"While dictators rage and statesmen talk, all Europe dances — to The Lambeth Walk."

Friday, 27 February 2009

Inside the Mind of a Luvvie

Camp Liverpudlian chat-show host Paul O'Grady was interviewed in The Sun yesterday.

Mr O'Grady is most famous in the UK for playing acid-tongued drag act Lily Savage, but since then he has had a very successful tea time talk show on Channel 4.

I would describe him as outspoken, perhaps a typical working class Scouser.

In the interview, he saw fit to stick up for Carol Thatcher over the 'Golliwog Incident'; not because he agreed with what she said, but because:

"I’ve met Carol and she’s lovely, she really is,’ he says. ‘I don’t believe she’s a racist.
'But she shouldn’t be saying things like that. She needs a good slap on the wrist."


However, here is his opinion on Prince Charles calling a Polo chum 'Sooty' (allegedly at the man's request), and Prince Harry larking about on video:

'Paul, 53, is less forgiving of Prince Harry, 24, who called a fellow Army officer a ‘paki’, and his father Prince Charles who calls a friend 'Sooty'.
"For God’s sake, what’s up with these people?’ he tells The Sun. ‘There are certain words you don’t say — in public or private. ‘Re-educate yourself. There’s no excuse. You don’t think like that, never mind talk like that." '

Now that's very interesting use of language. So what's the crux of this issue?

If you're a good friend of Mr O'Grady and he feels he can vouch for your character, then within reason you can say what you like without being judged. It was all just a silly misunderstanding.

However, if you belong to a certain class or group of people, you should 're-educate' yourself if you hold certain opinions, think certain thoughts, or even stupidly say something as a joke or in anger, spur of the moment.

To be completely honest, what shocks me more than a group of close comrades messing around and a racial epithet being used in jest is a popular TV personality telling people that in his opinion, certain thoughts are taboo, and anyone who is even suspected of being guilty (and doesn't have a fashionable celebrity backer like himself) should be 're-educated'.

Am I alone here? Mr O'Grady is openly gay. There was a time, not so very long ago, when public opinion would probably have liked to see him 're-educated'. So clearly the popularity of a measure is not an indication of whether or not it's moral or right.

Got that, Paul?

The way this country is going, I very much doubt anyone will have to 're-educate' themselves; I'm sure there will be a queue of willing volunteers waiting to purge the unbelievers of their out dated, evil notions.

Perhaps Mr O'Grady should open a history book, and take at glance at the goings on of societies such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or communist China and North Korea. That's what you get when the government and those it sanctions to spread its message take an interest in what people think.

He might also then find that the term 're-education' probably has more negative connotations than 'Sooty' or 'Golliwog' - and adjusting for context, of course - is just as offensive to large numbers of people.

Maybe he'll then take his own advice and think before he opens his mouth.

The Battle of Trafalgar in 2009

A friend sent me this via email:

Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."

Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."

Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the meaning of this?"

Hardy: "Sorry sir, you'll have to read this."

Nelson (reading aloud): "' England expects every person to do his or her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion Or disability.' -
What gobbledygook is this, Hardy?"

Hardy: "Admiralty policy, sir. We're an equal opportunity employer now.
We Had the devil's own job getting ' England ' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."

Nelson: "Gadzooks, hand me my pipe and tobacco."

Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated smoke-free Working environments."

Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the main brace to steel the men before battle."

Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."

Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it ..................... Full speed ahead."

Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."

Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest please."

Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."

Nelson: "What?"

Hardy: "Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness; and they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."

Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay."

Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck, Sir."

Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."

Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently-abled."

Nelson: "Differently-abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card."

Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."

Nelson: "Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."

Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"

Nelson: "I've never heard such rubbish. Break out the cannons and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."

Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."

Nelson: "What? This is mutiny!"

Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged With murder if they actually kill anyone. There're a couple of legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."

Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"

Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."

Nelson: "We're not?"

Hardy: "No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."

Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."

Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-coordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary report."

Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your King."

Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save your life"

Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?"

Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on Corporal punishment."

Nelson: "What about sodomy?"

Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."

Nelson: "In that case, kiss me. Hardy".

Wednesday, 25 February 2009

Baron Nazir Ahmed of HMP Wormwood Scrubs

The joke that is the British criminal justice system swung into full action again earlier today.

'Lord' Nazir Ahmed (pictured outside Sheffield Magistrates' Court) was sentenced to twelve weeks in prison and a twelve month driving ban for dangerous driving. The sentence is out of a maximum possible two years, and he will serve half the tariff imposed (standard procedure under the Criminal Justice Act of 1991).

It was proven in court that Ahmed was sending and receiving a series of text messages as he sped along the M1 at speeds of up to 60mph and beyond on Christmas Day 2007. The last text message was sent 2 minutes before his Jaguar collided with a broken down Audi, instantly killing 28 year old Slovakian father-of-two Martyn Gombar.

I would like to say I'm surprised by this verdict, and in a sense I am; I thought he would escape jail altogether. The modern justice system seems to pride itself on the fact that the less an individual actually deserves sympathy and understanding, the more of it they must receive.

According the The Times:

'David Cicak, Mr Gombar's cousin, said: “We’re not happy with this. He could be out in six weeks, that’s nothing. [My cousin] left behind two small kids now with only their mother.” '

Quite. Ain't British justice grand, Mr Cicak? Best in the world, don't you know.

In any case, Ahmed is a man who certainly does not deserve sympathy or understanding; he comes across as an arrogant, scheming political chancer who would sell his own grandmother if he thought it would allow him to increase his own power and that of the 'Muslim community' in Great Britain.

I actually think he's been incredibly lucky; not only should he have been made to serve the full two years for the offence as allowed under the law (it would be longer if I had my way, excuses do not raise people from the dead), but by now he should have probably been at the very least expelled from the House of Lords and at most tried for treason for some of the controversies that have surrounded him.

I almost wrote 'dogged' him, but in New Britain that's not really the right word; a country that has lost all confidence in and respect for itself continues to promote such self-serving traitors in any case. It just so happens that this particular self-serving traitor was born in Pakistan and has some rather interesting contacts in the Ummah.

