I gather that UKIP are planning to ban the burka if they achieve power - which isn't very likely.
But whether a UKIP victory is likely or not, I don't think the correct approach to the rise of militant Islam is to ban the visible symbols that remind us of its oppressive and illiberal nature. Instead, what we need is the freedom to be allowed to discriminate and make personal judgements the way we once used to.
The reason things like the wearing of the burka have become commonplace is due to the enforcement of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" by liberal progressive governments. Laws brought in to force us to "celebrate" this "diversity" have restricted our ability to make personal judgements about what is or isn't acceptable to us.
The thing is, equality and anti-discrimination laws sound good in theory, but in practice all they will do is entrench feelings of injustice and favouritism on both sides. What we have here - with this UKIP proposal - is the law saying on one hand that you and I may not discriminate against people who wear the burka and then the law discriminating against people who wear the burka!
The right thing to do is to peel pack the layers of anti-discrimination laws as it is those that cause racial, religious and ethnic tensions far more than anything else. Moslems should be free to wear the burka if they wish, but non-Moslems should be just as free to shun those that do if they so wish.
It should never be the job of the law to tell people what it is they may or may not tolerate. It is ridiculous in this age of "human rights" that the government use the law to suppress one of the fundamental human rights - the right to exercise free will.
Showing posts with label Cultural equivalence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cultural equivalence. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, March 20, 2009
File under s for stupid
Melanie McDonagh hits on one of those laws which brings unintended consequences.
[Tom Nicholson] is the former environmental policy officer who is claiming – under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 – that he was dismissed from his job because of his "philosophical belief in climate change".
Those who drew up the wording of that particular law, which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of faith, didn't leave much scope for misunderstanding about what it meant. "Religion and belief," it explained, means "any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief". And that, you would have thought, was that. What nobody took into account was that "philosophical belief" would cover convictions about carbon emissions.
No - or indeed countless other "philosophical beliefs" such as a belief in Nazism or a philosophical belief that child pornography is "art". As a result of this stupid law, drawn up by stupid people we can expect to see all sorts of claims and counter claims - all in the name of equality.
For instance, if someone, a guest house proprietor perhaps, has a philosophical belief that homosexuality is a disgusting and depraved practice and refuses to permit homosexuals to stay in his guest house he could be prosecuted for discriminating against homosexuals. He can, of course, then claim that he is being discriminated against because of his "philosophical beliefs".
As a result we'll find out who trumps who in the "equality" battle. Personally, I wouldn't hold out much hope for the guest house owner - unless he is black, Asian or Moslem - but I wouldn't blame him for trying.
Similarly the BNP can point to their "philosophical beliefs" as justification for any number of policies which others might deem "racist" or "bigoted" - but it's their beliefs and, according to this law, it must be illegal to discriminate against them for having those beliefs.
Like most "equality" laws and "human rights" laws it is a stupid and pointless law which will benefit nobody in the long run except the lawyers who thrive on this sort of thing. Stan's first law of equality states that the more you try to legislate against discrimination the more discrimination you will create - an offshoot of the law of unintended consequences.
[Tom Nicholson] is the former environmental policy officer who is claiming – under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 – that he was dismissed from his job because of his "philosophical belief in climate change".
Those who drew up the wording of that particular law, which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of faith, didn't leave much scope for misunderstanding about what it meant. "Religion and belief," it explained, means "any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief". And that, you would have thought, was that. What nobody took into account was that "philosophical belief" would cover convictions about carbon emissions.
No - or indeed countless other "philosophical beliefs" such as a belief in Nazism or a philosophical belief that child pornography is "art". As a result of this stupid law, drawn up by stupid people we can expect to see all sorts of claims and counter claims - all in the name of equality.
For instance, if someone, a guest house proprietor perhaps, has a philosophical belief that homosexuality is a disgusting and depraved practice and refuses to permit homosexuals to stay in his guest house he could be prosecuted for discriminating against homosexuals. He can, of course, then claim that he is being discriminated against because of his "philosophical beliefs".
As a result we'll find out who trumps who in the "equality" battle. Personally, I wouldn't hold out much hope for the guest house owner - unless he is black, Asian or Moslem - but I wouldn't blame him for trying.
Similarly the BNP can point to their "philosophical beliefs" as justification for any number of policies which others might deem "racist" or "bigoted" - but it's their beliefs and, according to this law, it must be illegal to discriminate against them for having those beliefs.
Like most "equality" laws and "human rights" laws it is a stupid and pointless law which will benefit nobody in the long run except the lawyers who thrive on this sort of thing. Stan's first law of equality states that the more you try to legislate against discrimination the more discrimination you will create - an offshoot of the law of unintended consequences.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
We live in strange times
Liz Hunt on The Telegraph recounts an unsubstantiated anecdote to explain why she thinks nurses shouldn't offer to pray for sick people.
Caroline Petrie, the community nurse who offered to pray for an ailing pensioner, has failed in her duties, and the Royal College of Nursing is wrong to back her in the forthcoming disciplinary hearing.
