How very odd

They are not allowed to show the outline of their bodies (for apparently if they do us men cannot control ourselves and will forthwith rape the lot of them) save for a pillbox-like slit at the eyes and to some extent their hands. But they are allowed to have opinions. Muslim (not Islamic) 'culture' continues to baffle me with its staggering contradictions.

I wonder what Stalin would have answered, with regards to particular aspects of the proles he would remove given the choice: 'opinions' or 'fashion'.

Fundamental Rights disappear again (but only for some)

What are the basic fundamental rights as laid down by judicial history?

1. Right to equal protection under the law
2. Right to freedom of thought
3. Right to freedom of speech and press (cf. freedom of expression)
4. Right to freedom of association
5. Right to freedom of movement within the country
6. Right to vote in general election
7. Right to procreate irrespective of marital status or other classifications
8. Right to direct a child's upbringing
9. Right to privacy
10. Right to marry
11. Right to property
12. Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power

Today 2, 3, 4 and 5 just disappeared from Englishmen in England courtesy of Theresa May, the incumbent Home Secretary. Granted this ban is only concerns the bank holiday weekend in Bradford, but its wider significance cannot be understated. It says that if you are from a minority group, via race or religion, there is an open playing field for you to do as you please and the tax-payer will fund you to that end. If you oppose the moves by such gracious chants as "Butchers of Basra" then you are the anomaly, the anachronism and the anarchist for not adhering to the cultural relativism of the UK2010.

Now, of course, I do not condone the views of racists thugs and nazi sympathisers but here is the punchline, the EDL are neither racist nor are they neo-nazis. They are a group who do not believe in the islamification of Britain and neither do I. Alas, seeing as they have been gaged into silence I am only awaiting my internet connection to be severed in the wake of this new attack on freedom of expression. Stupid little me for believing in the fundamental right to peaceful protest for anyone of any political or religious persuasion. Now of course the usual epithets will be pulled out of the hat in order to justify the banning of the protest: "nazi thugs" and the good old favourite "extreme right wingers" - yet consider the people they arrested the last time Bradford Muslims took offence (H/T Old Holborn).

Furthermore, the MSM, will as usual resists the calls for some historical vivisection as demanded by their continuous insistence to label everything they disagree with, as 'right-wing'.

• Mao, left-wing, killed 70 million people in peacetime, more than any dictator prior to him or until date.
• Stalin, left-wing, killed 23 million people in wartime and peacetime.
• Hitler, left-wing (if you label him right-wing please leave a justification for that in the comments), killed an estimated 12 million people in wartime and peacetime.
• Tojo, left-wing, killed 5 million people in wartime.
• Pol Pot
• Ismael Enver
• ...

The list goes on as ever, and as ever, you will struggle to find a right-wing dictator. The past was and remains a century of genocide perpetuated by the left. People say you should not point the finger for it might offend, but I am bloody well going to point the finger at spurious socialist ideologies whose soul legacy is death and destruction. And I am going to continue to point that finger at the quite frankly demented people who seek to lay the blame on someone else's doorstep for they refuse to acknowledge the lessons of history that “socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Phrase of the day

Burka Bollocks or 'BB'.

I am a libertarian at heart and believe that people have the right to wear what they want. I do not support oppression of women, however, by religious fanatical husbands who cannot get over the fact that they have small penises, and feel that because of this they have to cover up the only biological object which would ever consider sleeping with them. That is pathetic.

What is more disturbing; whenever someone raises an objection to the burka they are called "islamophobic" and "ignorant". Well, newsflash for you medieval fucking schmucks: there is nothing in your holy book about dressing up your women so that they look like mobile tents with a pillbox-like gap for vision. It's just not in there. So, whenever someone raises an objection and you cry "islam" it just goes to show how little you know about your own religion and that makes you ignorant not us.

Finally, I do not buy the argument that they are wearing the burka by choice I simply don't. I have met enough women to know that the one thing they care more about than their shoes are their clothes. Are they honestly saying that the burkha is a valid substitute for their fashion of choice?

Moderate Islam - where to be found?

To me at least it is clear that what has become known as Islam is stretching our tolerance to its limit.

Main LINK to article.

Rational discource? Hardly

I have only to repeat the words of Cranmer, for they express precisely what I have on my mind.

13th Spitfire really does not know what to discuss today.

If he turns to immigration, he is racist.

If he queries issues of European Union, he is xenophobic.