I'm going to say something controversial now (it shouldn't be, but it probably is); Lord Nazir Ahmed is what you get when you promote people to positions of power and influence purely on the basis of how much melanin their skin contains, how exotic their name sounds, or how much you'd like a certain 'community' to think you're very tolerant.

Some people think they can get away with anything; when they're proved right, and all resistance to them is obviously feeble, you create a narcissistic megalomaniac. Ahmed knows his background and his religion act as a crude shield in today's Britain, and from what I can gather he has not stopped exploiting it for a moment.

Let's take a brief look at what Lord Ahmed no doubt sees as his brighter moments. His Wikipedia page is quite telling (although I wouldn't really trust it any more than I'd trust his own wife or mother to give me an unbiased account of him). One of the youngest peers ever created, the first Muslim life peer. Although it is marked 'citation needed', I find this passage interesting:

"As a Muslim peer, much [sic] of his activities relate to the Muslim community, both at home and internationally. Ahmed led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia and has advocated legislation against religious discrimination, international terrorism and forced marriages."

A few points immediately spring to mind; why is a British peer who really owes everything he is and has to Britain's generosity specifically focusing on issues that affect Muslims? Does he not have other constituents? Why the international focus? Is it simply that he can't find enough problems to solve here?

You see, if a white English peer was focusing purely on white English issues or constituents it would be racism. Many of these people, especially among the working class, feel alienated and disenfranchised too. So why is Ahmed's obvious bias written as something to be celebrated? Am I suppose to clap him on the back and buy him a (non-alcoholic) beer because he can't get past his own ethnic identity, when I'd be an evil racist in the same position?

I also find his leading a 'British government delegation' on the Hajj fascinating. Why, exactly, and at who's expense? Have the modern British government got themselves confused with medieval tributaries to the Caliphate or some such?
I would be very interested to find a Saudi Christian willing to attempt to lead a Saudi government delegation to Midnight Mass, to promote cultural understanding and good will. When that day comes, I will accept Ahmed's activities as normal.

Seeing as non-Muslims are banned from Mecca, does this really fit in with his position against religious discrimination? Also, his other positions are ambiguous; legislation against forced marriage would quite clearly clash with legislation against religious discrimination. Which point of view would prevail?

I think we already know the answer; just like we know that whilst it's completely insensitive to eat around fasting Muslims during Ramadan, it's not completely insensitive of them to ask you to change your habits to fit in with traditions you and your country do not follow. Etc.

Now, as many of you will know, Ahmed was active in trying to revoke the invitation of Geert Wilders to show Fitna in the House of Lords. Although the invitation was withdrawn and then re-issued, I believe Ahmed's threat to lead 10,000 Muslims on parliament was instrumental in the decision of the Home Secretary to detain and deport Mr Wilders.

But that's odd, isn't it? Because Lord Ahmed seems rather under the impression that free speech and the right to be controversial are there - it's just they only work one way.

For example, on 23rd February 2005, Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for the anti-semite Israel Shamir. Whilst there, Shamir was quoted as saying:

“The Jews like an Empire... This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance... Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.”

The easiness with which Jews change their allegiance, yes. I suppose that the Muslims make no secret of their allegiances to begin with, so there's no cause for confusion. After all, Ahmed is obviously so very loyal to the country and culture which took him in.

Shamir also said that Britain's large Muslim population was important to "turn the tide of Judaic values in Britain".

When challenged about these statements, Ahmed refused point blank to discuss the situation.

When the controversial author Salman Rushdie was knighted in 2007, Ahmed claimed it was a 'disgrace' and that Rushdie 'has blood on his hands'. The full quote:

"It's hypocrisy by Tony Blair who two weeks ago was talking about building bridges to mainstream Muslims, and then he's honouring a man who has insulted the British public and been divisive in community relations."

"This man not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world. Forgiving and forgetting is one thing, but honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of, because of what he did, I think is going a bit too far."

Which is interesting, is it not? It's never those poor, sensitive dears in the Muslim community who want to kill and destroy who are to blame. Always the nasty man who dared to inflame them. I mean, after all, we should just do and say whatever they tell us we can, right? Does that sound so unreasonable?

Who did Salman Rushdie kill? Is it absolutely necessary to go on a murderous rampage because someone wrote a book you don't like? Lord Ahmed doesn't say, but I think his silence speaks volumes.

My favourite quote from his Wiki page is this one:

"...he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, to the Chechens and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them."

He really is like the Muslim version of Superman, always showing up in a crisis. How could foreign governments resist him, after the problems he's solved here? You see, his formula is so simple anyone can follow it. Got a problem with your Muslim community? Want them to stop perpetrating indiscriminate violence? Give in. Submit.

That's all it takes - a grovelling apology, some special protections under the law, pretending Muslims are eternal victims - abracadabra! Allah will once more be merciful, and your country or region can be as peaceful as Turkish-occupied Cyprus on a Friday afternoon.

I would also, for the record, be very interested to know which lords the British government has dispatched to deal with the grievances of the Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Russians, Georgians and Israelis in these respective strife-torn regions.

So, next controversy. On 25 July 2005 Lord Ahmed, whilst talking with Robert Siegel on National Public Radio said that the suicide bombers of 7/7 had an "identity crisis" and, that "unfortunately, our imams and mosques have not been able to communicate the true message of Islam in the language that these young people can understand."

Lord Ahmed did acknowledge, "the community leaders and religious leaders, who have kept very close contacts with South Asia and the Middle East rather than keeping a good contact with the British society where we live."

With all due respect, prisoner 50987 - sorry, I mean Lord Ahmed - might that be because people such as yourself are specifically employed to keep such allegiances alive? I mean, after all, expecting loyalty and assimilation from these immigrants and their descendants might be racist or something.

It's probably best to just risk the odd suicide-bombing and be done with it. After all, if Lord Ahmed lost his place on the multicultural gravy train, who'd employ him? An ex-convict of 51 years old - maybe it's time for some new anti-discrimination legislation?

