Independent Perspective

Exams

2006-06-14T11:37:00.000+01:00

Sorry for the dearth of posts. It's exam time at the moment so there won't be anything for my regular reader (I've always liked the University of Reading) for a few weeks.

See you then.

Bari the Moderate: "More Arranged Marriages, Infidels"

2006-06-10T19:47:00.000+01:00

The outrageous behaviour of Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, new leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, breaks new boundaries today. Not content with berating the police for just doing their jobs, he openly suggests British people should enter into arranged marriages;

Britain should espouse many more Muslim traditions, he says. "Arranged marriages are a good idea. These are not forced on children but it is a way of parents helping to guide their children to make the right choices. In youth, you are very emotional; you just go on instinct. Elders can look at compatibility, background, intentions. It is a wonderful system.

Yum. Looking forward to my parents finding me a nice quiet girl from the Punjab.

Bari also contradicts himself quite blatantly. On the one hand he moans;

"Muslims are frightened now," he says. "Many are still poor, under-educated and unemployed and they are finding life increasingly difficult. It is a nightmare, particularly for the young."

But then suggests British Christians should attend Muslim schools;

Dr Bari also thinks that there should be more faith schools and that British children should be encouraged to attend Muslim establishments.

"We are taking the blame for the events of the past few years, but we should be saying, 'Look at what is good about our culture. Come to our schools. They are better: they have more discipline, more respect, better exam results, children work hard, there are fewer mini-skirts, there is less bad behaviour, the teachers can get on with their jobs.'

Hmm. Somehow doesn't really work, does it? You're all poor and uneducated but you've got the best schools in the country? Forgive me, but I don't think I'll be sending my children to the local madrassa.

Unfinished Business

2006-06-10T14:56:00.000+01:00

Alongside the Iraq War, Labour's partial reform of the House of Lords is one of the few things that makes me believe Tony Blair's Premiership hasn't been an unmitigated disaster.

My only concern (as with Iraq) is that despite copious promises, and excellent intentions, the programme has not been carried out to its best conclusion.

That's why Jack Straw's belief that Lords Reform needs to be tackled "once and for all" is good news.

I just hope Labour will be sufficiently radical. Where once there was pressure from the entrenched interests of hereditary lords and ladies, now you've got actual politicians (smooth, PR bred political stock) not just titled blue-bloods arguing for inertia. It will take a sharp stick to beat them with.

The current situation (where the leaders of the major political parties nominate peers) is clearly untenable - and not just because of the charges of corruption that can be frequently laid on party leaders. Power of patronage resides in their mock-regal courts, with close colleagues, token ethnic minorities and disabled women chucked in to the mix. How anyone can believe an efficient upper chamber can operate with such a combination is incredibile.

A fully elected upper chamber is the only solution with any democratic legitimacy. The 'expertise' and 'experience' and 'received wisdom' argument in favour of an appointed Lords doesn't have legs. Yes it's an elegant argument for a gerontocracy, but not for a working democratic chamber. Similarly, the idea that an elected house would be full of party-men and arse-licking cronies hardly takes into account the current situation (where the house is perpetually being filled with party-men and arse-licking cronies). At least electors would never consider voting in Lord Falconer.

A fully elected house is the only morally justifiable solution. I thought we were all democrats. Let's prove that we are.

Thank God He Suffered

2006-06-09T19:15:00.000+01:00

According to Reuters, Al-Zarqawi did not die instantly.

The mortally wounded Sunni Arab militant [read: Islamic terrorist] mumbled before he died from injuries he suffered during the air strike in a village north of Baghdad on Wednesday

Reduced to incoherent mumblings, hopefully trembling in excruciating pain, I can't help but pray that he suffered perhaps even a small percentage of the amount his victims suffered.

I thought it might be appropriate to remember some of his victims;

Remember Laurence Foley, assassinated on October 28th 2002 by men paid by Zarqawi.

Remember the 41 dead in attacks on Casablanca on May 16th 2003 and the 27 dead in attacks on Istanbul, in November 2003, partially organised by Zarqawi.

Remember the 22 innocents who perished, including the UN Secretary General's special Iraqi envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, in the Canal Hotel Bombing on August 19th, 2003.

Remember Nick Berg, American businessman, beheaded by Zarqawi in May 2004.

Remember the five US troops and 1 Irawi guardsman slaughtered in a mortar attack in Samarra on July 8th, 2004, responsibility for claimed by a group linked to Zarqawi.

