An imam walks into a bar...

I read that the left-wing "comedian" Ben Elton has made the astounding suggestion that the BBC is too scared to allow jokes about Islam to be broadcast. Speaking to the Christian cultural magazine, Third Way, Elton, who is apparently a churchgoing atheist (presumably that fits with the hypocrisy of a supposed radical leftist who fawns over the Royal Family, and writes kitsch musicals with Andrew Lloyd Webber), said that:

I believe that part of it is due to the genuine fear that the authorities and the communities have about provoking the radical elements of Islam. There is no doubt about it, the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass...I wanted to use the phrase 'Mohammed came to the mountain' and everybody said, 'Oh, just don't! Just don't! Don't go there!' It was nothing to do with Islam, I was merely referring to the old proverb, 'If the mountain won't come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain.' And people just said, 'Let's not!' It's incredible.

Now, I would personally be happy with anything that keeps Ben Elton off the airwaves. I simply don't find the man remotely funny. Indeed, not only do I not find him even vaguely amusing, but I also find him deeply cringeworthy - a kind of real-life David Brent. No doubt his censored joke, whatever it was, was as dreadful as all his other ones.

But in this case, he is absolutely correct. It is abundantly evident that the mainstream media, and not just the BBC, does voluntarily censor itself to avoid offending Muslims, in a manner that it would never feel the need to do with any other religion. One need only consider the fact that, in the whole of the UK, the only newspaper that reprinted the infamous Danish Motoons was the student newspaper at Cardiff University. And when the university's students' union, who publish the newspaper - ironically titled Gair Rhydd (Welsh for "Free Word") - realised what they'd done, they issued a grovelling apology, recalled all the copies, and suspended the editor. Would the same thing have happened had the cartoons been anti-Christian?

This kind of double standard applies not only in the case of direct references to Muslims, or Mohammed. Today also brought the news that a set of books aimed at promoting homosexuality to schoolchildren aged five and upwards have been withdrawn from primary schools in Bristol, after Muslim parents complained en masse. Of course, it is quite reasonable to oppose the left-wing brainwashing of very young children, which was the evident purpose of these books, and complaints were also made by some Christian organisations, such as the Christian Institute. But a comparison of the responses to Christian and Muslim complaints is instructive. Last May, Sunderland University's Dr Elizabeth Atkinson, who is responsible for the production of the books, was scathingly dismissive of Christian concerns, saying that "we knew when we started this that the Christian groups wouldn't like it because they don't like homosexuals. It wasn't surprising." Yet as soon as Muslims complained, the books were swiftly removed, in order to, as Bristol City Council put it, allow schools to "operate safely".

Muslims constantly complain that they are the victims of discrimination, and many on the left are more than happy to give credence to their claims - indeed, Ben Elton's comments have already been recorded as an example of "secular, liberal Islamophobia" at Islamophobia Watch. But the fact is, that, by virtue of a unique combination of whining about how unbelievably oppressed they are, and expressly or impliedly threatening violence against anyone who challenges them (a tactic most recently observed in the actions that led to the temporary removal of Fitna from Liveleak's servers), they have achieved a privileged status in this country, and, indeed, across the entirety of Western Europe. As Ben Elton's comments show, this is something that is recognised by increasing numbers of people, including some on the left. The next challenge, of course, is to actually do something about it...

Sweden: Compulsory cross-dressing in kindergartens

In March, and then again earlier this month, I wrote about Elizabeth "Thick Lizzy" Atkinson, Reader in "Social and Educational Inquiry" at Sunderland University, and the great pedagogue behind the introduction into British primary schools of such books as King & King, Spacegirl Pukes, and And Tango Makes Three, which features the now infamous homosexual penguins. The reaction of commenters to Thick Lizzy's contributions to knowledge was lukewarm, to say the least. For those of us raised on such authors as Enid Blyton and Anthony Buckeridge, the notion of children being indoctrinated in this manner appears abhorrent.

So, indeed, it is. But, we should thank our lucky stars we are not living in Sweden. By contrast to what the unfortunate children of that unfortunate nation are subjected to, the brainwashing campaigns waged by the likes of Thick Lizzy are as nothing. Fjordman recently wrote on the subject at Gates of Vienna, and I take the liberty of quoting some extracts from the beginning of his essay:

In a kindergarten in Stockholm, the parents were encouraged by the preschool teachers - apparently ideological pioneers - to equip their sons with dresses and female first names. There are now weeks in some places when boys HAVE TO wear a dress. [Swedish journalist Kurt] Lundgren considers this sexual indoctrination as worse than the political: “The political nonsense is seeking to alter opinions - the sex freaks seek to alter the children’s personality, their mentality and their entire constitution.”

Fjordman also quotes from a comment left by one of the readers of Mr Lundgren's blog:

My 13-year-old son had ‘equality day’ [in school] and had to listen to a transvestite. I have myself never encountered or talked to one during my considerably longer life. Why is this important? Today’s children know nothing about the crimes of Communism, but everything about the sexual orientation of transvestites.

