Thursday, September 29, 2005
Hey, at least we won't have have to put up with these people whining about agesim anymore. I'm sure the stewards would gladly have put out any twenty-something idiots, but unfortunatly only the geriatric version was available. It would be interesting to hear what the critics think should've been done with this low-life. The Left is expert in playing the victim card, but what exactly does it mean ? Here we had an individual disrupting an event held on private property, so he got ejected. And the problem is ? This is why we've been told his age approximatly 64 000 times - the Left would rather you didn't consider the basic absurdity of his claims to victimhood, let alone the essentially thuggish nature of the ideology he was promoting. For the moment though, it's tempting to ask just how old you have to be to win the right to disrupt events with impunity ? Does it come at 65 like a bus pass ? How about 75, like the free TV licence ? Hmmm.....
As sickening as it has been to hear the Left taking out onions over the fact the disruptive imbecile is really old, it's still not as stupid as their second argument. This is the idea that Wolfgang is somehow a martyr to free speech. Huh ? Wasn't that what he was trying to stop Jack Straw doing ? Disrupting a speech to advance the cause of free speech surely comes under the umbrella of 'screwing for viginity'. Lefty activist maroons like Wolfgang are experts in this kind of thing, disrupting events then trying to cast themselves as victims of a brutal crushing of dissent if the organisers don't immediatly roll over and cancel the whole thing. Any Conservatives tempted to encourage them should recall that this is exactly how the Left manage to impose its reign of terror on campus.
Fortuntalty, even some BBC fanboys can apparently distinguish between the right of a private body to set its own rules, and the use of the power of the State to harrass opponents. This case is very worrying but not because - in an 'only Nixon could go to China' way - we've finally an organisation ready to stand up to intimidation by hard-left activists.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
As marketing strategies go, this is a weird one. Tips on electability from folks who didn't get elected ? How does that work ? Thing is though, that - don't be shocked - it turns out that Jabba's campaign has been a little weaselly in its definition of a target seat. Who'd have thunk it ? But if the loveable one is lying through his teeth about something so trivial and so easily disproveable, why exactly would anyone believe him when it comes to something more significant ?
Mind you, the Filth's justification for going after the girl in question, namely to avoid offended female septuagenarians, does make a kind of sense. The Nearly-Dead can be nasty when riled - after all, the Police are apparently on the trail of a gang of octagenarian terrorists. At least, that would be the obvious explanation for why a geriatric chav was arrested under anti-terrorist legislation at the Labour conference. Personally, I hate these people who claim to be defending democracy by trying to stop their opponents speaking, but terrorism ?
See, that's what's really wrong with what Nu Labour. Right about now, our country is wide open to terrorist attack. There are any number of changes to the legal system that could help defend Britain, but you just know that it's a pound to a penny that any new laws will be used to persecute folks who moon at Nu Lab - usually while a truck bomb rolls past in the other direction. As ever, serious issues are neglected in favour of the vindictive pursuit of political opponents. This is perhaps the defining characteristic of Nu Labour, the crazed desire for ever more powerful means for ever more feeble ends. Even with the world in flames, Liberals can only get interested if they can use it as an excuse to nobble opponents.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
But if there's one single thing the Conservative Party's needed for, it's as an antidote to that loss of confidence. The Tories should be the vote of confidence: they should speak, unashamedly, for an optimistic Britain at ease with its past, with its culture, with its unequalled contribution to the modern world.
They should argue that what's in desperate need of "modernisation" are defeatist 1970s theories about the inevitability of European integration, the moral superiority of transnational institutions, and the mostly harmful state usurpation of the family.
Of course, the one area where the Left has succeeded magnificently has been in the accumulation of power, but what’s it all for ? Tony Blair has had three landslides in a row, all the time claiming to want to push through an agenda of public sector reform, but where is it ? And, no, throwing money at something doesn’t count as reform. Consider the question of education: we have school vouchers, while the Left’s idea of a bold reform is electronic registers. Remind me again who’s mired in nostalgia ?
The Left’s ideological exhaustion means they can offer Britain nothing more than an absurd mixture of authoritarianism and anti-establishment rhetoric. All they’re really sure about is that the Right is evil. Really evil. Evil like you wouldn’t believe. It’s all they have left.
That’s what’s really wrong with Clarke. To accept the meme that Clarke has some great appeal to the public is to implicitly accept the Left’s charge that Conservatives are, by definition, evil so that only a man who everyone knows is not really a Conservative can get elected. It’s no surprise that Clarke opposed the Iraq war – in foreign policy as in domestic policy, this is a man who worships the idea of stability. Just like Tony Blair’s never-quite-started public sector reform, Clarke offers everything the same as now, but slightly different. Clarke would cast away the greatest advantage of Conservatism – that it works – in favour of…well, nothing. If the public wants a Big Government party, they’ll vote Labour, but a Clarke-led party could offer nothing else: no vision, no ideas, no beliefs. Clarke’s whole philosophy is merely to follow Labour around hoping both that they’ll self-destruct and that when it does the public will turn to him out of sheer exasperation. Conservatives should aim higher.
