Keep the Difference: Women & Sharia

A few days ago, whilst doing some research, I stumbled across an old interview with the British actress Roxanne Pallett (pictured below left). She starred in the soap opera 'Emmerdale' as farmer's wife Jo Sugden, and last year was heavily involved in a storyline about domestic violence in which her character's husband, mentally scarred by prison and troubled by various debts on their farm, subjected her to a campaign of violence, humiliation and psychological abuse.

I don't watch this programme myself, but I found a few of these episodes online, and they're genuinely harrowing in parts. Apparently they were also harrowing to film, because Miss Pallett was so moved she became an ambassador for Refuge, a charity set up to help women and their children flee abusive men. An admirable cause, surely. Domestic violence has become something of a cause celebre for celebrities and the fashionable, but obviously the charity is doing good work and providing a necessary service.

However, as my English History lecturer used to say; compare and contrast. On the same day I found Miss Pallett's interview, I found this video on 'Atlas Shrugs'. In it, a Muslim cleric goes into some detail about how to 'tame' a disobedient wife; beating a woman is apparently perfectly acceptable under Sharia law, as long as you stick to certain rules. You mustn't make her bleed, you mustn't bruise her, and you mustn't hit her face or 'sensitive areas'. Is this because Allah is most merciful?

Well, no. According to the sheik in the video, it's because hurting her in such a way might spoil your sexual pleasure, which, by the way, is your right whether you're currently even speaking to her or not, and regardless of her feelings on the matter. Because refusing sex on demand actually, er, counts as a form of disobedience.

I did a quick search on YouTube, and there are actually quite a lot of these videos, from various Imams, experts and religious authorities. Most of them have been found and translated by the fantastic MEMRI organisation, and they go into varying degrees of detail about just what rights a husband has according to Sharia law.

It's interesting to note that, according to the first video, there are various steps a Muslim husband can take to keep his wife in check, with violence generally being a last resort. However, all of them, as outlined by the sheik in question and countless others, tick most of the boxes on Refuge's 'Recognising Abuse: My partner doesn't hit me, am I still being abused?' section.
So in other words, this holy man is urging his audience to start a campaign of abuse against their wives should they err from the strict path Islamic law sets out for them. They should be ignored, isolated, humiliated, made vulnerable, and finally, if still they won't submit, beaten.

The Refuge website has much hand-wringing detail about how many women are actually abused each year, how many are estimated to be abused but remain silent, and how pretty much all men are potential abusers, so it's best to be safe and always be on the look out for the signs. However, one thing that is (in my opinion, at least) noticeably absent from their site is any mention of Sharia law, or other traditional or religious guidelines that stipulate 'domestic abuse' should be part of a couple's normal repartee.

Also absent is the fact that many, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, have toyed with the idea of allowing facets of Sharia law to operate here in Britain.
The only nod to this at all is the section for 'helping women and children from a multicultural background'.

Am I alone in finding this unusual? This is a system of laws which normalises abuse, general ill treatment and second class status for women, actually being propagated by two men in high positions who should know much better - yet the usual suspects are silent. I somehow think that if Rowan Williams wanted to make divorce harder, or remove the advantages women have in custody battles over children, the good people at 'Refuge' would have an opinion.

I have a friend who has recently qualified to be a barrister for the Crown Prosecution Service. He is also a practicing Christian in the Church of England. Recently, during a friendly debate, he stated unequivocally that he supported Rowan Williams' call for 'aspects of'' Sharia to be normalised alongside British law. This is a man who thinks that executing a convicted murderer is unbearably barbaric.

Like the Archbishop, he is intelligent enough to know better. No matter what I quoted from the Koran, the Hadith and random Muslim clerics, nothing I said could convince him this was a bad idea. After all, he said, these people need tolerance and understanding, and having their own 'community courts' for civil matters might help them along.

Or... not. How is removing them further from the mainstream going to help them along? Help them with what, in any case? Apart from importing customs that should have died out with the 9th Century, of course.

The stock answer is that all of Sharia's more repugnant aspects would be left behind, and we would have a streamlined version, free from all the Middle Ages nonsense. But is that realistic? Some Muslims are openly calling for their own sovereignty, and this is the tip of the iceberg. A victory here will not satisfy them, but embolden them, whilst forcing into hiding or silence the more moderate and sensible members of their community (generally educated women), who actually came here to be free, to be like us, not recreate Mogadishu in the middle of Southall.

One of the best things about Britain is that everyone is equal before the law, but if Sharia were to occur here, it would only be a matter of time before a Muslim tried under British law went before the European Court of Human Rights, demanding that as he can have a Sharia divorce he can have a Sharia trial (bear in mind that under strict Sharia, transgressions are ranked not in terms of the seriousness of the act, but who it was committed against; Muslim men are at the top, then Muslim women, then Dhimmis etc).

I've also heard the argument that it's already happening, so making it official is a mere formality. That something is happening does not automatically make it right; there will always be murder, but that's no justification for legalising it. There is no excuse for operating a secondary legal system, even for civil cases; if a Muslim is desperate to live under Sharia, they can't be too enamoured with Britain in the first place, and they have options, such as finding a country which operates their preferred legal system and moving there.

I think this entire debate is what has been termed 'soft Jihad', a probe, as it were, to test our resolve. There was a similar one several years ago in which some prominent British Muslims demanded we accept polygamous marriages as legal (only for them, naturlich). But this issue isn't, as some claim, a triviality about mortgages or divorce; there could well be terrible consequences, and I've seen them first hand.

After university, I spent 9 months teaching English at a school in northern Germany. The school in question was a Berufschule, and catered for people of all ages, but usually ranging from 14 - 24. Many of the classes were made up of individuals primarily of Turkish, Arab or Kurdish descent, as well as recent immigrants from such places. There were many striking things about teaching in those conditions, but the one that came to my attention the most was attitudes to women.

Because it was a 'technical school' specialising in woodwork, women were very much in the minority among the pupils (the ratio was generally something like 22-3 males to females per class). However, the teachers were overwhelmingly women. When the female teachers attempted to control a class, there was outrage. It apparently offended the male pride of these individuals that a woman might dare challenge them. On one such occasion, a 26 year old Turkish man spent almost an entire period ranting at a middle-aged female teacher about how he was going to find and rape her daughter, simply because she'd asked him to stop talking sharply. There were no sanctions, and the lady shrugged it off afterwards.

'It's their culture', she said.

On another occasion, an older Turkish male who had been harassing a Kurdish female of around 17 by verbally abusing her and ruining her work, finally went too far and broke her wrist. This was simply noted in the 'Klassenbuch', alongside trivialities such as people talking and not sitting up straight, whilst she was sent off to a clinic. Again, the general consensus among the teachers was 'it's their culture'.

But before his abuse, she had been bright and outgoing, eager to learn just for the sake of it, as well as with the goal of making something of herself and becoming a paediatrician. As it went on, she became withdrawn, lost all confidence and interest, and began to see school as the others did, a pointless waste of time, a sort of daytime holding pen.

Hopefully you can see just how dangerous this 'it's their culture' nonsense is already. Does it really need to be written into law, formally or informally?

I will provide one more example of how Islamic ideology can be dangerous to women, although frankly I could sit here writing indefinitely.

This Times article was published in 2007. Please do read it if you get a chance, then have a vigorous wash. It concerns gangs of Asian pimps preying on underage white girls, grooming them, then forcing them to take drugs and sell themselves. You see, the paper correctly identifies the problem, that the police and a Channel 4 documentary makers refused to face up to out of fear; there is a recognisable element here. But it has little to do with 'Asians', and everything to do with Muslim Pakistanis. Sikh girls are preyed on by similar gangs both in the UK and India, and Sikhs too are 'Asians', a generic term for people from the Indian sub-continent in British vernacular. As the link states, it has little to do with colour, and everything to do with Muslim men seducing the 'kuffar'.

The article is deeply disturbing; first it's a travesty that this is occurring at all, but more so that it took the girls' mothers to make a stand, as the authorities were too afraid of being accused of racism.

