Disease-ridden voters

They are worlds apart: the brash, gun-loving, God-fearing, Southern fans of Nascar racing, and the button-downed, suit-wearing political elite in Washington.

But the loathing of the Nascar crowd for the inhabitants of Capitol Hill has reached new heights after the decision by Washington political aides to get inoculated before attending a race this weekend.

To compound the error, the aides in question are Democrats, a party that has been so keen to regain the votes of white Southern males that it has even given them their own demographic term: “Nascar Dads”. The decision to get immunisations, against hepatitis, tetanus and diphtheria, is as much a political blunder as a cultural clash.

The trip was part of the House Homeland Security Committee’s investigation into public health preparedness at mass gatherings. Nascar races attract crowds of up to 300,000 predominately working-class fans.

The Democrat chairman of the committee instructed the aides to get the immunisations and the Republicans pounced, claiming Democrats were treating Nascar supporters like Third World inhabitants. “To suggest vaccines are needed to attend Nascar races is insulting to millions of hard-working Americans,”said Tim Walberg, a Republican congressman.

How many people, I wonder, have died from diseases picked up at Nascar races? Do the Democrat aides have access to figures showing that to attend such an event unvaccinated is to sign one's own death warrant? Because they must surely have had some evidential basis for choosing to be inoculated. Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that the American political class regard their own working-class with utter loathing and contempt. And that couldn't possibly be the case, could it?

Witch Hunt of the Day

From the Lancashire Evening Post:

A young Tory student leader has been expelled from the party and suspended by the University of Central Lancashire for making vile homophobic comments online.

"Vile", they say! What an excellent example of fair and unbiased reporting! Still, it's only the local press: I doubt many journalists on regional papers can even spell 'impartiality', let alone put it into practice.

Fergus Bowman, a second-year politics and religion student from Lancashire, resigned as chairman of the Conservative Future society at UCLan's Students' Union when the comments, on social networking site Facebook, came to light.

He has since been thrown out of the Tory party by national officials.

Mr Bowman, 22, who lives in Catterall near Garstang, has also been banned from the Students' Union while the university investigates. He has apologised to a student newspaper for his comments.

The comments have now been removed from Facebook, but copies seen by the Lancashire Evening Post show Bowman was listed as the head of a group called "Homos burn in hell".

Its homepage featured a picture of a hooded Klu Klux Klan [sic - what was I just saying about standards among representatives of the local press?] member beside a burning cross and the remark "everyone knows homosexuality is against God's wishes".

So, Mr - or should I say, Grand Wizard - Bowman is clearly an out-and-out Nazi. Either that or the picture of a KKK member and the over-the-top language indicates that this group is a bit of a joke.

Mr Bowman went on to make a reference to the link between homosexuals and the AIDS virus.

On another webpage, showing an obscene picture of a man exposing his private parts, Bowman wrote: "And people wonder why I'm anti-semetic."

Again, is this more likely to be an admission that he curls up at night with a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or a joke (possibly one in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless)?

And he branded members of Garstang Country Hotel and Golf Club, which is near his home, as "semi-civilized, illiterate degenerates" on another forum.

The Conservative Party and student leaders have united to condemn Mr Bowman's comments, some of which were made on webpages which anyone could access freely.

A Tory spokesman said: "Fergus Bowman's comments are appalling and we condemn them absolutely.

"He has been expelled from the Conservative party. There's no place for homophobia in today's Britain.

"The Conservative party actively support gay rights."

Students' Union president Chris Lowden said: "We are committed to equal opportunities.

"Fergus's comments breached our constitution. We cannot and will not tolerate such material coming out from one of our members."

A UCLan spokesman confirmed Bowman had been suspended from university while an internal investigation is held. It is expected to take two to three weeks.

Personally, I think that the Tory Party, the university, and the students' union are all guilty of a gross overreaction. It seems quite clear that Bowman was, at worst, guilty of making jokes in somewhat poor taste. Well, so what? Since when were undergraduates expected to behave like paragons of virtue? And, in any event, it's not like he was inciting murder, is it?

But if the Tory Party want to expel him, then I suppose that that is their right. True, doing so may make them look like a bunch of humourless, censorious, liberals, but as an independent political party they have a right to choose who they do, and who they do not, want as their members.