Down in the comments, moriarty reminds us that it's somewhat unlikely that anyone could be in the BNP in the 1960s - it wasn't formed until 1982.
It's those multiple layers of factchecking which make the MSM what it is, you know.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Right now, these killers could have moved into a house next to a playground. They could be babysitting for the next door neighbour. They could be involved with a single mother with young kids. No one would know. The local communites haven't been warned. If Vodaphone wanted to put up a mast, they'd have to apply for planning permission, but the Government will drop a scumbag onto a housing estate filled with young kids and demand that the public not be informed. And if this secrecy allows them to kill again, will anyone be accountable ? What do you think ?
This is the essential psychosis of the modern Left. Their nihlism causes them to embrace literally anyone who opposes the mores of civilised society. I guess that once you've spent time carrying water for Saddam and Osama, some guy who only did the one murder is practically a saint.
The latest example of this unlovely species is to be found here, and what a prize specimen it is. Even the headline is snortworthy -‘Young Muslims confront key issues’. Huh ? Little evidence of confrontation is obvious in this article. Take the opening lines:
What is it like to be a young British Muslim?
How do you achieve greater integration in the climate of suspicion and fear after both 9/11 and the London bombings?
These were the questions at the heart of a pioneering conference in Leicester this week attended by over 100 Muslim sixth formers and college students, aged 16 to 19.
Incongruously, they met at the Walkers Stadium, the home of Leicester City Football Club.
Welcoming them, the chief executive of the club asked how many of them were football fans. Only a small minority indicated they were.
Hardly any had been to a match at the ground, even though they all came from fairly nearby, either Leicester itself, Coventry or Birmingham.
This was a sharp reminder of the cultural divide that can exist.
No, wait, that doesn’t happen...In fact, it’s not obvious what Mike Barker thinks does happen. This is the very essence of dhimmitude, the reflex belief that whatever the details, it’s the Infidels that are at fault for not prostrating themselves sufficiently
Of course, you could put it another way, and say that this is a perfect microcosm of the relationship between Islam and the rest of the world. They’ll use the facilities when it suits them, but when it comes to putting something back…forget it, Kufr! These people feel absolutely no sense of loyalty to anyone outside the Ummah. For further proof of that consider this later on:
Yet the raw energy of the discussion was not about the bombers but - perhaps surprisingly in this context - about the media.
No-one quite blamed the media for the summer's terrorism (although some came close to it) but they were incensed at the way they felt Muslims had been portrayed since the London bombings
The consensus view was that there should be more restrictions on the freedom of the media.
The thing is though that even a BBC journalist can’t stop the crazy leaking out:
Not surprisingly, they found the "British Muslims" label rather unhelpful. They felt they each belonged to several cultures: youth culture, British-Asian, Pakistani, Indian.
Norman Tebbit's cricket test - whether people from ethnic minorities support the England team or players from their family's country of origin - would have meant little to them.
"Why do we need so many labels?" they asked.
The one thing they agreed on was that their religious identity was paramount. One summed it up this way: "You should always have Islam at the top of your list, then comes Pakistani, or British or whatever."
Like other young people, they were not always willing to do as their parents told them but their reasoning was different.
Generally they seemed to find their parents less devout than themselves. So "if your parents tell you to do something that is within Islam, you can do it, but if it is against Islam, you cannot".
Most encouraging of all was their desire to integrate with British society, to play a great role in public debate - providing they could retain their faith identity and follow the tenets of the Koran.
The BBC was facing a clash with the Metropolitan Police last night after refusing to hand over videotapes to prosecutors investigating two Muslim clerics suspected of inciting violence....See ? MSM jounos are smarter than us, after all. That's why they can see that journalistic independence is damaged when the BBC cooperates with an investigation into the folks who killed 52 of their fellow countrymen, but cooperation with an investigation of people using naughty words ? Why, that's just ducky!
But last night the BBC showed little sign it was prepared to give up the tapes without a fight. 'The Metropolitan Police has agreed to provide us with further information so we can consider its application properly,' said a spokeswoman for the programme.
She declined to comment further, but it is believed the broadcaster believes handing over the material could compromise its journalistic independence.
Reporter Jason Gwynne spent six months infiltrating the BNP's West Yorkshire branch with the help of a former local organiser.
West Yorkshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, in a joint statement on Friday, said officers were collecting tapes from the programme makers to review.
"The BBC programme (Secret Agent) broadcast last night raises a number of issues which warrant further investigation.
"Working with our colleagues in the Crown Prosecution Service we will be reviewing the material to identify what, if any, information of evidential value it contains and decide on the appropriate action."
Thursday, September 22, 2005
At this point, you're probably thinking what I'm thinking: do these people take lessons in whinging & squealing ? Funnily enough: yes. What no amount of training can change however is the basic contradiction in their complaints. When it suits them, they demand special treatment, like being able to build a gigantic
This is the thing to remember when dealing with Islam. I know some folks are flirting with ideas like banning the burqua and the like. Personally, I follow Abe Lincoln’s lead. Abe it was who said that the thing that kills a skunk is the publicity it attracts to itself. The Islamopaths will bang on all they want about Islam supposedly guaranteeing women’s rights, but then you have the burqua. So it is for all of Islam. Truly, this ideology is the very epitome of the line ‘to state it clearly is to refute it’.