Failed in her duties? Because she cared about someone? As far as I'm aware there was no question of Ms. Petrie providing an insufficient level of care - which, as a nurse, is her duty. Hunt uses her own experience as a "pre-registration student" at a teaching hospital to explain why she thinks this is so.
Each of us "pre-regs" was assigned a mentor. I was lucky: "Martin" was a dedicated pharmacist with a wide breadth of therapeutic knowledge, and a warm way with patients. I looked forward to shadowing him on the wards each week, as he blended anecdotes from his career with knowledge about drugs that is acquired only through long experience in a clinical setting and never from a textbook.
Of course, Martin had my respect, too – until one particular day. A theatre nurse arrived at the dispensary hatch with an emergency request for a drug used to terminate pregnancy. Martin, the most senior pharmacist present, went into a very public melt-down, refusing to dispense the drug because "I'm a Catholic and abortion is not something I can condone".
I'm not sure how old Liz Hunt, but it sounds as if this took place quite a long time ago. If it is true and had been a relatively recent thing then we'd surely have seen poor old Martin spread across the front pages of The Grauniad and Independent by now.
I understood Martin's conflicted feelings – I'd spent seven years at convent school. What I didn't understand was him putting his religious principles before the wellbeing of his patient, and insisting on such a grandstanding fuss about it all. The man I had thought of as the ultimate professional had failed in my eyes – just as Caroline Petrie has done.
Hmm - putting "religious principles before the wellbeing" of a patient, eh? Well, let's just consider the case of Ms Petrie in respect to this anecdote. Ms Petrie at no time failed to provide the level of nursing care required as far as I understand it. She showed exceptional levels of concern and care for her patient to such an extent that she offered to say a private prayer for the patient if they so desired. That person wasn't the least bit put out by that - but someone else, not the patient, was.
So, what we have is someone - not the patient, nor the nurse involved - having a "meltdown" and putting their "religious principles" ahead of the wellbeing of a patient just so they could score points for being more diversity sensitive.
And Liz Hunt thinks that is OK?
I'm sure I'm not the only person who has been in hospitals and care homes and seen patients left sitting in their own excrement for hours at a time - probably because the nurses and carers were all busy with diversity training - and I have many personal anecdotes I could share about the level of care my father received and the way his dignity was stripped away in the last days of his life, but those are private and are staying that way. Let's just say that my father's lifelong belief in the NHS failed him the one time he actually needed it.
But what really annoys people like Liz Hunt are people who pray. The world really has gone mad.
Caroline Petrie, the community nurse who offered to pray for an ailing pensioner, has failed in her duties, and the Royal College of Nursing is wrong to back her in the forthcoming disciplinary hearing.
Failed in her duties? Because she cared about someone? As far as I'm aware there was no question of Ms. Petrie providing an insufficient level of care - which, as a nurse, is her duty. Hunt uses her own experience as a "pre-registration student" at a teaching hospital to explain why she thinks this is so.
Each of us "pre-regs" was assigned a mentor. I was lucky: "Martin" was a dedicated pharmacist with a wide breadth of therapeutic knowledge, and a warm way with patients. I looked forward to shadowing him on the wards each week, as he blended anecdotes from his career with knowledge about drugs that is acquired only through long experience in a clinical setting and never from a textbook.
Of course, Martin had my respect, too – until one particular day. A theatre nurse arrived at the dispensary hatch with an emergency request for a drug used to terminate pregnancy. Martin, the most senior pharmacist present, went into a very public melt-down, refusing to dispense the drug because "I'm a Catholic and abortion is not something I can condone".
I'm not sure how old Liz Hunt, but it sounds as if this took place quite a long time ago. If it is true and had been a relatively recent thing then we'd surely have seen poor old Martin spread across the front pages of The Grauniad and Independent by now.
I understood Martin's conflicted feelings – I'd spent seven years at convent school. What I didn't understand was him putting his religious principles before the wellbeing of his patient, and insisting on such a grandstanding fuss about it all. The man I had thought of as the ultimate professional had failed in my eyes – just as Caroline Petrie has done.
Hmm - putting "religious principles before the wellbeing" of a patient, eh? Well, let's just consider the case of Ms Petrie in respect to this anecdote. Ms Petrie at no time failed to provide the level of nursing care required as far as I understand it. She showed exceptional levels of concern and care for her patient to such an extent that she offered to say a private prayer for the patient if they so desired. That person wasn't the least bit put out by that - but someone else, not the patient, was.
So, what we have is someone - not the patient, nor the nurse involved - having a "meltdown" and putting their "religious principles" ahead of the wellbeing of a patient just so they could score points for being more diversity sensitive.
And Liz Hunt thinks that is OK?
I'm sure I'm not the only person who has been in hospitals and care homes and seen patients left sitting in their own excrement for hours at a time - probably because the nurses and carers were all busy with diversity training - and I have many personal anecdotes I could share about the level of care my father received and the way his dignity was stripped away in the last days of his life, but those are private and are staying that way. Let's just say that my father's lifelong belief in the NHS failed him the one time he actually needed it.