The actions of the University of Central Lancashire give cause for far greater concern, however. Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech. They are supposed to be places in which the open expression of opinions is encouraged, no matter how vulgar, distasteful, or offensive they may be. It is deeply disturbing that a student can now be suspended, and possibly face expulsion, from a university, simply for making jokes that might cause offence to members of designated victim groups. And the decision to suspend Bowman is not without recent precedent, either: remember the Cambridge Motoons saga? It seems that genuine free speech is becoming an increasingly rare commodity at our universities.

Still, I suppose that Fergus Bowman should just be grateful that Jack Straw's wonderful new anti-thought crime laws aren't in place yet. If they were, he could be looking at seven years in chokey...

Shock of the Year!

"An Inconvenient Truth" is one-sided, exaggerated, alarmist, and scientifically inaccurate, rules High Court judge.

In other news: Pope not a Presbyterian.

The vain search for common sense

I see that the children's charity, Kidscape, has warned that the government's ridiculous new proposals to outlaw incitement to "homophobic" hatred may lead to schoolchildren being arrested for using such innocuous phrases as "your trainers are gay". Kidscape's training manager, Claude Knights, added that if the proposed laws were introduced, then the police would need to use "common sense" in enforcing them.

Sadly, I think that this is something of a vain hope. Remember the case of George Rawlinson, the ten year-old threatened with arrest for using the word 'gay' in an e-mail? Or that of Sam Brown, the Oxford undergraduate taken to court for questioning the sexuality of a police horse? No, I'm afraid that the common sense train has long since left the station, and I don't think it's coming back.

Population Replacement, part 94,000

The changing face of Britain was revealed yesterday in official figures showing the immigrant population has risen by almost 1.4 million in five years.

At the same time, the number of British-born residents living in the country has fallen by 500,000.

The result, according to the Office for National Statistics, is that one in every ten people living in Britain was born overseas - up from one in 12 in 2001.

Migrants who have moved here are also having significantly more children - an average of 2.5 per woman, compared to 1.7 for British mothers.

[...]

Over the next decade, migrants will swell the population by almost two million.

The new estimate that numbers will grow by 190,000 a year is 30 per cent higher than previous figures.

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne indicated this was too high.

"This shows what could happen unless we take action now," he said.

"Frankly, it underlines the need for swift and sweeping changes to the immigration system in the next 12 months."

Of course, one might be inclined to take Byrne slightly more seriously if he were not a member of a government which has now been in power for more than ten years, during which it has presided over mass immigration on an unprecedented, and ever-increasing, scale. As things are, it is impossible to believe a word he says on the matter, and it is certainly impossible to believe that he actually plans to do anything about the problem of unlimited immigration.

As for the figures themselves: do I really need to comment on them? I seem to have discussed this issue a few million times already (here, for example)! Immigration on this scale not only has a severe negative impact on our national infrastructure, but it also has a profound impact on our very culture. As Carol Gould put it, "the concept of an Englishman has been so distorted as to be unrecognisable". Mass immigration of the kind that Labour have allowed and encouraged for ten years has turned many British people into foreigners in their own towns. And yet politicians who are raising the issue - and raising all its consequences, including its cultural consequences - are few and far between. If, as increasingly appears to be the case, our government is quite happy to turn us into a minority in our own country, then they should at least do us the courtesy of asking for our views on the issue. And when the public responded, as they overwhelmingly would, by saying that, actually, we would like immigration to be either severely limited or curtailed altogether, then the government should do that as well. As it is, what they are doing is little less than treason.

Fascist thugs threaten SIOE demonstrators

Last week, I alerted readers to the demo that Stop the Islamisation of Europe plans to hold in London on October 26th. Well, it seems that some Muslim contributors to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK's forums have also got wind of the demonstration, and one of them started a comments thread on the subject.

Some of the comments are perfectly harmless, albeit utterly delusional. One commenter even compares Muslims who oppose SIOE to Burmese monks who marched to oppose the military junta ruling their country. Because, of course, opposing the SIOE demonstrators carries with it the risk of being rounded up and imprisoned or killed, doesn't it? Various other commenters accuse SIOE of being fascists and racists.

But among these generally harmless examples of common or garden Islamic lunacy, are some somewhat less peaceable offerings. Consider, for example, this comment, from "venceremos":

...these racist Islamophobes should either be banned from marching or challenged.

They must not be allowed the opportunity to hide behind the freedom of speech to spread their vile poison.

By which he means, they must not be allowed the opportunity to exercise free speech.

If they can get away with marching in London this time, they'll be back --cowards that they are-- in larger numbers the next time.