Now, this is a problem with some, and not all Muslims are responsible, that much should be obvious. But having read that article, I do see a pattern, just as when I read about an Australian Imam mocking Australian girls gang-raped by Muslim Lebanese, or the 'guide to humane wife beating' videos. I see certain Muslims throughout the Western and Muslim worlds trying to enforce a supremacist ideology on us, at the expense of our own freedoms. I see groups of immigrants who the police are afraid to question, but seem to think that us, their erstwhile hosts and our sisters and daughters are little better than cattle or playthings for their amusement.

This is not Islamism; this is Sharia, which is a world view as well as a legal system. The supremacist beliefs and chauvinism responsible for all the above actions are inherent in it, and the belief that even non-believers should submit (or be treated as if they have). We should all be aware of the dangers if it ever gets any sort of a legal foothold, because too many are acting as if we're beaten already. But given what's at stake, can we afford to be? We should be preventing any Muslim who feels that women or Westerners are inferior from living here, not giving into their medieval legal code.

Otherwise, where will it end? 'It's just their culture, give them their rights'. But what about our rights, or the rights of Muslims who have fled such oppressive laws? Are we second class citizens already?

Geert Wilders Progress Report

According to 'Gates of Vienna', (whom I must also thank for the brilliant banner above), Geert Wilders is to appeal his prosecution to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. My favourite quote is:

"Moszkowicz [Wilders' lawyer] will appeal to the Prosecutor General to “nullify the case due to considerations of the law”, which will put the order to prosecute Wilders in the garbage bin."

Um, yeah. Just a few little considerations of the law, like the fact it's an aberration which goes against everything that free Western democracies stand for. Like the fact that if Imams and ordinary Muslims can spew forth their more demented ideas, then Wilders too is free to say what he wants. After all, it's not as if some animals are more equal than others, is it?

I doubt the solicitor will phrase it quite like that, but then that's why I'll never make a lawyer or a diplomat.

The last time I checked on the progress of the petition set up in Mr Wilders' favour, it had nearly 30,000 signatures. Again, I would respectfully urge anyone who stumbles across this post to sign it, even if you disagree with him; after all, isn't the concept of freedom of speech all about differences of opinion?

Now, on a slight variation of the same subject, according to 'Atlas Shrugs', the House of Lords here in Britain has overturned the 'victory' won by Lord Nazir Ahmed (with the implicit threat of violence) to ban* Geert Wilders from screening Fitna to a gathering of Peers of the Realm, and Geert is now free to do so.

Lord Ahmed was apparently boasting of his victory in the Pakistani press, although pending a court victory hopefully he will be sentenced for death by dangerous driving very soon; the last media reports of the case made it sound like a cut and dried guilty verdict, but as Pamela notes, the story simply vanished from the public domain. However, according to his wikipedia profile, he's been referred for sentencing on 25th February, so let's hope they throw the book at him, even if he can't be expelled from the Lords afterwards.

*The less common Islamic definition of 'ban'; i.e. get some of those notoriously sensitive young men on the streets to attack some police/embassies/insert symbol of pride or authority here.

Repeat until a weak hearted Western government bans said offensive cartoon/book/film/ancient liberty for you; then ensure no counter protest can work, with violence if necessary.

Weekly News Round Up: 25th-31st January 2009

Some more stories from this week's UK newspapers.

Jail veil demand of Al-Qaeda killer Kamel Bourgass - Exclusive:

From the Daily Mirror, it seems that Kamel Bourgass, the Algerian al-Qaeda operative who stabbed Special Branch officer DC Stephen Oake to death during a police raid, is offended because female prison officers don't wear veils in his presence.

I take his point. I'm offended each and every time I wonder why this piece of effluence was in Britain in the first place, every time I think of the fact that he was sentenced to less than 40 years for plunging a knife into a police officer 8 times, wounding 3 others, and planning an attack that could have left hundreds dead.

So I propose a solution. We used to have chaps who worked in British prisons and wore 'veils' of a kind; they were called executioners or 'hangmen', and were noted for their black hood. Perhaps if the people running this country had not lost their senses, Kamel could get his wish, and the last thing he ever saw would be a person wearing a 'veil'.

I'm sure he'd be delighted, and I know I would. Maybe even DC Oake's widow and 3 children might.

BBC refuses airtime to Gaza aid appeal:

No sarcasm up next. The BBC and Sky News refused to televise this blatant piece of propaganda, and good for them.

Only a couple of slight problems; the usual suspects did not take this well, and there was a 'sit-in' at the BBC Televison Centre reception, which the infantile protesters called an 'occupation' in a pathetic attempt to link their support of Islamic extremism with the actions of the Israeli army in Gaza.

The Guardian said: 'The BBC has refused to broadcast a national humanitarian appeal for Gaza, leaving aid agencies with a potential shortfall of millions of pounds in donations.'

The only problem with that statement is, the appeal probably got more publicity from that refusal than it would have otherwise. Many feel the decision was hard-hearted and political, but I for one commend the BBC. After all, it is a public service broadcaster which everyone who owns a television must fund, on pain of legal sanctions.

Although their biases generally stand out a mile, they are deeply improper. Showing this appeal would have been more of a biased and political decision than not, and for once the BBC made the right call.

After all, I'm sure anyone who wants to donate to 'the Palestinians of Gaza C/O Hamas' knows what to do. Some of the intended recipients might even get the stuff that wasn't auctioned to the highest bidder.

Pub landlord has footprint embedded in face after brutal attack:

This is a shocking and brutal assault, and it underlines the fears of many in Britain today; not only that one might be mugged or robbed, but the excessive and casual violence that often goes with it, just for fun.

Sadly, this type of incident seems all too common these days. This week a man called Michael Eccles died after being approached by a gang and asked for the bottle of wine he was carrying. His daughter witnessed the unprovoked attack. May he rest in peace, and may the police actually catch the criminals who will then receive lengthy prison terms.

I sincerely hope the former is more likely than the latter.

On a lighter note, I read in every UK newspaper this week about Barack Obama's latest gaffe; attempting to enter the Oval Office through a window rather than the door.

OK, I'm lying. Oddly, it appeared in not one newspaper here, to my knowledge. I find that strange, because when Bush tried to leave through a locked door in Beijing, it made headlines around the world. Still, different leaders, different circumstances, right?

Britain's Immigration Myths

This week 'The Daily Mirror' has the honour of a second spot in 'Left-wing Media Watch'; as soon as I saw this article published on Thursday, festooned (in the print version only, sadly) by the image of a white lady wearing a Burqa in the pattern of the Union Flag, I knew I had to have a crack at it here. It should be noted that this article is based on an academic study by Dr Ludi Simpson and Dr Nissa Finney of Manchester University, who both seem to show special interest in something called 'Britain's Ethnic Geography'.

The full title of the article is: 'Britain's immigration myths exploded by new study'.
For the uninformed, the title might offer some hope; finally, a mainstream British newspaper recognises that the public are fed a diet of myths about immigration!

But no, it seems the title is quite misleading; actually it's an attempt to promote government sanctioned myths by debunking common observations and perceptions, and just for fun a few actual facts too. Why bother messing around when you can just lie outright?

By a stunning array of omissions, outright distortions and half-truths of which Pravda would be proud, the article attempts to convince us ordinary Brits that immigration is always good and beneficial, has actually been handled well by the government, and that anyone who doesn't agree is simply intolerant, and let's face it probably a racist too, so why bother even dwelling on them?

So, let's examine their list of 'facts':
'most people think nothing of visiting a Pakistani doctor, Caribbean restaurant or French dentist.'

This is true up to a point, but let's contextualise; most people in Britain don't choose their doctor, they get what they're given at the local surgery. In my local area, I have never had an English GP. That generally wasn't a problem until a few years ago, when a Sikh lady who speaks very heavily accented English took over. I, my mother and my sister find understanding her almost impossible; how can she be an effective doctor?

When my mother was very ill and I raised this problem with the receptionist, she said requesting another doctor under those circumstances was racist.
Right. So most people in Britain think nothing of visiting a foreign doctor (not that they have much choice, with the amount of English ones the government and NHS have driven abroad), except if they do have any problem they're racist, will potentially have their right to treatment withdrawn, or even be prosecuted.
Please do click the link - isn't it odd how we have all the tolerance in the world for those of different cultural backgrounds, but none at all for those born in a different era? Also, note how requesting a white nurse is described as 'abuse'; would a Muslim woman who requested a female doctor/nurse be guilty, too?