That’s why the Islamopaths spend so long hammering even our most dhimmi media. Despite the best efforts of Liberal journalists, any even halfway factual account of Islam risks letting the cat out of the bag. It would be a mistake to use the force of law to deal with Islam. On the contrary, we simply need to fight those laws which allow the Islamopaths and their dhimmi fellow travelers to suppress debate.
Whazzat ? I hear a whining in the corner. Dod someone mention the ‘vast majority of law abiding Muslims’. You mean people who support the principle of murder, slavery, rape and conquest in the name of Islam, but don’t personally do it themselves ? Good for them! Hey, I’m sure there are plenty of people who joined the KKK just for the social life. So ? Guess what: it’s still fair to describe them as KKK members, it’s still fair to say what the KKK stand for and it’s still fair to treat them as people who support the ideals of the KKK.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
That's pretty much how I feel about MSM reporting on the Islamopaths. The MSM keeps presenting these soft-focus reports on Islam, but the Islamopaths can't resist the temptation to jump up and down on the sofa, shrieking loudly. The latest entry to this genre is here. The BBC tries hard, but every now and again we see a bouncing chimp out the corner of our eye.
We get emetic tales of how negative portrays of the Religion of Pieces has lowered Muslim morale - stop crying at the back - but then we get stuff like this:
In terms of students' willingness to inform the police of a planned terror attack - the survey showed that almost three-quarters would tell the police straight away.
Needless to say, the BBC tries to wrap that revelation in multitple layers of drivel, but the damage is done. Things are rarely clear-cut in life, but if your reaction to an acquaintance setting off for the no. 57 bus with an exploding backpack is anything other than to call the cops, then it's fair to say yes, you do support the terrorists.
The Treason Party has been loudly proclaiming its commitment to liberty, as evidenced by its decision to lie down in the road in front of the new anti-terror legislation. Not to say that – as proof of the stopped-clock hypothesis – the Lib Dems don’t have a point. The legislation aimed at outlawing the glorification of terror seems sufficiently loosely drafted to mean…well, almost anything. Giving this government that kind of wide-ranging power is like giving a teenage boy the keys to a Ferrari and telling him not to do anything stupid.
Needless to say, this is the sort of thing which a certain breed of Libertarians always like to throw in our face as an implied criticism of Conservatives. But what are we to make of the Treason Party’s other great policy announcement today ? While they quail at the thought of legislation restricting the right to talk about the wonders of Jihad, they positively salivate at the thought of clamping down on people talking about tasty burgers.
How does that work ? I’m pretty sure you can make a case that Islam also has serious effects on ‘behaviour and long-term health’. Maybe we need to ‘create a cultural shift’ away from self-explosion ?
Really, is that what the Lib Dems are saying ? That it should be legal to promote mass slaughter of civilians but not cheeseburgers ? Maybe Burqua King were just ahead of the curve ? Leaving aside the basic insanity, can they at least stop yapping about their commitment to liberty when they want to use the full power of the law to crush doughnut adverts ?
There was one moment of clarity though which explains better than Freud could what the Lib Dems are really about:
It's about changing behaviour and the tastes of children, because of advertising and the sort of food children are used to. Often when healthy food is brought into school, children don't like it.
That’s the link right there. Liberals are convinced that they should be running the world but they’ve been cruelly robbed of their birthright by big business, George W Bush, the VRWC... Suddenly, it all seems strangely familiar. True, the cast of characters may differ a little, but the script is the same. There’s the same sense of thwarted entitlement to power, the same frustration at the fact that the world is run by people who actually make stuff happen instead of their fellow fanatics. Is it any wonder the Left ended up in bed in with the Islamopaths ?
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
All the usual suspects are there. Yep, even the absurd Holland comparison. Here's how Webb justifies it though: "We all know parents with whom sex education just isn't going to happen". Yep - that's his excuse for another assault on the family: under the current system, parents can teach their kids a worldview Liberals disagree with. But here's a question for the Left: how do pregnancy rates compare between the children of those parents who teach traditional values, and those who teach the Liberal approved Nike philosophy ('just do it!'). Hmmmmmm.....
Holland's famously low rate of pregnancy may reflect their methods of sex education, but more likely it reflects the strength of traditional values. Ditto, if as Webb claims, provision of sex education is 'patchy' in Britain, then it should be easy to demonstrate a correlation between pregnancy rates and education. Right ?
For a clue to the real reason why our nation's sliding so inexorably into the sewer, check out this comment from Beverly Malone, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing: 'There's no way to have a public health system unless we are working on the lifestyle choices of young people.' Really, Bev ? How about if there lifestyle choice is to down a litre of vodka and drive the wrong way down the motorway ? Should we restrict ourselves merely to advising them to wear a seatbelt and paying generous disability benefits ? That's as good an analogy as any for our current policy.