OK. One more controversy, inexplicably omitted from his wikipedia entry. From the New York City News:

"Three years ago, Lord Ahmed, Labour's first Muslim peer, invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regent's Park mosque.

Abu Rideh, a Palestinian, had been detained in Britain in December 2001 on suspicion of fundraising for groups linked to Al Qaeda.

He is said to have admitted travelling in Afghanistan with large sums of money hidden in a plaster cast on his leg.

He has since been subjected to a control order which places restrictions on his freedom."

Indeed. But, this isn't enough. He has also campaigned for such people to suffer no legal sanctions for the actions they may have undertaken for Al Qaeda abroad, plus be allowed to remain in Britain. He was happy to speak up for several 'British' Muslims released from Guantanamo Bay.

However, he feels that British Jews who fight for the IDF should be tried for 'war crimes'.

I hope these examples adequately demonstrate that this man has no scruples and absolutely no shame. It would be impossible to have shame and support some of the blatant double standards and injustices that he does.

This 'Lord' does not make a good case for promoting people for the purposes of 'diversity' and social engineering. He belongs to the group of immigrants who are here to change the UK to suit them, rather than changing to suit it.

For an example of his exact opposite, please look at Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali. Also an immigrant born in Pakistan, he converted to Christianity and now spends his working life sticking up for the country and culture which took him in, as well as its traditional values.

Nazir Ahmed has got a long six weeks coming up. Maybe he could put it to good use and learn a thing or two.

***UPDATE*** Contributor Dr. D pointed out that Bishop Nazir-Ali was actually born into a Christian family. He's correct. It was his father who converted from Islam. Apologies for the error.

Monday, 23 February 2009

For Shame (III): The Death Knell for Freedom in Britain

Please read part 2 first.

Neville Chamberlain was not an evil man; his worldview was just very flawed. He thought that because he wanted peace in Europe at any cost, so must Hitler; but Hitler recognised only one standard, his own. However, he took the trouble to understand where Chamberlain was coming from; the Prime Minister wanted to go home and say he was a hero who had saved Europe from a bloody conflict. Thus, Hitler played him like a fiddle.

In war, of course, there can be no compromise; there is either victory or there is defeat. The problem is that we, from a traditional point of view, are ready to lose. War may not have started in the traditional sense between the West and Islam, but then it won't; as 9/11, 7/7 and all the countless other attacks on the West have proved, this war will not be fought in distant Stalingrad, Pearl Harbour or Alexandria, but in our own schools, our own cities, our own government.

The bad news is that the reason for this change is simple; Islam wants to win. Therefore it has successfully shifted the advantage away from the modern armies of the West and onto its bands of Third World zealots, the Mujahedeen. But blowing people up in their own capital breeds ill feeling; if it happens too often, people may turn on Islam before it is strong enough. Thus, we have the classic Hitlerian strategy; pretend you, the aggressor, are the injured party.

In this strategy, facts and logic do not matter. All that matters is that your implicit threat of violence is taken seriously, and your opponents genuinely believe your grievances are legitimate, and if they're addressed you will point your Panzers or your suicide bombers in another direction.

For an excellent example of this, I refer you to Operation Himmler, Nazi Germany's attempts to justify its attack on Poland as pre-emptive using 'false flag' operations. Reading it and thinking about the mindset and motivations of Nazi officials is a bit like stepping into some mind-bending alternative universe, but there are some parallels with an Islamic worldview; violence is fine when they are perpetrating it (Chechnya, Cyprus, Bosnia) but evil and wicked if anyone retaliates (Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia etc).

What to do? Many in the West, particularly the elites and governments, will not call this struggle what it is. Some of them genuinely don't see it, others are perhaps afraid of the consequences. But all of them are ready to lose.

Oddly, most of these elites have a very similar worldview to both Islam and Nazism. It is generally known as progressivism.

After a cursory glance they all seem quite distinct from each other, but they have several things in common; firstly, all three are all encompassing absolutes. There's a little room for manoeuvre, but generally speaking you either believe in them or you don't.

They all have lists of mysterious, powerful enemies who are secretly in control, and who they must oppose at all costs, just on principle. Despite the fact these enemies are allegedly so powerful and diabolical, they generally end up coming off worse in any direct conflict.

None of them are very good at tolerating dissent; even when they're in control of the schools, the media, the government, any resistance, no matter how paltry or token is seen as an unbearable affront.

All are based on notions of goodness; once the good are in control and the bad elements destroyed, the world will be a wonderful, Garden of Eden style place.

All don't just want your passive compliance or consent; they want to control your mind. You can't just comply, you must want to comply.

All are international in scope; tearing down borders and exposing other populations to their tender mercies is the definition of good.

You see, when it comes to Islam, I think many Western elites have taken the old 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' approach. Islam is the ultimate opponent of Western values and civilisation, the things progressives despise the most.

What stood out most about Wilders being banned from Britain was the reaction of the media. Yes, it was widely covered (probably far more widely than if he'd simply been allowed entry), but two things were immediately obvious; firstly, even the columnists usually described as 'Right-wing' had no time for Wilders, and secondly that not one of the writers who felt qualified to comment had taken the trouble to familiarise themselves with his actual views. They simply went on what they'd been told, or assumed.

For example, take the Sun columnist Jon Gaunt. He is a man whose views on most topics would be described as reactionary, populist, Right-wing under normal circumstances; however, these are his views regarding Wilders:

"... far-Right crackpot Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has the dodgiest haircut since Michael Fabricant, is banned from entering our green and pleasant land because he wants to show a 17-minute film that slags off Islam.

... Now, I haven’t seen the film, just like I haven’t read the Koran. And I haven’t got any intention of doing either in the near future.Why? Because I am simply not interested."

Other than these highly controversial statements he is generally in favour of Wilders being allowed in the UK, but I find the quotes interesting anyway. In what way is Wilders 'far-Right'? What does that even mean in this context? Using our conventional, Western scale to measure these things, how would the average Muslim living in the West fare? The average Muslim outside of the West?

