Sunday, August 31, 2008

Quote Of The Day

On the chickenhawk meme:
We call them "keyboard builders" here because their argument is predicated on the notion that if you aren't personally doing something then you have no business thinking positive thoughts about anybody else who is doing it, nor are you permitted to so much as to acknowledge, audibly or in silence, that what they do needs doing.

The argument they seek to make, depends completely on this nonsensical premise. Not just a little bit. Completely.

So I figure every time I read this argument, and it was typed into a computer somewhere, whoever said it must build keyboards for a living. I mean, the accusation they're leveling is one of hypocrisy, so I know no way could those guys be hypocrites. They have to be building keyboards.

Worst Smear Evah?

Of course, when all else fails, liberals have their old standby: complete insanity.

Liberals Are Losers

Looks like the left's narrative on Sarah Palin is taking shape. Apparently, the highly-accomplished executive of America's largest state might be a mother of five, but she's not a Real Woman.

Apparently, to qualify as a Real Woman she'd have to have a bag full of sexism atrocity stories, rather than being a happy and well-adjusted family woman. The equation is rarely stated as openly as that: losers only need apply.

Which is another great thing about the US. There might be a certain percentile that goes in for this wallowing in victimhood, but Americans tend to be happy, optimistic and patriotic. They surely aren't attracted by a party that spends its time claiming - in the teeth of all the evidence - that living in America is the worst fate that could possibly befall anybody. That's the problem the Democrats have: their entire platform is designed to appeal to losers, and there just aren't enough out there for them.

Our Rubbish Politics

Brilliant though the Republican's choice of an all-pilot ticket is, it does ram home how awful British politics is. Say what you like about 'Maverick', but he at least have a history. As for Palin, she's not only a great pick for all the reasons Ross notes, but she's got that something extra - she seems normal.

Can anyone seriously imagine anyone as well adjusted as Sarah Palin in the Tory Party? Of course part of that is that US politics has two features rapidly disappearing from British life. There's the link between politicians and communities, which was on life-support even before the Tory A-list formalised the process of parachuting Metropolitan candidates in constituencies. Then there's the opportunity for meaningful executive experience at a local level, rapidly disappearing under continuous bombardment from government and EU directives. Still, there's something extra.

Seriously, could anyone imagine living next door to David Cameron? And not just because you couldn't afford it. The average British politician has been sucked into the Westminster vortex at the age of 21, thence to lose all sense of reality and contact with normal people. Seriously, is there anyone - anyone! - outside the incestuous world of Westminster who looks at David Miliband and thinks 'hmmmm.... prime minster material'? The man's a freak.


Talking of the blogwar reminds just what started all this off: Carol Sarler's article in the Times. Funny thing is her argument has now been rebutted in the same paper by.... Carol Sarler.

I guess a week's a long time in journalism?

Here's what she used to say:
if a man, for reasons not remotely his fault, is posing a risk to others, he should be subject to sectioning under the Mental Health Act, with all the appropriate regret, sympathy and kindness that accompanies such a move. Given the grip of the current bogeyman frenzy, it is hard to see that one playing in Peoria; nevertheless, it would be the only humane response.

If we accept that [paedophilia] is a crime, however, then it is something which the perpetrator can control. He may choose to offend or not, and if he chooses what is unacceptable, again we should respond as such. We catch the bastard, try him, lock him up by way of penalty and then - this is the crucial bit - once he has served his sentence we restore his liberty. In full.
But that was then, and this is now, and Carol is reminiscing about small-town Britain:
The corollary, however, was that if it was inconceivable that we could misbehave without being spotted, so it was inconceivable that anybody could misbehave towards us without equal scrutiny; paedophilia existed, but was scant terror given that pretty much everyone – especially the children – knew who, what and where lay the local kiddie-fiddlers. Strangers they were not.

And every now and then a rampaging mob of parents would lynch them all.
Actually, I stuck that last bit in just to make her sound less of a humbug. After all, she did get it right eventually. The average nonce is more Arnold Rimmer than Hannibal Lecter. They can be deadly, but only under the cloak of anonymity. Daylight doesn't suit them. Equally, being exposed, and therefore harmless, they can be safely ignored by all and sundry.

That was the way it was back then - and it worked. It's the belief that it is the role of the state to protect perverts from the social consequences of their actions that's new and unrooted in law. It does, however, provide great employment opportunities for the usual suspects.

Blogwars: Special Extra Time Edition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the libertarian revolution comes, you'll be free to flirt with foul ideologies with no come back, but until then these folks will just have to rely on constant whining (I guess not enough people noticed the first two times he claimed to have totally quit forevah!).

He tries the more in sorrow than anger route this time, with a link thrown in to show how reasonable he's been. Trouble is the link goes to an off-site comment. Since he won't bother, here are the links to his earlier posts - feel the rationality, but don't forget to compare them to his denunciations of paedophiles (if you can find any). Then again, just note that title: the underbelly of the Internet isn't Gary Glitter logging on to chat rooms as CrazeeGirl237, it's the people who think he shouldn't be allowed to. Ah yes!

Oh and he tries the desperate 'libel' thing again, thereby proving he's as clueless about civil law as he is about the criminal version.

Did I say desperate? Try a shoehorned Shakespeare reference. Intellectual, baby!

Still, got to keep hope alive - if he keeps coming back, we might some day find out just how his position differs from that of the average NAMBLA member.

Friday, August 29, 2008

Quote Of The Day

Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.
The whole thing is pretty good. In fact, with a few changes, you can imagine the Ayatollah Dave giving this speech.

Hey, You Know What We Need More Of Over Here?

Definition of the Open Borders lobby: people who think only a racist could possibly object to these guys taking up residence next door.

(H/T to Rob, who correctly points out the silence of another well-known group of liberal prats - although, on second thoughts, it's not like anyone called the victims 'honey!')

It'd Take A Heart Of Stone Not To Laugh

Let's not be too harsh about this - it may just be that his handles his personal financial dealings like he handled his city's ones. He probably invested it all in Zimbabwe.

Sauce For The Goose

With a windfall tax on those nasty energy companies on the agenda both here and in the US, DH raises an important question: why not stick a windfall tax on these guys?

True, the British movie sector isn't as big, but showbiz still pays pretty well. After all, find me a power company executive who would do this.

And you can't even switch to another supplier.

Blogwar 4 Evah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, another instalment in my battles with the would-be hipsters busily twisting the ideals of socialism and libertarianism beyond anything either Keir Hardie or Ayn Rand would possibly recognise.

