions of blogging to reveal six weird things about myself. These are the rules, by which I must abide, in exposing the secret loathsome depravity of my day-to-day life:
People who get tagged need to write a blog entry of their own 6 weird things as well as stating this rule clearly! Three people need to be tagged and their names listed. Finally a comment needs to be left on each tagged person's blog...
And away we go:

1. I am unable to watch David Cameron on TV without becoming seriously enraged, and throwing things. Anyone else, I can just about tolerate, but there's something about Cameron that renders me totally without self-control. For the last year, I have been turning off the TV whenever it appears even possible he might speak. Of course, I don't think this is at all weird. What is weird is the fact that most people don't react in this manner.

2. I once became involved in a shouting match with a man, who turned out to be Alex Callinicos, leading light of the Socialist Workers Party, and doyen of the extreme-left. He called me a "stupid little creep" and told me to "piss off". Only later did I discover who he was. Had I known at the time, I would have been far ruder to him.

3. I am slightly scared of heights. I never used to be, and spent much of my childhood scrambling around the steep hills that surrounded the home of some of my parents' friends in a remote part of North Wales, without ever feeling at all worried. But when I was 15 a man I knew died falling off a mountain in Scotland, and since then I have had a strong aversion to heights. In my day-to-day life, I find the escalators at some of London's deeper tube stations mildly unnerving, and tend to hurry down them pretty quickly.

4. I have bizarre romanticised notions about the sea, generally centred upon the idea of it being 'the great unknown', even though it no longer really is. I would love to have served in the Navy in Nelson's day, or perhaps been an explorer with Drake, Raleigh, or Hudson. This is, I think, a hereditary thing - my great-grandfather was a Naval officer, and served all through World War One, and my great-uncle died in a submarine during World War Two, while another relative died on the Titanic. I particularly like the notion of being at sea during a storm, and always hope for one to come up when I'm on a boat. It's only happened once - in the Bay of Biscay - but I loved it.

5. On the subject of death, one of my favoured activities, when I have a free afternoon, is walking round Brompton Cemetery. I'm not sure why this is - I suppose I enjoy the tranquility.

6. I am very much a cat lover, having been brought up in a home with seven of them. I sadly don't have any myself now, so content myself with voting at Kittenwar.

Well, that's the lot. Who to tag? I suppose tagging people who actually know who I am would be a good idea, so I tag (and I hope none of them mind) Michael Cadwallader, the Gunslinger, and, in the hope that it will encourage him back into blogging, Tottenham Lad.

Sunday 25 March 2007

Common sense from an unlikely source

That source being, in this case, a Church of England Bishop. While the Archbishop of Canterbury was busy joining in the mass display of ritual white self-flagellation yesterday, the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, was penning a piece for the Mail on Sunday decrying the ridiculous slavery charade. Mr Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, the son of an Islamic convert to Christianity, has previously made pretty sensible remarks on other issues, such as Islam and multiculturalism.

In his article, he writes:

This weekend marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade by Act of Parliament. The procession from Hull to mark this anniversary has been accompanied by a chorus of 'mea culpas' from the great and the good.

Politicians, religious leaders and social activists have all joined in to bewail the undoubted horrors of slavery and to apologise for British complicity in this social evil.

Those marching have been shackled hand and foot and have been wearing sweatshirts saying: "So sorry."

And yet this should be a time of celebration and of thanksgiving for Britain's role in bringing this great oppression and cruelty to an end. Why do the leaders and people of this country find it so difficult to acknowledge their achievements and to recognise the true source of their moral commitments?

If a civilisation is constantly criticised, run down and apologised for, the danger is that its virtues will cease to flourish.


Not only was Britain a pioneer in abolishing this evil trade in human beings, it also played a significant part in persuading other European powers to prevent their ships from continuing the trade.

The 1815 Congress of Vienna marks a watershed in these efforts. At the Congress, leading European countries agreed to end the trade, though it took a considerable time for this decision to be implemented.

At one time, Britain was even prepared to pay certain countries to stop trading in slaves. All of this arose from a moral and spiritual vision that all human beings had been created equal and had the right to be free.

Soon after the passing of the Act, the Royal Navy was active off the African coast in intercepting slave-ships and liberating the slaves on them.


The mea culpa brigade is so vociferous about Western involvement in the slave trade that it neglects the role Africans themselves played.