But what really annoys people like Liz Hunt are people who pray. The world really has gone mad.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
1+1
On the comments of another post, Old Greeny, a teacher, asks ....
"For instance, we are now required to teach "Community Cohesion" (whatever THAT is!).....I presume it's a case of....erm....treating ech other with respect? But what do I know? I teach maths...If someone knows how to teach "Community Cohesion" in maths, please let me know...."
Well, here's my answer Old Greeny.
1 language + 1 culture = 1 community
1000 communities + 1 shared history = 1 nation
1 nation + 10 new cultures + 50 new languages = 1 hell of a mess
"For instance, we are now required to teach "Community Cohesion" (whatever THAT is!).....I presume it's a case of....erm....treating ech other with respect? But what do I know? I teach maths...If someone knows how to teach "Community Cohesion" in maths, please let me know...."
Well, here's my answer Old Greeny.
1 language + 1 culture = 1 community
1000 communities + 1 shared history = 1 nation
1 nation + 10 new cultures + 50 new languages = 1 hell of a mess
Monday, December 08, 2008
Plus ça change
The excellent Janet Daley on the Telegraph comment section eloquently questions whether more government bureaucracy will make a difference to social services.
We are to have yet another "shake-up" of the social services. Because, after all, having allowed one child to be tortured to death and another to be held hostage by her own mother, the social services are clearly in need of an intervention from central government, right?
As Daley points out, Haringey social services received a glowing report from Ofsted just before the Baby P story broke and the grim reality of the "3 star" department was exposed as an inept bunch of arse-coverers.
The government seem to think that better "qualifications", more "on the job" training and closer scrutiny by more box-tickers will solve the problem - but they fail to consider, as usual, what the problem actually is.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough social workers or not enough well-trained social workers or not enough motivation for social workers or insufficient checks on social workers - the problem is that the vast majority of social workers are infected with a socially liberal progressive ideology which makes them incapable of making proper judgement.
Indeed, along with political correctness, cultural equivalence and moral relativity, being "non-judgemental" is a required attribute of a social worker - but it is these very things that make these people unfit for the job they do and ensures that all social service departments will be unfit for purpose.
What social services really need are people who are judgemental and who make those judgements from a solid moral base with a clear understanding of what is, traditionally, considered right and wrong - you can not be "objective" about the potential abuse of a child as it is a very subjective issue.
And that means you do have to be judgemental about the people you visit, you can not be constrained by politically correct opinions - yours or others - and you do have to make a call on what is morally reprehensible.
Any amount of "shake-ups", reviews or restructuring of social services will not address the fundamental issue which is at the root of the problems inflicting social services - liberal progressive ideology. Until that changes .... plus c'est la meme chose.
We are to have yet another "shake-up" of the social services. Because, after all, having allowed one child to be tortured to death and another to be held hostage by her own mother, the social services are clearly in need of an intervention from central government, right?
As Daley points out, Haringey social services received a glowing report from Ofsted just before the Baby P story broke and the grim reality of the "3 star" department was exposed as an inept bunch of arse-coverers.
The government seem to think that better "qualifications", more "on the job" training and closer scrutiny by more box-tickers will solve the problem - but they fail to consider, as usual, what the problem actually is.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough social workers or not enough well-trained social workers or not enough motivation for social workers or insufficient checks on social workers - the problem is that the vast majority of social workers are infected with a socially liberal progressive ideology which makes them incapable of making proper judgement.
Indeed, along with political correctness, cultural equivalence and moral relativity, being "non-judgemental" is a required attribute of a social worker - but it is these very things that make these people unfit for the job they do and ensures that all social service departments will be unfit for purpose.
What social services really need are people who are judgemental and who make those judgements from a solid moral base with a clear understanding of what is, traditionally, considered right and wrong - you can not be "objective" about the potential abuse of a child as it is a very subjective issue.
And that means you do have to be judgemental about the people you visit, you can not be constrained by politically correct opinions - yours or others - and you do have to make a call on what is morally reprehensible.
Any amount of "shake-ups", reviews or restructuring of social services will not address the fundamental issue which is at the root of the problems inflicting social services - liberal progressive ideology. Until that changes .... plus c'est la meme chose.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Moslem only!
Anyone still in any doubt that the so called "multicultural" society is leading to certain "cultures" being given special treatment above that of the indigenous culture should look at this.
A grieving family have been prevented from holding a funeral service for a close relative at the weekend because they are not Muslim.
Sheffield City Council said it did not allow funerals to be held at weekends, except for Muslims because Islam deems that the dead must be buried as soon as possible.
Martin Green, senior bereavement services manager for Sheffield, said the council's policy was in line with that of other local authorities.
He said: "The council recognised the specific cultural and religious needs surrounding burial and has been offering an extended burial service to the Muslim community.
One rule for us - special treatment for Moslems. Welcome to England in the 21st century.