Of course, last time we met ShortBusRider was ranting about how his nuclear-powered ninja mind could totally destroy the right's arguments, except he, like, had to run 'cause he had a really hot date with a load of super-models, on a big yacht in Monte Carlo.

I'm guessing his date must have got cancelled, and his brain must be running low on plutonium, 'cause he's back and relying on that most desperate of talking points. Yep, our kewl-running rebel tiger is complaining that he's been libelled. Anarchy!

Hey, you know how he hates harsh language, right? The old paedophile apologist has taken time out from publishing pro-nonce talking points to complain about being called a 'paedophile apologists' except - and if you've been following earlier instalments you'll have guessed this already - he never actually gets round to explaining just how his philosophy differs from that of actual paedophiles.

Consider the evidence: hipsters claim paedophiles are an unjustly persecuted minority, like Jews in Nazi Germany, or blacks in the deep South, with us folks playing the role of the Nazis/KKK. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters claim the public isn't really opposed to paedophilia, it's just they've been whipped up into a frenzy by dark forces with their own sinister agenda. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters claim that taking action against paedophiles will lead inevitably to a descent into fascism. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters claim the whole 'age of consent' thing is kind of arbitrary, and seize on any countries with a lower age of consent as proof Britain is EVIL! So do paedophiles!

Hipsters seize on any evidence that violent paedophiles can be rehabilitated, while dismissing the far more numerous - and generally more independent - studies showing that paedophiles not only often re-offend, but often escalate the seriousness of their offending. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters often argue that paedophilia is less serious where the victim consents - even though by definition they're below an age where they can. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters often argue in bad faith by citing the tiny proportion of technical offences involving boyfriends and girlfriends very close in age, even knowing that the justice system can - and does - differentiate between these cases and Gary Glitter raping a pair of 10 & 11 year old girls. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters claim that even multiple convictions are no guide to the likelihood of future offending. So do paedophiles!

True, the hipsters and the paedophiles do diverge on the question of legality, but then even some of the more politically astute nonces will admit that, gosh darn it, some of their comrades do go too far. Meanwhile, where did we come into all this? Ah yes: hipster's trying to re-brand paedophilia as an unfortunate medical condition. Look how that turned out with smackheads!

And all that is just the highlights!

The logic of the hipsters leads directly to the mainstreaming of paedophilia. You simply cannot argue that nonces are being unjustly persecuted by fascist bigots in the service of a totalitarian agenda and still claim to opposed to paedophilia in any meaningful sense.

But even all this doesn't get to the heart of it. What the hipsters hanging out with perverts symbolises is something deeply wrong with modern politics.

Why is paedophilia evil? Isn't that like asking why fire is hot? The desire to protect children runs deep in pretty much every functional human being - that's part of why there is such outrage about paedophilia. But here come the hipsters! Smug elitists explaining why 'good' and 'evil' are so passé these days.

The hipsters aren't 'rational', they're 'rationalisers' - people bending over backwards to excuse evil for no better reason than to establish their own superiority over anyone who isn't a moral void.

A large part of our political class is unable to engage with the world through any means other than self-concious ironic detachment, and are unable to offer anything other than nihilism. Why let them get away with it? Let's stop letting the hipsters bully us into believing that their knee jerk support for depravity is somehow sophisticated. Why not call them out for what they are: apologists for paedophilia and every other kind of evil out there?

We ought to demand that our political class acknowledges one thing. Paedophilia isn't a part of civilisation, it is the antithesis of it. A culture that is 'rational' about absolute evil hasn't just lost its soul, it's lost it's mind. Without morality, there is only force to hold a society together, and that can never be enough.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Another One Bites The Dust

Talking of the police and their 'arrest first' policy, there's been another case of the thing that never happens.

Note this bit:
Gemma Capon, 20, invented the allegation after she and Graham Tysoe's turbulent six-month relationship came to an end.

She told detectives he forced his way into their home and attacked her on the living room sofa.

Mr Tysoe, also 20, was arrested in front of colleagues at the pub where he works as a chef and held for almost 24 hours.

He was interviewed, had his DNA, fingerprints and mugshot taken and was subjected to intrusive forensic examinations.

When police confronted Capon with discrepancies in her story a day later she confessed that she had made it all up and was charged with wasting police time.
So this was never a 'He said, She Said' - they never had sex anyway, which is kind of important in a rape case (the laws not as complex as some people would have you believe). Ditto, there's no evidence of forced entry, and the complaint falls apart as soon it's seriously questioned - but that's still enough to put an innocent man through the mill.

Key question: did they do all this to the victim - the real one - in spite of the weakness of the complaint or because of it? In other words, did they rush it all through before the case fell apart?

Apparently, the new policy is 'zero tolerance for made up crimes against women'.

The Obamamessiah Meets Spinal Tap!

There's a fine line between arrogance and self-parody, and the Chosen One might just have crossed it.

The comments are a scream too.

Even The Police Are Getting Hacked Off With The Police

Actually, that's kind of harsh: Coppersblog has always been a bastion of common sense, so I'm not surprised to find that even they are starting to object to the police's 'arrest early, arrest often' policy.

They make an important point: not only is this sort of thing lead to victimisation of innocent members of the public (like here!), it also results in police officers wasting huge amounts of time on this rubbish.

Even More Blogwars!!!!!

Don't be shocked, but paedophile apologist ShortBusRider refused to answer my question about whether or not Zuzanna Zommer could have been saved by a harder line on paedophiles. He claims it's not a fair question because killer - and convicted rapist - Michael Clark might just have killed someone else anyway.

Really - that's his argument for going soft on predators: they'll probably just kill someone else anyway. See, that was kind of what the right was saying...

Oh, and never mind that his pals did all but send Clark a set of steak knives as a housewarming present. We're not talking about a master criminal here. Clark specifically said that he wanted to get out of Scunthorpe as too many people were alert to his history of sexual violence, so the libs set him up in Leeds next door to a family with young children.

Hey, be happy these people don't feel the same way about drunk drivers. Otherwise, they'd probably meet them at the prison gates with a bottle of Bells and the keys to a BMW.

Of course, this also raises - for the third time - the question of why these people aren't so enraged about drinks drivers losing their licences in addition to jail time. I don't think we'll get an answer either:
I’m not going to bother fisking the rest of this asinine rubbish – as it is merely more of the same ill-informed, hysterical tabloidesque assertions, stupid assumptions, willful ignorance and bullshit. It’s why I usually keep away from this particular subject – people cannot or will not discuss the issues without resorting to stupid and emotive nonsense.
See, he totally could explain why *suspected* footy hooligans should lose their passports, but convicted child rapists shouldn't, only he's, like, totally busy and stuff.