It ignores also the huge involvement of Arabs, particularly in East Africa. Even today, much of the population of the Arabian Peninsula is made up of the descendants of slaves. In some of these countries slavery was abolished only in the 20th Century.

When pioneers such as Livingstone and Stanley opened up the centre of Africa, they were vigorously opposed by the Arab slave-traders who feared that the coming of Christianity would spell an end to their trade - as, indeed, it did.

British missionaries persuaded the Sultan of Zanzibar to end the slave trade there in 1873 and the Anglican Cathedral was built on the site of the slave market.

The slave trade from the Gulf reached across the Arabian Sea as far as South Asia.


However, as the continuing work of Anti-Slavery International testifies, there are new forms of slavery about. The struggle continues to release people from bonded labour, prostitution and the trafficking of men, women and children.

Today, we need a moral and spiritual vision so that we can support the courageous individuals and organisations engaged in the battle against these evils. Britain has a proud history in this area, which can be a source of inspiration for us in our efforts in our own times.

Let us then celebrate today the passing of the historic Act that led to freedom for so many. It is a time to acknowledge what has been achieved and what still needs doing.

It is a time for action and not just sentiment, a time to renew our commitment to human dignity and equality.

What a contrast with Rowan Williams's fawning apology! Another point that emerges strongly from the article is that Mr Nazir-Ali believes that the work of white Christian missionaries in Africa was a positive thing, as opposed to Dr Williams, who has previously felt the urge to apologise for that as well.

It's a shame, and says a huge amount about the Church of England today, that its most sensible Bishop is a first generation immigrant. But that's just the way it is. Perhaps he should be the next Archbishop of Canterbury? He'd certainly be a big improvement on the present incumbent. Of course, so would Anton LaVey.

Everyone hates the EU

Well, not quite everyone. But as the EU leaders and their massed ranks of followers (well, some drug addled Berlin teenagers anyway) celebrate fifty years of developing a European superstate, and prepare the ground for further sell-outs, the public, despicable proles that they are, do not seem quite so enthusiastic.

Polling by the think tank Open Europe reveals that a majority of people in every single EU country want a referendum before any new powers are given to the EU, and that 41% of all Europeans, and 58% of Britons, think that the EU should have fewer powers than it does at present. Meanwhile, 49% of people whose countries have already started using the Euro want to go back to their old currencies, while 77% of Britons would vote 'No' in any referendum on the issue. The EU is seen as being unrepresentative of the people it rules over, especially in Briton.

So, it seems that people generally are not overly keen on the EU. Not really a great surprise. But will their opposition have any effect? No. Because all three main parties in Britain, and most politicians across Europe, are pro-EU. Well, it creates more cushy sinecures for politicians, so they're voting for it as enthusiastically as a turkey voting for vegetarian Christmas. And, ultimately, the EU is one of those issues on which the politicians feel free simply to ignore the public. Like capital punishment and mass immigration, this is a case where the public feel, and always have felt, one way, and the politicians of all three main parties feel and act another way, regardless of the public.

Postscript: One interesting aspect of the Open Europe website is the lengthy list of avowed supporters of the group, which espouses taking back powers from the EU. We are always being told that further EU integration is necessary in the interests of business, and yet the supporters list is chock full of major business leaders, and respected economists, who one might expect to know about these things. Another pro-EU lie put to rest?

A bit of fun

It's a long, lazy Sunday afternoon. The Iranian kidnap story aside, not a lot is going on, personally or generally (as evidenced by the fact that the News of the World is leading with the story that a 22 year old got drunk and fell over).

However, courtesy of Harry's Place, I do find this website vaguely amusing. Apparently, academic researchers with nothing better to do have discovered that we are most likely to vote for candidates who look like us. This website takes that premise, and allows you to upload your photo, to find out which candidate most resembles you. Unfortunately I, for some reason, have no photos of myself to hand. So I've been putting some of the stars of past stories on this blog into the site instead. Think of it as somewhat akin to those clip-show episodes that US sitcoms make when their staff can't be bothered to do any real work.

Court of Appeal judge, and alleged pervert, Lord Justice Richards, has, apparently, a 70% resemblance to Helja Siitonen of the Centre Party. Rather worryingly for both of them, she's female. Miss Siitonen's fellow Centre Party candidate, Ari Anttila, has more to be worried about, however, since he bears a 78% facial resemblance to Ian Huntley, while Matti Kauppila appears an almost dead ringer for Hitler. No one, however, has the misfortune to look anything like the ludicrously self-loathing leftist I wrote about yesterday. So there are some mercies, even for Ari and Matti.