If he expresses an opinion on the case of Philip Lardner, he is homophobic.

If he questions the Pope, he is a bigot.

If he expresses concerns over aspects of Islam, he is Islamophobic.

Thus is the level of political discourse in modern Britain: every contentious issue, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, is swiftly closed down with threats of a fatwa or character assassination. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, discussion is suppressed and liberties are surrendered.

What do you call a liberal democracy which prohibits rational discourse?

Oh dear, Spectator writer thinks Islam is a race

I see that UKIP thinks it a good idea to ban Muslim women from wearing the veil in the public. The burka and “other face covering veils” should be outlawed, Farage pronounced today. His reasons given are that full veils are socially divisive and symbolic of the subordination of women. What a low and filthy attempt to suck up a few more right wing votes. To pass a law legislating what people can wear and what they can’t. Except not “people”, but Muslims – that is the only section of the population to whom this stricture applies. So it is quintessentially racist – much as is our demands for the prosecution of Muslim protestors and our banning of radical, if ludicrous and offensive Muslims groups. There is no other explanation for it that I can see, and speaking as a “tedious racist” (© Diane Abbott, The Guardian, Roy Greenslade and many others) myself, I know of what I speak, presumably.

I don’t for a moment doubt that the veil is symbolic of the subjugation of women: what we should do is counter the ideology behind the veil, not the right of people to wear whatever the hell they like. We will end up giving so much away, out of our fear of Islam - all the things that matter.

Odd, that such a respected newspaper cannot distinguish between a religion and an ethnical denomination.

Source.

UKIP to ban Burqas

Here is today's leader from the Times. They seem to have gotten their stance on the issue, at least on the internet, spectacularly wrong. Very few comments agree with the Times and instead support UKIP in their endeavour to ban the burqa. Myself I find this issue a bit hypocritical. The Labour party has banged on about multiculturalism for the past 12 years and pandered to the needs of the minorities be they religious or ethnic. As Lord Tebbit said, a society is defined by its culture. Therefore it is an oxymoron to say that a society is multicultural. The same applies here. For voters to turn around now and say that they do not want people dressed a Darth Vader or mobile tents, is a tad hypocritical. If they did not like the agenda set forth by the Labour party then why on earth did they give them three consecutive terms?

There are inherently two sides to this. One is that motorcyclists have to take of their helmets when entering a bank e.g. or a high security establishment - burqa clad women do not. Neither do burqa clad robbers, of which there have been many of late . Further the burqa is a cultural attire and is not inimical to the practise of Islam. The Times chastise Mr. Farage about his supposed lack of knowledge about the Qur'an "UKIP argues further that the burka has no place in Islam and that the religion does not require it. The Times had not hitherto realised that Nigel Farage was an authority on such matters, or that the party leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who was visited by God when on the operating table in 1977, thereby gained not only his Christian faith but also a mastery of the Koran." In my reply to the Times on this; you do not have to be an authority on the Qur'an (yes, it is actually the Qur'an not the 'Koran' - speaks volumes about the Times' religious authority), like a mullah, to know that the burqa is not required by the religion. I should know I have read the book, which I daresay few people at the Times have. You do not believe me? Well, read this very insightful piece by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

On the other hand however to ban the Burqa like Islam4UK goes against the very essence of the British modus operandi. The Labour party has successfully destroyed pretty much everything we once used to be proud of in this country, there is not even a reason for me to do a 'including..' for all you need to do is look around you. Is it cold? Yes? How much are you paying your privatised gas/electricity company for keeping you cold? More than in France I guess seeing as EDF subsidise their French customers in favour of their British. But I digress. Do not let the Labour party take away this final virtue of this once great island. The Times cannot really put their finger on what exactly this British value is, that they are defending, and they put their reasoning in the words of a chav "picking on people quietly going about their business in religious garb of their own choice and banning it" (well a lot of them as said are not going about their own business, and what is more they have not chosen it - if you know anything about Islam it is that it is a hierarchical system or a male dominated oligopoly, the majority have not chosen anything but their husbands and close male relatives have). No, this virtue is better explained by understanding that tolerance is at stake here. One of my lecturers once asked us what we most liked about the UK, he said he particularly liked its tolerance. Unlike most European countries we will stand for a lot - good and bad. Mostly good, which rejuvenates society and makes it a lot more interesting than the homogenous grey that is Switzerland for example. This is a defence of liberty itself and that the shackling of one form of freedom, the burqa, will inevitably lead to far more sinister bans, which a respectable society could not properly defend.