Remember Eugene Armstrong, beheaded on 20th September 2004, Jack Hensley, beheaded on 21 September 2004, and Kenneth Bigley, British citizen, beheaded on 7th October 2004, all three civil engineers, all three slaughtered by Zarqawi.

Remember the 49 Iraqi army recruits Zarqawi murdered in October 2004.

Remember the British national murdered at Doha, Qatar, in March 2005, by the Jund al-Sham terrorist group set up by Zarqawi.

Remember the 56 people killed in suicide bomb attacks on Amman on November 10th, 2005, masterminded by Zarqawi.

Remember the countless Shia innocents targetted in Iraq by Zarqawi's evil campaign to stir up sectarian tension.

Remember the thousands wounded and mutilated, but thankfully still living, who will always be scarred by Zarqawi's evil, however dead he might be.

Remember that it was by force that this man was finally brought to justice, not negotiation.

Never forget.

Sexist, Racist, but no Motorist

2006-06-08T20:37:00.000+01:00

Separated at birth? Unlikely

However similar those two are beginning to look, the efforts of some journalists to characterise the Lib Dems' tax move today as "radical" and as being a lurch towards "lower taxes" do not justify any comparison between the men beyond senility and irrelevance. Hardly

"vying for the same political ground as the Conservatives -- traditionally the low tax party"

as the Scotsman suggests, the Lib Dems have announced a tax plan only environmental fascists would describe as conservative. Playing on fears of man-made climate change, the Lib Dems want to raise an enormous £8 billion pounds in environmental taxes. Let's look at this figure;

According to bbc.co.uk in 2000 at the time of the Fuel Protests, the Government raked in £23.3 billion in fuel duties, working out to 47.1p per litre. Increase this by a third and you've probably got what the Lib Dems are proposing (of course add to this the VAT, the transport cost, the actual price of the petrol, and the profit margins of God knows who and it's considerably more.)

So we're looking at the Lib Dems bringing petrol prices far above a £1 a litre. This won't hit the wealthy, who can afford petrol at whatever the price. It won't hit the poor either, since they are more likely not to have a car. It'll hit Middle England - those of us who have to drive a car, but who are pressured when the price goes up. It all flies in the face of Menzies Campbell wanting to;

"cut the burden of direct taxes on the low paid and Middle Britain"

Yes income tax will come down. Thank God someone is proposing to do this. But to want to make up the shortfall with vast attacks on Middle England purse strings is morally repugnant, and politically wrong.

Of course Campbell also announced something else today - the sexist and racist bit. According to BBC news, the Lib Dems want to encourage more women and ethnic minority candidates. Sounds great, doesn't it? Except the way Ming wants to achieve this is by discriminating against white male candidates by giving them less money, and fewer visits from leading party members. Hardly liberal is it? White men can be reassured, however, that they're far less likely to see Ming dodder along their local high-street making a timely intervention in their campaigns.

Yvonne Ridley: Poison Bitch in a Burkha

2006-06-07T14:39:00.000+01:00

It's become something of a cliche to use Yvonne Ridley as an example of Stockholm Syndrome messing up an ordinary person's mind. A google search of "Yvonne Ridley"+"Stockholm Syndrome" comes up with 859 searches. What's talked about less is just how messed up Ms. Ridley has become.

Most recent is her call on Muslims to boycott the Metropolitan police;

"I called for zero tolerance with the Metropolitan Police, the force which has demonstrated time and time again its Islamophobic attitudes"

There's that word again. Enough to inform us all of Yvonne's obsession with victimhood. Perhaps there's a reason why the Muslim community has been put under such scrutiny? Well in fact there are two. First, all the terrorists so far have been Muslims. And second, the media doesn't bother reporting police searches of non-Muslim houses because that doesn't fit in with their "Islamophobic police" mindset.

Our favourite Talibanette isn't just uncooperative with police who are genuinely trying to protect her from terrorism. She also hates Britain and the modern world generally. Look at this;

I FEEL very uncomfortable about the pop culture which is growing around some so-called Nasheed artists. Of course I use the term ‘Nasheed artists' very lightly. Islamic ‘boy bands' and Muslim ‘popsters' would probably be more appropriate.
Eminent scholars throughout history have often opined that music is haram, and I don't recall reading anything about the Sahaba whooping it up to the sound of music. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for people letting off steam, but in a dignified manner and one which is appropriate to their surroundings.