With the likes of Thick Lizzy wielding so much influence, how long before boys in British nurseries are pulling on dresses?

Homosexual Penguins 2: The Leftist Strikes Back

Remember the government-funded "academics" whose great contribution to modern life was to promote homosexuality, by, among other methods, publishing and promoting books about homosexual penguins? I wrote about it back in March.

Well, the Northern Echo has an interview with Dr Elizabeth "Thick Lizzy" Atkinson, the post-modernist cretin responsible for this colossal waste of public money:

Dr Elizabeth Atkinson, 48, of Sunderland University, is the director of the No Outsiders project, which uses books such as King & King in an effort to combat homophobic bullying. The two-year project - which is halfway through its first year - is being run in 14 primary schools in the South and the Midlands, with plans to expand it nationally.

Yes. Why read them Enid Blyton, when you could brainwash them?

Sitting in a cafe in Newcastle, Dr Atkinson says she doesn't mind that the project has attracted such vehement opposition - it's all part of the wider debate. "To be attacked is a sign of recognition that you are doing something to change the world and the job of education is to change something for the better," she says. "Fair enough if I'm attacked for changing the world for the better - so be it."

Note to Thick Lizzy: the purpose of working in education is not to change the world for the better (something which you certainly aren't doing anyway). Astonishingly enough, it is to - wait for it - educate! And, by the way, that doesn't mean the same thing as 'indoctrinate'.

And can't you just hear the sanctimonious tone of this woman's voice? "I'm changing the world for the better", forsooth! I can think of many, many people doing rather more towards that end than her, and bragging about it rather less.

"We knew when we started this that the Christian groups wouldn't like it because they don't like homosexuals. It wasn't surprising."

Does anyone else get the impression that she doesn't like Christians?

The £568,000 research project has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

As I said last time: that means it's been funded by the taxpayer. That's us, folks!

It is led by Dr Atkinson, reader in social and educational inquiry [not quite a Regius Professorship is it? - FR], and her colleague at Sunderland University, Renee DePalma, in conjunction with Exeter University and the Institute of Education in London. The aim is to help primary school teachers develop their own school-based projects to combat homophobic bullying. Those projects can use books, such as King & King, or they can be arts or theatre based. But, says Dr Atkinson, it is not about teaching four-year-olds about sex.

"It's got nothing to do with sexual activity, it's an equality issue and a human rights issue," she says. "It's no more talking about sexuality if you've got two princes falling in love than if you have a prince and a princess falling in love. If they raised questions about sex between a prince and prince you would use the same appropriate language as if they'd asked about the prince and the princess.

"But children as young as four are quite aware that there are gay relations. If they turned to a teacher and said 'oh it's a gay dad', it's a quite straightforward acknowledgement for a teacher to say 'that's right' and leave it at that."

One factor behind the scheme, she says, is about recognising that some children do not have heterosexual parents. "If there's somebody with two mums, who comes from this loving family background, but discovers that there's nothing which reflects her life, she may find that she has to be silenced for fear of not appearing to be normal."

Is there any evidence that what Thick Lizzy calls "homophobic bullying" actually takes place? When I was at school, we did actually have a boy whose mother had left his father for another woman. He seemed to be treated pretty much as everyone else, despite the absence of gay penguins enriching our lives, and expanding our wicked, prejudiced, minds.

In any event, a homosexual coupling is far from being the ideal family background for any child, and depicting it as such is simply misleading.

"That silence is imposed on her [by whom? - FR] from the age of three or four, not at 12," she says."If you leave it until secondary school to address those issues you've left it too late because children are already living with the expectations of how girls should behave and how boys should behave. All it takes is to understand that being different is part of normality."

Ooh, how very post-modern. And utterly meaningless.

That normality, says Dr Atkinson, can be reached with help from the books.

Okay, now it just sounds like a sales pitch.

After burbling on a bit, Thick Lizzy continues:

"Section 28 led to the continued marginalisation for children and adults who did not fit into specific norms," says Dr Atkinson. "What repealing Section 28 has done is make it possible for that group of people to have their human rights recognised. It's no good saying we're going to have equality but there's going to be an exception. There should be no exceptions."

Yes. Right, wrong, good, bad. Why discriminate between them? All judgements are just evidence of prejudice, etc, and the facts that homosexual relationships are less stable than heterosexual ones, or that children benefit from having both a mother and a father should just be cast to the winds. After all, why let the facts get in the way of promoting liberal ideals?

This is not simply a question of protecting innocent, and unfortunate, children from bullying because of the dubious lifestyle choices of their parents. For a start, as I said above, there is no evidence that "homophobic bullying" is a problem. Rather, this is an attempt to make children think that homosexuality is a normal, and a good, thing, entirely equal to heterosexuality. And that is simply not the case.