British Muslims are patriotic - really?

You do recall I hope the quite recent news that British muslims are the most patriotic in Europe. I am not sure if this strikes you as strange but it certainly is not a surprise what with our wet blanket government providing all the necessities for the radical islamists (note, not normal Muslims, they very decent people, just the nutters). As with our religions and social denominations there are always a number who seek to influence the rest about their cause right or wrong - in this case very wrong, even more so if you actually bothered to read the Koran.

Now of course this survey in question pondered all swathes of Muslims not just the weird ones but also perfectly decent Muslims who, likes us who take distance from the BNP, distance themselves from the likes of Islam4UK (the muslim equivalent nutters to the BNP nutters). However as with any research which regards immigration and religion produced in Europe you can be quite sure that a lot of dodgy practises have been employed to make the situation seem less dire than it actually is in reality.

I would like to draw your attention to LibertyPhile Research who has examined the survey a bit closer than our state funded and privately funded media. After all, if you want something done right, do it yourself, which is a complete contradiction of this blog post since LibertyPhile Research is doing the work for us but I will be hypocrite this time.

A statistic from the Open Society Institute’s Report on 11 EU Citiesrecently hit the headlines. [The Institute is funded by George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist.]

UK Muslims are Europe’s most patriotic said The Sunday Times on 13 December. “….. on average 78% of Muslims identified themselves as British, although this dropped by six points in east London.”

The Telegraph had something similar Muslims in Britain are the most patriotic in Europe according to a new study

It also allowed a least one commentator to conclude that multi-culturalism British style really works and we need more of it.

Pickled Politics told us New poll shows why multi-culturalism works“…. The study and report is a slap in the face for right-wing dogma …. it shows that Britain’s relaxed attitude to differences in religion and culture has made British Muslims more likely to identify with this country and be proud of the liberal traditions they live in ....”

Nevermind the fact that the statistic is highly suspect and the claims based on it very dubious. Remarkably, even the authors of the report themselves say that the findings are not representative. And the report examines neither patriotism nor liberal attitudes as its purpose and coverage is something else altogether.

I do employ you to read the length of the piece for it is very thought provoking. Again it pisses me of that we now ourselves are having to connect the dots between lies and scams when our supposedly 'world famous' media are supposed to do that for us...

Hail freedom of Speech and, lo and behold, Christianity for once won

I just wanted to make a quick remark on this story. Where a district judge questioned the character of a Muslim convert as he dismissed the case against husband and wife Christian hoteliers who she claimed had deeply offended her new-found religion. However it is the very last part of the article I take question with, it said (my emphasis)

"There has so far been little evidence that Mrs Tazi’s experience has echoed within the wider Muslim communities, especially across the northern conurbations. But a group of young female Muslim students, who attended the trial, said this may now only be a matter of time.

One 18-year-old medical student at Liverpool University, who asked not to be named, said: “People are shocked and angry. This decision is going to make them even more upset.

“Mrs Tazi just comes down for breakfast wearing a head scarf and they start racially abusing her. They have just dismissed it as if it is nothing.”"

I must thus wonder what hope in hell does this little ignorant minx have of growing up as a normal person when she thinks that the above was a RACIAL crime. Maybe she should learn what race actually means before she throws the word around with regards to RELGION. Stupid little witch.

My Muslim friend, sort of

I have a few Muslim friends and most of them really are like the coming quote. Some are not of course and we often have very many disagreements but at the end of the day we walk hand in hand into the pub (no they are not particularly strict Muslims it must be said).

"As a muslim I abhor this tip-toeing attitude towards muslims. I do not care and never will care how much someone eats in front of me while fasting. If I ever do become sensitive to the smell of food then I WILL leave that environment. It is not for others to pander to me and I will never want that. It is advice like this that promotes nothing but hatred, so I get dismayed when such pathetic advice is promoted! MPAC are completely right in attacking this stupid document."

I really do not want to reveal where I found this but keeping with blogger integrity I am compelled to, so here we go.

Radical Islam? No, Furious Britons

More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

Those were the words of one 'V' in the movie V for Vendetta which has now become synonymous with people taking on the government in the UK - those who are truly fed up with the whole shenanigans of this office. Naturally Guy Fawkes held this position long before Ms. Evy Hammond a.k.a. Natalie Portman shaved her head.