The reason I am expressing concern is that just a few days ago at a venue in Central London, sisters went wild in the aisles as some form of pop-mania swept through the concert venue. And I'm not just talking about silly, little girls who don't know any better; I am talking about sisters in their 20's, 30's and 40's, who squealed, shouted, swayed and danced. Even the security guys who looked more like pipe cleaners than bulldozers were left looking dazed and confused as they tried to stop hijabi sisters from standing on their chairs. Of course the stage groupies did not help at all as they waved and encouraged the largely female Muslim crowd to "get up and sing along." (They're called ‘Fluffers' in lap-dancing circles!)

The source of all this adulation was British-born Sami Yusuf, who is so proud of his claret-colored passport that he wants us all to wave the Union Jacks. I'm amazed he didn't encourage his fans to sing "Land of Hope and Glory." Brother Sami asked his audience to cheer if they were proud to be British ,and when they responded loudly, he said he couldn't hear them and asked them to cheer again.

How can anyone be proud to be British? Britain is the third most hated country in the world. The Union Jack is drenched in the blood of our brothers and sisters across Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Our history is steeped in the blood of colonialism, rooted in slavery, brutality, torture, and oppression. And we haven't had a decent game of soccer since we lifted the World Cup in 1966.

[...]

Apparently the sort of hysteria Sami helped encourage is also in America, and if it is happening on both sides of the Atlantic, then it must be creeping around the globe and poisoning the masses. Islamic boy bands like 786 and Mecca 2 Medina are also the subject of the sort of female adulation you expect to see on American Pop Idol or the X-Factor. Surely Islamic events should be promoting restrained and more sedate behavior.

Aside from the frankly hilarious impression one gets of dour-faced Ms. Ridley tut-tutting at the so-called "hijabi women" dancing and singing and generally having a good time, it also reveals something very interesting about her character. Not just Puritanical, she's hatefully sexist. In her mind women should not be having fun but should be sitting quietly in a corner, possibly cooking dinner, in her hijab. Oddly I expect she would have felt rather at home in the Britain "rooted in slavery" she describes.

Aside from hating Britain, she also seems to have a rather rosey opinion of the infamous Abu Hamza. "Quite sweet really" was her impression, as she is quoted in this sickeningly fawning article on BBC Online.

Interestingly, she's also a Marxist now. If you're planning to go to Marxism 2006, "a festival of resistance", she's speaking on the Sunday on the topic of "sleeping with the enemy". Now now Yvonne. Aren't sexual inferences rather lewd for a hijabi woman?

I found it pretty hilarious that Ms. Ridley managed to get sacked from Al Jazeera (a news station, incidently, with a huge 99% penetration rate in the West Bank) for her "overly vocal and argumentative style". I mean, what could she have said? Al Jazeera is hardly known for its sympathetic portrayal of terrorism, is it?

Yvonne is also unsurprisingly not afraid of branding critics of Islam in a derogatory manner. In a fascinating interview with Turn to Islam, she opines;
Islam does not need to modernize. There are people who interpret some things in some ways and say it needs to be modernized, it needs to be updated. Irshad Manji the Canadian author of "The Trouble with Islam," she's a lesbian, and she's saying some of the sharia needs to be changed to keep up with the new century. And I say no.

[...]

[Irshad Manji] isn't a scholar. She's a lesbian with a chip on her shoulder who wants to take a dig at Islam.
Using a woman's sexuality to discredit her argument is just unfair. It doesn't make her wrong because she's a lesbian. Her sexuality isn't necessarily the source of her criticism either.

Ms. Ridley ran for election in Leicester South twice (once in the 2004 by-election and again in 2005, when she saw her share of the vote drop considerably). She was backed by Sheikh Abdul Hafeez Makki, who vehemently hates the UK. According to Chowk;

According to Khabrain, Maulana Abdul Hafeez Makki said in Chiniot that the UK was an old imperialist state which gave facilities for the funeral of Mirza Tahir.

Seems fairly in line with Ridley's view, I guess.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Late last year she berated family of Al-Zarqawi for denouncing him as a terrorist. Apparently they lacked backbone and courage. Huh? By denouncing a member of your family who happens to be one of the most feared men in the world you somehow lack a spine? Pull the other one, Yvonne.

Friend of Jew-Hater Threatens Violence

2006-06-06T22:08:00.000+01:00

It's my friend Muhammad Bari again. Not content with just being chummy with violent Islamists, he's now openly endorsing their activity. In response to "anger" (of course caused by Islamophobia, alienation, poverty and the War in Iraq) in the Muslim community, Bari warned of "angry people [who] feel that they should take the law into their own hands".

Hmmm. What does that mean?