London Jews learned that in the 'thirties and confronted Moseley's [sic] thugs in Cable Street in 1936. The Nazis were given a good duffing-up and never reared their ugly heads in Britain again.

This new generation of white supremacists are no different. You either stamp them out or they'll spread like an uncontrolled virus.

So, once again we see the lie that anyone who opposes Islam is a "white supremacist" and a "Nazi" blackshirt. At the same time, Muslims are equivalent, not only to Burmese monks, but also to Cable Street Jews. One wonders whether there has ever been an oppressed group to whom Muslims will not compare themselves? Other than the many groups who have been oppressed by Muslims, of course.

However, of rather greater importance is the fact that this thug appears to be advocating violence against peaceful demonstrators. Possibly even lethal violence: I'd be interested to know what it was, precisely, that he meant by "stamp them out".

Since this comment has been allowed to remain on the MPACUK forum, can we assume that it is endorsed by this Islamic organisation? After all, even the most ardent advocates of online free speech tend to draw the line at threats of violence.

Certainly, it seems that at least some of the MPACUK forum's other commenters agreed with "venceremos". Not one of them condemned him for the threat of violence, and at least one other commenter, "IbnTamiyya", agreed with him:

Yes brtoher [sic]! These people need to be taight [sic] a lesson.

We should take a lesson from the [inappropriate language]and sort these kuffars ourselves. The british government and police will not do it for us as they agree with everything these [inappropriate language]say and do.

This post had been edited by a forum moderator, to remove the "inappropriate language". What that inappropriate language was, I don't know. In the context, I'd imagine that the first instance contained some form of derogatory reference to Jews, but I really can't guess at what the second "inappropriate" phrase might have been. I also note, that while the moderator was quick to remove "inappropriate language", he did nothing to restrict or oppose the expression of views supporting violence against peaceful protesters. Nor did he deem the obviously threatening phrase "sort these kuffars" to be inappropriate. Again I ask, does MPACUK endorse threats of this nature?

As I mentioned above, the commenters at MPACUK repeatedly denounced the supporters of SIOE as being fascists and Nazis. However, I would say, that while there is an abundance of fascism on display in the comments quoted, absolutely none of it is coming from SIOE. On the contrary, it is coming from Muslim commenters, who, rather like the Burmese junta, wish to violently suppress the exercise of free speech by those who oppose them. It is because of people like these, that it is imperative that we do all that we can to resist the Islamification of Britain.

Muslims ask: "Will the victimisation never end?"

Islamophobia is on the rise in Europe and governments should do more to protect the continent's 15 million Muslims from discrimination, experts meeting in Spain said Monday.

"The situation is very serious," said Mustapha Cherif, an expert on Islam at the University of Algiers who is known for his commitment to battling religious hatred.

Really? I wonder what he's ever done to challenge anti-Christian prejudice in the Islamic world. You know, the kind of real prejudice that leads to people being tortured, imprisoned, attacked, and murdered. Does he stand up and confront this, or other instances of prejudice against non-Muslim minorities (the Mandaeans, for example)? Or does he just whinge about European "Islamophobia", which generally consists in little more than some mildly unhinged Muslim getting their delicate little feelings hurt?

"Islamophobia is a rising phenomena," added Jasser Auda of Britain's Forum Against Racism and Islamophobia, which is made up of representatives of the British Muslim community.

Hardly an impartial "expert", is he? On the contrary, he's a professional player of victimhood poker, whose very job consists of affirming that Muslims are the Most Oppressed People Ever.

The two were speaking at a meeting in the southern Spanish city of Jaen of some 30 non-governmental organisations from across Europe.

The gathering was held ahead of the start on Tuesday in the nearby city of Cordoba of a two-day conference on the issue organised by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

[...]

The non-governmental organisations will present a list of recommendations on how to tackle the problem to delegations from the 56 nations that make up the OSCE, and that are set to take part in the Cordoba conference.

Oh goody! So we can soon look forward to yet more demands for preferential treatment from the Mohammedans, all dressed up in the language of promoting equality.

Cordoba was chosen as the host for the event because for centuries the city was a symbolic centre of coexistence between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Yes, coexistence in which Muslims ruled, and Christians and Jews were second-class citizens. Arguably, it was considerably better to be a non-Muslim there then that it is to be a non-Muslim in an Islamic state now, but still it was not the epicentre of world tolerance that Muslims and their apologists commonly make out.
I would, however, agree that the Caliphate of Cordoba has symbolic significance for the future (and indeed, the present) of Europe, and for this conference. After all, dhimmitude, of the type practised by the Jews and Christians of Cordoba, seems rapidly to be becoming the norm across Europe, and it is often those who cry the loudest about "Islamophobia" who do the most to facilitate this.