The movie did something else it gave birth to another form of resistance, the one we are fighting today albeit online. How many bloggers own a Guy Fawkes mask as sported in the motion picture? Quite a few I would guess, some have even taken it upon themselves to epitomise this great citizen notably Old Holborn. More significantly however is that the battle for the future is not waged in the streets nor in Whitehall it is waged online - everyone seems to know this except the 5th column placemen who are now firmly entrenched in every level of our local and national government. Cameron, as said many times before, will need to wage war against these people to whom the object of destroying the UK far outweighs the object of improving it.

This leads us to the main topic of this entry namely not that Labour has radicalised Muslims but they have severely pissed of the nation and I do not mean that in a Thatcher pissed-of way, that was bad enough, but this is something wildly different as will be shown.

We all know that this regime, we are a democracy trapped in a swastika, is taking a silk glove approach to Muslim Extremism in the UK. Lets get a few things very straight before we launch ourselves into this debate. Commonly we say that there are only a minority of people who are really involved in Muslims Extremism - the kind where they plot to blow us up or themselves for that matter. However there is something else which I think must be given a grouping for itself a second tier sort to speak. These are the very large number of young men who comport themselves as defenders of Islam shouting "Allahu Akbar" in front of, well everything they see which looks like a microphone or a police officer.

These are people which will need a hard push or a really hard kick to really slide them into the warm hug of extremism. But they are angry no doubt (and seem to have little understanding for free speech) and they are directing that anger towards the UK for some inexplicable reason (that was sarcasm, we invaded 'Muslim' countries so we are thus baddies, no really we are at least for the Iraq war, I fully agree with the Afghan war). But even more so what we are doing is pandering to their differences. We allow them to come here and set up camp but not take part in Britain's way of doing things. Some argue that this is because we have lost our identity as a nation - and really we are not being greatly helped by our educators either. Others argue it is because we are British and imposing our values on immigrants well that would just be racist now would it not? Some think it is because media is severely twisting the facts (this is really a non-issue for we all know that it is true but for distinctness sake). Remember those three handsome young men who thought it a jolly idea to blow up some more planes, well here is how the media covered the story (you will notice of course which ones are the mouthpiece of the government)

The Times: Islamic extremists guilty of airline bomb plot.
The Daily Mail: Islamic extremist guilty of liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic jets.
The Daily Telegraph: Britain is at war with Islamist militants.

BBC: Three guilty of airline bomb plot.
The Guardian: Three guilty of transatlantic bomb plot.

I argue, however that our identity is hidden beneath a coat of 13 years of New Labour hegemony and a bit of Major government thrown in there for good measure. Believe in coincidences if you wilt but it is not so when suddenly the fundamental cornerstones of the glue that binds a nation together suddenly disappear. This is everything ranging from teaching British history in schools to the character of Parliament and the people who supposedly are in it to serve us as they rule on our behalf. Moreover Britain is or rather was a truly fantastic country in all its little peculiarities which made her stand out amongst the great nations of the world. All countries have their culture even though some larger entities are actively seeking to abolish them. But we have always done things in some very strange but yet adoring ways. You will note that in the 90s and in this decade there have been not one but 11 acts which have changed face of Britain forever. I have only included the ones under New Labour but even so this is an astonishing amount of acts filed under 'Constitutional Matters' (on this blog we have talked a lot about the new Supreme Court which we do not agree with at all) for any government to propose and pass. And of course they were all done under the dubious aegis of reform. As such following the slew of constitutional changes introduced after Labour came to power in 1997, the constitution analysed by Bagehot and Dicey no longer exists at all. For the records...

• House of Lords Act 1999
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Freedom of Information Act 2000
• Civil Contingencies Act 2004
• Constitutional Reform Act 2005
• Scotland Act 1998
• Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
• Government of Wales Act 2006
• Government of Wales Act 1998
• Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
• Registration of Political Parties Act 1998

No doubt this will end up as a disaster, a bit like the man who thought it up, Blair, a poor QC in his time, who never really did very much in the field of law. Most of the most important reforms that have been undertaken were said to have been thought up over a glass of whiskey or on the back of a letter. I might be overzealous on this issue but have shot of about 6 mails to the Mr. Dominic Grieve, if the Conservatives intend to repeal most of them or create new ones of their own so as to mark their opportunism as a progressive party, something which seems to be in vogue these days. After all they are Conservatives but what precisely are they Conserving?