'MYTH
UK takes more than its fair share of immigrants
TRUTH
Numbers rose from 2.6 million in 1961 to 5.4 million in 2005 - a 110 per cent increase that is in line with the rest of the world.
Less than three per cent of the world's migrants live in BRITAIN.
And we have a smaller proportion of immigrants than the US, Canada, Australia and Germany.'

Fascinating. Of course, also slightly misleading; all of those countries are huge compared to Britain, except Germany, which is still pretty big. I also find the tone telling; we can stop 'man-made global warming' if we just try hard enough, but mass immigration? Well, who would want to even try to stop it anyway? I mean, what are you, some kind of racist or something? It doesn't even note that a '110% increase' is actually an awful lot, no matter what the circumstances.

I should declare at this point I have absolutely no idea where the study/article got those figures, or which type of immigrants they include; refugees, illegal immigrants and foreign students, economic migrants; there's so much cultural enrichment to be had.
I took a brief glance at the government figures, but I shan't trouble you with them; I highly doubt they have any more idea than I do, in reality. The best guide is probably Migration Watch UK.

'MYTH
Britain is becoming a country of racial ghettoes
TRUTH
The only concentrations anything like ghettoes are of white people.'

For shame! Ghetto like concentrations of white people, in Britain? Whatever next? Of course, the article doesn't go into much detail on just why that might be, but suffice to say that 'White Flight' is a recorded phenomenon in pretty much every major Western city.

'Even the least white ward in Britain - Southall Broadway in the London Borough of Ealing - has a 12 per cent white population.'

So, touche anyone who happens to be concerned about mass immigration! Not really. A slightly different perspective is that mass immigration in Britain has only been underway for 40 years, and many areas of our largest cities aren't recognisable anymore. But anyway, the crime figures for Southall are interesting, to say the least, as they just happen to be in most of London's harmonious, diverse areas.

'MYTH
Immigrants are lazy, unskilled scroungers
TRUTH
They are entrepreneurial, fill labour gaps and improve productivity.'

No, the myth is that ALL immigrants are lazy scroungers. The 'truth' statement is clearly as biased a distortion as the 'myth'. I fully recognise that many come here to work and improve their lives. My concern is at what cost to Britain and its existing inhabitants?

The next one is pure gold:
'MYTH
Britain is full.. immigrants cause housing shortages
TRUTH
Ethnic minorities are less responsible for space and housing pressure than the white population.
Thirty per cent of white UK citizens live in one-person households. Nine per cent of Bangladeshis do the same.
Average number of people per household
White British: 2.3
Bangladeshi: 4.2
3.. times as much land area taken to accommodate white Britons as Bangladeshis'

Well, excuse me. I'll just join hordes of my compatriots in sodding off to Australia (memo to the BBC: could the record number of departures and arrivals be, er, related?).
Firstly the statistics clearly show that Bangladeshis have larger numbers of children, who in turn will move out and have large families... It completely ignores, of course, programmes such as 'Family Reunification', which potentially mean one immigrant can bring in greater numbers.

What I find most disturbing about this section is the way Bangladeshis and native Britons are equated, as if anyone who happens to wander in has the inalienable right to everything they wish. When was the debate? When did the vote on whether or not mass immigration from the Third World is a good idea take place? Also, if Britons are taking up so much space, why are we constantly told we're not having enough children and therefore need ever larger numbers of immigrants?

Bangladeshis are actually statistically one of the worst performing immigrant groups in the UK in terms of education.

'MYTH
Some cities will be minority white in two years' time
TRUTH
Best estimates indicate there will be no cities with white populations of less than 50 per cent by 2011.
All cities forecast to have populations less than half white within the next few decades will remain ethnically mixed, with whites making up between 25 and 50 per cent.
Year whites will make up less than half projected population
Leicester: 2019
Birmingham: 2024
Bradford: 2031'

Once more my mind is at rest. It won't be two years in Leicester, but ten. Incidentally, this would be the same Leicester in which some school pupils saw fit to celebrate the 11th September 2001 attacks. What on earth will things be like in another ten years?
But as they admit themselves, it's already happened in some London boroughs. Seeing as when mass immigration started, the establishment assured the population this point would never be reached, as well as destroying anyone who happened to disagree, do you mind if I take anything they say now with a very healthy pinch of salt?

Given the demands the immigrant 'community leaders' and their white liberal shills already make on the population at large, the destruction of our national identity can only continue.

For Freedom: Stand With Geert Wilders

I think it's important to follow this situation as closely as possible, so I offer an update on developments so far.

First, the good news; 19,343 people have signed the online petition at the time of posting.

As far as I'm aware it was only created late Wednesday or early on Thursday, so this is obviously fairly significant, even as a little morale booster. For anyone able and willing who has not yet done so, once more I would respectfully urge you to sign the petition in support of Mr Wilders here and donate to his fighting fund here. The only people who are going to be able to make any difference are the usually silent majority; the sort of people who, were they Dutch, would actually vote for Mr Wilders. According to Klein Verzet, online polls show something like 85-92% of Dutch people being against the prosecution of Wilders. Perhaps there is yet hope for common sense to prevail.

Bear in mind this is not a trivial situation, and Mr Wilders deserves none of the sanctions or mud being so eagerly slung his way (as an aside I love this link; yep, drag him before the international courts! Or, maybe, defeat him in reasoned argument... What's that? You're unable too? Ah, now I understand).

This is a direct assault on freedom of speech. That would be significant enough in itself, but this situation is only partly about Mr Wilders and his fate; it's actually about all of us, whatever our views or principles. Because the Dutch government is drawing its battle lines, and actually transmitting the message that they will ruin anyone who happens to disagree with them. They may be the first, but they won't be the last; this 'hate speech' legislation is now firmly entrenched in most Western countries.

More than that, they are prepared to shred their ancient traditions at the request of foreign governments. Why, you ask? Well, it can't be because they agree with them. I mean, after all, we stand for tolerance, for freedom, for equality. We're against oppression, imperialism, racism, discrimination, etc etc. Sure. But if all that's true, haven't we picked our allies rather oddly?
That makes me suspicious. Clearly much of the talk above is not genuine; these things only apply when it comes to undermining our culture, our traditions, our confidence and sense of unity. Other than that, they don't seem to be very important at all. It's also of note that when Muslim thugs are calling for Jews to be taken to gas ovens, smashing Jewish businesses, shouting insults in the Anne Frank House, or even when prominent figures call for the expulsion of all Israelis, Western governments are remarkably silent.

Because, after all, isn't Mr Wilders being prosecuted for actually speaking out against most of the latter statements above, and in favour of most of the former?

Obviously there is a possibility that Mr Wilders will be convicted and go to jail; but whatever decision the court makes, he and his PVV political party will be bankrupted and effectively finished. As far as I can tell, this is the whole point; he must be silenced. I don't think it's stretching a metaphor too much to say things like this happened all the time in the Soviet Union. Any critic must be silenced, but that in itself is never enough; they must be humiliated, denigrated, completely stripped of their will to resist and their credibility.

Why? Generally, it's only necessary to treat people this way when they're dangerous. To a regime that exists solely on the corruption of facts and reality, what could be more dangerous than the truth?

Sadly, it seems that more and more the formerly free countries of the Western world exist in this false reality, with its perversions, its double standards, its deliberate and selective mass blindness, its attempts to push down any who dares to stick their head above the parapet and say 'enough!'

Now, it seems we shall be treated to the show trials, too. Did I mention that they're coming after Mr Wilders' second in command, Hero Brinkman, and want to ban the PVV?

There may be some who are reading this and vigorously shaking their head; this is not true, it's a paranoid distortion!