Iranian act of war update

Via BNP and Me, I read that Iran is planning to put the 15 British sailors that it has kidnapped on trial:
Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.


Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, met the Iranian ambassador in London yesterday to demand that consular staff be allowed access to the Britons, one of whom is a woman. His intervention came as a senior Iranian general alleged that the Britons had confessed under interrogation to “aggression into Iran’s waters”.

Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards.

Subhi Sadek, the Guards’ weekly newspaper, warned last weekend that the force had “the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks”.

It is unclear where the British sailors are being held, or how they are being treated. Harry's Place points out that, if the sailors did, as the Iranians claim, confess to "aggression in Iran's waters", then that confession was most likely obtained by something akin to torture. Certainly whatever conditions they are in are likely to be deeply unpleasant.

Meanwhile, as something of an insight into the mindset of the Iranian regime, Jihad Watch reports that a state run website is reporting the imminent return of the Mahdi, the Shiite messiah to Earth. Apparently the Mahdi will return and, aided by Jesus as Corporal Jones to his Captain Mainwaring, will rid the world of evil and oppression (for which read America, Britain, and the Jews). Is the belief of Ahmadinejad and his advisers that their final victory is imminent a factor in their decision to commit an act of war against Britain?

Because that is what this is. Iran has long been waging war against the west secretly, supporting terrorist groups and attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Now it has seized British servicement, possibly tortured them, and threatened to execute them. This cannot be tolerated, and we must be prepared to use force to stop it.

Saturday 24 March 2007


A few days ago I wrote about the ridiculous festival of white liberals parading their guilt complexes over the 200th anniversary of the abolition, not of slavery, for it still continues in much of the world, but of the transatlantic slave trade. I do not propose to rehash the objections I have to this display - they are set out in my previous post on the subject.

However, the BBC is really getting into the swing of liberal guilt, and has been relentlessly plugging the whole thing. Today it reported on the bunch of idiots (of whom one is pictured) who have, for reasons best known to themselves, been walking in chains from Hull to London. They were apparently joined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York for the last leg of their journey. Rowan Williams, the Laodicean Archbishop of Canterbury has previously apologised for slavery, on behalf of the Church of England. Dr Williams seems to be quite keen on making apologies to blacks for all their 'suffering' at the hands of the evil white people, having also apologised for the work of Christian missionaries in Africa in converting Africans to Christianity.

I've said that I don't propose to go into details as to why this is idiotic, and I won't. But the picture on the left really struck me. The reason is that it sums up the cultural attitude of this country, or at least a large part of it, so well. Here is a man, his hands bound, in a position of submission, almost on his knees, begging the blacks to forgive him for the crime of being white. While such a position is probably wholly appropriate for the leftist retard pictured, the liberal left, and the whiny grasping racists of groups like Operation Black Vote, want to put the entire white population of the UK in that position. Given the constant diet of anti-white propaganda produced by the education system and the liberal media, promoting the view that all white people are, in essence, evil perpetrators, while all blacks are little less than saints, their aim of bringing us all to our knees in supplication may soon be achieved.

Friday 23 March 2007

Iran seizes British sailors

Iran has reportedly seized 15 Royal Navy sailors, off the coast of Iraq.

It is conceivable, I suppose, that the whole thing is a bit of a mix up. But, knowing the Iranian regime, I doubt that they'll be happy simply to return the sailors. They'll want to make political capital out of it, they'll want Britain to go begging on her knees for the sailors' return.

And the sad thing is, Blair will probably do it. Whereas Israel was prepared to go and fight for the return of its soldiers from Hezbollah terrorists, Britain's government - and, I think, most of her people - simply lack the stomach for a fight against Hezbollah's paymasters. The long drag through Iraq has drained the willingness of the populace to stand up to terrorist regimes like Iran's.

Nonetheless, I firmly believe that this is a fight that will happen sometime, and the sooner the better. The battle against Islam is not simply a question of keeping our own country free of Islamification - it is a question of cutting out the cancer at the root. Iran is a major backer of terrorism, and is working to destroy Christian Europe. It is also working to develop nuclear weapons, and, if it is not stopped, will eventually do so. The prospect of such people having their fingers on the button doesn't bear thinking about. For these reasons, I am hoping that our government - and America's - take this opportunity to hit Iran hard. This is something that needs to be done.