Personally, I'm just glad these people eschew the overheated invective popular amongst the lower orders.

Meanwhile, I guess it's down to the rest of us to try and find any key parts of their doctrine which differ from those of the paedophiles themselves.

Art Souls

Sounds like Canada is just like Britain, at least to judge from the comments to this post. This is my favourite:
I wonder if I could get a Canada Arts Council grant for the piece of Canadian art that I've envisioned. It's a headstone made of feces, with Pierre Elliot Trudeau's name on it. Standing on one side is a statue of a farmer (made of wheat, beef, and oil) who is urinating on the headstone, and on the other side are statues of two naked males (one white, one black) holding hands, and 'showering their love' on the headstone. It symbolizes the truly Canadian aspect of how Western Canada feels about our most controversial P.M., and the love that the gay and ethnic community feel for him for espousing minority rights.

Do you think I could get a couple of million for it?

Meet The New Boss...

Further evidence for my theory that the worse public sector bodies get at their real jobs, the more they want to expand into social engineering. Like Stan says, I'm sure most folks would rather have a reliable bin service - but keep reading to the end for the ironic twist.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Check out the sidebar!

Random Obambi facts round the clock, guaranteed at least 67% more reliable than the BBC!

Tuesday, August 26, 2008


Oh no! The libertarians are angry with me! It's a crisis alright - scowly, geriatric teenagers are closing in from all sides!

First up, it's ShortBusRider. He's heard the old line about how bad arguments should be refuted not just named, but he thought it was all a statist trick. God knows what his point actually is, so I'll make it real easy for him, and boil it down to one question: would Zuzanna Zommer be alive today if we'd been less concerned about the rights of a known predator? Yes or no?

But that's just a warm-up. Uber Libertarian Tom Paine - after complaining that I called him a liberal (check the title of the post here) wheels out the Sarler (non-)paradox, but still avoids the central absurdity. Drunken Duncan may have chalked up a hatrick of DUIs because he's an alcoholic, or it may just be that he's a tool, but either way that doesn't change the fact he's still a danger to other road users.

This is what so revealing about these people. They're all about the criminal. Surely the natural starting point is the protection of law-abiding members of the public? Yes, the courts should consider whether Duncan would benefit from doing the 12 step program or not, but not to the point of compromising public safety (and again, I still haven't heard any cases of paedophiles so driven by their condition that they strike in the presence of uniformed police officers).

But that's not even the best of it. He complains about me criticising paedophiles thus:
Take the word "paedophile" and replace it with "murderer", "racist", "homophobe" or (in an earlier age) "homosexual" and the passage works just as well as demagoguery.
Yes, and if we change 'War on Terror' to 'War on Cute Puppies', that proves Bush hates dogs.


Words have meaning. In particular, 'paedophiles' means people with at least one - and usually multiple - convictions for victimising vulnerable young people. That's why this next sentence is just bizarre:
Everyone should have the same legal rights as everyone else unless and until convicted by due process of law.
Again: huh?

Is there any evidence of a sizeable body of opinion in favour of victimising the innocent? Really, am I missing something here? For the record let me make clear I'm against persecuting the innocent. Also: carpet bombing, genocide and dropping anthrax spores in the water supply.

Now, back to stuff people are actually saying.
Those rights should then only be removed (or rather suspended) until the expiry of the sentence passed by an indpendent court in accordance with the law.
You mean when Drunken Duncan gets released he can drive himself home? Bet he can't. Plus, I'm guessing his cell mate Phil the Phraud might have a bit of trouble working in finance or becoming a company director. Meanwhile, banning orders preventing foreign travel - the very thing that these people are so steamed about - have been in place for football hooliganism for years.

Hey, this is all settled law. Just who's getting thrown in a tailspin by S-E-X again?

Then there's this:
It is not libertarianism which is leading to "clamping down on the rights of the non-depraved," it is such addled, tabloid emotionalism as this.

The witch-hunters cannot have it both ways. However much they may describe any attempt at rational thought as "...near-lunatic ranting..." If they are allowed to get away with their afternoon-TV, chav sentimentalism, what next?
And thus was refuted the claim that their position was driven by snobbery and elitism.

Meanwhile, a night time trip around our nation's town centres will confirm just how successful breakfast Radio 4 pretentious ninnyism has been in bringing order to our land.
Yes, paedophile sex is a vile assault. It is a repulsive attack upon innocence. So are many other kinds of assault on the weak and defenceless.
Yes, and you people never pen long articles complaining that we're all being too tough on the Mad Axeman, or defending the right of wife beaters to own shotguns. Some sauce for that goose?

Anyway, wasn't it these folks who were just jabbering about how it could all be a sickness? Even those of us on the right will agree there's a compulsive element to all this - we just don't think it rises to the level of an 'irresistible impulse' as it were (or, at least, not till we get a positive result to the 'within sight of a policeman' test). On the other hand, we're all supposed to hate those Southern US churches that claim to 'pray out the gay' even as we're told that all it takes is a bit of psychic WD-40 and a slice of therapy and suddenly the, as it were, paedosexuals with multiple convictions for crimes against children will never look at a child again.

Two of the most significant characteristics of predators is that they're likely to reoffend, and they escalate the degree of offending as time goes on (you know, sort of like a guy with convictions for child pr0n who goes on to get convicted of child rape, to choose an example completely at random). Put it this way: the evidence for those two propositions is at least as strong as the evidence for the effectiveness of rehab. This is why we think paedophiles should be treated differently to those who indulge in merely instrumental violence, like muggers or bank robbers.

Hey, even if you buy into the whole Ferapee Nation 'the illness made them do it' deal, you have to see benefits from leading them not into temptation, right? Meanwhile, the rest of us get the same benefits from restricting the liberty of convicted paedophiles as we get from ensuring that wife beaters don't have guns in the house. We might not stop them reoffending, but we sure can make it harder for them and make it more likely they'll be stopped before they can inflict serious damage.

But even that's not it. The real question is this: is there a moral equivalence between convicted felons and innocent citizens, and should we be required to balance the interests of the two? To ask the question is to answer it - but not if your main interest is adolescent rebel posturing.

Libertarians: Liberals Against Tax

Also exposed by the Gary Glitter case: libertarians. We always knew they were just people who wanted to live in a liberal world, but without having to pay for it, and now no one can deny it.