Is it? OK then. But the most disturbing thing about this is that Wilders is not a Holocaust denier or some fanatical misfit; as far as I can ascertain, he's telling the truth. Have his detractors ever read the Koran? Ever glanced at the Hadith? Ever actually listened to one of the cowardly murderers who makes his own perverted little 'Candid Camera' spot before he slaughters innocents, without warning or compunction? Maybe, even, you know, watched some of the footage taken in the last fortnight at pro-Palestine rallies?

I support free speech, no matter how vigorously I disagree with the ideas of the person speaking, because I believe the truth has a special weight all of its own. It always comes out, it generally prevails, unless drastic steps are taken to suppress it. Logical, rational people are drawn to it, like moths to a flame, and why shouldn't they be?

I am a free-born Englishman. I have ancestors who spilt their blood, gave up their own lives for this country; I have others who faced hardship and deprivation and came out the other side, but were still willing to sacrifice. Why did they do this?

As far as I'm concerned, they didn't really do it for a flag or a King; they did it so that I and my children would never know the fear of waiting for the midnight knock; never have to show deference or respect to those who imposed themselves on us by force; never have to know the pain of carrying the truth in our heart but being afraid, on pain of legal sanctions or even death, to express it.

This isn't fantasy. This is how the majority of the world still lives. But freedom is our legacy, and the price of obtaining it was not cheap; in far too many cases it was paid in blood and suffering.

So are we going to just roll over and give up? Someone, somewhere wants Mr Wilders and all of us to spout lies on pain of punishment; inconveniently for some, Wilders has decided to stand up and tell the truth, despite everything, even the very real threat of a horrible death.
Let us also remember that he is not an ordinary citizen; he is an MP, elected to speak on behalf of a fair proportion of the Dutch population. Yet for those who wish to silence him, democracy is only good when it's producing the right answers. Anything else is 'undemocratic' or 'populist', and the proles who follow such notions must simply be educated better.

Geert Wilders is a very brave man, but you don't have to be brave to follow him; all you have to do is value truth, value our freedom, and never knowingly parrot a lie. Take the trouble to inform yourself, and make your own decisions; don't let the government tell you the difference between right and wrong. Islam is a set of ideas; challenging those ideas and the often horrific consequences of them is not bigoted, nor racist, but sensible. After all, maybe if it underwent the same scrutiny as other religions and political belief systems, it might be ready for the 21st Century some time around the 25th.

In our heart, we all know what's right; young and old, left and right, black and white. Thousands of people risk their lives every day for a taste of what we take for granted, and are in the process of squandering forever.

Our freedom.

If Mr Wilders is convicted or even simply driven to be silent, the West will have lost more than it realises.

Weekly News Round Up: 18th-24th January 2009

Some more telling stories from this week's UK newspapers.

Of course, the biggest story here this week was the inauguration of 'The One' as President of the United States. Apparently this was a bigger news event worldwide than the 11th of September 2001 attacks, which I think aptly demonstrates our priorities here in the West.

The headlines were largely predictable:
'Obama's inauguration lights a candle of hope - and its flame is being felt around the world', screamed the comments section of the oft-demonised Right-wing 'Daily Mail'.

If you type 'Obama' into the search engine of 'The Guardian', the staple of Britain's liberal-left, you get around 638 returns. Among them is this - a handy pictorial guide to 48 newspaper front pages from around the world, all showing Obama. Just in case you're not sick of the man's name yet or something.
A poem in his honour tops the best seller list, and words like 'revolution' and 'remade' are bandied about as if they have no negative connotations at all.

'The Sun' and 'The Mirror' went one better; the former labelled Wednesday's entire edition as a 'souvenir' of this historic event. The latter settled for a giant pull out section, featuring the piece-de-resistance in the centre - his huge, smiling face. I've got mine on my wall now.
Both of course were filled with the usual asinine rubbish; more nonsense about his 'stunning' waxwork (and you should see that mannequin take an oath), profiles of his family and his wife's dress sense.

Sadly the one thing that they all missed was the breaking story on just why everyone cares this much. Ah well. At least we won't be taking any of the released Guantanamo Bay inmates.

I did feel sorry for Bush when he was jeered by the oh-so-mature fans of 'hope', 'change' and 'unity', but I suppose at least he doesn't have to take abuse for a living anymore. I have a feeling history will be kinder to him than is currently expected.

Because after all, Mr - sorry, President Obama now has to live up to all that hype. The media can smooth the way up to a point, but even then I'd say it will prove a nigh on impossible task.

'Ken Clarke returns to Tory frontbench in reshuffle - and immediately takes aim at Mandelson'
In British news, the Tories have welcomed overweight European Federalist Ken Clarke back to the Shadow Cabinet. I suspect this is part of their master plan to destroy the poll lead they've been building for a while now. Maybe he 'immediately took aim at Mandelson' because there's only room for one bloke who wants to sell the country to Brussels in order to improve his own personal prospects in mainstream British politics - but what am I saying, that's actually most of them these days.

Clarke is proof of what I've thought all along; David Cameron is not a conservative, he's a con-artist. I for one will not be voting for them next time.

If enough people follow my lead. it should scupper his chances, and then Britain might get what it so dearly needs - a proper conservative political party, not one that despises its traditional followers whilst sucking up to the Guardian and BBC crowd. One can dream, right?

'What use is Ken against Mandy? They agree on everything'
Opines Peter Hitchens. This is a slightly different subject to above, however; according to Hitchens, the EU is trying to insist that British citizens need a passport to enter the Channel Islands (Direct Dependencies of the Crown) and Isle of Man because they're not in the EU. This from an organisation which has made it possible to walk from Spain to Poland without meeting a border guard, yet still insists it can control immigration through a 'Fortress Europe' policy.

If they actually devoted as much time to sensible things as they do this nonsense, the entire entity would be governed almost frighteningly effectively.

Finally, one to warm your heart on this cold January day:
'Raiders kill an OAP's budgie'
The full text:

"Cruel burglars snapped the neck of a budgie in front of its elderly owner when she refused to give them £100.
The raiders had burst into the 78-year-old's home in Cardiff and, after stealing £150 they had found in a search of the house, demanded another £100 from the woman.
When she said she did not have any more cash in the house, one of the two burglars took her pet bird and killed it, before leaving.
'This was a despicable crime on an elderly lady who is in poor health. We believe these men have targeted her because of her age and because she lives on her own,' said Det Sgt Stuart Wales.
'The victim is deeply upset because not only has she been the victim of a crime, she has also lost her pet budgie, her soulmate, in a brutal and disturbing manner.' "

It never ceases to amaze me how low people can sink. It's worth noting that for some, this is just another day in modern Britain - a country the aforementioned David Cameron claims he's more than happy to live in.

Well, maybe if I had a policeman outside my door I'd agree, but I doubt it.

The Madness Continues

Several days after the ceasefire in Gaza, several suspicious incidents have been reported in Israel. However, it seems that for the moment, things are largely settled.

That hasn't stopped a group of approximately 40 Manchester Metropolitan University students attempting to use the dying embers of this fire to push their own strange agenda on the powers that be.

***UPDATE*** A link found, such as it is. Apparently these protests were co-ordinated among several British universities, despite the ceasefire.

I also have a source on the ground (unfortunately one the sheep who took part in this), so you'll have to take his overbearingly smug word for it (my refutations are under each point in bold):

Students from the Manchester Metropolitan University have today occupied the ground floor area of the Geoffrey Manton building in a show of solidarity with the people of Gaza.
In a statement issued earlier today, the protesters made the following demands upon the Vice-Chancellor:

1) Issue a public statement condemning Israel's attack on Palestinian educational institutions, including the bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza, and encourage your colleagues in the other Universities to issue a similar call.

This particular 'educational institution' had links to terrorism and the most vile extremist ideologies. I very much doubt if any of the 'protesters' would be happy to find a general Christian university in their city, let alone a Christian version of this, terror labs and all. I certainly wouldn't.

2) Establish an emergency fund for Palestinian students from Gaza and waive their tuition fees to support their efforts to acquire an education.

What's the emergency? That Hamas won't allow secular education? Why should our taxes go to potentially rewarding terrorist activity? If Arab students want to learn here, they can apply and pay like everyone else. Or is that the idea, to send out the message that if you elect a group of religious lunatics who insist upon attacking a powerful neighbour, it doesn't matter because the West will ride to the rescue. Failing scholarships, maybe we could just pay for their 'Jews and Christians are apes and pigs' textbooks and be done with it. Oh, we do already! My mistake.