Update: Over at MPACUK, some Muslims are expressing their views on this matter. Essentially, they support what Iran has done, and feel that anyone who doesn't is a wicked Zionist.

Muslims truly are the enemy within.

Thursday 22 March 2007

BBC shills for EU

The BBC, that beacon of impartial reporting, has published a list of 10 ways in which the lives of every British citizen have been enriched by EU membership.

(Hat-tip: Donal Blaney)

This list is part of the 'celebrations' of the EU's 50th anniversary. Another page on the BBC website has the comments of four 'average' people about the EU. Despite the Euroscepticism commonly found across Europe, the Beeb somehow managed to find three of the most fanatically pro-EU individuals imaginable. What a very great surprise! The only respondent not wholly enthusiastic about the EU is an Albanian in Kosovo, and his 'opposition' is solely motivated by the fact that he wants to be in the glorious EU, but isn't.

Even for the BBC, this is blatant liberal bias of the first water. Commonly, when the Beeb does something like this, they at least maintain the pretence of impartiality. In this case, even that seems to have been scattered to the four winds.

Nonetheless, the public seems to have realised the essential truth about al-Beeb: while it remains a decent source for purely factual information on current events (and I often use it as a source here, for that reason), the moment it starts to express opinions, you can safely start ignoring everything that is said. Here are the comments of ordinary people on the EU's 50th birthday, published on the "Have Your Say" section of the Beeb website, and ranked by popularity. It can be seen that you have to go to the 22nd most popular comment (7 down on page two, if you're interested), before finding anyone with anything remotely positive to say about the EU.

Update, 23rd March, 3.15pm: The most popular pro-EU comment at "Have Your Say" has now slipped to number 42 overall. I think that this gives something of an indication as to how the average Briton feels about the EU.

Legal news from France and Germany

In France, the editor of Charlie Hebdo magazine, who was on trial for publishing the Motoons, has been acquitted of inciting hatred against Muslims. Spontaneous applause broke out in the courtroom as the verdict was delivered, and I would like to express my happiness at what is some rare good news in France's generally losing battle against Islamification. At least for now, Frenchmen retain at least some rights of free speech.

However, the sudden outbreak of sanity in the French courts has been balanced out by an utterly insane, and frankly evil, decision by a German judge, in the case of a Moroccan woman applying for a high-speed divorce. German law allows for this in cases where one party faces "exceptional hardship", and the woman in this case argued, quite reasonably, that her husband's habit of beating her constituted just that. In reply to which the judge:
...argued that the couple's Moroccan cultural background meant it was "not unusual" for the husband to physically punish his wife.

The woman's domestic abuse therefore did not make her case one of exceptional hardship, she claimed.

When challenged about her ruling, the judge cited a passage from the Koran.

Absolutely appalling. But this is what happens when PC multiculturalism is carried to its natural extreme. After all, all cultures are equal, and it would be racist cultural supremacism to try to impose our values on the poor oppressed Muslims. So this woman will just have to submit to being beaten, in the same manner that a good Dhimmi patiently submits to the demands of his Muslim overlord.

Wednesday 21 March 2007

Red Ken Apologises

Ken Livingstone, walking embarrassment to London and Britain, has apologised. What for, I hear you ask? Could it be for fawning over Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the terrorist supporting "moderate" Imam? Or for launching an anti-Semitic diatribe against an Evening Standard journalist? No, and no. What Red Ken is really concerned about, is slavery. He has, in fact, apologised for London's role in it, on behalf of all Londoners, and urged Tony Blair to apologise, on behalf of the entire nation. If you're white and British, you're guilty.

To go into all the reasons why this is ridiculous would take far too long. Suffice to say that it happened two hundred ago, so that no one alive today can in any way be held responsible. It may be added that the idea that slavery was somehow imposed on Africans by white people is a myth - African tribes had long been enslaving one another, and were more than willing to sell their human wares to the white men, in exchange for ancient muskets, and alcohol. If one wanted to be controversial one could point out, as the black American politician Ezola Foster has done, that one is far better off being a descendant of slaves in America than being a descendant of free Africans in Africa. Or one could mention the trade in white slaves, run by Arabs and Africans, the apology for which seems curiously to have been delayed. Or, now I come to think of it, the story, reported by Dhimmi Watch, that slavery, run primarily by Arabs, is still going on in the Islamic state of Mauritania. Or the reintroduction of slavery to America, by Saudi Arabs. You get the picture.