Our friends in black have adopted the liberal position wholesale, even down to the snobbery. Hmmmmm.... apparently, the libertarian position is to trust the people, even though they're all morons.

More to the point, the libertarian position doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Unelected agents of the state have pronounced on Mr Gadd's case, and so the rest of us should just shut up? Huh?

Never mind libertarian principles, when did we stop being a democracy?

Even arguments about slippery slopes don't cut it. Harassing perverts who prey on young children is pretty much the definition of what the state should be doing. On the contrary, it is the people arguing that the state should declare itself neutral between degenerate felons and innocent citizens who seek to establish a new - and absurd - principle.

If you're going to insist that paedophiles have the same rights as everyone else, then you're arguing that everyone should be treated as though they were a paedophile. Once you claim there's no meaningful distinction to be drawn between the average citizen and degenerate filth, then you're faced with either letting maniacs run free or clamping down on the rights of the non-depraved. Doubtless, there will always be folks in government keen to push Option 2, but I'm not sure why libertarians would want to help them out.

In reality, no one really supports equal rights for vermin. Again, no one on the left is demanding that felons be given firearms licences - it's only the specific case of perverts that has these people claiming we're on the way to the Fourth Reich.

The liberal - and now libertarian - position is that a predator released from prison in the morning should be free to spend the afternoon reconnoitring the main routes to and from local schools, free of harassment, risk, interdiction or even minor inconvenience. It finds no support in any obvious concept of natural law.

Or take the Sex Offenders' Register. Here we have a list of all the active threats within a given area, but access is carefully restricted to agents of the state. Libertarian, how ?

This is the flip side of the supposed hysteria about paedophiles: the state really is conspiring to help perverts infiltrate unsuspecting communities - with entirely predictable consequences. It's easy to mock the 'nonce-spotters' who claim a father photographing his daughter in the park is an obvious pervert, but let's hear the flip-side of that. There really are perverts out there and, again, the right of felons to pass themselves off as ordinary citizens is not something that immediately follows from natural law, let alone cries out for government assistance.

Hell, if you're going to argue against welfare in general, surely your taxes going to help perverts set up shop elsewhere ought to be something of a sore point?

Monday, August 25, 2008

Liberals: Sick Or Evil?

Evan Sayet is bang on about the militant nihilism at the heart of modern liberalism. The only thing I'd add is that liberals also love the feeling of superiority they get from sneering at those bumpkins with their stupid 'morals'. Consider their latest baby seal: Gary Glitter.

Liberal elitism is plenty annoying at the best of times, but supporting child rape is a new low even for them. Needless to say, that's not quite how the left describes their position. The liberal butt monkeys are out in force - so called because of their habit of penning articles announcing that 'of course, we all agree that child rape is bad BUT....'.

Personally, I'm thinking 'of course, we all agree...' is the liberal equivalent of 'I'll be honest with you...'. Maybe the right should start using the same formulation for addressing issues we have no intention of doing anything about, as in 'Of course, we all agree arts funding is too low/class sizes are too big/social workers don't get enough respect'?

Actually, that's giving the left too much credit. It's not just that they don't want to turn up the heat on nonces, they objectively side with the paedophiles. Look at the proportion of liberals in the MSM (approximately 100%) who denounce anti-paedophilia activism as 'hysteria'. Really? What would be the correct reaction to child rape? Apathy? Ironic detachment? Warm applause? And if the abduction and subsequent sexual torture of a child doesn't raise any hackles on the left, what would? The assailant having a cigarette afterwards?

Incidentally, I'm thinking that if you're are intending to cast yourself as an iconoclast standing up to the mob, that probably requires more than spouting the self-same talking points as everyone else in the MSM. Just how much uniformity does it take for liberals to stop pretending to be Henry Fonda in 'Twelve Angry Men'?

Ditto, with the left's other moronic talking point, claiming the anti-paedophile effort is all a 'witch hunt'. Really? Wouldn't that characterisation be dependent on the hunters in question not continually capturing huge numbers of witches?

Hmmmm... you know, I'm thinking that if the liberal elite could denounce paedophiles with nearly as much passion as they denounce the folks who call for stronger action, the public might actually start to have some confidence in their commitment to dealing with the threat. Instead, we get what we always when liberals confront evil: stupid hair-splitting and absurd PoMo "what do you mean by 'evil' ?" arguments. Consider that the lefty blogosphere has hailed this piece of dreck as a modern day Gettysburg Address - only better!

Sarler's retarded point is that we can't take any action against paedophiles without deciding whether they're evil or mad (also, we can't read with the light on until we solve that whole wave/particle duality thing).

Well, no room for misquote there anyway. Never mind the need to protect the innocent it's all about the perp. Meanwhile, sane people answer the question like this: who cares? Whether bad, mad or vessels of demonic entities, they're a threat and they need to be dealt with.

Speaking personally, I'll start to believe the illness made 'em do it just as soon as someone can show me a case where these crimes were committed in sight of a uniformed police officer. Until then, it seems like they can resist their impulses just fine when they need to.

Sarler's argument would set new levels for stupidity, except that the rest is is even worse. She claims to be shocked - shocked! - at the revelation that predators can face other punishments in addition to jail time. Wait until she founds out this is only the tip of the iceberg - take drunk drivers losing their licence or fraudsters being disbarred from company directorships, for example. For that matter, would Sarler claim wife beaters denied shotgun licences are also victims?

All of which neatly answers Sarler's other asinine point. Sarler tries that most trite of liberal charges: it's all about the hypocrisy! Why, asks our learning-impaired elitist, are people enraged by paedophilia but not crimes of violence? Well, coming back at you libs! Why aren't liberals penning long articles calling for more understanding of tax evaders, firearms offenders or folks accused of hate speech?

Paedophilia is a live topic because this is where the left has decided to concentrate its latest efforts on defining deviancy down. If the liberal elite spent its time taking out onions for violent sociopaths, then there would be 'hysteria' (also known as 'public outrage') over that too. As it is, they don't, so there isn't.

That's the thing. However leftists try and hide it, it's quite obvious that they just don't think paedophilia is that bad. This is why they denounce critics as hysterical, while degenerate filth gets hailed as artistic genius. True, they can't yet get the age of consent actually wiped off the statute books, but they can give the law the death of a thousand cuts.

The only problem is the one the liberal agenda always faces: public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the lumpy, dumpy citizenry isn't yet onboard with our sofiticayted friends and their attempts to rebrand child rape as just another 'alternative lifestyle'. In fact, so frustrated has the left been by the failure of attempts to mainstream the sexual exploitation of children, they're starting to sound kind of... what's the word? Ah yes, hysterical.