When are we going to wake up to what is happening to our nation? This has to stop. More than that - it needs to be reversed. No more "positive discrimination" no more "cultural sensitivity" - if people come to our nation they should respect our laws and our customs or go somewhere else.
Would you allow a guest in your home to rearrange the furniture, chuck out stuff they don't like, redecorate your bedroom to their taste? Of course not - so why do we think we have to be so bloody accommodating to foreign cultures in our home land?
Next time some dozy liberal tells you that we should do more to welcome foreign cultures - get their address, walk into their house and do what you want. They don't allow smoking? Tell 'em your culture requires you to smoke. They don't like you wiping your backside on their Egyptian cotton bath towels? Tell them your culture doesn't allow you to touch your arse with paper. See how they like it when their home is invaded by foreign ways - because that is what is happening here in England.
This has nothing to do with tolerance - it's about having backbone and not being spineless apologists. It's about having some pride in our own history and culture and restoring the confidence of our nation - a nation which has an unparalleled history of fairness, equality and tolerance.
Good God! When did we become so pathetic? How could a nation which stood firm and alone against the malevolent threat of Nazism and the might of National Socialist Germany have decayed so completely in such a short space of time?
Our current generation of politicians have betrayed us. Every one of them. They are not fit to govern - they never will be. If something doesn't change soon we will become a nation of subservience ruled by petty bureaucrats and jobsworths who are completely incapable of performing the first duties of government - to protect and preserve this nation, its people and its culture.
A grieving family have been prevented from holding a funeral service for a close relative at the weekend because they are not Muslim.
Sheffield City Council said it did not allow funerals to be held at weekends, except for Muslims because Islam deems that the dead must be buried as soon as possible.
Martin Green, senior bereavement services manager for Sheffield, said the council's policy was in line with that of other local authorities.
He said: "The council recognised the specific cultural and religious needs surrounding burial and has been offering an extended burial service to the Muslim community.
One rule for us - special treatment for Moslems. Welcome to England in the 21st century.
When are we going to wake up to what is happening to our nation? This has to stop. More than that - it needs to be reversed. No more "positive discrimination" no more "cultural sensitivity" - if people come to our nation they should respect our laws and our customs or go somewhere else.
Would you allow a guest in your home to rearrange the furniture, chuck out stuff they don't like, redecorate your bedroom to their taste? Of course not - so why do we think we have to be so bloody accommodating to foreign cultures in our home land?
Next time some dozy liberal tells you that we should do more to welcome foreign cultures - get their address, walk into their house and do what you want. They don't allow smoking? Tell 'em your culture requires you to smoke. They don't like you wiping your backside on their Egyptian cotton bath towels? Tell them your culture doesn't allow you to touch your arse with paper. See how they like it when their home is invaded by foreign ways - because that is what is happening here in England.
This has nothing to do with tolerance - it's about having backbone and not being spineless apologists. It's about having some pride in our own history and culture and restoring the confidence of our nation - a nation which has an unparalleled history of fairness, equality and tolerance.
Good God! When did we become so pathetic? How could a nation which stood firm and alone against the malevolent threat of Nazism and the might of National Socialist Germany have decayed so completely in such a short space of time?
Our current generation of politicians have betrayed us. Every one of them. They are not fit to govern - they never will be. If something doesn't change soon we will become a nation of subservience ruled by petty bureaucrats and jobsworths who are completely incapable of performing the first duties of government - to protect and preserve this nation, its people and its culture.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Enemies of the state
I suppose a lot of people will be wondering, like me, how a jury could fail to find those accused of plotting to blow up airliners guilty, but I can't blame the jurors. They can only act on the evidence presented and the criminal act charged and it is up to the prosecution to prove the case beyond doubt. Clearly the prosecution failed to do this.
The problem - as far as I'm concerned - is not with the jurors, but with the government, CPS or whoever it is who decides what these people are tried for. It may not have been obvious to the jury that the accused were actually intending to create carnage and murder on a grand scale, but what is clear is that they were guilty of sedition and treason.
Sedition and treason are crimes, but ones which our society is increasingly loathe to prosecute. The reason for this is, once more, progressive liberalism which nominally supports the right to free speech and preaches toleration of other views.
I say "nominally" because the progressive liberals are notoriously intolerant of anyone who expresses a negative opinion on one of their favoured victim groups. Which is why people are prosecuted for the slightest perception of racism, but Moslems making videos that actively preach murder and mayhem is just a cultural thing who are just reacting to a genuine grievance.
The "war on terror" will never be won as long as we keep treating it as a criminal activity - like smuggling or burglary - instead of a war. We have to face up to the fact that we are in a war - whether we like it or not - and that our enemies have "soldiers" actively engaged in action in our country. The plotters in this case ranted against the presence of our troops in what they called "our lands". Well this is OUR land - and if they have chosen to take the side of our enemies then they are OUR enemies and should be treated as such.