The folks at Biased BBC do a fine job in detailing the various factual absurdities in BBC coverage, but there’s a wider issue here, away from the BBC’s purely (supposedly) factual programs. Much of the BBC’s output, even – perhaps especially – the non-political programs, reinforces that Liberal metacontext. Take this superb post by newish blogger Dangerouslysubversivedad in which he catches the BBC’s flagship drama blatantly pushing the Liberal agenda. This bias may not be as overt as in, say, the average report from Orla Goron, but it is far more insidious for being wrapped up as straight drama.
In fact, we have an example of that right this very night. Here’s the BBC’s idea of good TV:
Tue 20 Sep, 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60mins
A powerful and moving film looking at the continuing battle for justice in the aftermath of the October 1999 Ladbroke Grove rail disaster.
Sorry, where was I ? Ah yes:
Thirty one people were killed and numerous more families were torn apart by the crash when two trains collided on the same piece of track. Were these lives lost for the sake of profit? This dramatised reconstruction of real events reveals some shocking truths and poses questions that the rail industry, government and big business will find awkward to swallow.
Yada, yada, yada.
Anyway, you just know this is going to be wall-to-wall drivel about the evils of the profit motive – just as assuredly as you know the BBC will never make a drama about a case like this. Or for that matter this. That’s just this week, but I'm betting there will never be a drama that's a ‘testament to the strength and determination’ of an individual trying to find out why Liberals keep sending people out to commit murder. ‘Profits before people’ is OK, ‘Liberalism before lives’ ? What are you, some kind of right-wing nut ?
Zawahri, shown talking to someone off-screen, said the "blessed" London attacks were targeted at "the British Crusader's arrogance and against the American Crusader's aggression on the Islamic nation for 100 years".
Fortunately, we don’t have to depend upon what the enemy actually say – we have the MSM around to tell what they really meant to say. I’ll bet he meant to say something about Kyoto but he got distracted by ZioNazi mind control rays.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Actually, I think this is way too nice. Europe would always be an important issue, but in the Conservative Party it's also an important litmus test. When Jabbah describes holding referendums on important constitutional changes as a 'silly idea', he's telling us something vital about how he views the relationship between the citizen and the government. The EU is not seeking merely to replace the British government in many areas - it also seeks to impose a quite different form of government on Britain. Surely any soi-dissant Conservative must have some opinion on, say, the possiblitity of British citizens being extradicted to foreign lands for things that aren't actually crimes in Britain ?
Equally, the human Hindenburg's refusal to enage with issues like public sector reform reveals a deeper problem with Clarke. These are things which affect the lives of most of the country, yet Clarke resolutely refuses to bother with them. Indeed, there is something of Marie Antoinette in his apparent contempt for public concern with these issues.
In summary then, we are faced with a candidate who displays utter contempt for many of the everyday issues which affect the public, and has no great attachment to the basic principles of Conservatism - other than that he's perfect.
Meanwhile, the police force that covers smackhead-infested Colwyn Bay, amongst other hell holes, managed to spend a shed load of English money investigating comments made by an English women in England - they don't really get this devolution thing, do they ?
Then again, I'm having second thoughts about my second thoughts. Try not to be shocked but it turns out that Kenny-boy - he of the 'Northerners stealing our money' meme - has secretly cut a deal for the taxpayer to give him £1 billion to cover an shortfall for the Olympics that they've managed to run up even before the first brick has been laid. It makes you feel warmer about North Wales Police.
Hey, Guardian readers, can you think of any reason whatsoever why the accusers may not be totally credible ? One things for sure: if it was happening the other way round the accusers' criminal records would be public property, as would their school records, medical records and any embarassing anecdotes from bitter ex-girlfriends.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Of course, there’s the obvious argument of symmetry. After all, if Wales rates an assembly, and Scotland a Parliament, well, England must be due…well, something. But there’s more to it than that. The biggest driver of the English devolution movement isn’t anything in England, it’s the folks outside it. If Conservatives talked about Muslims the way the SNP talk about the English, Liberals would demand the death sentence. I recall an SNP election broadcast which revolved around a
England borders two nations where political discourse revolves around two things: claiming you hate the English more than the other parties, and spending English money. But that cuts both ways. Wales and Scotland are both locked into a nihilistic cultural death spiral – do we really want to join them ? Celtic nationalists rant about the English because they don’t have anything else – they keep banging away with the socialism, and it keeps failing, so clearly it must all be an English conspiracy. Meanwhile, there’s a furrow worn into the ground where anyone with any get up and go has got up and gone to England.
Of course, there are the constitutional absurdities, such as the West Lothian question, but an English Parliament is not the only possible answer. Do we really need more politicians ? Not forgetting the slime trail of lobbyists, lawyers and other vermin who cluster round such institutions. If nothing else, do we want to shell out to allow a load of pols to build their very own Palace of Versailles – pretty much the first acts following devolution in Wales and Scotland.