As a rule, the more over-heated liberal rhetoric, the more ludicrous their arguments. In this case, the near-lunatic ranting can't hide the sheer weirdness of their position. The right's position is simple enough: every predator who ever lived isn't worth the life of a single innocent child, but what's with liberals? How did the folks who keep jibber-jabbering about standing up for the weak and the vulnerable end up proposing policies that objectively help sexual predators, and in particular, demanding that captured perverts should face nothing more serious than a brief term of none too uncomfortable imprisonment alongside fellow enthusiasts, after which they should be permitted to return to their vocation with the tacit support of the left?

As Sayet would sayet, there is no objective criteria by which you can place the rights of a pervert over those of his victim, yet that is what the left is doing. Never mind the predators, what's with liberals? Sick or evil ?

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

The Victimhood Is Weak In This One

Victimhood poker in the Five-oh? You betcha!

JuliaM administers a righteous kicking, so I've only got one thing to add. Let's just check the scorecard here: airport screeners are forced to screen 88 year old grandmothers, paraplegics and toddlers, lest they be accused of profiling, but it's OK for PC Plod to pick up a black dude on the grounds that he's driving a blue car. Hey, how many blue cars can there be out there?

But no: women don't lie about rape, so I guess this must all be another Right-Wing Myth.

Nazis, Nazis Everywhere!

You'll miss this type of quality reporting when the BBC is gone! As a matter of interest, does anything out there not remind them of Nazis? Well, apart from a totalitarian cult that wants to take over the world and exterminate the Jews - that's just pure coincidence.

But let's not let the superficial idiocy hide the deeper stupid. A shocking BBC report finds pedigree dogs are frequently unhealthy? Who knew? Well, apart from everyone, obviously.

Yes, a narrow gene pool can lead to weird mutations spreading through the general population, but this is GCSE science. Ditto, breed standards are frequently weird and unnatural. Take the slopping back of the German Sheperd - or rather don't, it should be straight, and the quest for bent back dogs has lead to endemic hip problems in the breed. Both issues - and does the BBC even know the difference between the two - are well known.

But even that's not it. What's the BBC accusing dog breeders of? They only select from a tiny pool and insist on criteria that totally screw up the ability to perform even basic functions? Hmmmmm... I believe the phrase that pays is something about 'motes and beams'.

They Weren't Sensitive This Time

Another day, and another plot by those sinister Men Of No Appearance. But wait... I see a possible clue further down:
Ch Supt Andy Rhodes, of Lancashire Police, said: "These arrests and subsequent searches of the nearby premises will be conducted with sensitivity and carried out as quickly as possible to ensure minimum impact on the three areas concerned.
Say, you don't think...

But don't accuse the police of pandering to ethnic minorities. Nope, it's only certain - riot prone - minorities that get Chief Super Sensitive stopping by. Other minorities get this.

Yes, I'm sure suicide is an extreme reaction, but that's the thing - the police's carpet bombing approach makes it inevitable that vulnerable people like this will be caught up in one of their muscle-flexing exercises in low-level thuggery. Bottom line: if the victim had topped himself shortly after being beaten senseless by freelance thugs, no one would blink at connecting these two events, so why the reluctance now?

Yes, the police have to investigate complaints - even ones made by loonies - except they clearly didn't actually do any investigating here. There was never the slightest evidence against the victim, excepting the testimony of a known nutcase, but that was enough for these thugs to destroy a man's life.

Incidentally, even if you're an uber-authoritarian this should still worry you. These people are paid to prevent and detect crime, yet it now turns out that they're really spending their time giving random Chinese guys a hard time. Forget the specifics, these guys were given public money to do a job, but instead they were busy dealing with bogus make-work. How exactly is this different from dodgy builders who knock on the door to tell 80 year olds they've got some slates missing?

Back in the day, this would have been the point where I'd have written 2000 words on how the obsession with harassment of the innocent was both the perfect mirror-image of the left's belief that actual criminals were just citizens exploring an alternative lifestyle, and the natural result of their goal of decoupling the law from morality, in favour of law as the arbitrary exercise of state power. But that was then, and this is now, so instead I'll leave it to Ayn:
It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men's spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear.

We Are Winning

Who'd have thunk it? A bare plurality of the public support the BBC. Hmmmm... do you think the same Beeboids who sneer at the massive margins for the death penalty and against the EU constitution will suddenly embrace the concept of majority rule after all? At least until their support finally drops below 50% anyway (which on current trends will be next Tuesday)?

No subject shows BBC bias like the BBC itself. Here we have almost half the country opposed to the idea taking money off poor people to give to Metropolitan lovies, but you wouldn't know it if you only watched the BBC. On the contrary, not only does the BBC treat its opponents as Unpersons, it regularly airs long promos publicising its own brilliance in terms that would make Kim Jong-Il blush.

Add in backing vocals from the left's choir insensible and never in history has there been such a wall of noise in support of a bad idea, but they're still losing.

Also losers: our potemkin conservative party. Under the divinely inspired leadership of the Ayatollah Khameron, the Tories haven't just refused to attack the BBC, they've even started stroking it. Opponents of the BBC have found themselves shunned by the conservative establishment, but it's the Tories that have been left on the kerb. While Official Conservatives were arguing that you had to go along to get along, grass roots activists were cutting the ground out from under the BBC.

Equally important, the campaign against the BBC was, and is, a virtual anti-matter version of Khameronism: instead of smug elitists issuing forth carefully-tailored messages aimed at C1 football fans who eat pizza, the BBC's getting battered by ordinary folks who's main source of evidence is the BBC's own reporting, and main tactic is simply fact-checking that appalling rubbish.

There's nothing sophisticated about the campaign against the BBC, and doubtless the BBC would claim the folks involved aren't nearly as exciting as Shami and the rest of their activist pals - in fact, all things considered, there's only one positive thing you can say about the anti-BBC folks: they're winning!

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Social Conservatism In A Nutshell

It all comes down to this:
There are saints, there are people who know that there are saints, and there are people who don’t know. One should aspire to rise at least to the middle condition.

Certifiably Liberal

To adopt a Coulterism, the dividing line in politics is no longer between right and left, so much as between sane and crazy.

Today's 'Trust Me, I'm A Doctor' Story

Ooops - forgot to check: are we allowed to mention this without being accused of hating doctors?

Hey, You Know What Schools Need More Of? Feminism!

Why, yes, that idea does come from a wacademic, how'd you guess?