The problem - as far as I'm concerned - is not with the jurors, but with the government, CPS or whoever it is who decides what these people are tried for. It may not have been obvious to the jury that the accused were actually intending to create carnage and murder on a grand scale, but what is clear is that they were guilty of sedition and treason.
Sedition and treason are crimes, but ones which our society is increasingly loathe to prosecute. The reason for this is, once more, progressive liberalism which nominally supports the right to free speech and preaches toleration of other views.
I say "nominally" because the progressive liberals are notoriously intolerant of anyone who expresses a negative opinion on one of their favoured victim groups. Which is why people are prosecuted for the slightest perception of racism, but Moslems making videos that actively preach murder and mayhem is just a cultural thing who are just reacting to a genuine grievance.
The "war on terror" will never be won as long as we keep treating it as a criminal activity - like smuggling or burglary - instead of a war. We have to face up to the fact that we are in a war - whether we like it or not - and that our enemies have "soldiers" actively engaged in action in our country. The plotters in this case ranted against the presence of our troops in what they called "our lands". Well this is OUR land - and if they have chosen to take the side of our enemies then they are OUR enemies and should be treated as such.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Olympically OTT
Before I get into this rant I should point out that I'm not much of a sports fan, but am I the only one in Britain who hasn't found the "celebration" of our athlete's relative success in Peking a little over the top? It seems as if we've had virtually non-stop 24 hour coverage of the blasted circus for the last three weeks with even the news carrying the Olympics as its main story line.
Of course, I recognise that winning an Olympic gold medal is quite an achievement, but I also recognise that they are only doing what they are supposed to do and that they have - on the whole - received an awful lot of taxpayers money to do. In that respect they are far more fortunate than the vast majority of us, so for much of the media to then suggest that their efforts should be recognised with further honours - knighthoods, MBE's and so on - is ridiculous and cheapens the honours system.
The honours should be reserved for those who have given a lifetime of service to the nation or carried out some selfless act - not for those privileged athletes who are largely insulated from the rigours of everyday life that so many of us mere mortals go through.
I have no problem with honours being bestowed on sporting personalities after a lifetime of achievement and dedication - generally they have not only worked hard in their own sport but have done a great deal of good for charity and the nation, but I find the idea of handing out gongs to a 22 year old just for winning one event at the right time rather silly.
One other thing that has struck me during the Olympic fortnight was the incredible sycophancy of the BBC towards the Chinese. From the opening ceremony where BBC commentators gasped in awe like dumbstruck children at the gaudy, vulgar but wonderfully stage managed displays on show (totalitarian regimes are usually very good at stage managed displays - fear is often a good motivator) and through every event they have been doing nothing but telling us how wonderful the Games were and how great the Chinese are.
Yeah, they are great as long as you don't mention the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or the millions who have died at the hands of this oppressive nation. It was always a mistake, in my view, to give the Olympic Games to the Chinese - they were always going to use it as a political lever and the BBC more than anyone have helped them to do this.
From what I understand, the Berlin Olympics of 1936 were wonderfully stage managed too and went a long way to allaying some of the fears people had about the Nazi regime. It would be another 12 years and millions of violent deaths before there was another Olympic Games. There is also a certain irony that after the Berlin Olympics the next city to host them would be London in 1948 - as it will be after the Peking Games.
Though I don't expect the same thing to happen this time I do find it repugnant that another viciously oppressive totalitarian regime is once more allowed to present a false visage to the world through a sporting meet and that our own state broadcaster more than anyone supports them in doing so.
Of course, I recognise that winning an Olympic gold medal is quite an achievement, but I also recognise that they are only doing what they are supposed to do and that they have - on the whole - received an awful lot of taxpayers money to do. In that respect they are far more fortunate than the vast majority of us, so for much of the media to then suggest that their efforts should be recognised with further honours - knighthoods, MBE's and so on - is ridiculous and cheapens the honours system.
The honours should be reserved for those who have given a lifetime of service to the nation or carried out some selfless act - not for those privileged athletes who are largely insulated from the rigours of everyday life that so many of us mere mortals go through.
I have no problem with honours being bestowed on sporting personalities after a lifetime of achievement and dedication - generally they have not only worked hard in their own sport but have done a great deal of good for charity and the nation, but I find the idea of handing out gongs to a 22 year old just for winning one event at the right time rather silly.
One other thing that has struck me during the Olympic fortnight was the incredible sycophancy of the BBC towards the Chinese. From the opening ceremony where BBC commentators gasped in awe like dumbstruck children at the gaudy, vulgar but wonderfully stage managed displays on show (totalitarian regimes are usually very good at stage managed displays - fear is often a good motivator) and through every event they have been doing nothing but telling us how wonderful the Games were and how great the Chinese are.
Yeah, they are great as long as you don't mention the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or the millions who have died at the hands of this oppressive nation. It was always a mistake, in my view, to give the Olympic Games to the Chinese - they were always going to use it as a political lever and the BBC more than anyone have helped them to do this.