3) Waive all application and tuition fees from students coming from Palestine and create scholarships specifically available for Palestinian students.

See above. But I will add many Muslims in the past have abused the hospitality of the West, so this seems a recipe for disaster. I would also say if you're that concerned about Arab education and freedom of mind, use your cash to fight Islamic extremism, not Israel.

4) To build links with Palestinian universities.

Israel actually built some Palestinian universities, and look where it gets them. They're often funded by the West somehow in any case. However, you would (rightly) not tolerate the sentiments of these universities were they Western or Christian.

5) Divest MMU funds from all firms contributing to the Israeli war effort.

If Israel ever does succumb to the war(s) being waged against it, efforts such as this will bear some of the moral responsibility. I would rather help a free nation defend itself and defeat terrorism than play any part in a second holocaust (again, see Hamas' stated goals).

6) To create a proper memorial to Tom Hurndall, a MMU student murdered by the Israeli Occupation forces in Gaza.

Tom Hurndall was actually shot by an Israeli-Arab soldier, although that fact was conveniently overlooked by much of the media.

7) To sever all academic links with Israeli institutions that don't oppose the continued occupation of Palestine.

This amounts to collective punishment, which these protesters supposedly stand so steadfastly against. Besides, what sensible Israeli would advocate the abandoning of strategic settlements and sealed borders without serious and tangible compromise on the Arab side?

8) That the Student's Union should allow political posters to be displayed on its windows/noticeboards/walls.

In other words, the Student Union should be allowed to inflict its nonsensical leftist agenda on all students, whilst claiming to speak for those who join simply for the discounts and social life.
Are we seriously to believe the other side would be heard?

9) That no military recruiters should be allowed on campus.

They show their true colours here. The British Army has nothing to do with Israel or its conflicts (well, since we pulled out of the Mandate at least). This is a display of the Student Union's anti-military agenda, and being against self defence is not the same as standing for peace.

10) That the University should boycott Coca-Cola and stop the sale of it in all its outlets.

No idea what this means. Do they refresh the 'evil occupiers?' Or have we roped in anti-Capitalist protesters now too?

11) That there should be no repercussions for anyone involved in the occupation of MMU buildings.

Again, true colours shining brightly through, and they're streaks of yellow. If these people had the courage of their convictions as they claim, this ridiculous (even contextually) addition would never have made the list. But no, they expect to act as they please and get away with it scott free - could this be what they have in common with Hamas?

When this first landed in my inbox I was at a loss for words, but I at least I did attempt a rebuttal, much good that it'll do me.

What annoys me the most is this list employs shameless double standards (the sort with which anyone with an independent mind who follows the news will be instantly familiar); for example, it's apparently not OK to 'collectively punish' the people of Gaza for electing Hamas, despite their actions and agenda, even though several venerable organs were crowing about how legitimate the murderous gang/political party are, and how free the elections were.

But it's OK to punish all Israelis for the actions of their (actually freely elected) government, whether they agree with them or not. Obviously.

I also find the omission that most of the Arabs killed were Hamas terrorists, and the fact that the (Israeli built) 'Islamic University of Gaza' was servicing weapons and extremist literature, deeply disturbing.

The most frightening thing about this conflict is how everyone with an anti-West, anti-nation state, if not outright anti-Israel or anti-semitic outlook has crawled out of the woodwork in a perverse unity, as if their views are now mainstream.

God help Britain if these people are our future.

Geert Wilders to be Prosecuted for Criticising Islam

According to NRC Handelsblad and various other sources, Dutch politician Geert Wilders will be prosecuted for 'hate speech' and incitement for his outspoken observations on Islam.

I don't wish to sound melodramatic, but this is a dark day for Western Civilisation. Since when has it been illegal to express opinions, the vast majority of which happen to be rooted in fact?

Will it now be the case that anyone who speaks out about Jihad, the more barbaric practices of Islam, or even against mass immigration and the erosion of European heritage and culture, will be dragged through the courts?

Wilders has been elected, in an alleged democracy; therefore he speaks for a section of the Dutch electorate (a section whose voice I must assume has not been listened to elsewhere).

This is an absolute outrage, but I suspect the Dutch establishment may have drawn its battle lines rather poorly; Wilders has courage, and has already braved many pitfalls to make his voice and his views heard, including death threats. If he wins, and I truly hope he does, then the Dutch government and the professional Islamic grievance racket will have suffered an embarrassing blow. If he loses, then it will set a legal precedent that is perhaps too terrible to dwell on; any critic of the government, political correctness or multiculturalism living in fear of the infamous early morning knock, so overwhelming a feature of life under tyranny.

Useful Idiot Gerard Sprong, a prominent lawyer who joined Islamic groups in pushing for Wilders' prosecution says:

"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on
the garbage dump of Nazism."

I am completely exasperated. Perhaps if they are afraid of the rubbish tip of Nazism, certain quarters in the Islamic world should stop stealing all the Nazis' old talking points.
Islam is a set of beliefs that someone willingly holds; why should they not be challenged, the same as any other? Can you hate or be bigoted about a belief system?

I would have thought it far more effective to simply defeat it in argument, and that's exactly what the apologists for radical Islam are afraid of; best make anyone who diagrees fear for their life, position and future.

They are the real Nazis.

I wish Mr Wilders good luck in defeating this obscene abuse of a free country's legal system, but more than that I hope this awakens a few more people from their slumber; this is unfortunately not the stuff of history books, but it is happening amongst us, as we speak.

Brave patriots like Wilders may be first, but if we don't stand in solidarity, any of us could be next.

***UPDATE*** Sign the petition in support of Mr Wilders here: http://www.petitiononline.com/wilders/petition.html

***UPDATE 2*** Wilders and his PVV party face financial ruin due to this action, even if he is not convicted. I would urge anyone who is able to go here [http://www.geertwilders.nl/] and follow the steps shown to donate to his fighting fund. Your grandchildren may just thank you one day.

A British Perspective on Barack Obama

Yesterday morning I was awakened by a text message. It turned out to be from an English friend currently living in Brussels, and it read:

'Cheer up! This might be statistically the most depressing day of the
year, but it's Bush's last day in office! Obama tomorrow!!'

Of course, it was either on a mass mailing list, or he sent it just to vex me. At the time, it was a minor annoyance, but I ended up thinking about it all day. Perhaps someone out there will be kind enough to enlighten me; just what on earth am I supposed to be celebrating? What momentous thing is it that the election of this junior Senator from Illinois will give to the world?

I ask because criticising George Bush has become a national sport here. Of course, most left-wing newspapers did not have the courage to knock his pal Tony Blair at the time; God forbid, that might actually have been in the British national interest!
But as I see it, the biggest problem with Bush wasn't that 'he lied and people died'; wasn't that he was an outrageously right-wing (stop laughing at the back) dictator, who couldn't decide between a Christian theocracy where thousands of poor women were 'punished with a baby' or sending hundreds of poor young black men off to die for the oil to power his new tank-like limousine... oops, got my presidents crossed there.

In all seriousness, in my opinion the worst thing about Bush was that he was too inexperienced to be president. At the moment, in the absence of him actually having ever done anything, ever, the worst thing about Barack Obama is that... well, he's too inexperienced to be president.
Except he makes Bush (and Palin for that matter), look positively overqualified in terms of practical experience.

Don't they say that doing exactly the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is the first sign of madness?

Let's be completely honest here; Bush's presidency was far from successful. But there's a difference between things being a failure in their own right, and things being a failure because everyone has already made up their mind they are beforehand. Whatever mistakes Bush made, a huge number of people were waiting for him to slip up before he'd even begun, and rubbing their hands with glee when the slide began. Were they thinking of the good of the nation, as they ask conservative Americans to do now?