You see dear reader radical Islam is not only getting fuel to flame from our own self-serving educators but from the very essence of Parliament from the executive to the legislature. We are not dying as a nation nor is British culture, not in the least, but our constitutional way of pouring a bottle of Port will never look the same again.

Where does this leave ordinary Britons then? Those who just want to live happily as before, having a pint down at the local pub (before they were all shut down) or watching the footy. Well some thing is a foot, something which has not really happened before in the UK at least not on this scale. The British people are really pissed of. But as is one of our trade marks; we do not do revolutions over here, it is not our thing. We would rather have a cup of tea than rally outside parliament (though a few die-hard very commendable souls are doing just that at this very minute, and have been doing so for the past few years) and vent and express our anger. Who can for example cannot recall the now infamous words of Lord Ahmed when he said that 10,000 Muslims would rally outside Parliament if a private House of Lords committee viewed Fitna produced by Gert Wilders. Lo and Behold not a single person showed up, neither did the democratically elected Gert Wilders.

What of far right then and all that immigration business? I think Leg-Iron produced a very succinct and astute observation as to this end

Shouting 'Racist' at anyone who disagrees, on any subject, for the last decade has immunised the general population against the word. People are called 'racist' for any disagreement on any subject, whether race is involved or not. So the word has lost all power. You might as well call them 'poltroons' and 'bounders' now.

Now, the new tag applied to anyone who objects to anything is 'far right'. In the eyes of the Socialists, anyone 'far right' wants oppression and absolute control and violent suppression of anyone who disagrees. Socialists don't understand irony.

Privately of course people will say that they have had quite enough of mass immigration, draconian laws, 'soft' touch approach to Muslim Extremism, a failed state etcetera. But now it seems a few group (EDL and Casuals United among others) are taking action, albeit in a form which is not very nice admittedly, but nonetheless it is some form of action - agree or disagree protesting against Islam is as much a cause as protesting (?) for the implementation of Sharia law in the UK. Note though these are groups protesting against radical Islam and not the religion itself. Most religions can be quite lovely when you do not take them literally which is precisely what fundamentalism is all about be it in America or in Saudi Arabia. The media and main parties of course are trying to victimise the shouting young men who not only heckled returning soldiers and nearly had their heads ripped of by the Luton crowd, but were also labeled 'anti-fascist' by the MSM. As Leg-Iron noted

The press struggle to spin news of the riots to make the Muslims the victim. Nobody is falling for it any more. They throw around the 'far-right' label and nobody knows what it is. Especially when applied to groups that espouse no political views at all. Far-right football fans? Far-right bald men? Is every bald white man far-right now? Should we expect to see football crowds goose-stepping to the stadium?

Do the media even know what a fascist is anymore? It is a very dangerous word to throw around seemingly unchecked and most importantly unchallenged. It is just taken as fact when a media outlet claims that this and that is fascist for we have come to, rightly, fear fascism. But somewhere a long the line the MSM got the notion that they had the carte blanche to label anyone a fascist for the way he dressed, drank, ate, read, walked, ran or any other arbitrary attribute they dreamt up as being sensationalist enough to render a spot in the paper or website.

This is all very well, you cannot expect the media to actually produce quality journalism these days, they are struggling to stay alive and keep sales up. 'Quantity over quality' is the maxim for papers now and you cannot really blame them for that. But one would have thought that journalists at least had some integrity and independence. However when councils are actively seeking to abolish one form of protest (though they failed) and favouring another then we really are bordering on true fascism on behalf of the state - I cannot be frank enough about the severity of these actions. 'Double standards' and 'freedom of speech' the latter must always take precedence if we are to lay any claims of being a "democratic island".

'Get to the bloody point' I imagine some of you are thinking at this stage. We are getting there now for we are to tackle the issue of the BNP. I said that Britons were furious and I meant it. The BNP is the outlet of this anger but it seems as if the MSM are expecting it to die down for reason come the election. This is a very odd approach, people only turned to the BNP for they felt they were being betrayed by the main three. The main three have failed Britain miserably. Few can contend this I imagine. The BNP is at the fringe and really the only alternative left for normal working class people who were being overwhelmed by the disastrous failure in every policy area under the New Labour tenure.

Consider past European Elections results for the BNP

2009: 943,598 (6.4% of total) - First Two MEPs
2004: 808,200 (4.2%)
1999: 102,647

A worrying trend, consider now past General Elections results for the BNP

1983: (0.0% of total) 14,621
1987: 0.0 553
1992: 0.1 7,631
1997: 0.1 35,832
2001: 0.2 47,129
2005: 0.7 192,746

Not as worrying perhaps but we still have a general election next year and things are looking very good for the BNP sadly.