Of course there is one rather large problem with the theory that schools aren't drinking enough of the femiloon kool aid:
Dr Ringrose said most schools see gender equality in terms of exam results, where girls now outshine boys in most subjects.
Well, quite. In so far as the best objective data of school performance indicates that it's boys who are getting the shaft, this would tend to blow Little Miss Victim's thesis clean out of the water. But no - La Ringrose has an agenda to push and she sure as hell isn't going to waste time arguing about 'facts'
She called for teachers to discuss feminism and suggest positive role models, who could include figures such as Virginia Woolf, suffragettes' leader Emmeline Pankhurst and even the cartoon character Lisa Simpson.
Well, I'm all in favour of telling kids the inspiring story of how a socialist weasel recovered and blossomed into a fanatically pro-war social conservative, but I'm not sure about the other two, what with one being a loony who topped herself and the other being a FICTIONAL CHARACTER.

Gosh, it's a real mystery why feminism is being laughed out of the public square!

Teenage chicks may not be, like, totally smart but even they can recognise a bunch of losers when they see them. After all, Paris Hilton may be the definitive example of a celebutard, but at least she's more fun than Ringnose and the rest of the freaks babbling on about how Virgina Woolf drowning herself really stuck it to The Man.

That's the real knock on feminism. Sure, amongst other things there's the irrationality, the deranged hatred of men and children, the immaturity and the obsession with victimhood, but the real problem with feminism is the problem with liberalism in general: it's just so brain-grindingly miserable.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Victory In Iraq!

Yep, guess the fighting must be over.

It's not clambering for position over the bodies of better men, it's moral authority, right?

Liberal Jounos Mugged By Reality Chinese

Hey libs, how equal are all cultures looking right about now?

Hoplophobes In Hell

OK, now can we say these people are crazy?

Thursday, August 14, 2008


On the subject of movies, this is equally true in Britain:
This is exactly where you and every other supporter of Canadian arts and film blows their argument. These are - not - our stories. Our stories as a nation would never be funded. If they were our stories people would see them. That's how that works.

No, these are the stories of a fringe group of largely well-off white, liberal elites in the Toronto, Vancouver arts scene. That is why they are terrified about losing funding...because then they would have to tell our stories which is exactly what they do - not - want to do.

But What Is The Artist Trying To Say?

I think Dirty Harry does not approve of the 'Tropic Thunder' protest, but who can tell?

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Neo-Prohibitionists Vs Femiloons

Yep, the two most humourless bunch of lemon suckers in modern Britain are facing off.

Don't be too hacked off though - the mistake was made 'in good faith'. That's OK then. If they'd told a naughty joke about Sir Elton, they'd be gone, but slandering the victims of serious sexual assault is just part of the rough and tumble of modern politics. Ditto, this insane policy may have been revoked where sexual offences are concerned, but rest assured that if a man is kicked senseless on his way home after a lager shandy, that too will turn out to be a contributing factor.


The government's decision to send outreach workers from the Minstry of Strength Through Joy nurses out to harass people guilty of Category 5 Fat Crimes gets even weirder.

Yep, unannounced visits. So PC Plod has to check with 'comunnidee leaders' before taking down Bin Laden's hideout, but having Frau Flick of the Health Gestapo suddenly hammering on some fatties' door is just ducky. Priorities!

This Isn't The Diversity You're Looking For

The People's Party strikes again!

Two things occur to me about this. The quid pro quo for working for nothing is that the kids will be getting the first foot on the ladder to becoming MPs - or, to put it another way and diversity! blather to the contrary, Labour has given up on hiring real people as MPs, in favour of recruiting obsessed wonks who've never held down an actual job.

The other thing is this: successful candidates will be expected to work for nothing in the most expensive city in the known universe. I guess no working class Northerners need apply?

Back When Adults Ran Foreign Policy

For an example of how transnational lunacy has stripped us of the ability to confront evil, consider how pop history deals with the US decision to nuke Nintendoland totally for no reason at all.

Georgia In Flames, Transnationalism In Ruins

The great thing about calling your blog 'House of Dumb' is that you don't feel under any pressure to feign knowledge. I don't mind being the only blogger in the UK who admits he has no idea what's going on in the former USSR. Either the barbarians are clawing at the door of western civilisation once again, or a great nation has found a leader who puts bonds of blood and honour over the self-serving rationalisations and slippery legalese of the degenerates who make up the world's permanent ruling class.

Whatever this invasion reveals or doesn't reveal about the Motherland, it sure throws new light on modern liberalism. Consider the reaction of the alphabet soup NGO's - as neatly summarised here by PM - apparently, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't as Universal as you'd think. Either that, or condemning anyone outside the Anglosphere or Israel doesn't get the donations rolling in. Not since UNICEF produced an advert supposedly lamenting the suffering of children in war which featured jets raining down death on innocent villagers has the anti-American monomania of these people been so blatant.

Then there's Europe. As the true extent of Russian thuggery sinks in, an outraged continent has risen as one and shouted 'The US should do something!'. Not that the EU is afraid to spend money on big defence projects. After all, they are spending a bundle on the Galileo satellites which will duplicate America's GPS system. So soon you'll be able to drive to Uncle Mike's without being exposed to US mind control transmissions but the whole EU doesn't have a single armoured division to put between the Russian border and Kiev.

In fact, from a study of EU strategy and the order of battle for the European Rapid Reaction Force, Eurocorps und so weiter, it looks like the only scenario in which these forces can and would fight is a Martian invasion of Bruges - and even then the Belgians wouldn't turn up.

Don't be shocked, but it looks like having 'soft power' is the same as being 'differently rich'. But that's not even the half of it. The decayed state of Europe's defences is just a symptom of a more general malaise. After all, why spend money of arms when the will to use them is absent anyway?

The EU is the latter day equivalent of Victorian aristocrats getting together to pass resolutions announcing that only the profits made from land count as proper money. It is denial as foreign policy. Do these people really think being excluded from the group photograph at summits will deter Putin? Or, as the most notorious Georgian of them all would have said, how many divisions does international law have?

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Rightists Publish Stuff, Liberals Outraged!

In so far as leftists always claim to be devill may care rebels and iconocalsts speaking truth to power! in the face of the Evil Right-Wing Oppresion, it's always illuminating to see their hysterical reaction to actual right-wing thought.