I think it's fair to say Geert Wilders is a controversial figure, and that from some of his statements and actions it’s clear he is determined to raise his profile by courting controversy further. However, isn't that just politics? Every day, in Britain and most Western countries, politicians come forward to say things they don't really believe or mean in order to garner popularity.
I would prefer to deal with someone like Wilders, who at least has some passion and says what he thinks rather than what he believes people wish to hear.

Going back to the quotes from Gaunt's article; what qualifies him to judge Wilders' political opinions if he's never seen Fitna? What qualifies him to dismiss Wilders’ views on the Koran if he’s never read it? I think we've hit on the problem here. Being 'Right-wing' is seen as such poison in the modern world that once that label is used, everyone needs to be careful. Even other 'Right-wingers', who wouldn't want to mix with someone who was too Right-wing, or the wrong sort. Like 'racist' and other words it has simply become a term of general abuse to describe someone who isn't a 'nice person', i.e. doesn't fit in with the officially sanctioned views on a certain issue.

When even self-described 'Right-wingers' are playing this game, we have a problem, particularly pertaining to double standards and an accurate perception of reality. There is a man standing behind the curtain, and he seems to be pulling the strings.

How else can we explain the Geert Wilders situation? Our government has spent decades telling us that border controls and excessive immigration laws are wrong, and that the European Union and mass immigration are good, right, and in any case, inevitable. Even when it is not telling us this, its actions (or lack of them) speak volumes about the real feelings of those in charge.

Although many of us always suspected they had double standards, this one action, turning back this one man just for holding the wrong opinions, proves beyond all doubt that the government is actively working against Western interests. They only care about rules when it suits them, they only care about controversy and violence when it might further their own agenda, or when such things target a group of officially approved victims.

Do these assertions sound outrageous or far-fetched? If so, allow me to present evidence that all is not as it seems. The British government claimed that Geert Wilders needed to be kept out to maintain 'community harmony', and for the 'security and safety' of Britain and its citizens.

Please watch the following video (it contains strong language):

Indeed. You may recognise it; I have it on the sidebar and I'm sure I've mentioned it before. I've watched it about 10 times in total now, and I still can't quite believe what I'm seeing and hearing.
The best part is right at the start, when the crowd are screaming 'fag-boys' at the police, and - it's quite clear to see - several coppers are sorely to tempted to just wade right in. But it seems they've been ordered not to, because they don't even when they're attacked with traffic cones later on.

This is not an aside; it's evidence. Evidence that the man behind the curtain is really there. You see, the very same government that denied access to Mr Wilders allowed most of these people into our country. Not just for this protest - Lord, no. As citizens, to stay. They ordered the police not to 'provoke' them, no matter what their actions.

The recent pro-Hamas riots proved that the British government now takes the line of least resistance when it comes to Muslim thuggery. The story that stuck most in my mind was relayed by Melanie Phillips, and concerned a middle-aged couple concerned about the Palestinian cause.

They attended the demonstration at the Israeli embassy (where later another riot took place), where a large and vocal minority were screaming Islamic slogans and waving Hamas and Hezbollah flags (the latter is a banned terrorist organisation in the UK and the EU). Whilst this was occurring, a young Jewish man wearing a Kippah arrived, and took an Israeli flag out of his bag.

Two policemen were immediately on the scene, the Jewish man was told he could be booked for 'incitement', but if he put the flag away and went on his way that would be fine.

This is the problem; the path of least resistance. If one of the Muslim crowd had been cited, there would have been a riot or bloodshed; easier to harass a law abiding citizen, even if he was doing no one any harm.

This thinking is the road to tyranny.

But then, as I see it, we're already a fair way there; because what is more frightening? The fact that the double standards I've described above are there, or the fact the government feels so comfortable blatantly lying?

How can they say with a straight face that Wilders is a threat after the events of January? How can they say that the government stands up for tolerance, human rights and dignity, when Gordon Brown hosted King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at 10 Downing Street in 2007? He also visited them, in the very top picture on the right, and urged Saudi-British partnership and co-operation.

I'm afraid it gets worse. Recent polls suggest that something like 75% of the British electorate feel there is too much immigration, but the government claims its hands are largely tied; free movement treaties with the EU, international obligations, human rights, the UN, etc etc.

The government have proven, as I said above, that this is simply a series of convenient excuses to enable something they want to happen; when they want to enforce our borders, the will is there.

But sadly it is generally not there; individuals who had previous convictions or should simply not have been here in the first place commit rape, murder, robbery, fraud. Anyone who mentions this is, of course, a racist. The case of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, killed in the line of duty by Somali armed robbers, is perhaps the most poignant of recent times.

The question remains though; why are these people here when Wilders could not come? Why are illegal immigrants able to successfully sue the UK Border Agency for hundreds of thousands of pounds when it does catch and detain them?

We're back where we started; the path of least resistance. To clamp down on immigration from the Third World, illegal or otherwise, would fly in the face of fashionable opinion - in the US, at the UN, with our governors in Brussels. In fact, there seems to be a protracted campaign both here and in the US to abolish the very concept of 'illegal' immigration.

Geert Wilders doesn't matter, because he comes from a small, civilised nation; the Dutch people who are in Britain aren't going to start burning flags or stoning the police. Something they have in common with British Jews, it seems.

He doesn't matter because his views are unfashionable, and no one who does matter will stand up for him.

That is why this incident makes me ashamed; Britain as a nation stood up to the likes of Napoleon and Hitler, because they were bullies. We knew we had right on our side and would not be cowed by tyranny and raw displays of power.

That Britain died at Heathrow on the 12th of February 2009. The government knows as well as I do they didn't ban Wilders for his views or potential actions; they banned him because they were frightened of the actions of the Muslim community, or a fair portion of it, led by a Muslim lord, no less. Not only does this vindicate Wilders and his views (oddly, his interpretation of Islam seems remarkably similar to that of the stone-throwers and bombers), but it makes the British government and establishment the contemptible cowards that Wilders referred to.

Now, it seems those who are prepared to use the most violence will always win the day. If you don't believe me, ask Jacqui Smith and David Miliband; they both admitted they'd never watched Fitna, yet they made their decision for a reason.
The reason? The mob rules, and that's the future of Britain if we don't wake up to reality soon.