Here it is, the conclusion you have been waiting for. Basically, there are two parties to choose the next government from and neither of them is allowed under EU diktat to mess with immigration rules. That is one of the biggest problems right there 'neither of them is allowed under EU diktat to mess with immigration rules' - most people know that now and, I believe, are sick to the bone of it. Being unable to influence the big three they must turn elsewhere. I have nothing else to go by but polls so you will excuse my utilization of them, but if they are true then the 'other' parties now make up 15% of the parliament were there an election tomorrow. Yes, the BNP is only represented by 1-2% But that is still 1-2 MPs and that is an outrage in itself - not because they were elected but that fascism has made it way to the Palace and we just sat by and did nothing, thinking that our 'multiculturalism' approach to immigration would save the day.

(Blimey! That was a long post).

BBC and Ramadan

Aah it is that time of the year again when the BBC decides to ass kiss everything Islamic, not making the debate about Islam and its values not even the tiniest bit non-partisan. No, what the BBC does is to ignore all the nasty clauses of what it means to be a Muslims like these bits from the Koran:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially." (Surah 4:126-)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

Now do not make this into a tit-for-tat argument; the Bible vs. the Koran - the Bible has some pretty horrific stuff in it as well the difference is that the BBC sees no wrong in slandering it and its followers even though, supposedly, Christianity is the state religion of the UK. There is an active debate on the Bible and God, the BBC will be quick to point this out to you. However the same debate is non-existent for Islam. The BBC in its 'cultural relativism', gives Islam as equal a value as any other religion in Britain if not greater; and, for the BBC, the Koran is beyond criticism from 'infidels'. On Ramadan, the BBC expresses the views of Muslims only; the negative impact which Muslim observance has on predominantly non-Muslim British society is censored by the BBC that is to say the government. Few will forget the recent bollocks which has emerged from Whitehall, new guidelines telling the police to go easy on borderline criminal cases involving muslims.

Happily though New Labourism is being obliterated, by the day, in the UK and that is always something to celebrate. But just so you do not take out the victory prematurely, it must be reinforced that we are still ruled by a claque of retards who fosters this kind of behaviour in the BBC and in the country.

They happily ask her what Ramadan means to her, she is muslim, so that is only to be expected. But what about me? What about the other 58 billion people in the UK who are not muslims what does Ramadan mean to us? Will we not be asked for our opinion? Do not count on it, that would upset the balance you see.

I support state sponsored television to an extent; it is bloody awesome to have a channel without bloody commercials running every second. Who can deny that Planet Earth was magnificent, it really was breathtaking. However in order for the BBC to be state sponsored in the future they should be ordered to stay of the topics of religion and politics. Provide news but no programs or documentaries - in that way they will insult no one. Seeing as they are incapable of treating these subjects without bias and respect their reporting of them should be discontinued or they loose their funding, simple as.

This is a link to a blogger who wrote a very sad but ironic post. Just thought you might find it as tragic as I did. Death of people, regardless of colour, is always tragic but even more so when the only ones who survived did so because they were doing their honest part whilst the others died while doing the completely opposite. Whether true or not (most likely not) it does mimic London quite accurately.

Appeasement - doublespeak for 'Caitiff'

Spot the difference between this image and the one below, apparently they are the same according to the BBC. Splendid then.

Remember the charming chaps featured in the image above? You know the ones who were within in an inch of being lynched by a mob before the valiant police stepped in and saved them from the people, who were there for entirely different reasons; to support the troops.

Before diving into the chronic-failure policy that is appeasement let me just display the spin put on this story by the BBC. The BBC called these protesters "anti-war protesters" even though nearly every other MSM outlet managed to label the protests accurately; namely as muslim protesters. Take a look here for example (even the Guardian managed to implore reason for once).

There is, and please read this very carefully any potential BBC staff, a profound difference between "anti-war" protesters and the despicable lot that managed to upset the town of Luton including its normal muslim population, who are very supportive of the armed forces in general. Akbar Dad Khan, a local community leader, said: "They are about 10 to 15 hotheads. The best thing to do is just to ignore them. I agree with Mr. Khan entirely though just to make issue completely crystal...