This one from the Indie is a classic of the genre. They're shocked - shocked! - by the thought that there are people out there campaigning for lower taxes. Who knew? Not our tolerant friends, that's for sure. They keep trying to cast the TPA's activities in sinister terms, but can't help but come off as kind of, well, lame actually. As I read it the charge sheet is as follows:
  1. The TPA does research
  2. It then publicises it
What warped genius could have come up with such a plan? Well, off the top of my head: Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Greenpeace and NACRO., all of whom have used the self-same tactics - and with far less scrutiny. Of course, the TPA has never allied itself for murderous savages, so I guess it's not the same after all.

...Except No One In Britain Ever Died From Nuclear Waste

It occurs to me that if environmental law worked like criminal law, you'd be able to dump nuclear waste in the middle of a city, provided you agreed to stop by and check up on it once every fortnight.

The BBC Goes Feral

As I understand it, even 24 hour coverage on all channels isn't forcing enough people to watch the BBC's Olympic coverage. As a result, they've decided to escalate: from tomorrow they're sending out teams to break into people's homes and duct tape them to a chair in front of the TV. It's the only way they can justify the budget for sending 18 000 people to Beijing.

Don't Blame Me!

Yes, indeed: truly that Gove speech is the gift that keeps on giving. Still, for all that I've enjoyed seeing one of our betters out himself as a total retard, there's a lingering sense of unease here. Just why is everyone blaming it all on social conservatives?

If the argument is that Gove's speech was an example of the Cameroonies reaching out to social conservatives, all it proves is how utterly divorced these people are from what socio-cons are actually saying. On the contrary, Gove's attack on Nuts and the like, based as it was on one part femilunacy to one part snobbery, is exactly the sort of chattering class fan service the Cameroonatics have made their own.

Friday, August 08, 2008

You Think That's Big?

You should see the size of the solar panel it takes to power it!

I believe the phrase that pays is 'Maybe I'll believe it when they start acting like they do'.


Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show is running what it calls its alternative Olympic coverage. Meaning what? Interviews with druggie sleaze Dwaine Chambers, then with 'China enthusiast'.... George Galloway.

It's an interesting philosophical point which is worse: the BBC's obsession with promoting that scumbag or Galloway's own determination to ally himself with every anti-Western force on the planet, no matter how evil.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Kill Da Pigs

As a rule of thumb, I'm thinking that if someone's claiming it's the sight of shields and helmets that drives people to indulge in riotous insanity, they may not be moderates after all.

How does that work anyway? Are cops rampaging round threatening to throw their helmets at peace-loving ecoloons? How do you intimidate someone with protective clothing? And does Mad Bob freak out when he sees doctors wearing white coats? Admittedly, he's probably well used to that by now.

It's not even as if there's not already evidence of mayhem being planned. Actually, that's the bit that sticks in the throat. You just know that in almost any other context Bob Marxist-Andrews would be taking out an onion for those poor workers denied proper protection by the eviiiil bosses.

MONA Minor

Are MSM journalists completely lacking in self-awareness? Let's just consider that sub-genre of writing where a hackette writes a hand-wringy article about whether or not citizens should tackle yobs, even while she herself hides behind wheenie euphemisms like 'kids'. Who knew the Men Of No Appearance had a youth wing?

To the point: folks tackling 'youths' are risking being stabbed to death. All these girls are risking is whiny criticism by the usual suspects. Isn't it time these bints 'took a stand'?

Outrage D'Jour: Now With Extra Dhimmitude

The moronic convergence continues! Further evidence that all the bad things in the world are converging in one big stupid: Europe, Islamofasicsm and the lawless courts all in one big ball of stupid! It's the hatrick of badness.

Another One Bites The Dust

You know it sure is lucky that The Dave purged the candidate lists and imposed his own set of Dave's Drones - otherwise something embarrassing might have happened.

This is why it matters: no Tory leader in history has exercised such control over the choice of candidates. Equally, the purge was a key example of Cameroonacy in action. Long-serving conservatives with local roots were replaced with Nu Tory robots. The whole process was a defining moment in Cameroonacy. The obsession with centralisation, control freakery, contempt for traditional values and local communities, and also for the role of MPs as anything other than avatars of diversity, are all examples of Cameroonacy in action.

As more and more examples of lunacy emerge amongst The Dave's New Elite we're entitled to wonder what it all says about both Cameron's judgement and his underlying ideology.

Monday, August 04, 2008

Even More On What Social Workers 'Actually Do'

Now that we've got to put up with all that liberal triumphalism over the release of convicted sexual predator Barry George, it's worth reminding ourselves just how things work under the left's preferred model of tribunal.

Or rather don't: the average leftist would rather have a shower than let the public know just how they operate:
Secondly, there were often additional reporting restrictions. Some of these were sought by local authorities as soon as I called them to try to get their sides of the stories. Some of these orders were so badly drafted that our lawyers simply could not tell what we could say. Some bore no relation to the draft that we had been sent before the hearing. It costs money to fight such orders, money that local media may not have and nationals are reluctant to commit.
Then again, these guys really do have something to hide. Sample quote:
As soon as a care order is made, the local authority controls all communications between parents and children. In many cases contact is gradually reduced, sometimes from a few hours a week to an hour or so a month, at which point social workers can return to court and claim that the child no longer has a strong bond with his family.
This is a key point: it's not about anything as benign as bad judgement, poor management or the like - these tactics are so twisted and sick that anyone who uses them simply should not be employed in the first place.

Or consider the quote JulieM highlights. Again, there's no possible defence for either the sadism or the social engineering.

Ditto, it is a simple fact that these courts are protected from public scrutiny. Not even Rumpole of the Bailey could argue his way round that. As Camilla Cavendish rightly points out, the media is able to respect the anonymity of rape victims without a blanket reporting ban. This isn't a complex issue: you're either happy with secret courts or you're not.

To the point: while feral leftists claim that recent events in the real courts prove.... something, the self-same folks are perfectly happy with courts that violate just about every principle of justice. It's the perfect barometer of how seriously to take their rantings about Barry George.

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Work Hard

Guys like this are depending on you.

The Libs' New Baby Seal

Don't be shocked, but it turns out that Barry George is a violent sexual predator.

Who'd have thunk it, hey?

Needless to say, this doesn't necessarily make him a murderer, but it does kind of cut the ground from under the left's point that anyone - maiden aunts, small children, pet cats - can find themselves fitted up by the filth. Ditto, it's always interesting to see how fast the femiloons can ditch their alleged principles when they conflict with the tactical needs of the moment. Maybe they need a new slogan: zero tolerance for violence against liberalism?

At least liberals are taking this revelation with their usual charm, good humour and originality. Highlights from the comments thread of that article:
Is she sniffing the compo.