Saturday, 21 February 2009

The Joys of Citizenship

Oh, the irony.

In a new bid to 'tackle extremism', the government has been sending teaching packs to mosques and schools urging children as young as 11 to empathise with the motives of those who carried out the 7th July 2005 suicide bombings in London. In 'citizenship' classes, no less.

I think this highlights a couple of standard liberal beliefs about education and actions; the first being that all beliefs are somehow equal and worthy of similar respect, and the second is that every action is a reaction. We're all victims, just in different ways.

When I was at school we did similar things about 'imperialism'. I recall one textbook which asked something like:

"Put yourself in the position of Tecumseh of the Shawnee. How would you feel about white immigration to the Americas?"

My answer would be I simply do not know. That I'm an evil racist who is against cultural enrichment and diversity? A bit like I feel now when I see the Urdu and Arabic signs and schools in east London, or walk past a drug den in Brixton?

In any case, I'm not really sure why anyone is surprised the government is approving this. Tahir Alam, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain said that this is simply a standard educational tool, and in New Britain, it is.

Obviously, there are limits; no one will ever be asked to put themselves in the position of Hitler. Or the Confederacy, the Crusaders, or any of history's more unfashionable causes. The problem is that in a relative sense, everyone does things for their own reasons. Or, to make the example slightly more real, why not try to empathise with Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph? Somehow, I can't quite see the wonderfully named NUT pushing for the latter two, either.

If you can empathise with a suicide bomber, why can't you empathise with Hitler? Was Hitler a robot, programmed to cause Right-wing death and destruction? What about Rudolph? Was he just pure evil, did he not believe he was acting for the greater good?

In both examples, it is fairly obvious that their beliefs, however well intentioned, do not make their actions rational, justified or right.

The problem with Britain today is we have a long list of 'official victims'. These people tend to mainly come from ethnic or religious minorities, and the official line is they generally only act in good faith. For example, if four men wish to launch suicide attacks on London's transport network, we should try to understand.

After all, there are a number of potential causes; racism, discrimination, oppression, imperialism, US support for Israel, British support for the US, etc etc ad infinitum.

Unlike the Hitler example, however, it never seems to occur to anyone that maybe these people were just plain evil. A cultural misunderstanding is when I ask for tea but I'm brought coffee; it does not extend to blowing up scores of innocent people.

Did it ever occur to the people who wrote this 'teaching pack' that maybe these men were striking for a form of imperialism themselves? That maybe their religion demands it of them?

It doesn't surprise me for a moment that the Muslim Council of Great Britain thinks this is no big deal. It wants empathy. I'm sure many of its members are absolutely delighted by the idea that many people will now understand what happens when you don't give into Muslim demands, and that this is just and right, to be understood rather than condemned.

It's not right though, and it never will be; evil is evil, no matter in whose name it is practiced.

Some things are not worthy of 'understanding'. However, 'understanding' is increasingly our official policy on most normal crimes and murders, so perhaps this is simply a natural progression of liberal thought. Perhaps one day we will talk about Hitler's strict upbringing or Stalin's poverty and wring our hands that the poor lambs were driven to such acts, and never mind denying rational, personal choice, one of the fundamental aspects of being human.

Thinking like terrorists simply breeds terrorists; but it seems that in New Britain, at least for now, some terrorists are more equal than others.


Yesterday, in Rome, Geert Wilders received the Oriana Fallaci Free Speech Award. Beautifully symbolic. As Wilders notes, Rome is the cradle of Western civilisation.

I suppose we now live in a world where it should be considered remarkable that he wasn't arrested and deported at the border, but his reception in Rome was an interesting contrast to the behaviour of the British government.

I find it particularly interesting because two of my relatives helped to liberate Italy from Fascism during the Second World War.

My Great Uncle Jim was a Royal Marine who took part in the invasion of Sicily, and his brother George was a Royal Military policeman attached to the British 8th Army who fought at Salerno and Monte Cassino, among others.

Both survived the war and lived into their 80s, and both became increasingly disillusioned with what Britain was becoming; I'd like to think that, had they lived longer, both would have seen the barring of Wilders for exactly what it was, a stench of what they helped fight against as young men.

Here is what Wilders said in Rome (thanks to Gates of Vienna):

Speech by Geert Wilders

Rome, February 19, 2009

Signore e signori, molte grazie. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

I feel very honoured to have been invited to speak here in Rome, to speak here in this splendid city, the cradle of our Western civilization.

As you perhaps know, Oriana Fallaci is one of my heroes. She definitely was one of the greatest examples of bravery and honesty. Her brilliant books ‘The Rage and the Pride’ and ‘The Force of Reason’ are my guidelines that inspire me day after day. Mr. Manocchia, Una via per Oriana, thank you very much for remembering the great Oriana Fallaci. The world should remember her forever.

Ladies and gentlemen, following in the footsteps of Oriana Fallaci, I want to warn you for a great threat. This great threat is called Islam.

Islam is build on two rocks. First there is the Koran, Allah’s personal word, with orders that need to be fulfilled by Muslims regardless of place and time. As you know, the Koran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, terrorism, war, Jihad. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims and he Koran considers Jews to be monkeys and pigs. That is why the great German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer called the Koran inferior. That is why former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Oriana Fallaci compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Second, there is the so called perfect man: Muhammad. His deeds have to be imitated by all Muslims, and since Muhammad was a warlord and executed prisoners of war we know exactly what to expect. The brave American apostate dr. Wafa Sultan said: “The problem is that the Koran clearly says that Muhammad should be a role model for every Muslim. You are not allowed to criticise him, but you should follow in his footsteps. As a Muslim it is your mission to spread Islam by the sword”.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, let no one fool you: Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about its goal. There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

A total of 54 million Muslims live across Europe. In less than half a century the number of Muslims has increased rapidly. The Islamization of Europe affects the European achievements of the last century. The question is: Are we prepared to defend our achievements? Are we prepared to defend the equality of men and women? Are we prepared to defend the equality of homo- and heterosexuals? Are we prepared to defend the separation of Church and State? Are we prepared to defend freedom of speech?