But of course, Red Ken has a problem with the above statements. That problem is that they are all based in the truth, something generally inimical to Red Ken, and all that he stands for. He's far happier playing to his own particular gallery - the professional grievance groups like Operation Black Vote (who today welcomed Livingstone's apology), or the grasping, and apparently illiterate, black supremacists of the "Afrikan [sic] World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission" (essentially they want those evil white people to give them 777 trillion US dollars). It doesn't matter that it serves no purpose other than to increase the victim complex that many black people already seem to have. If it'll get Red Ken some votes in Brixton and Peckham, he'll do it.

Tuesday 20 March 2007

Muslim Child Abuse

Following on from yesterday's post about the British Asian community and their problems with child abuse, and its common acceptance as a norm of behaviour, more chilling evidence of the lack of love which many Muslims feel for their own children is revealed:
Iraqi insurgents used two children as a cover to get through a checkpoint in Baghdad and then blew up the car while the kids were still inside, a U.S. general said Tuesday.

Two adults jumped from the car, leaving the children in the back. Moments later, the car exploded, witnesses said.

The car went through a checkpoint Sunday and parked by a market across the street from a school, said Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations in the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The two children and three bystanders died in the blast, and seven others were hurt, Pentagon officials said.

The attack raises concerns that insurgents are trying a new tactic: using children to throw off troops, Barbero said.

"Children in the back seat lower suspicion. We let it move through," he said.

Barbero and Pentagon officials said this is the only attack of its kind they have seen.

A U.N. report released in January highlighted insurgents' use of children as suicide bombers in Iraq.

(Hat-tip: Jihad Watch)

Suicide bombing - killing yourself to indiscriminately slaughter your enemies - is despicable enough. But is there anything lower than using your children as decoys, and then blowing them up, while you run to safety?

Schools can STILL ban the burka

I have made reference to the Islamic veil, in its various forms, a couple of times on this blog. Now it seems that the government is to issue new guidelines telling schools that they can ban the damn thing, if they so wish.

However, they do not have to. All that the new guidelines do is restate the existing position, which is that the decision as to what pupils can and cannot wear in schools is at the discretion of the headmaster. A lot of people, though, are going to skim read reports of what has been said, and come away thinking that the government has done something concrete, when in fact it's just another exercise in spin. It's the government's usual exercise in deception: pretend you're doing something about a problem, while really doing nothing.

What the government should do is ban the burka altogether, be that in schools or anywhere else. A poll on the BBC website is presently showing 88% support for a ban on the burka in schools. But of course, that won't happen.

Monday 19 March 2007

More criminal "justice" lunacy

The other day I remarked on Lord Falconer's assertion that Ian Huntley, along with a few other notorious murderers, would never be released from prison. I suggested that this was part of a smokescreen, designed to draw attention away from the fact that most murderers do get released.

Now I see that I was right. A couple of particularly sickening, but not very high profile, killers are coming up for parole, reports the Daily Express:
Among those who could benefit is a vile triple killer who killed three students in a crime of passion in March 1987.
Mahmood Hussain’s bid for early release due to the crisis has sparked outrage.

The 44-year-old butchered love rival Peter Mosley, 21, before decapitating him and killing his student housemates Ejaz Yousaf and Tahir Iqubal.

Yet the shameless killer believes he deserves to walk free from prison after serving just 20 years – and Mr Mosley’s family are appalled.

Hussain’s parole hearing is set to take place today, and due to prison overcrowding he’s confident of the outcome.

The news follows revelations yesterday that triple child-killer David McGreavy, 55 - who slaughtered Dorothy Urry’s small children Paul, four, Dawn, two, and Samantha, nine months, and impaled their bodies on railings in 1973 - is also up for parole this week.

Ms Urry, 55, of Andover, Hants, has written to the Home Secretary to protest at his proposed release after he killed her children while babysitting them at her Worcester home.

Last night Mr Mosley’s brother-in-law Nick Turner, 43, said he feared for what might happen if killers like Hussain were set free.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that Lord Falconer made his remarks about Huntley primarily because this story was about to break?

The releases are apparently part of the government's response to prison overcrowding. The prison population is now 80,000, and tipped to hit 83,000 in June. Apparently, this is too much.