From what I understand, the Berlin Olympics of 1936 were wonderfully stage managed too and went a long way to allaying some of the fears people had about the Nazi regime. It would be another 12 years and millions of violent deaths before there was another Olympic Games. There is also a certain irony that after the Berlin Olympics the next city to host them would be London in 1948 - as it will be after the Peking Games.
Though I don't expect the same thing to happen this time I do find it repugnant that another viciously oppressive totalitarian regime is once more allowed to present a false visage to the world through a sporting meet and that our own state broadcaster more than anyone supports them in doing so.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Knowledge is, of course, essential to understanding
This must be one of the most worrying things I've heard from our increasingly worrying education system.
Two schoolboys were allegedly disciplined after refusing to kneel down and "pray to Allah" during a religious education lesson.
The alleged incident, at the Alsager school, one of Cheshire's top performing schools, happened on Tuesday afternoon. The teacher, Alison Phillips, the school's subject leader in RE, is understood to be staying away from the school until the furore dies down, although she has not been suspended.
"Staying away" on full pay, no doubt.
A spokesman for Cheshire County Council said "Educating children in the beliefs of different faiths is part of Cheshire's diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is, of course, is [sic] essential to understanding." (My emphasis).
S'funny how that "diversity curriculum" doesn't allow for children to dissent from being forced to bow to Allah by some liberal progressive teacher. I guess they don't like kids who diversify from the liberal progressive indoctrination that passes for education these days.
Of course, I'm sure this "diversity curriculum" includes telling children how Mohammed took a seven year old for a bride and was actively consummating that marriage by the time his bride was nine. No doubt they go into detail on how Islam treats homosexuality, the persecution of non-believers in Islamic countries, honour killings and so on.
After all, knowledge is, of course, essential to understanding.
Hat tip: House of Dumb
Two schoolboys were allegedly disciplined after refusing to kneel down and "pray to Allah" during a religious education lesson.
The alleged incident, at the Alsager school, one of Cheshire's top performing schools, happened on Tuesday afternoon. The teacher, Alison Phillips, the school's subject leader in RE, is understood to be staying away from the school until the furore dies down, although she has not been suspended.
"Staying away" on full pay, no doubt.
A spokesman for Cheshire County Council said "Educating children in the beliefs of different faiths is part of Cheshire's diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is, of course, is [sic] essential to understanding." (My emphasis).
S'funny how that "diversity curriculum" doesn't allow for children to dissent from being forced to bow to Allah by some liberal progressive teacher. I guess they don't like kids who diversify from the liberal progressive indoctrination that passes for education these days.
Of course, I'm sure this "diversity curriculum" includes telling children how Mohammed took a seven year old for a bride and was actively consummating that marriage by the time his bride was nine. No doubt they go into detail on how Islam treats homosexuality, the persecution of non-believers in Islamic countries, honour killings and so on.
After all, knowledge is, of course, essential to understanding.
Hat tip: House of Dumb
Saturday, May 26, 2007
The modern sickness
It's funny how sometimes, someone you've never met, never spoken to and never ever communicated with can still somehow make you feel they have something in common with you.
That's how it was for me when I read this article from Timothy Payne in the Niagara Gazette.
I am sick of not being able to take my family to a movie without having them exposed to nudity, homosexuality and the glorification of sex and narcotics. I am sick of reading so-called modern literature filled with language once found only on the walls of public toilets.
I am sick of fighting for freedoms overseas, but being helpless to prevent the erosion of our own citizens’ freedoms in our country. I am sick of drug-using entertainers appearing on television shows, deluging me with their condemnations of God’s moral standards. I am sick of dirty, foul-mouthed entertainers receiving gratitude for their performances. I am sick of the decline in personal honesty, integrity and human security.
I am sick of being told policemen and honest citizens should not have weapons, but criminals who use guns to rob, maim and murder should be understood and helped back into society before they are ready. I am sick of paying more and more taxes for schools that teach secular humanism with moral standards that are destroying our country. I am sick of paying more and more taxes to provide support for people who are able to work. I am sick of being told that God is the opiate of the people but that all kinds of sin should be legalized.
I am sick of being told that pornography is the right of free press, but that freedom of the press does not include being able to read a bible on public school grounds. I am sick of cynical attitudes toward patriotism and immoral politicians whose decisions are made with greed.And, most of all, I am sick because my country is growing sicker when we have the greatest nation ever established on the face of this earth, a country where most of the world’s people would love to trade places with the most underprivileged amongst us.
Yes, I may be sick, but I can get well, and I can help society and America get well. You will not find me taking to the streets, throwing rocks or making bombs. You will find me, however, at work within my community, expressing my concern in letters to our leaders.
You will find me at the polling place, to cast my votes for an America where people can walk the streets without fear, for an America that will be educated, not indoctrinated. You will find me voting for an America of brotherhood and understanding, for an America that is no longer embarrassed to speak to it motto: In God we trust!
I agree with every word.
That's how it was for me when I read this article from Timothy Payne in the Niagara Gazette.