Ladies and gentlemen, I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. As if that is not enough, the most radical Dutch Imam claimed 55.000 euros in compensation for his hurt feelings because of ‘Fitna’. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition to stand trial in Amman. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my political views on Islam. And last week the British government refused my entrance into the United Kingdom because me showing ‘Fitna’ in the British House of Lords at the invitation of a British parliamentarian would be a threat to British public security. This is the alarming state of freedom of speech in today’s Europe: Criticizing Islam has become a dangerous activity, criticizing Islam has apparently become a criminal act.

You just saw ‘Fitna’. My name is on the credit roll, but like you have seen, ‘Fitna’ is actually not made by me, but is made by radical Muslims, the Koran and Islam itself. If ‘Fitna’ is considered to be hate speech, then what is the Koran? If I am considered to be a threat to public security, then what is Islam?

The Court’s decision and my ban by the British government are two major victories for Islam. Both institutions have sided with Islam. The first Soviet leader, Lenin, once labelled ignorant people that unknowingly aided his cause as ‘useful idiots’. Well, the Court and the British government are the ‘useful idiots’ of today, and I think they are even proud of it.

The Court’s decision and my ban by the British government are also two major victories for all those who hate freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech — the dearest of our liberties — is under attack in today’s Europe. Oriana Fallaci herself had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book ‘The Rage and the Pride’. Recently, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence for telling the truth about Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by ten police men because of his drawings, and on top of all that, we now have the decisions of the Inquisition-like Court in Amsterdam and the Dhimmi British government.

Freedom of speech is no longer a given in Europe. What we once considered to be a natural component of our existence is now something we have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most important issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

I repeat the words inscribed on the headstone of the murdered Dutch anti-Islam politician dr. Pim Fortuyn, who lies buried here in Italy and would have celebrated his birthday today: ‘loquendi libertatum custodiamus’, let us guard freedom of speech.

That is why I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. Freedom of speech is the keystone of our Western civilization, it is the keystone of our democracies and the keystone of our freedom. That is why freedom of speech should be extended instead of restricted. Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s and Theo van Gogh’s film ‘Submission’, Kurt Westergaard’s cartoons and my documentary ‘Fitna’ should never be banned, but should be protected. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is five to twelve. In Europe, our freedom is at stake. Islam is Europe’s Trojan Horse. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and the Netherlands, between Iran and Italy are blurring. The first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732. The second Islamic invasion was halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Now we have to stop the current — stealth — Islamic invasion. Ladies and gentlemen, once Islam conquered Constantinople, now it wants to conquer Rome. We have to stop the Islamization of Europe, because if we don’t, Europe will become Eurabia.

Fortunately there is some hope. This hope does not come from governments, but from the people. In the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population considers mass immigration to be the number one policy mistake since the Second World War. Another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I am convinced that the public opinion in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain and here in Italy isn’t much different.

We have to maintain our values. We have to maintain our liberties. We have to maintain our civilization. We have to maintain the heritage of Rome, because we owe it to our children.

As Oriana Fallaci once said: “The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead”.

Thank you very much.

Tuesday, 17 February 2009

Move Along, Nothing to See Here

With skills like these on display publicly, is it any wonder the police wish to avoid being photographed?

A polite reminder: as of Monday, 16th February 2009, it is now illegal to photograph the police under the Terrorism Act.

Apparently, you might be pretending to photograph them in order to plan a terrorist attack on various British landmarks.

The problem with this development is two-fold, in my opinion; firstly, it creates yet another law when existing legislation could have been used at the discretion of officers. In addition, they seem to find it increasingly hard to uphold laws that already exist.

That leads neatly into the second problem; this is yet another little chink in our liberty, another act which separates the police from ordinary people. At an alarming rate they're moving away from the 'Peel Ideal' of uniformed citizens enforcing the law by working within the law, and becoming alien, barking stormtroopers with their own laws and special protections; this means they are part of the political class, not ordinary citizens, and it changes the way they view the world and the public they are supposed to serve.

I think the recent pro-Hamas and pro-Tibet rallies and the very different ways they were policed prove this; the police are on an inexorable march to following the whims of the government, and not simply enforcing the law equally for all people and in all circumstances, regardless of the opinions of themselves or their bosses.

Many British people who despair at rising crime wish the police could be tougher; the government preys on these fears to increase its own power. After all, if the government were as concerned about terrorism as it pretends it would insist that our borders were protected and existing laws enforced; but no.

Laws such as this are a gimmick designed to reassure people the government is acting in their interests; in reality it is doing no such thing. This is simply a cynical attempt to distort reality (which the government seems to believe is its main task); it doesn't matter what powers the police have, if they're not using them in the right ways against the right people then nothing will change.

There has already been at least one incident I'm aware of in which police officers have attempted to cite the ubiquitous Terrorism Act against a member of the public who photographed them parking illegally; now I fear any unscrupulous officers will have all the tools they need to intimidate members of the public further.

To mark this passing of another piece of Britain I give you, what else, but a photographic tribute of the best (and worst) of one of the world's (formerly) best police forces.

Monday, 16 February 2009

For Shame (II): The Death Knell for Freedom in Britain

Last Thursday afternoon Geert Wilders, the controversial Dutch MP, arrived on British soil. Upon arrival he was 'detained' by immigration officials at Heathrow airport, shown the letter from the Secretary of State banning him from the United Kingdom, and escorted on to the next available flight back to the Netherlands.

You may have heard that Geert was arrested, or at least be under the impression that being locked in a room by uniformed officials is being arrested; but no, he was simply escorted and detained. That's our story, and we're sticking to it. But, if anyone ever tells you that Britain no longer leads the world in any field, you know better; simply look at this individual, smile, and say:

"Oh yes it does. Great Britain leads the world in Orwellian political euphemisms."

At the moment, I am ashamed to be British. I have never before found myself in the position where I'd prefer to tell people I come from elsewhere; but today, that's exactly how I feel. Islamic militancy is perhaps the defining issue of our age; it has been part of the mass public consciousness since the 11th September 2001 attacks, but in reality has existed in a recognisable form since the Iranian Revolution at least.