- will smith, Rochester England, 2/8/2008 14:08

Why didn't she report it earlier.Coming out the woodwork now so she can have a bit of compensation from him.Ka ching!

- Mark, Wigan, 2/8/2008 15:41

It funny how she is so traumatised now there is the chance to make some money.

- Afro Lady, wolverhampton, 2/8/2008 17:08

So now they come crawling out the woodwork at the mention of compensation.....

- Jo, Paignton, 2/8/2008 16:08
And thus was ended the debate over whether or not liberals were talking point spewing zombies.

But let's not overstate the case. Liberals aren't just morons endlessly parroting the same asinine lines. They're also liars:
Fancy that, man in line for a big pay out is a rapist 25 years ago, why did'nt she come forward years ago instead of now

- Paul Downey, Liverpool, 2/8/2008 15:45

If Mr George is in line for compensation watch out for hordes of traumatised women to come out of the woodwork with lurid tales of how the scheming oddball ruined there lives. Nothing can make up for what they went through - apart from large sums of money that would help bring closure (and early retirement).

- Chubbarow, Nottingham, England, 2/8/2008 16:48

Where's the proof of these allegations?

- N Brown, UK, 2/8/2008 15:53

Marvellous now the poor man's been accused of rape, its got to do with going for compensation-if you were raped wouldn't you have reported it when the incident happened not wait 8 years, Ms Gray wants a chunk of his compensation no doubt.

- Dee, Hampshire, England, 2/8/2008 16:28
Yep, I guess even liberals can see that defending a self-confessed rapist might be a tough sell. Of course, if they had any integrity at all they'd admit he'd already been tried and convicted for the rape, but then again, if they had any integrity they wouldn't be liberals. As it is, we get this:
Just as I expected. As soon as he is acquitted, the newspapers dig up all the dirt they can to attempt to justify his wrongful conviction. Whatever else he did he did not kill Dando and that is the relevant point.

- James Danvers, London, 2/8/2008 16:27

"He was very strong but it was all pretty pathetic..".
This sounds very suspicious to me. I suppose all the dirt that the police can dig will now be offered to the newspapers who will use it with avidity.

- D James, Lancashire, UK, 2/8/2008 16:33
'Digging up dirt' = making public information that's embarrassing to the left.

Meanwhile, here's the dark side of the left's worship of victimhood:
Was he arrested and convicted of an offence ? She seems to have gotten over her shock and trauma sufficiently to speak to the newspapers !!

- John Williamson, Birmingham, England, 2/8/2008 16:54
Yes, the fact a victim of a serious sexual assault has put her life back together over the following quarter of a century means she's clearly wasn't raped.

Hello? Just for the sake of clarity, could the left define how victims of rape are supposed to behave? Alcoholism? Suicide attempts? Just what do they need to qualify as genuine victims?

Oh yeah..... don't get in the way of liberal talking points.

I think this case gives us the right metric to judge femiloon charges that the right doesn't take rape seriously enough.

But the winner of best in show is this one, with my comments in square brackets:
Why can't they leave the poor man alone [a 'poor' convicted rapist]. He's suffered enough [two and a half years for a serious sexual assault?]. Now it looks like all sorts of women will be jumping on the bandwagon saying he did this or that [and it looks like the courts agree: he did do it!]. They are just after some fame and money. [or possibly they're just sickened by liberals presenting a dangerous pervert as some kind of victim]

- Steve, Worcester, England, 2/8/2008 15:35
And there you have it. Liberalism in a nutshell: a rape victim is unfairly persecuting her attacker by publicly calling him what he is.

Chicks, hey?

All this hate comes down to one thing: the victim has got in the way of the canonisation of Barry George. Liberals love cases like this because it gives them a bloody shirt to wave when the subject of crime and punishment comes up, and capital punishment in particular. This is why liberal activists will spend years insisting on endless appeals and retrials until they can get the baby seal d'jour off the hook.

Even most liberals wouldn't normally attack a rape victim, but hey, if she didn't want to get slimed, she shouldn't have got in the way, right?

Friday, August 01, 2008

Outrage D'Jour: Special Open Borders Uber Alles Edition

The courts have backheeled the rules on bogus marriages. That was depressingly predictable, but the logic on show is a classic of the 'constitution as an ink blot' genre:
Baroness Hale said: "Denying those benefits to a couple whose relationship is genuine is neither a rational nor a proportionate response to the legitimate aims of a firm and fair immigration policy."
Let's ignore the sleazy sleight of hand - the whole point is that these relationships are not genuine - and consider the sheer brass neck of Hale's comments.

Hale is not resolving an ambiguity, filling in a gap in the law or interpreting statute. Her own justification makes it clear that she's not ruling on legal grounds, she's ruling on whether or not she think the existing policy is - to use her own words - proportionate or rational - an overtly political decision. She might have some worthwhile views on this, but there's no reason to privilege her views over any other citizens just because she has a good technical knowledge of the law, rather than, say, aviation, insurance or gas fitting.

To the point: Hale claims her legal status gives her the right to overrule a democratically-elected government, yet the self-same law makes clear that her position is a constitutional abomination.

It gets worse:
She said the right to marry was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Except no one is arguing against the right to marry. It's the right to marry then get an automatic 'access all areas' pass that's the problem.

But here's the real insight into modern liberalism:
"My Lords, this scheme is an arbitrary and unjust interference with the right to marry," she said.
Arbitrary? The distinction between citizens and non-citizens is anything but arbitrary. It's central to the whole point of having a country. You might as well argue for a right to joyride since 'ownership' is such a vague concept.

Forget the specifics of the case: Hale's position is a clear as day endorsement of the whole open borders position. In fact, she's so committed, she's even ditched her trademark femilunacy. Compare her current position...
"Even in these days, when many in British society believe that there is little social difference between marrying and living together, marriage still has deep significance for many people, quite apart from the legal recognition, status, rights and obligations which it brings."
...with her original one:
This is exactly what Dame Brenda was doing when in 1980 she made her now infamous remark about marriage. ‘Family law’, she wrote, ‘ no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage…Logically, we have already reached a point at which…we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.’
All of which exposes the other piece of humbuggery here. Hale and the rest of the open borders advocates argue that the whole 'nationality' is so over, so last year, but what other issue could cause a howling mad femiloon to ditch her principles like a red hot porcupine? The lengths to which the left will go to try and destroy ideals like citizenship and patriotism in and off itself is proof that these concepts still have power and relevance even after forty years of culture war.