I've never really understood how a prison can be considered so crowded that it can take no more inmates: is there literally no room? Or is it rather that cramming them in three or four to a cell, instead of two, would upset the human rights crowd? Yes, why not let a few mass murderers back into society - as long as you don't upset Shami Chakrabarti.

Of course, I've said it before, and shall no doubt say it again: bring back hanging!

"Asians", child abuse, and BBC bias

Only 48% of Asians in Britain would report an instance of child abuse to the police, according to a survey by the NSPCC. This contrasts with 92% of the general population. So, clearly the attitudes of the "Asian" community are a bit of a problem.

Except that, of course, "Asian", as used by the media and politicians in the UK, is a bit of a nebulous term. Often it is used as code for "Muslims". Alternatively, it can be used to cover some very different cultural groups - Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. I believe that this is what is happening here.

Now, although Hinduism certainly is not perfect in its traditions and attitudes, it is considerably better than Islam. A lot of Hindus and Sikhs object to being lumped in with the Muslims, because they don't like being tarred with the same brush. I would imagine that the percentage of Muslims who would report child abuse is considerably lower than 48%, and the percentage of Hindus or Sikhs somewhat higher (albeit still lower than the national average). After all, what's good enough for Mohammed...

The NSPCC's Asian Helpline manager, Saleha Islam, said of the problem:
"Child abuse happens in all communities and there is no evidence that it is greater amongst British Asians (In which case, why is there a specific "Asian Helpline"? - FR).

"However, cultural issues and the importance placed on family reputation could mean that it is being hidden away.

"Izzat means that family comes before the individual, but to keep children safe from abuse their interests must come first.

"We want to send out a message to the British Asian community that putting up a wall of silence will not protect children. It will only protect the abuser who will be free to abuse again."

One of the main causes of this problem is the liberal multiculturalist attitude that has encouraged these people to maintain the social attitudes that they've brought with them from the primitive villages in which they grew up. After all, forcing them to accept the values of civilised people would be racist cultural imperialism. Accepting child abuse is just one of the abhorrent traditions that these people have upheld.

Finally, I found the article on the BBC website this afternoon, just after it was published. But don't try looking for it now, it's been swiftly buried, and I only found it again by using the BBC search engine. And who could expect better of the BBC? After all, this makes people who aren't white look bad. And it makes multiculturalism look bad. Best to keep it hidden - that's the BBC way.

Sunday 18 March 2007

Christianophobia Watch

The Mail on Sunday reports that one in three Christians has been the subject of discrimination on the grounds of their religious beliefs:
The survey by the BBC shows unprecedented disquiet among church-going Britons amid claims they increasingly face prejudice in the media, the workplace and even in their own communities.

It follows a series of high-profile rows over unfair treatment towards Christians, including the case of the British Airways worker who was banned from wearing a crucifix, while Muslim employees were allowed to wear headscarfs.

A third of those polled by the BBC's religious programme Heaven And Earth, claim Christians experience discrimination in the way the media portrays them.

One in four said they thought they suffered discrimination in the workplace from colleagues.

And more than one in five said they thought Christians faced discrimination in their local communities.

It reflects a growing unease that Labour multiculturalism has led to ethnic minority faiths such as Islam and Hinduism being given special treatment.

Hinduism? I've never come across grounds for suggesting that Hindus are being singled out for favourable treatment. Islam on the other hand...

No doubt Hinduism was added in for the same reason that the BBC refers to Catholic and Muslim criminal gangs - the MSM doesn't want to admit there's a problem with Islam, or that Muslims receive preferential treatment.

Meanwhile, there is a fear that the historic importance of Christianity in British life has been pushed to the sidelines.
Of course. But don't be reactionary stick-in-the-muds. Look forward to the glorious new multicultural Britain! And so on.

The BBC has itself been accused of blasphemy because of its decision to screen the controversial show Jerry Springer - The Opera, despite its profane portrayal of God and heaven.

Today's Heaven And Earth programme, presented by Gloria Hunniford, will focus on an example of Government prejudice against a Christian-run drug treatment centre.

Yeldall Manor in Berkshire offers successful residential treatment for young men addicted to drugs or alcohol.

The centre is run by evangelical Christians and the regime includes Bible study sessions and grace before meals.

However, their doors are open to addicts of all backgrounds.

William Hague praised its work when he was Tory leader.

But director Ken Wiltshire reveals how John Prescott's Office of the Deputy Prime Minister tried to cut their funding because they failed to meet Labour's 'equal opportunities' criteria.