It is far more dangerous than the most rabid ethnic nationalism, the evil we're constantly told to watch out for, whilst casting aside any politician or party that thrives on even a modicum of group interest which is not approved of by 'multiculturalism' - for example Mr Wilders' 'Partij voor de Vrijheid'.

It is dangerous because people do not understand it. Most ideas of racial, national or cultural supremacy or increasingly ethnic or racial identity are either unthinkable or easily derided, because our society and education system innoculates us so well against them.

It immunises us similarly from any ideas that are seen as outdated, old-fashioned, or standing in the way of reason, progress and one beautiful world where people of all nations and colours stand in a huge circle, holding hands and singing. Whilst singing, they are thinking about how much better they are than their fusty, bloodthirsty ancestors who did crazy, madcap things like love their country, die for flags and ideas, care about the future of the society they'd built. Well, not much better, obviously, because that would imply judging, and that's a dirty word in New Britain, one of the very few things that absolutely must not be done unless you're Simon Cowell.

However, this immunisation has worked too well. Because not only have we lost most of the natural urges needed for national or cultural survival, we have also ceased to be capable of understanding anyone who has not lost these urges.

For example, take the constant pressure the UN puts Japan under for not wanting to take in large numbers of immigrants from the Third World; as if this attempt at national preservation is a great and baffling evil. But then, looking at the general results of mass immigration elsewhere, why would the Japanese government wish to replicate what many citizens in Western countries see as a failed social experiment at their expense?

This is just one example of how something which would have made perfect sense to almost everyone a mere 40 years ago is seen as archaic, even wrong, today.

A few years ago some research came out that suggested children who lived in homes which were very clean had worse immune systems than those wo were regularly exposed to dirt; the body needs to come into contact with germs in order to build its defences against them, and thus if it has no contact at all, it is less healthy as a result.

I fear modern Britain, and the modern Western world as a whole, finds itself in a similar position. We have cast aside our demons, apologised for our past; but in the process we have cut out a huge swathe of healthy tissue along with any tumour. So much, in fact, that it's touch and go whether or not the patient will survive.

We live in a country that prides itself on many things. One of those things is freedom of speech. That died on Thursday when Mr Wilders was turned away from Heathrow. In any case, its death was perhaps no real surprise; our society has been very sick for some time. However, most of our country's political elite seem to think that we've never had it better.

They spend much time, money and effort fighting 'isms'; these 'isms' are apparently the root of all evil, and once they are finally eradicated society will be peaceful, healthy and free. Racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism and the others that get added to the list every so often will all be on the dustbin of history, and a triumphant populace will unite in the cause of progress.

If you doubt that many members of society's educated elite actually feel this way, the best way to check is to get hold of a school textbook. There is no historical or social issue that cannot be boiled down to the concept of discrimination. Nothing is worthy of pride or respect; we stole and pillaged it all.

Another example is television and the media. I recenty looked up 'The Twilight Zone' on wikipedia. The original series ran in America from 1959 - 1964, but there were a couple of remakes, the second of which ran from 2002 - 2003. Why am I telling you this?

Well, the original version was filmed and screened in a country in which racial segregation was a fact of life; widely accepted, and supported. However, the blurb for the modern series insists that many of Rod Sterling's original scripts were tweaked to 'tackle contemporary issues... like racism'. This, 7 years before Barack Obama captured 45% of the white electorate. This, in the age of affirmative action.

All very interesting.

There's a huge problem though. The vast majority of us have had the 'white nationalism' jab, and it was pretty painless. Many of us have also had the British/American/German/Swedish etc nationalism jabs, and are safely immunised against such quaint notions. Some even go on to a programme of 'one-world-no-borders-no-person-is-illegal' supplements, although these may cause mild nausea.

This political immunisation, however, distorts reality almost as much as the ideologies it so desperately wants to defend you from. Probably a bit more. Because Westerners are pretty much the only people on earth who think this way.

The government may have successfully defeated ideas of white/British/European supremacy, and in doing so chipped out a huge chunk of our identity alongside; but there are other supremacist ideologies out there. One in particular the government is afraid of; in fact, far from being defeated, this particular supremacist ideology is on the rise, throughout the West and the wider world.

Its very name means 'submission'.

This ideology is Islam.

Now, this self-confident, aggrandised supremacy exists alongside a native culture which has all but withered and died. It is, at the very least, a shadow of what it once was. In my opinion, this is because successive governments have deliberately deprived the British from any sense of their own value and worth, and tried to re-shape identity through 'multiculturalism'. They abandoned our history and culture as 'offensive', yet insist we treat values that genuinely are offensive as equal.

So let's put the strands together; we have an aggressive, supremacist Third World ideology which has a long history of conquest; not just military conquest, but cultural, linguistic and political conquest. This is now growing in a Britain which has completely lost faith or confidence in itself, in which a version of any potential conqueror's history is taught in the schools already, in which many citizens have been stripped of all but the most trivial facets of their identity and told they're evil if they even think of resisting.

We can already see the ill effects, however, and the Geert Wilders debacle was the pinnacle of something that's been growing for some time. You see, what's happening in this country today is exactly what happens when people lose all contact with their own past.

Even if we know about historical figures and events, many assume these people were so different and so detached from our reality that we're incapable of making the same mistakes. This is perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of the multicultural movement.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith must know about Hitler, the threat that Nazism posed in the 1930s, and Neville Chamberlain's attempts to appease him by selling out the Czechs. Yet it seems she has learnt no lessons from history at all; sometimes, giving in to people isn't enough. It can even embolden them, make them certain they're dealing with people who are weak and ineffectual, who will give them anything under the right circumstances.

This is a problem with supremacist ideologies like Nazism, and for that matter Islam; the chosen, whether they be defined as Germans, Arabs or Muslims, are always right. By definition, anyone who opposes them or stands in the way is wrong, an enemy.