Dressing up as policemen

The trade union Unison has called for PCSOs to be entitled to wear a uniform virtually identical to those worn by real police officers. According to Unison, the new uniform, which will differ from that worn by real policemen only in the colour of the tie and epaulettes, will make PCSOs feel that they are "part of the police family", and will also increase the respect with which they are regarded by the general public.

As to the former point: well, PCSOs are, for better or worse, "part of the police family", by virtue of the fact that they are employed by the police force. No matter what uniform they wear, this fact will remain unaltered. However, I suspect that the real issue is that some PCSOs don't like being seen as not being "real policemen". Sadly for those that do feel this way, the fact is that PCSOs are not real policemen. They don't have full police powers or training, and it is simply misleading to pretend otherwise. To dress them in a uniform which most members of the public would be unable to distinguish from that worn by full police officers would simply serve to deceive the public as to the true level of street policing. PCSOs may have a role to play (although for the life of me I can't guess what it is), but they are not policemen, and we, the public, should be able to work this out at a glance.

Neither will giving PCSOs a uniform more akin to that worn by fully-trained officers in any way enhance the respect, or, perhaps more accurately, reduce the disrespect, with which they are regarded by the public at large. That lack of respect does not stem from the fact that PCSOs have a different uniform, but from the fact that they are generally (and largely justifiably) seen as being totally ineffectual. You could dress PCSOs up as Attila the Hun, but so long as they were under orders to run away when confronted with anyone threatening violence, they'd still be widely regarded with something approaching contempt.

European Scrutiny Committee: the "reform treaty" is the constitution

I see that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has added its voice to the chorus of those, both pro and anti-EU, who say that the new EU "reform treaty" is in reality no different from the old EU constitution. You know, the EU constitution that Labour promised to give us a referendum on? According to the committee, 438 of the 440 provisions in the reform treaty were also in the constitution. They added that the extent to which powers were to be handed over to the EU under the terms of the (not a) constitution was "objectionable".

In proclaiming the reform treaty and the constitution to be one and the same, the members of the (Labour-dominated) Commons European Scrutiny Committee join a proud list of luminaries who have made the same discovery. These include Valery Giscard d'Estaing (former French president), Margot Walstrom (European Commissioner), Bertie Ahern (Irish Taioseach), Jose Zapatero (Spanish prime minister), Angela Merkel (German chancellor), Gisela Stuart (Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston), and a variety of (strongly pro-EU) MEPs. None of these people are exactly arch-Eurosceptics, are they? They simply acknowledge what is an obvious truth. Hell, even the uber-liberal Guardian journalist Jackie Ashley recognises that the reform treaty is "overwhelmingly similar" to the constitution, and, in consequence of this, has called for a referendum.

And who, on the other hand, denies that the reform treaty is simply the constitution by another name? Well, members of the government, and some of the more credulous members of the Labour Party. That's about it.
The government may continue in its pretence that the reform treaty is significantly different from the constitution. Indeed, at this point, having put so much time and effort into their lies, it's difficult to see how they could drop the pretence without having to make the disastrous acknowledgement that they have been deliberately deceiving the public for months. Like Macbeth, the government is:

...in blood/Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more/Returning were as tedious as go o'er.

Nonetheless, return the government must. They have committed themselves to holding a referendum on the EU constitution, and with every passing week comes fresh evidence that the reform treaty is the constitution in all but name. To do otherwise than hold a referendum now would not only be a failure to honour an election commitment; it would be tantamount to treason.

The pro-democracy left

Remember how members of the French left rioted after Sarkozy won the presidential election? Well, now it seems that some of their Swiss counterparts have had much the same idea:

Violence flared in the Swiss capital of Bern as left-wing protesters tried to stop a pre-election campaign event by the nationalist Swiss People's Party.

Police fired tear gas as demonstrators hurled rocks and bottles in front of parliament to interrupt a march and rally by about 5,000 SVP supporters.

The SVP has been criticised recently for its hard-line views on immigration.

Its campaign posters - showing white sheep kicking a black sheep off a Swiss flag - have stirred controversy.

The party, which has campaigned against minarets in Swiss cities, condemned the violence as contrary to the country's democratic tradition.

Sadly for the enemies of democracy, the SVP is expected to remain as the largest party after the coming elections.