These are anti-war protesters:

Turns out though that the government has done a policy U-turn again, lo and behold! Police around the country have been told that they are to "take it easy on muslim extremists" lest they become more militant as a result. This defies all logic but so does New Labour. Remember in 2005 when Mr. Blair, then PM, called for an "overhaul of the criminal justice system to root out and prosecute extremists."

Tory MP David Davies said: "This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law". Quite.

What has history taught us about the policy of appeasement then? The most famous case can of course be ascribed to former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In 1938 the Nazis in the Sudetenland (formed under the Versailles Treaty) became really chafed and figured they would called for autonomy. However this could lead to war since the Germans might intervene and help them something which could not be tolerated by the British. So, things really got heated upon which Mr. Chamberlain hopped on a prop and flew to Berchtesgaden to negotiate directly with Hitler.

Hitler, as you know, was a bit strange and he wanted pretty much everything he could get his hands on. Whenever there was an objection he threatened war. In conjunction what happened was that the British and French told their ally, the Czechs, to give away huge chunks of its population and territory to the Germans (what the Czechs really should do as an honest retribution is to sign the Lisbon Treaty and then send a memorandum to Mr. Cameron reading "ha ha, up yours wanker") this all resulted in the Munich Agreement where effectively Czechoslovakia ceased to exist and was chopped up into four pieces and then handed to Germany, Hungary, Poland, and an independent Slovakia.

Smashing!

Well not really, in March 1939 Chamberlain assured the Poles that Britain would support them if their independence was threatened (remember how we said that Hitler was a rather quirky character). On 1 September Hitler invaded Poland and on 3 September Britain declared war on Germany. The rest is history as they say.

What we should take from this example is that appeasement is a crappy policy at best and downright perilous at worst. Why? Because the recipients of the appeasement think that they can do whatever they want as their adversary, clearly, does not have any balls.

Or why not take a more recent example of appeasement failure. Newt Gingrich said that he was wrong to put the racist label on Justice Sotomayer.

Aha? That is odd.

Justice Sotomayer ruled against white firemen in New Haven, Connetticut, who said city officials violated their rights when it threw out the results of a promotions test on which few minorities scored well. The minorities in question were African-Americans. To you or me that is blatant racism staring you right in the face, according to Sotomayer it is not. Anyhow the ruling has been overturned by the Supreme Court to which Justice Sotomayer is set to become a full time member of in the not to distant future. That does not bode well.

To burn or not to burn, that is the question...

Do you remember when the Danish upheld their principle of free speech and the freedom of the press, when they claimed that the right for a publisher to publish whatever he wants within the law, was a sacrosanct exercise in the West and in Denmark. We remember of course what happened to Danish embassies and Danish products abroad as Muslims reacted to this attrocious enactment of civil liberties. For those of you who are not familiar with this story, here is what happened in a short recap.

"The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship." (I do not do "copy-paste" and then announce it as my own work so here is the link to Wikipedia from whence the above summary was taken).

Neither do I bow to the wishes of those who would rather I did, alas here is one of the cartoons as published by Jyllands Posten just to put the whole issue into perspective. Admittedly it is not a very nice depiction of Mr. Muhammad but it is a depiction and that is what caused the uproar down yonder.

But as the title of this post suggest the content of this exegesis is not that of Islam bashing - plenty of people do that a lot more satisfactory than myself. No, it is about the curious article of flag desecration.



As has been noted, Muslims around the world really got their knickers in a twist because of something as petty as a picture of their prophet - never mind the other thousands of contradictions in the Koran, lets focus on the non-issue of non-publishing of Mr. Muhammad's face and ignore say, the one about not translating the Koran which to me seems like a much more pressing issue not to say insulting to Mr. Allah. But I suppose we will just have to live with hypocrisy. Moving on, consider this image which was captured somewhere in one of the countries where ignorance clearly outweighed modesty.

Consider this; they are burning the Danish flag thus assuming that the "accountability" lay with the Danish sovereign and not the newspaper in question who saw it fit to muddle in religion (something which always ends bad for anyone who tries - see Richard Dawkins' The root of all evil?) . Would it not have been more appropriate to burn a manikin of the Danish PM Mr. Fogh Rasmussen or why not a copy of the Danish constitution where the freedoms to publish these pictures are enshrined? Or why not stoop so low as to burn a manikin of the cartoonist himself or to be a bit more academic about the whole issue; why not burn a marionette of the Editor of Jyllands Posten, thus making a very learned but gentile protest befitting of "moderate" muslims (the spell checker wants me to put 'muslims' with a capital M. I am not going to honour their actions with this execution as I find the non-moderate population a bit rude).