There’s the money. This really passes me by. We’re supposed to resent supporting Snowdonian hill farmers, but be perfectly happy to stump up for Kenny boy to have his Olympic Games ? How does that work ? After all, it’s not as if Livingstone exactly meets us halfway here. Here’s a guy who supports open borders – and the welfare bill that comes with it - yet constantly claims that Northerners are stealing London’s wealth. A-huh. Add in the crew at the Speccie yukking it up over Hillsborough, the Laura Spence case, where Oxbridge’s defence was to say basically ‘of course we don’t discriminate against Geordie apes’, and the approximately 8000 journalists who tut-tutted over the fact William Hague had – gasp! - a Yorkshire accent, and you start to wonder why exactly we’re meant to hate Charlotte Church.
What I’m trying to say is that I don’t get misty-eyed over England. I’d prefer to keep things as is, though perhaps with some changes to deal with the West Lothian question and the imbalance in finances, but I don’t see any case for devolution based on some mythical idea of England. If devolution is to occur it should respect the political realities and split England along the line of the Trent. After all, you don’t really expect Merseysiders to welcome moves to give BoJo more power over their lives, do you ?
It’s been a bad week for Auntie all round really. Despite all those sermons about the dangers of advertising, it turns out they don’t mind it after all. Of course, they do need these backhanders - they‘ve got to pay for a nice party for the Lib Dems. Maybe that should be the Beeb’s new slogan: because of the unique way the BBC is funded, we can afford to spend your money on feeding Lembit Optik.
Take this example of insanity. Racial audits ? Let us consider the basic lunacy of this: people wandering around the country checking the racial composition of various sites. How does that work exactly ? Surely you could make the same argument to stop a move from Ipswich to Bradford ? Uh...perhaps not. But wait: haven’t the sheepophiles elbowed their way up to the PC victimhood trough ? Yes, indeed. Clearly, then, this is a case of Cyrmuphobia.. Maybe the fact that any move anywhere can be challenged on these grounds means that any new government bodies are condemned to existence as a kind of ‘Flying Dutchman’ department, condemned to roam the country forever. It’ll be impossible to set up new departments, and Britain will be saved.
There is an interesting revelation for students of the PC ladder of victimhood though.
Many of the lowest paid staff, who are Muslim women, would be the worst affected because their husbands might not want or be able to move to jobs in south Wales.
That’s what really tees me off about this. At least the miners were honest. They thought the taxpayer should keep stumping up so they could produce coal that no one actually wanted, but they didn’t try and claim that if you thought this was a stupid idea, then you must have some deep prejudice against Yorkshire folk.
Friday, September 16, 2005
I would like to expand on the health-enhancing powers of vitamin XXX, but I'm late for class.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
The threat to harmonious social relations in Britain comes from those who insist that multiple identity is not possible: white supremacists, English nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists.
This is the opposition and they have to be confronted. An important element in that confrontation is the assertion of a sense of Britishness.
I doubt JohnJo was pleased at Vincent Cable trying to draw a parallel between his desire for constitutional symmetry between England and Scotland and the desire to kill 95% of the people in England and Scotland. Myself, I think an English Parliament is a really bad idea, but I'm even more offended the other way.
Here, we have a group of people creating mayhem across the globe, and Vincent Cable classes them with people who support a solution to the West Lothian question he disagrees with ? But, of course! This is the world view of the modern Liberal in a nutshell, a childish tautology whereby the Right is evil, and everyone who's evil is on the Right. The fact that a senior Lib Dem can seriously suggest that folks who support an English Parliament are the same as Osama Bin Laden should be borne in mind the next time you hear a Lib Dem talking preaching about their opposition to 'ya-boo' politics. But there's more to it than that.
What's really wrong with Cable statement isn't that he compares English nationalists to terrorists, it's that he compares terrorists to a group of people who think diffferently about devolution. The first thought is 'are you nuts ?' We've had September 11, Bali, Chechnya, Kashmir, Israel...well, you get the idea, but Vincent apparently doesn't. After all that, he can't think of these maniacs as anything more significant than just another bunch of right-wingers. This is the mark of a man, and a party, that has failed utterly to engage with perhaps the most pressing issue of our times. But isn't that the Lib Dems all over ? Nice headlines, pity about the complete abscence of any coherent policies.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The boy stared Che resolutely in the face. 'If you're going to kill me,' he yelled. 'you'll have to do it while I'm standing! MEN die standing!'
"COWARDS! MURDERERS! Sons of B**TCHES!" The men yelled desperately from their cells. "LEAVE HIM ALONE!" HOW CAN ...?!"
"And then we saw Che unholstering his pistol. It didn't seem possible. But Che raised his pistol, put the barrel to the back of the boy's neck and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy.
"We erupted. We were enraged, hysterical, banging on the bars.'MURDERERS! ASSASSINS!' His murder finished, Che finally looked up at us, pointed his pistol, and BLAM-BLAM-BLAM! emptied his clip in our direction. Several of us were wounded by his shots."
His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, "Lord,Seems like I'm not the only one. Yes, the Church is slobbering over a murderous savage, yet still people won't take their claims to moral guidance seriously. What can it all mean ?
shall we strike with a sword?"