He said: "We had been doing a good job helping former addicts move back into the community. So when we went for our routine review with officials we thought we would have no problems.

"But they kept asking us questions about why our staff were exclusively Christian and why there had to be a Christian component to our regime.

"There is no doubt there was prejudice against us because we are Christians. They think we are a bit odd."

Well of course they do. In modern Britain, it's considered a bit off for people to subscribe to religion, especially Christianity. Atheistic nihilism is more the norm for the liberal-left, although they tend to be pretty pro-Islam as well.

The liberal-left benefits from the weakening of Christianity. Christianity has been one of the key building blocks of British culture. Since liberals seek to wage war against British culture, in order to create their new multicultural Britain, it makes sense for them to attack Christianity. In addition, the strong moral views propounded by Christianity stand in sharp contrast to the nihilistic moral relativism of the liberals. Destroying Christianity will go most of the way to destroying traditional morality, opening the way for the left to introduce their own 'anything goes' ethical views.

The liberal-left has enormous influence in society today, particularly in exerting a disproportionate dominance over the education system and the MSM (especially the BBC itself). It uses these two instruments of propaganda to assault and undermine all British culture and British values, including Christianity. This has been instrumental in leading to Christianity being treated as a second-class religion in what used to be a Christian country, just as the native population are treated as second-class citizens.

Life should mean life for everyone

Our corpulent Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has said that the Soham murderer Ian Huntley should never be released from prison. He's quite right, of course. Personally, I'd rather see Huntley hanged, but in the absence of the death penalty, life imprisonment is the best alternative.

However, I have a problem with the reasoning behind Lord Falconer's comments. The Sunday Telegraph reports that Lord Falconer said:

"[Lord Phillips] referred to geriatric lifers - well there will be some and I think if you want confidence in the system that's got to be the position."

Asked whom he meant, Lord Falconer replied: "Ian Brady is somebody I would have thought should stay in for the rest of his natural life. Robert Black is another. It is extremely difficult to see circumstances in which Ian Huntley could ever be released. Those are three obvious examples. It is because of dangerousness but it is also because society does require retribution in those sorts of cases and if it doesn't get it people will not be confident of the criminal justice system."

It is this last sentence which gets me. While I quite agree that society requires that these reprehensible men face condign punishment, the line about people losing confidence jars. Because, while Lord Falconer may talk about the likes of Brady, Black, and Huntley, and the fact that they will never be released from prison, it is nonetheless the case that, among murderers, they are in a minority. Most murderers do end up being released from prison, having served sentences which can be as short as ten years. A sentence for manslaughter can be less than five years.

The general rule is that life does not mean life, even for murder. It is this which damages public trust in the criminal justice system. What Lord Falconer is doing, by picking out various high-profile murderers, and saying that they really will never leave prison, is throwing a bone to the masses. The likes of Huntley are set up as a smokescreen, to obscure the fact that less high-profile, but equally evil and dangerous, killers are being released back into society. This in turn reduces, or is at least intended to reduce, the justified anger of the public, without effecting any change to the general rule. It is deceit.

Lord Falconer believes that public confidence in the criminal justice system can be increased by grandstanding over a few particularly odious murderers. But the truth is that public confidence is harmed by the fact that when a killer receives a life sentence that means, in practice, 10 to 15 years. Only when life genuinely means life will public confidence begin to return.

Or we could just bring back hanging.

Friday 16 March 2007

Kriss Donald film planned

Scottish newspaper the Daily Record reports that the TV company Granada is planning to make a film about the racist murder of Kriss Donald, which they will then aim to sell on to one of the major terrestrial channels.

I think there's something slightly voyeuristic about films depicting actual murders like this, particularly when they are made so soon after the events depicted took place. The Daily Record article says that Granada are "hoping to persuade Kriss's family to take part" - one would hope that they might have done that before announcing their plans to make the film.

Nonetheless, despite the potentially prurient nature of the production, a film about Kriss's murder would be beneficial, in giving publicity to a racist murder which, because its victim was white and the killers Pakistani, has been largely ignored by the MSM. The majority of racist violence in this country is carried out by non-whites against whites, and it is high time that these attacks were more openly acknowledged.

Of course, if and when this film comes to be shown, you can bet anything some "anti-racist" activist (Ruggie Johnson, perhaps?) will demand that it be censored, for fear that it might 'undermine community cohesion', and incite those evil white people to resort to their usual racist ways.