Continuing, Wikipedia reckons (and thus a portion of the internet who saw fit to edit the page about "Flag Desecration") that the reasons for burning the national flag are as follows:

1. As a protest against a country's foreign policy.
2. To distance oneself from the foreign or domestic policies of one's home country.
3. As a protest at the very laws prohibiting the actions in question.
4. As a protest against nationalism.
5. As a protest against the government in power in the country, or against the country's form of government.
6. A symbolic insult to the people of that country.
7. To demonstrate one's rights.

I would also add "shear ignorance" to this list but if I were to do this someone would undoubtedly remove it from Wikipedia for it does not fall within the remits of equitability. Going back, Wikipedia is spot on in two of the cases namely Nr. 3 and Nr. 6.

Burning a flag could be a very personal issue depending on the reciprocation of the audience. The people in the audience are either very patriotic or modestly or just not at all. The first group will take great offense as a result of this act - my prejudices tell me that many Americans fall into this group. The second group will most likely take offense if this sort of behaviour continues for an extended period of time - I can see the British and French being in this cohort. Finally we have the last group that argues that it is the Muslim's right to exercise their freedom to burn a foreign flag. This is the option we will discuss with regards to Nr. 3 and Nr.6.

Option Nr. 3 finds that desecrating a flag is justified because it is seen as a protest at the very laws prohibiting the actions in question. Now consider also this t-shirt which is on sale at Ban T-shirts. Many Brits would not think twice before slinging this beauty on to their beer-bellies and within the confines of Nr. 3 they are fully entitled to since a majority despise this continental calumniator. Under Nr. 3 then yes, they were perfectly within their right to burn the Danish flag because it is seen as a symbol which represents the actions taken by the paper who according to their beliefs desecrated the holy word of Allah. Whereas most people in the west would go "ehrm, dudes it is only a couple of pictures. It is not like they are chaining muslims and feeding them pork" - quite right it is not. If someone in the UK were to burn the EU they would without question have a EAW thrown at them from either Germany or France for reasons unknown.

It comes down to this Nr. 3 is a double-edged sword. Offense would be taken in the west, at least I think, at some level were someone to burn their national flag. No matter how much the lefties (Of socialism must be said this "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" - Churchill)in your school proclaimed that they were "a citizen of the world" and similar BS their is always a certain sentimentality towards one's country be it a Sunday Roast or Warm Ale or just cheering for the UK or Denmark in the Olympics - that is after all one of the core purposes of the games to promote national rivalry in sports rather than in arms. But we must consider the point of view as well, for it is very important. The antagonists of this story burned the Danish flags from a religious point of view. That is to say they attacked the state of Denmark for having insulted their religion. Burning the EU flag in Britain would be of different nature; it would be a protest against the ever growing powers of the continental leviathan and a message which simply reads "we want our country back". As V from V for Vendetta said

"A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world." I will leave the reader to extrapolate this quote to flags.

Is either stance more justifiable if conversation were to be kept cordial? If we take the American approach they would most likely argue no. "Flag burning" amendments to the Constitution have been proposed several times with the most recent one on June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states. However with Bush out of the picture this amendment will most likely never bear fruit, but it does go to show just how sensitive the issue is in the USA.

What about Nr. 6 then? Well when the Mr. Muhammad Cartoon roller-coaster got started most people thought the Danes were being too tolerant towards the Muslim world who were having Denmark-bonfires at least twice a day. Quite an insult some would say but the Danes refrained from pinching it in the bud and did not honour their existence with an apology-statement from the PM. This inevitabily precipitated the crumbling mood of the muslims since they do like attention (see Mr. Ahmadinejad, "democratically" elected president of Iran) but were not getting it from the main player, who normally is the USA, but this time little Denmark had to play that role.

Like Hamlet's soliloquy states (in our context), to burn or not to burn, that is the question. I dare say I have not provided an adequate response to the issue. Is burning a flag really the ultimate political insult as delivered by the proletariat (the vox populi it is not for that would assume that the entireity of the Muslim world are tossers which is not true) or is it merely a futile attempt to get attention to one's lost cause? (It should be noted that the countries in which the Danish flag was burned, the flag desecration was not condemned by the leaders of the nations in question - food for thought perhaps).