I am sick of not being able to take my family to a movie without having them exposed to nudity, homosexuality and the glorification of sex and narcotics. I am sick of reading so-called modern literature filled with language once found only on the walls of public toilets.
I am sick of fighting for freedoms overseas, but being helpless to prevent the erosion of our own citizens’ freedoms in our country. I am sick of drug-using entertainers appearing on television shows, deluging me with their condemnations of God’s moral standards. I am sick of dirty, foul-mouthed entertainers receiving gratitude for their performances. I am sick of the decline in personal honesty, integrity and human security.
I am sick of being told policemen and honest citizens should not have weapons, but criminals who use guns to rob, maim and murder should be understood and helped back into society before they are ready. I am sick of paying more and more taxes for schools that teach secular humanism with moral standards that are destroying our country. I am sick of paying more and more taxes to provide support for people who are able to work. I am sick of being told that God is the opiate of the people but that all kinds of sin should be legalized.
I am sick of being told that pornography is the right of free press, but that freedom of the press does not include being able to read a bible on public school grounds. I am sick of cynical attitudes toward patriotism and immoral politicians whose decisions are made with greed.And, most of all, I am sick because my country is growing sicker when we have the greatest nation ever established on the face of this earth, a country where most of the world’s people would love to trade places with the most underprivileged amongst us.
Yes, I may be sick, but I can get well, and I can help society and America get well. You will not find me taking to the streets, throwing rocks or making bombs. You will find me, however, at work within my community, expressing my concern in letters to our leaders.
You will find me at the polling place, to cast my votes for an America where people can walk the streets without fear, for an America that will be educated, not indoctrinated. You will find me voting for an America of brotherhood and understanding, for an America that is no longer embarrassed to speak to it motto: In God we trust!
I agree with every word.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The third era of Islamic Imperialism
Via Melanie Phillips comes this lecture from historian Bernard Lewis on the threat facing the west from the latest wave of Islamic Imperialism. Read it all.
The declaration of war begins at the very beginning of Islam. There are certain letters purported to have been written by the Prophet Muhammad to the Christian Byzantine emperor, the emperor of Persia, and various other rulers, saying, "I have now brought God's final message. Your time has passed. Your beliefs are superseded. Accept my mission and my faith or resign or submit--you are finished." The authenticity of these prophetic letters is doubted, but the message is clear and authentic in the sense that it does represent the long dominant view of the Islamic world.
It's interesting to note that the President of Iran has sent similar letters to the President of the USA. Lewis then goes on to remind us that the Crusades - which in the post-modern view is seen as an act of aggression against peaceful Muslims- was actually a response to Islamic Imperialism which had conquered the Holy Lands as well as much of Africa, Asia and Europe.
Lewis points out that the post-modern view of the Crusades is so entrenched that in 2002, the then French Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, while addressing the French National Assembly was to say .....
that one of Saddam Hussein's heroes was his compatriot Saladin, who came from the same Iraqi town of Tikrit. In case the members of the Assembly were not aware of Saladin's identity, M. Raffarin explained to them that it was he who was able "to defeat the Crusaders and liberate Jerusalem."
The second wave of Islamic Imperialism was led by the Turks.
[W]ho had already conquered Anatolia, advanced into Europe and in 1453 they captured the ancient Christian citadel of Constantinople. They conquered a large part of the Balkans, and for a while ruled half of Hungary. Twice they reached as far as Vienna, to which they laid siege in 1529 and again in 1683. Barbary corsairs from North Africa--well-known to historians of the United States--were raiding Western Europe. They went to Iceland--the uttermost limit--and to several places in Western Europe, including notably a raid on Baltimore (the original one, in Ireland) in 1631. In a contemporary document, we have a list of 107 captives who were taken from Baltimore to Algiers, including a man called Cheney.
Once more, this conquest was pushed back and appeared, for a time, to have been completely defeated. But Islamic Imperialism was far from beaten. It is, if nothing else, a patient beast that believes it's destiny is to rule the world and that time is no barrier to that ambition. The latest wave is characterised by two tactics. Terror attacks and immigration and is headed by Osama Bin Laden.
In his perception, the millennial struggle between the true believers and the unbelievers had gone through successive phases, in which the latter were led by the various imperial European powers that had succeeded the Romans in the leadership of the world of the infidels--the Christian Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the British and French and Russian empires. In this final phase, he says, the world of the infidels was divided and disputed between two rival superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. In his perception, the Muslims have met, defeated, and destroyed the more dangerous and the more deadly of the two infidel superpowers. Dealing with the soft, pampered and effeminate Americans would be an easy matter.
Not just the Americans, of course, but the Europeans are even softer and even more pampered. They weren't even worth taking into consideration as far as Bin Laden was concerned. Indeed, it could be argued that Europe has already capitulated. Lewis continues ....
This belief was confirmed in the 1990s when we saw one attack after another on American bases and installations with virtually no effective response of any kind--only angry words and expensive missiles dispatched to remote and uninhabited places. The lessons of Vietnam and Beirut were confirmed by Mogadishu. "Hit them, and they'll run." This was the perceived sequence leading up to 9/11. That attack was clearly intended to be the completion of the first sequence and the beginning of the new one, taking the war into the heart of the enemy camp.