Anyway, this Obama chap; why do we all love him so? Well, everyone except me, I seem to have mislaid my invitation to that particular party, for better or worse.
I'm not just talking about Americans, either. I've seen several London offices with his asinine 'Big Zero' logo proudly displayed in the window. Of course, these same people probably want Bush tried for the war in Iraq, but the war in Afghanistan is still surprisingly popular here, despite the rising death toll, and the fact all we're really doing is propping up a different kind of crook, Hamid Karzai. Even with coalition forces present, he's government is so weak and ineffectual I doubt he even gets to decide on his own hairstyle, let alone govern. However, this is seen as a nobler war, as no doubt will any war undertaken by Obama (his stance on Pakistan may well lead to his Iraq). There's no accounting for taste, right? Or double standards, for that matter.

Ex-pat British actress Anna Friel opines that we love him because America finally has a clever president. Or, as she put it, one that's able to read. This is useful, because I make it a policy to never form a political opinion until I've checked what some out of work C-list actress thinks (in the UK she was famous for the Brookside lesbian kiss, in the US, apparently, for 'Pushing up the Daisies', which is now doing just that).

Read he most certainly can. During election season, I shed copious tears over his delivery from that auto-cue (teleprompter). I hadn't seen anything quite like it before outside of an awards ceremony. He is clever though, right? I mean, he's a Harvard-educated constitutional lawyer, community organiser, Senator, Spiderman comic character, President, God-King in waiting. But then, even supermen slip up. Like when he said he'd visited all 57 states. Or when he said he aimed to serve the maximum allowed ten years as president.
Well, if he manages to get that pesky 22nd Amendment out of the way, anything's possible, right? Yes we can!

As far as the gaffes go, everyone makes mistakes. It just seems that some mistakes are more equal than others. I had to turn to blogs to find out about the times Obama slipped up, or the gaps in his CV, or his worrying voting record, or again his lack of experience. The media in general were too busy performing random character assassinations on Sarah Palin.
Is being 'clever' in this context a good thing? I would say lawyers and barristers going into politics have ruined the entire process in Britain. All it really means is he's a smooth talker. I would imagine the average person would now be much more inclined to trust a lawyer than a politician.

At least the lawyer actually works for you.

But this intelligence test stuff is nonsense. I'm not saying the ideal president is completely stupid, but often academic success and intelligence are totally different to leadership and life skills. Imagine for example you're a soldier in a warzone, about to go into battle. Who do you pick as your captain? The man with a Harvard degree (who was too busy climbing the greasy pole to ever use it), or the man who's done all this countless times and come out the other side?

So at this point, I'll ask again, for posterity, why am I supposed to worship this man? What has he ever done?

The two most common answers one will receive from his supporters at this point is either 'he is just extremely popular, he united the country/world/cosmos, and you're jealous', or 'he's black, but became president! That's a huge achievement.'

Let's deal with these points. First, his huge popularity. He is popular, that's a fact. Am I jealous? Well, when Barack blows his nose he gets a crowd cheering and women fainting; I get told to go outside. But really, so what? Yes, he's popular. But why? Just because something is so doesn't automatically make it right or natural.
Frankly, I don't care about how popular he is; what concerns me is it's getting to the point of mass hysteria, and it's also getting dangerous. During the election, anyone who spoke out against him was a 'racist'. Even if they were telling the truth. Even if that truth would have sunk another candidate.

That was convenient, because his long time pastor Jeremiah Wright, an actual racist, was never really condemned as such. What if Palin or McCain had spent 20 years going to a church where the preacher regularly ranted about his hatred of blacks? Would that have been air-brushed out of history, too?

In a democracy like America's, the media is supposed to be part of a fair system of checks and balances on government and power. They are not supposed to treat one man like Jesus and the other like the Devil. In reality, that's what happened. My question is, if that's what it was like before he had power, what will it be like after?

We're already discussing repealing the 22nd Amendment, carving his inauguration speech in marble, naming a day after him; this has all the hallmarks of a cult of personality, not popularity deserved or earned. So in this context, did he unite America? I'd actually say he's a divisive figure. Having one rule for one group and a second for another based on race is wrong; that's what the civil rights movement was about. Seems it's not wrong when the boot's on the other foot, though.

I think this leads us nicely into 'the first black president' argument.
OK, a momentous event in African-American history, to be sure. Or is it? Obama has about as much in common with the average black American as I do. Probably less, in fact. Given America's history, I think this moment would have been important - if they'd found the right man. White Westerners have spent the last 30 years being indoctrinated that race doesn't exist, that colour doesn't matter, we're all evil racists, and much other trite half-true nonsense.

All of a sudden, race matters again - to the point were a man's character should be overlooked in deference to his colour. Black Americans had the most 'racist' (i.e. voted according to their perceived group interest, evil and wrong when others do it) voting pattern in the 2008 election, but commentators still chose to focus on telling white people that this didn't get them off the evil racist hook.

I doubt anything ever will, because it's too profitable a racket; and not only in America. This is demonstrated by the unbearably smug Trevor Phillips, a man to black britons what the Tsars were to the Russians. Trevor has decided that if the US is ready for Obama, we in Britain are ready for a black leader, too (and almost a black Dr Who, but not quite).
Of course, achievements and suitability, even the feelings of the majority, aren't important. As long as he's black. It's symbolic, don't you know.

There are still some who talk as if Obama's election was the greatest event in human history so far. This is disturbing for two reasons; firstly they (along with his wife) are attempting to pretend that he overcame the huge hurdles of racism in order to reach his goal, when that could not be further from the truth; most white people I've met worship the fellow, really and truly only because he's black. But no, in Michelle Obama's world, you can only win as the underdog, always striving up (well, her salary certainly is). But the idea that being black in the US or Britain today is some kind of disadvantage is simply an insult to one's intelligence.

Secondly, the man had a $600 million warchest, the almost unanimous backing of celebrities and popular culture, plus the almost unanimous backing of the press. I'd like to think anyone who was breathing could have given it a good shot under those circumstances.

I suppose everything will just go on as normal; but the concerning phenomenon of racism being perceived as a one way street, plus the absolutely mindless adulation of this individual make him potentially dangerous, if he wished to be. I have been on the receiving end of his supporters; very few offer reasons or useful arguments, just optimistic buzzwords no one really wants to disagree with. 'Hope!' 'Change!' 'Unity!' Whatever.
It's curiously similar to arguing about religion with people; it seems you either believe, or you don't. But that's OK - it's not like religion or blind faith ever led to conflict!

Not God Bless, certainly not God Damn, but Good Luck, America; I fear you'll need it.

Historectomy

A report from Gates of Vienna's Baron Bodissey.

Gates of Vienna: Historectomy

This is one of the most despicable things I have ever read, and I hope that this man is punished to the full extent of the law. By this I mean a huge fine, a prison sentence, and then deportation, not sweeping up whilst wearing one of the increasingly eerie Jack Straw's orange 'Community Payback' vests.

The fad of political correctness may well pass, but as is pointed out in the post, our history is irreplaceable.

Weekly News Round Up: 11th-17th January 2009

Some telling titbits from this week's UK newspapers.

Tony Blair awarded The Presidential Medal of Freedom:
This is a little irksome, and has been called 'bad timing' by some. I think the timing could never be quite right; as the rest of the world seems to despise Bush, I reserve my vitriol for Tony Blair. Bush was pushed into a very difficult corner after the 11th of September 2001 attacks, and Iraq was the culmination of his attempt to show he was doing something.

It turned out to be a mistake, and they happen. But Blair lied to Parliament, was largely responsible for the flawed 'weapons of mass destruction' evidence, and continued to lie even after being caught out. He has never shown an ounce of remorse for the lives lost in Iraq, never apologised, never been held to account. In my opinion he is a crook who puts Nixon in the shade, but now he struts around the world with his £12 million bank balance, playing the 'peace envoy', protected by the British taxpayer.

Demonstrating the judgment he's world famous for, Mr Bush said: 'Tony's the kind of guy who looks you straight in the eye and tells the truth'. Yep, and with his other hand he's feeling for your wallet.

The man symbolises everything that's wrong with modern Britain and politics in this country. The joke is, he's being touted as the first 'President of Europe', when the constitution finally gets pushed though. Who says crime doesn't pay?