This is where the lack of understanding we discussed earlier comes in; Jacqui Smith, like Chamberlain, casts her own mindset on to her opponents. She assumes everyone is like her, a seemingly rational actor who desires peace, tolerance and compromise. She thinks that because she goes to the meeting of minds ready to bend before anything has been said, so must everyone else.

But peace has many definitions, the simplest of which is simply a status quo; Europe could have known peace of sorts had it simply let Hitler do exactly as he pleased. Of course, it would be a different kind of peace from the one with which we're familiar; but no one would be fighting back, that much is certain. That is why 'peace' for its own sake is a ridiculous notion, because there's always a time when enough is enough, and the option of compromise has passed.

Please proceed in an orderly fashion to Part 3.

Saturday, 14 February 2009

A Semi-detached Home Secretary: Weekly News Round Up, 8th-14th February 2009

The week that shamed Britain. However, the Geert Wilders debacle was far from the only thing in the news. Here is an overview of some of the more interesting stories from this week's UK newspapers.

1) 'Smith faces official probe over expenses scandal'

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is currently embroiled in a different kind of 'home security' issue; that is fraudulently securing funding for her second home allowance. Apparently she has been staying in her sister's spare room in London during the week (despite turning down a free grace-and-favour apartment which comes with her office), and claiming a second home allowance. That means she's walking away with a tax-free sum of at least £24,000 per year, which is about the average national income.

Nice to know one with such honesty and scruples is in charge of the criminal justice system.

2) 'Prescott launches online campaign against bank bonuses'

Former Deputy Prime Minister John 'Moneybags' Prescott has taken it upon himself to fight bank bosses who have been awarded large bonuses, despite the government ploughing millions of pounds of taxpayers money into propping up said banks after some spectacular failures.

In principle I agree with him, but I think a slightly more palatable crusader could have been found; this is man who was once nicknamed 'two Jags', and unlike anyone who writes at the Daily Mirror I do not think his authentic northern accent makes him some ambassador for the poor. However, I have one suggestion for his movement; maybe failed politicians could also be stripped of all financial perks and bonuses.

If you define 'fail' in the same way as the Oxford English Dictionary and me, then an awful lot of money will be saved.

3) 'Harry to be sent on a diversity training course'

Prince Harry is to be sent on something called a 'diversity course' after yet another controversy over racism in the Royal Family. Apparently, Harry told black comedian Stephen K. Amos 'he didn't sound like a black chap' after a performance at Prince Charles' 60th birthday celebrations.

Oh dear. This comedian was so bothered he took almost 3 months to say something, duly went to the newspapers at an opportune moment, then after several days of screaming headlines and controversy piped up again to say 'it was no big deal' and 'Harry's no racist'.

Well, someone has certainly got a first class publicist, that much is certain.

4) 'Geert Out: Far-right Dutch MP banned from Britain'

Dutch MP Geert Wilders made a splash in most newspapers this week after being banned from Britain. One person against the ban was Islamic cleric Anjem Chaudary, who said he would have welcomed an opportunity to engage Mr Wilders 'in an open debate about whether Islam offers a better solution than Capitalism.'

He didn't specify whether this was to be a 'Mohammed Bouyeri Vs. Theo van Gogh' style debate, however, one where success is measured by the number of stab wounds your opponent receives rather than the traditional 'rational argument' method.

I'm also not quite sure in just what field 'Islam' is supposed to be a better way forward than Capitalism. I would assume he's talking about economics and governance in general, but I must admit a glance at any particular Muslim country does not inspire me in either of those fields, or indeed any other. Certainly not when oil money is taken out of the equation.

But still, it's official. Anjem Chaudary is technically more open minded than the Home Secretary.
That or he just wanted an excuse to watch our city centres burn, not that one is usually required.

5) Kent Police, my local force, decided to celebrate 'LGBT History Month' by sending out poetry packs to school children urging them to 'think about how it feels to be gay' and 'what being gay might mean to them in the future'.

Isn't taxpayers' cash a beautiful thing? It can be put to almost any purpose, except of course that for which it was designated.

Personally I prefer to think about 'why crime is soaring yet the police are wasting time on such pointless trivialities' and 'Kent Police: is this nonsense really their job?'

6) This week it also emerged that a 13 year old boy has fathered a child with his 15 year old girlfriend.

I'm fairly certain anything I could possibly add after that sentence would be superfluous, and whilst that doesn't normally stop me, the situation simply leaves me at a loss for words.

However, it has now been revealed that this 15 year old girl has slept with so many males that the baby's paternity is in doubt, and the father of the 13 year old may have played up claims his son is the father for money.

Just makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?

7) Government professor Tony Nutt recommended that the illegal party drug ecstasy be downgraded from a Class A drug to Class B. To demonstrate his case, the eminent professor compared taking ecstasy to horse riding, because apparently they're responsible for a similar number of deaths each year. For most people that would be where the comparison ends, but not the aptly named Professor Nutt; to him, the activities are so similar in terms of risk, worth and moral standing, he coined the term 'equasy', a term allegedly supposed to be a playful word association.

Unfortunately for him, it just made him sound like a complete idiot, and pretty much discredited anything else he said beforehand. For which I thank him - it makes my job so much easier.

8) London Mayor Boris Johnson was caught going on a 'foul-mouthed tirade' at MP and professional passport salesman Keith Vaz. Good - it's about time someone did.

I'm sure if I had to deal with such people on a daily basis I too would snap. However, the circumstances do not damn Mr Johnson as the headlines would like; Vaz is the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and is trying to justify the arrest late last year of opposition MP Damien Green.

Geert Wilders' Speech to the Lords

This is the speech with which Geert Wilders would have addressed the House of Lords, had he not been banned from the country.

I think it is all the more humbling in light of what actually happened:

London, Feb. 12, 2009

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.

This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated. For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.

But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capital is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of Islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.

You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit roll, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews? Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.

The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.

Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

We have to defend freedom of speech.

For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

The choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen,
We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands

It's a true shame that he never made it, but more so that the likes of Jacqui Smith and Gordon Brown aren't humbled by this country's liberties, its past, its ancient customs, and their roles as servants of the British people and guardians of their freedoms.