And one of them struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right
But Jesus said in reply, "Stop, no more of this!" Then he touched
the servant's ear and healed him.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
I'm a real Conservative, so naturally I hate the whole idea of 'hate speech' laws and the like. It's an absolutely disgusting imposition on the public liberty that speech can be criminalised for no better reason than that the professionally offended have taken against a particular line of argument. Yet, even under our current loopy laws the Police don't have a case. All they had to do was wait until the paper hit the streets then take a copy down to the Labour Party offices (aka Police HQ) and find someone to claim they had been offended. But no - even that isn't enough for these people. They claim the right to seize some literature on the grounds that it might potentially offend some folks at some point in the future.
If nothing else, can the Left at least shut up about the alleged 'Red Scare' in post-war America ? The House Un-American Activities Committee may have done many things, but at least they never claimed the right to carefully check each film pre-release for any signs of incipent Marxism. But where's the Lefty outrage now ? Where's dear old Shami ? After developing repetitive strain injury taking out onions for oppressed members of Al-Quaida, Nazis would be a move up the evolutionary scale for her. But no - it's all garbage.
These people are emphatically not defending human rights. 'Rights' implies fundemental, inalienable entitlements. What these people really want is human privledges, to be given or withheld as required by the Liberal agenda. Some people's papers get seized on the off-chance they contain naughty words, while others claim Jews and Freemasons are controlling the country and get to be government advisers. To hear these people speak, every piece of legislation comes with the words 'it depends....' writen on the bottom. If nothing else, we should at least ditch the absurd phrase 'civil liberties campaigners' - if history proves one thing, it's that if the people behind these campaigns were able to impose their preferred system, liberty would be the very last thing anyone would have.
Liberals take out onions when talking about the vital importance of free speech in connection with po7no or crucifixes dipped in urine, but let someone disagree with them and suddenly they turn out to be Mary Whitehouse reborn. But is it a shock to see Liberals exposed as bullies and hypocrites ? No - but can we at least agree that if we have to treat Liberals as intellectuals, then KoKo the Clown is surely due a chair at a major university ?
In this specific outrage, our Lordships have decided to subcontract foreign policy to the Guardian leader writers. Personally, I think DV calls it exactly right. I’d only add that this is yet another case of the sheer humbuggery of modern Liberalism. These people constantly whine about the dangers of the Anglosphere acting as the world’s policeman, but what else would you call arresting a foreign citizen for alleged offences committed in a foreign land against foreigners ?
Indeed, take the whole question of multiculturalism. We’re told that we are in no position to say whether selling your daughter into marriage is a good or a bad thing, but we can say with precision whether or not the conduct of a foreign army thousands of miles away is excessive or not – this being decided, not incidentally, by a bench rat who probably doesn’t know the first thing about Jihad, Israel or infantry tactics. Then again, Liberal multiculturalism never extended as far as actually learning anything about alien cultures. Western cultures are evil, non-Western ones are good, and that’s all you need to know.
But wasn’t it the Libs who were positively outraged at the thought that relatives of homicide victims would be offered the chance to testify in court ? Yes, I believe it was, but now we have an entire case bought by lawyers acting for Jihadis and the Left thinks that’s just ducky. Run this by me again – the mother of a slaughtered schoolboy testifies at the trial of a murderous paedophile and the majesty of the Law is being dragged into the gutter, but a group of murderous savages connive with activist officers of the court to carry out the legal harassment of a man who they’re committed to slaughter – along with his family, his neighbours and indeed most of the population of the planet - and that’s a great step forward ? Apparently, this ‘objectivity’ thing is trickier than you’d think.
That’s the thing – the whole myth of judicial independence is predicated on the idea that while politicians are weather vanes, the judiciary stand up for fundamental rights, untroubled by the vagaries of political trends. There are plenty of reasons for Conservatives to be sceptical of this line of argument merely from first principles, but as this case proves, the judiciaries’ supposed fundamental principles are entirely fungible. The fundemental building blocks of British justice just happen to be whatever best serves the needs of the Left today.
Judge Workman himself provides a fine example of this. While anxious to expand the reach of law into Israel, when it comes to dealing with real criminals closer to home, suddenly it turns out that he’s a model of judicial restraint.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Come to think of it, that's pretty much what's happened, with the intoduction of CCTV and the like to football forcing the nuts to vent their psychotic impulses on a Friday night rather than a Saturday afternoon. Needless to say, the same individuals who claimed that soccer holiganism was the fault of the Football Association are now spending their time whining about binge drinking. This is just the flipside of the femiloon world view, this absurd idea that masculinity is somehow intrinsic to violence so any mainly male environment like a footy match or a pub is permanantly teetering on the edge of mayhem. Funnily enough though, this violence has grown more or less in direct proportion to the feminisation of society. Back in the day, these people were recognised as what they are. It's only with the emergence of the whole Therapy Nation thing that we've had to endure not only violence but also people trying to excuse it. That's the basic humbuggery of the whole thing: these people spend their days trying to excuse the actions of scumbags, then they use these self-same actions as proof that our worldview is warped.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
It need hardly be said that neither of these individuals are usually classed as members of the VRWC. Note too though a certain contrast between supporters of the Blob and his opponents. Critics bring forward actual, specific charges, while Clarkites rely purely on blather, whether they're talking about his blokely bloke nature or calling his opponents right-wing extremists. For all the media exposure, there's little actual evidence of any positive policy Clarke wishes to bring forward.