I'll Never Forgive My Son's Killer:
Schoolboy David Idowu was 14 years old when a recent immigrant from the Congo, Elijah Dayoni, stabbed him through the heart. Apparently during his short stay in the UK, this individual had racked up quite a criminal record. Not to worry though - after committing and being convicted for this callous murder, he's been jailed for life.
Except, in the United Kingdom, life has apparently become synonymous with '12 years'.
That means he'll be out of prison by 28. No wonder he was smiling as he was sent down.

Muslim Civil Servant Advocates Killing British Soldiers:
Well, the article says it all really. He's been suspended, but not sacked, obviously. That might be racist or contravene his human rights or something. When will this country wake up?

David Miliband Says War on Terror 'A Mistake':
I think he has 'War on Terror' confused with 'David Miliband's appointment as Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom'.
I prefer The Telegraph's rebuttal.

In all seriousness, that trite term was probably only thought up in the first place to appease people like him. However whilst condemning the war in Iraq (massively unpopular, pushed through by his party), he advocates a surge for Afghanistan.

What are we achieving there, exactly? If we had an objective, it would be one thing. I personally feel taking back control of our borders from the European Union and actually controlling immigration, whilst at the same time being tough on Islamic extremists already here might do more for our internal security than letting the Taliban take free shots at our troops.
In any case, Miliband is increasingly evolving from a non-entity into a very dangerous individual. Co-operate with terrorists, not fight them?

Right. And what common ground do we have to do that exactly? Comparing them to the IRA entirely misses the point; the IRA had one overall objective which was not beyond the realms of fantasy.

Islamic extremism not only has one uniting ideology in Jihad, but wants to take the world back to some point before the 14th Century, whilst wiping out an entire race and nation along with anyone else who dares resist or disagree along the way.
Perhaps if Mr Miliband wishes to negotiate, we could arrange for him to be air dropped over a destination of his choice (Somalia, Gaza, maybe Sudan or Afghanistan), and he can keep us updated on just what he's achieved.

Next week should be good, we have the anointing of The One to look forward to.
All comments welcome.

George W. Bush: Global Village Idiot?

This piece will be the first in a (hopefully) regular series called 'left-wing media watch', for which I will intrepidly read a very left-wing newspaper article, then publicise it here, trying to demonstrate which aspects are true, which are distortions, and which are more fictional than Sooty (no, not Prince Charles' Polo chum).

Tony Parsons from the irrepressible 'Daily Mirror' has the honour of starting us off. To be completely fair, I will be emailing Tony with the heads up that I plan to examine his columns (bet he can't wait).

Now, those of you who click on the wikipedia link will see Tony described as 'a right-wing populist'. I'm not sure that's true, or who actually wrote the article. Of course, if Tony himself did and he believes he's a 'right-wing populist' (whatever that even means), then it would be impolite to quibble; I'm fairly sure that status would relegate one to the naughty corner at Mirror HQ, however. The Daily Mirror is incredibly left-wing, but not like The Guardian (the staple of the left-liberal intelligentsia in Britain). The Mirror is appropriately named, for it is simply a mirror image of The Sun. The latter is right-wing in a low brow way, and the former is a hangover to the days of Magaret Thatcher Vs. Arthur Scargill. Upon reading some of their columns I think they almost wish their arch-nemesis was still in power; hitting people who don't fight back isn't half as fun now, is it?
Well, about as much fun as being proven wrong on almost every issue, and having your spiritual party hijacked by strange interlopers who you support anyway, because you happen to be as ridiculously tribal as the enemies you sneer at and denigrate.

As a brief aside, why are only right-wingers ever described as populist? I suppose because left-wing people are correct about everything, and the right wrong. Except where the right is correct it becomes 'populist', because the proles haven't been educated well enough in the ways of the Force, and still support the Dark Side.

Anyway, with apologies for the digression, this is the article that irked me: George W Bush's legacy: The global village idiot. It's probably time to confess that the article didn't irk me because I'm a huge fan or supporter of Bush; however I think the aptly titled 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' which has been doing the rounds since 2003 is a fascinating and terrifying political phenomenon. His often hilarious gaffes and 'Bushisms' aside, Bush has not been the ineffectual ignoramus he's made out to be on absolutely every issue.

I don't make a habit of reading Daily Mirror articles, but sometimes if I see a copy discarded on the train I will have a flick through. The first line that jumped to my attention from this one, however, was:

Ronald Reagan, despised as a simple version of Doctor Strangelove during his
administration, is now grudgingly admired for his stance against Communism.

Excuse me? 'Grudgingly' admired for his stance against Communism? It seems that Parsons is the master of understatement. I appreciate that an apologist for Communism might not see Reagan in quite the same light I do, but I cannot imagine anyone who is self-described as 'right-wing' ever uttering such words. Reagan and Thatcher took a very sensible stance on the issue, stepping away from outright provocation but insisting on appropriate defence funding and measures, along with realising that making concessions and appeasing such a vile regime was not morally right.

The article goes on to (grudgingly) laud Bush for his work in Africa, such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDs Relief, which, according to Parsons has thrown a lifeline to millions of Africans. Perhaps no one told Bushitler he was saving African lives, or he was too stupid to work it out? Parsons even goes so far as to record for posterity that Bush did more practical good for Africa than Bill Clinton or Bono (an astounding revelation, to be sure), not that that will help him with the fashionable elites for whom image and perception seem to be far more important than actions and reality.

However it is the next section of the article that I genuinely take issue with. It reads like a reverse chronology of all the fashionable reasons to 'bash Bush', all the things the half-informed and the peaceniks despise the man for.

The 'shoe incident', when an Iraqi journalist sought to humiliate/assault/strongly demonstrate his opposition to violence by hurling his shoes at the President's head, is brought up immediately; it doesn't explicitly say that the journalist had a point, but the phrase 'Bush's wife loyally said...' implies that even she might have been sniggering behind her hand, thinking about how he had it coming. I found this incident very strange; firstly, it proved that clearly Iraq is more free now than it was in some ways. The press complained that the journalist was beaten and tortured, and if so that must be condemned. However the simple fact is that would have happened had he pulled such a stunt in any Arab country, and the retribution would have been far worse had he done it to an Arab leader (not that anyone would have paid any attention). Saddam would have probably fed him feet first into a meat grinder, perhaps personally. The incident also provided us with yet another example of the peace-loving left condoning violence, because seemingly it's OK to commit grievous bodily harm against someone if you disagree with him, or he's perceived to have failed, or he's (allegedly) right-wing. I some how doubt that will apply when things start going wrong for Obama.

For the record, I agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, in many ways a dreadful one. It did, rightly or wrongly, squander much of the post 9/11 goodwill towards America. Parsons goes further than this; he says:

on a day when we watched 3,000 people murdered on live TV, George Bush somehow contrived to make the USA look like an aggressor.

That is an absolutely absurd statement. America was viciously and violently attacked that day, by Islamic extremists. I do not blame US support of Israel, or pretensions to the role of 'global policeman'; I blame the scum who carried out the attacks, thinking their 'holy book' gave them the right, nay the duty, to slaughter innocents. Also, this was 2 years before Iraq; Bush was not an aggressor for going after the Taliban in Afghanistan, he was responding to Islamic aggression, and picked the most fundamentalist Islamic regime on the planet. I would say he showed some moral cowardice in not calling out Saudi Arabia for the involvement of their citizens and their attempts to spread the creed of Wahhabism, but it was a case of first things first.

Despite the 11th of September 2001, Parsons tries to pretend that before Iraq, anti-Americanism was a phenomenon primarily found amongst those jealous of America's success and status. He also trots out that old chestnut about Bush's actions being a greater force in recruiting Islamic militants than any other. Again, this is a nice story, but it's simply untrue. Daniel Pipes has a fascinating archive full of Islamic terrorist activity stretching back decades. If Bush has made Muslims hate the US, what about the World Trade Centre bombing of 1993? What about the USS Cole attack in 2000? The African embassy bombings of 1998? Even the 1993 CIA shootings? You get the idea - this is a long road, and it has little to do with Bush, and everything to do with the people who carried out the attacks and their beliefs. Even better than this is the quote:

The very worst forces of America - warmongers, religious nutters, and raving
nationalists - swarmed around him [Bush] and painted their fantasies on his blank
canvas.