What Bin Laden didn't expect was for the US to take the war into the heart of the Islamic world - which is what Bush has done and which is why the Islamic Imperialists now find themselves having to fight a defensive war. Even so, the main attack comes not from warplanes or terrorists, but from immigration.
Where do we stand now? Is it third time lucky? It is not impossible. They have certain clear advantages. They have fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking. They are self-assured of the rightness of their cause, whereas we spend most of our time in self-denigration and self-abasement. They have loyalty and discipline, and perhaps most important of all, they have demography, the combination of natural increase and migration producing major population changes, which could lead within the foreseeable future to significant majorities in at least some European cities or even countries.
In my opinion, we have to start to reverse this trend - or the future for Europe is an unremittingly bleak Islamic one.
The declaration of war begins at the very beginning of Islam. There are certain letters purported to have been written by the Prophet Muhammad to the Christian Byzantine emperor, the emperor of Persia, and various other rulers, saying, "I have now brought God's final message. Your time has passed. Your beliefs are superseded. Accept my mission and my faith or resign or submit--you are finished." The authenticity of these prophetic letters is doubted, but the message is clear and authentic in the sense that it does represent the long dominant view of the Islamic world.
It's interesting to note that the President of Iran has sent similar letters to the President of the USA. Lewis then goes on to remind us that the Crusades - which in the post-modern view is seen as an act of aggression against peaceful Muslims- was actually a response to Islamic Imperialism which had conquered the Holy Lands as well as much of Africa, Asia and Europe.
Lewis points out that the post-modern view of the Crusades is so entrenched that in 2002, the then French Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, while addressing the French National Assembly was to say .....
that one of Saddam Hussein's heroes was his compatriot Saladin, who came from the same Iraqi town of Tikrit. In case the members of the Assembly were not aware of Saladin's identity, M. Raffarin explained to them that it was he who was able "to defeat the Crusaders and liberate Jerusalem."
The second wave of Islamic Imperialism was led by the Turks.
[W]ho had already conquered Anatolia, advanced into Europe and in 1453 they captured the ancient Christian citadel of Constantinople. They conquered a large part of the Balkans, and for a while ruled half of Hungary. Twice they reached as far as Vienna, to which they laid siege in 1529 and again in 1683. Barbary corsairs from North Africa--well-known to historians of the United States--were raiding Western Europe. They went to Iceland--the uttermost limit--and to several places in Western Europe, including notably a raid on Baltimore (the original one, in Ireland) in 1631. In a contemporary document, we have a list of 107 captives who were taken from Baltimore to Algiers, including a man called Cheney.
Once more, this conquest was pushed back and appeared, for a time, to have been completely defeated. But Islamic Imperialism was far from beaten. It is, if nothing else, a patient beast that believes it's destiny is to rule the world and that time is no barrier to that ambition. The latest wave is characterised by two tactics. Terror attacks and immigration and is headed by Osama Bin Laden.
In his perception, the millennial struggle between the true believers and the unbelievers had gone through successive phases, in which the latter were led by the various imperial European powers that had succeeded the Romans in the leadership of the world of the infidels--the Christian Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the British and French and Russian empires. In this final phase, he says, the world of the infidels was divided and disputed between two rival superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. In his perception, the Muslims have met, defeated, and destroyed the more dangerous and the more deadly of the two infidel superpowers. Dealing with the soft, pampered and effeminate Americans would be an easy matter.
Not just the Americans, of course, but the Europeans are even softer and even more pampered. They weren't even worth taking into consideration as far as Bin Laden was concerned. Indeed, it could be argued that Europe has already capitulated. Lewis continues ....
This belief was confirmed in the 1990s when we saw one attack after another on American bases and installations with virtually no effective response of any kind--only angry words and expensive missiles dispatched to remote and uninhabited places. The lessons of Vietnam and Beirut were confirmed by Mogadishu. "Hit them, and they'll run." This was the perceived sequence leading up to 9/11. That attack was clearly intended to be the completion of the first sequence and the beginning of the new one, taking the war into the heart of the enemy camp.
What Bin Laden didn't expect was for the US to take the war into the heart of the Islamic world - which is what Bush has done and which is why the Islamic Imperialists now find themselves having to fight a defensive war. Even so, the main attack comes not from warplanes or terrorists, but from immigration.
Where do we stand now? Is it third time lucky? It is not impossible. They have certain clear advantages. They have fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking. They are self-assured of the rightness of their cause, whereas we spend most of our time in self-denigration and self-abasement. They have loyalty and discipline, and perhaps most important of all, they have demography, the combination of natural increase and migration producing major population changes, which could lead within the foreseeable future to significant majorities in at least some European cities or even countries.
In my opinion, we have to start to reverse this trend - or the future for Europe is an unremittingly bleak Islamic one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)