As it happens it was in the early 1990s that Ken was Home Secretary. So one
wonders what he made of this, less bruited section of the Chatham House report.
“By the mid-1990s,” the authors argued, “the UK’s intelligence agencies were
well aware that London was increasingly being used as a base by individuals
involved in promoting, funding and planning terrorism in the Middle East and
elsewhere. However, these individuals were not viewed as a threat to the UK’s
national security, and so they were left to continue their activities with
relative impunity . . .” By Ken, among others. It was, after all, a government
devoted to ignoring the warning signs.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Tempting though it would be to dismiss these proposals as yet another attempt by Nu Lab to avoid doing anything significant, they do have two things in their favour: the ‘Dracula splashed with holy water’ reaction of the bewigged fools and the fact that m’learned fiends' arguments against have been absolutely garbage.
Objection number one from the enemy within is that allowing the families of victims to address the court will create different classes of victims, so that when relatives give speeches channelling Shakespeare, then the sentence will be much higher than if the relatives sound like John Prescott, and you know how much the courts hate the idea of different classes of victims, which is why they were so vigorously opposed to ‘hate crimes’ legislation.
What ? ...Really ? Forget that last bit then.
The courts are perfectly happy with differential sentencing based on the identity of the victim; all they’re quibbling about is the level of classification of the victim. They’ll happily base sentences on the group identity of the victim, but they’re shocked – shocked! – at the idea of sentencing taking into the victims own individual qualities. So the courts will be able to take into account that the victim was black, but not that he led a blameless life as a much-loved pillar of the community. If this doesn’t already strike you as insane, imagine the same rules being applied to the defence.
Ah yes, that’s the other absurd argument. Laban – the Nazi! – tries the old trick of accurately quoting a Liberal, in this case the most reliably disgusting Liberal Brit blogger of them all. The point is, of course, that the Left is perfectly happy with the courts considering the whole range of Therapy Nation drivel – but only in connection with the defence. Happy to consider ? There’s a whole industry of otherwise unemployable Libs making a life and a living coming up with dead pets, twinkie defences, parental atrocity stories and the like: probation officers, social workers, psychologists…. Judges are perfectly happy with the courts being turned into an episode of Jerry Springer – but only if it helps the scumbags.
Is it any wonder that the L3 inevitably end up making finely argued points like this: “next time I hear someone say:- "He'll come out of prison one day - it's us that are serving a life sentence", I shall throw up”. Personally, I’m glad he eschews emotional arguments. But let’s consider the form of words used. After all, it is indisputably true that the family of the victim will grieve for their loss until the end of their days, while the killer will serve a term of imprisonment that is neither too uncomfortable nor too lengthy before returning to his old life. Our Liberal friend must agree, since he doesn’t challenge the basic point – his argument is merely that he doesn’t like it. It’s the Guardian reader’s equivalent of ‘you suck!’ We’re not supposed to make these points otherwise we won’t be really in with the in crowd.
This is why the Left has gone to Defcon One over the policy. Nothing threatens Liberal domination of the legal system like public scrutiny. The prospect of ordinary members of the public talking honestly about how crime has affected their lives is the one challenge the Liberal judiciary cannot face. They could usually get away with it when they had total control of the courts – they could use any old mixture of bureaucracy, junk science and sentimental nonsense to try and justify themselves, safe in the knowledge that they could keep any discussion of actual, y'know, crimes at an abstract level. Suddenly, ordinary, decent members of the public will be given a platform to explain to their fellow citizens just who it is that the Liberal judiciary wishes to protect. That's all - just tell the public the truth, but that's all you need to expose just who the modern Left are. That's why the ever-egalitarian L3 are left making deranged points about the fact that these rights will even extend to Scousers - it's all they've got left.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Needless to say, it was a tough decision for the MSM whether to support an obnoxious Metropolitan elitist, but they managed to force themselves. Of course, the Left has always talked up Ken Clarke’s supposed likeability, simply so that when the Conservative Party unaccountabtly rejects him, they can use that to claim that it proves how extreme the Party is.
In fact, that’s the only silver lining here. To paraphrase Nixon on George McGovern, now the London media have a candidate who almost perfectly reflects their views, we’ll see who’s really out of touch with the public.
Clue number one is the fact that all the people paying tribute to Clarke’s loveable nature are part of the Metropolitan elite themselves. We’re supposed to admire his common touch when he speaks with the ordinary, everyday, journalist in the street ?
If Clarke has secret reserves of charm, he’s certainly keeping them well hidden. Then again, this wasn’t a man who was just wrong about the Euro, he was blatantly, blusteringly wrong. Here he is attacking – of all people - Tony Blair for not pushing the Euro enough. Clarke was right and everyone who opposed him was a moron, and we’re not supposed to remember that because the MSM assures us it’s all behind him – the EUrofantasism presumably, not the obnoxious bluster.