So, when people who happen to be Christian defend their country and citizens, they're religious nutters. I notice it goes unsaid that that is exactly what the 9/11 hijackers were. Aren't double standards great? I suppose in his world they were poor, oppressed lambs struggling against racism, and America's obvious war on Muslims, such as their bombing of the Christian Serbs to facilitate the transfer of Serbian territory to Muslim control... wait, did someone get the narrative the wrong way round? I hold no quarter for the 'neo-cons', they are to conservatism what Chairman Mao was to Chinese culture, but I call nonsense just that when I see it.

The strangest part is that, at the end of the article, he groups 9/11 in with Hurricane Katrina and the financial crisis, as if it were just an inexorable force of nature which hijacked those planes and flew them at important structures. No; it was certainly people who hated America, but not because of who was currently occupying the White House. Bush may have been 'unlucky to have this happen on his watch,' as Parsons puts it (not as unlucky as the victims, obviously), but much of the blame can be put elsewhere; Clinton had several chances to kill bin Laden after the embassy bombings (and admittedly a missed opportunity), but apparently it didn't seem that important compared to the potential for 'collateral damage'. But then, compared to harassing secretaries, what is? I agree the 'War on Terror' was poor and imprecise terminology, but I think it was Bush's attempt at diplomacy. We couldn't have a war on militant Islam, now, could we? Nope, but they've declared one on us. At least Bush tried to respond to the threat, no matter how ineffectually. Ironically, if he'd simply called a spade a spade despite the protests from the left (who just protested anyway), the whole endeavour may have turned out better. But, at least he helped prevent a second attack on American soil, something the entire free world should be grateful to him for.

As for Tony Parsons, his true colours shine through brightly in his latest article: Waking up to Barack Obama’s new American dream.
Good news - believing in a man's political vision simply because he's black is going to make race not matter anymore!

Thanks for that, Tone.

Sooty with the Grime of Propaganda

Yesterday, a day when war continued in Gaza, Osama bin Laden allegedly declared Jihad on Israel and Harriet Harman announced yet more Orwellian 'equality' plans, what did The Sun newspaper, the most widely read in Britain, choose as its frontpage headline?

An Indian man at Prince Charles' Polo club has the nickname 'Sooty', a name which the Prince and his sons allegedly use to refer to him. Seeing as the man came forward to state emphatically that the Prince did not choose the nickname, nor is he in any way shape or form a racist, I suppose on this occasion we can be lenient and forego the public hanging.

I find this situation increasingly curious. Every violation of politically correct speech codes must be turned into a public witch-hunt, no matter how trivial, how accidental, how deeply regretted, even when all parties involved agree it is a non-issue. I consider myself a polite person, and I would not dream of offending someone deliberately, for no reason, no matter what their colour or creed. It seems to me most normal people are in the same boat, so what is the purpose of 'making an example' of people for the slightest violation of what is now regarded as the 'correct' way to speak and think? Also, who decides what constitutes correct, what's offensive to who and what isn't?

In a country that is suffering from a disturbing increase in violent crime and solves pathetically few of the ones currently committed, I would of thought the great and the good would have better things to worry about than what two middle-aged gentlemen refer to each other as over a bottle of Port.

But this is the most disturbing aspect of the phenomenon; it doesn't matter what Charles said, or that his previous actions show him to be a fine, upstanding gentleman without prejudice; it doesn't matter that Kolin Dhillon, the Indian chap in question, is happy and doesn't think there is a problem. All that matters is that Charles has sinned, and now he must be sorry; he must be made to pay somehow, probably by being denigrated or humiliated.

Increasingly these situations remind me of the culture of denounciations and show trials found during Stalin's reign over the Soviet Union. Truth, logic, facts, intentions, past character are totally unimportant, irrelevant in the face of the bright, incisive light of inquisition of the bad by the good. All that matters is the accusation, and the burden of proof is on the accused; simply by virtue of being suspected of racism, they are bad. They are to be given no quarter, and if you disagree you should shut up, or frankly you might just be an evil racist yourself. The accusation seems to require no evidence, often not even a reason; it's simply there, and up to you the accused to prove you're actually not racist, in some ways an almost impossible task - who knows what anyone really thinks about anything? You would like to think the things they say and the way they act might be a fair guide, but really, who knows?

I imagine there are some who think all this is a bit trivial, but lives have been ruined by accusations such as these; the Council of Europe demands that 'racism', an ill-defined, completely imprecise term that means totally different things to different people, be an actual criminal offence whereby one can be imprisoned or extradited abroad if accused of it, or even potentially (and incredibly ironically, in my opinion) stripped of their civil rights. Interestingly, their definition of racism and xenophobia includes criticising Muslims (or indeed any religious group or practice, no matter how out dated or abhorrent) and being hostile to the EU itself.

This leads me to suspect that these speech codes have nothing to do with protecting vulnerable minorities, or allowing hard working immigrants who accept our values to describe themselves as British, and everything to do with dismantling who we are, particularly in terms of our past. It just so happens that according to the group of misfits who hijacked our government sometime in the 1960s, or even bfore, everything that happened in Britain before their ascent to power was racist, and we needed to let go of the past because if we didn't we might well be being offensive to all our new citizens.
It's just a happy coincidence, of course, that our new rulers happened to despise everything about pre-1960s Britain, and smashing it had been the goal of people who moved in their intellectual circles since Lenin was a small boy. So, what are immigrants to them?

It seems to me, just a convenient excuse. It probably is important of course that Enoch Powell, the only British politician to ever seriously attempt to raise the issue of mass immigration for debate, was hounded out of office despite allegedly enjoying unprecedented public support. I only really raise this to counter the idea that everyone agreed that immigration was a wonderful thing and that benefits outweighed setbacks.
Rightly or wrongly, the majority of the population had severe reservations. I imagine many still do, no matter how reluctant they are to say so, or how buried the idea is under layers of 'goodthink'.

Should they have? For me, the jury is still out. Well managed immigration clearly has some benefits, although probably not as many as its lobbyists would claim. However I do have severe reservations about large groups of people from very different cultures and backgrounds moving to the same area, then expecting to live as if they never left their home country, but with all our benefits (not just finance related; for example Muslims using free speech to call for non-believers to be beheaded) too. That is unacceptable; but what is more unacceptable is white liberals using these people as shills (or is it vice versa?) in order to dismantle the very country and culture good enough to take them in.

I have absolutely no time for out and out racism (although I'm sure any Guardian reader who happens to stumble across this will be clawing out their eyes at the images of me in white robes burning a cross by now), but every time I hear that someone who moved here to enjoy the benefits of our country and the fruits of our labour (no pun intended) finds our flag offensive, or believes police uniforms should 'be more inclusive', or prisons should serve special menus to different faiths, my reaction is resigned anger, but more than that: they should leave.
I know of what I speak; I spent several months living in Germany. OK, the culture isn't vastly different and I got by quite nicely, but that's the point; maybe if I'd found Germans or German or the German flag objectionable, I might have tried France or Holland instead. Why put myself through months of hell and severe, traumatic offence everytime some poor unsuspecting German opened their mouth?
But whatever the left would have us believe, this isn't the full story. Most immigrants don't come here to make trouble over our cultural symbols; indeed many actively want to share in them, and I've met immigrants from places as different as Nigeria and the Philippines who are far more politically conservative and protective of traditional British values than the vast majority of my native-born friends.

This latest furore is simply a reminder of who is in charge, and that no one is above the new order of things. We are invited to pore over the disgusting, out dated world of these privileged white bigots who act like the rules don't apply just as our 'imperialist' ancestors would have studied the rituals of tribes in Papua New Guinea, with a mixture of fascination, contempt, horror, but more importantly self-righteousness. We condemn the bad, and therefore we are good. These people do things differently, dare to think differently, and are therefore written off.
Unfortunately we've lost all perspective and the ability to define what bad really is in the long run. If the left wants to see genuine, obscene levels of racism, maybe it should look a bit more carefully at some of its new friends and allies.