This appears to be something of a pattern in Clarke’s career. Ferdinand Mount covers some of the high(low)lights of his career here. What Mr Mount is presumably too nice to remind us about is that Clarke is not just a raging incompetent, but a repulsively arrogant one too. Take his comment during his tenure at Health that ambulance crews were just ‘professional drivers’. This isn’t normal political hyperbole; this is a man either stunningly ignorant or utterly mendacious. Either answer is hardly a good qualification for him to be trusted with the fate of the Conservative Party.
Putting up with the blustering buffoon is supposed to be the Conservative Party’s Faustian pact, in return for electability. Huh ? Scott makes the obvious point that the Conservative Party is never going to win elections thanks to the support of the Hampstead set. What the Party needs to do is to energise some of the people who don’t think it’s worth voting, and win back those working class voters who used to turn out for a woman who never got a soft-focus profile in the Guardian. Indeed, the first evidence is in, and it turns out that Clarke’s core support is amongst people who don’t actually like Conservatives – they probably recognise a kindred soul.
The other absurd excuse for the Clarke candidacy is that old one about voters being turned off by the extreme policies on issues such as immigration, crime and the like which the Conservative Party took into the last election. If you can’t remember what these were, just look at current government policy. Tony Blair has many flaws, but he is a master of reading the public mood. No, it wasn’t that the Conservatives went too far in some areas, it was the other areas where they didn’t go anywhere. Conservative MPs talking about public services sounded like Labour MPs talking about punishing criminals: they had the uncertain quality of people who know the public expect them to say something, but they have no idea what.
What the Conservatives really need to do is summed up in one of the comments to this post. Carl reports thus:
When my daughter was in year 1 (thats 5 and 6 year olds for the uninitiated) in my capacity as a volunteer/in-training Teaching Assistant I personally witnessed one little scrote who when disciplined would retreat to the corner of the classroom and yell repeatedly about how much he hated 'this fucking class'. Class was, by the way, being taught by the Deputy Head, whose domineering and authoritrian manner with the staff did not extend to the kids, it seemed.
Or the little charmer who used to scissor kids legs out from under them when they ran past whenever he was bored and liked to write 'Fuck Off' on his hands whenever the teacher wasnt looking and show his friends. He was great fun.
The moonbats have been in control of our kids education for a long time, aided and abetted by parents who think that the best way for their children to be educated is for them to be allowed to run riot, hit, swear and bully to their hearts content just like they are at home. The most unpopular teacher at said school (amongst staff and parents) is also the only one who imposes a proper measure of discipline on her pupils by actually expecting dangerously fascist ideas like actual WORK out of them. Funny that...
Bells rang to mark the exact moment armed militants demanding an end to the Chechen war entered the building and took all those inside
Yessssss, I know the Beeb is a binge Kool Aid drinker, but they’ve got to be kidding. You can babble all you want about one man’s terrorist being another man’s freedom fighter, but if people who take kids hostage then slaughter them aren’t terrorists, then language has no meaning.
Similarly, what’s with the ‘demanding an end to the Chechen war’ ? Killing lots of people seems like a funny way to promote pacifism. This is what happens when moral equivalence goes wild. True, providing the terrorists get exactly what they want, they won’t resort to violence, but of whom could this not be said ? Under the BBC’s definition rapists, muggers and bank robbers could all claim to be demanding an end to violence.
But then what do they want ? The BBC heavily implies that they are concerned solely with Chechnya, but are they really ? For a start, the terrorists are hardly exclusively Chechen. Equally, this is no campaign of national liberation. True, they claim the right to rule Chechnya, but only as part of a significantly larger region they also lay claim to. Furthermore, these people are not motivated by a desire to let the people in this region choose their own path. On the contrary, they seek to impose an Islamic fundamentalist regime on the region. There’s no hint at this in the report.
What we do get is accusations, first against the schools director:
There were minor skirmishes at the scene, as some angry relatives of the victims tried to prevent the former director of the school from entering the schoolyard.
She was held hostage too, but some in Beslan accuse her of failing to protect their children.
The sense of loss here is as sharp as ever - but there is anger too, directed at the Russian authorities, the BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Beslan says.
People in the town are still looking for answers and talking of a cover-up, our correspondent says.
They want to know how so many gunmen made it to their school in the first place, and why officials refused to negotiate.
[Susanna Dudiyeva] earlier told reporters that President Vladimir Putin was unwelcome during the mourning ceremonies "since he is responsible for what happened in Beslan".
That is what was so foul about his working-over of the Hillsborough families. Johnson taking on these people was like the Captain of the First XV beating up the library monitor, but we’re all supposed to hail Bozza’s supreme courage in slagging them off. Yet, when a real celebrity mournathon occurs, suddenly BoJo has got to GoGo.
What a gutless bully that man is.
A vote of thanks too for the many race hustlers who found it within themselves to speak out for Mr Walker. Of course, there was a certain….. flexibility required in this case. After all, Ken Livingstone has always been their favourite (white) politician, a guy who can’t go two days without claiming that them pesky Northerners are stealing London’s money [buy a safe would be my advice]. Yet, when the right sort of Northerner gets killed, suddenly these people are putting in for a bulk order of onions. If Anthony Walker were alive today, he’d be another scrounging Scouser, but it turns out he’s one of these people who really is worth more dead than alive.