1) He's saying Muslims will do police work for them and eliminate terrorism amongst themselves. But who's he kidding? That wouldn't fit in with the Muslims as victims mindset.

2) He's saying the Muslim community will take revenge on the police who have possible committed a mistake. I'm sorry. Is this normal behaviour for respectable British subjects? I don't see Angela Canning and other people wrongfully imprisoned taking out their anger on the forces of Law and Order physically, taking the law into their own hands. They appear on Richard and Judy, possibly signing a book deal.

Is this not a clear enough illustration of the special treatment the Muslim community expects? Spinning this myth of victimhood and using it to justify extraordinary behaviour, our Establishment seems to have swallowed it whole. Outrageous.

Can Anyone Say Appeasement?

2006-06-06T18:28:00.000+01:00

In an unwholesome show of contempt for those brave boys that died on D-Day (whose anniversary falls today), Javier "Neville Chamberlain" Solana (the smarmy guy on the left of the picture) agreed to give Iran nuclear technology last week, it was revealed today.

According to the Houston Chronicle;

The incentives include European offers of help in building nuclear reactors for a peaceful energy program, the diplomats said.

That European offer of light-water reactors meant for civilian nuclear energy purposes was revealed last month, but there had been no suggestion that the Americans would also agree to help build Iran's civilian nuclear program if Tehran freezes enrichment and agrees to negotiations.

[...]

But one of the diplomats described the U.S. nuclear offer as particularly significant because it would in effect loosen what has been a decades-long American embargo on giving Iran access "dual use" technologies - equipment and know-how that has both civilian and military applications.

Both diplomats said Solana withheld the other part of the package _ a series of measures meant to penalize Tehran if it does not relinquish enrichment, which can generate power but also can be used to make weapons-grade uranium for the core of nuclear warheads.

Solana "carried a message" about potential penalties but withheld the specific threats _ including the possibility of U.N. sanctions - so as not to jeopardize the "positive" atmosphere, one of the diplomats said.

Two points. First, you've got the clear appeasement of Iran with the outrageous offer of nuclear technology. That's pretty atrocious. But what's this, Solana refused to hand over the section of negotiations regarding penalties because he thought it would stop things being "positive"? What's next, "it's a quarrel in in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing"?

What Solano gave the Iranians was not an offer of assistance if the Iranians promised not to behave so badly, which might be vaguely acceptable. What he gave them was offers of nuclear technology (and plane parts for their crappy aircrafts) regardless of what they did. That's not just appeasement. That's TREASON.

Minority Rights Rule the Roost

2006-06-06T12:38:00.000+01:00

"Britain has lost belief, really, in itself as a nation and furthermore in the idea of the nation itself. The nation itself is seen as the cause of all ills in the world from prejudice, discrimination to war. Legitimacy resides instead in super national institutions, values and laws. So institutions such as the United Nations the European Union, the International Criminal Court and values such as the doctrine of International human rights and minority rights are considered to be more legitimate because they are not rooted in the particular. The particular is discriminatory by defintion. The particular is rooted in a majority culture. The majority culture is by nature exclusivist and therefore discriminatory. They're essentially racist."

I'm sorry to write a second entry about her again, but Melanie Phillips just seems to make so much sense. And having found this on the BBC, I can't help feel she's probably right;

A pub landlady who used a Welsh flag as target practice at a St George's Day event has been questioned by police over alleged racism.
Angie Sayer pinned it up at the New Inn in Wedmore, Somerset, for customers to take pot shots at with bows and arrows.

I see no problem with protecting the sanctity of our nation's flags (if I were American I'd support a Flag-Burning Amendment), but racist? Since when was there a Welsh race? Don't they realise that by defining Welshness as a race they are limiting integration?

Of course, alongside this fervour to protect Welsh flag rights has been an equal determination to suppress the patriotism of English people. Peterborough City Council describe flying the St. George's Flag as "harmful to the area" and threaten serial "offenders" with prosecution. A man in Kingsway has also been threatened with prosecution if he doesn't tone down his pride in the English team. So now it's an offence to be a patriotic and English?

Of course this pales in significance to the weak kneed British corporations who have banned
their employees from flying the Cross of St. George, because it offends Muslim groups. According to YNet News;

Following warnings by extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, in which the group said that the red cross in the England flag symbolizes the 'blood thirsty crusaders' and the occupation of Muslims, some of the largest companies in England have ordered their workers not to wave the flags.

The flag has recently appeared in England on everything from bikinis to cars, and sold in endless versions in stores.
But the Islamic protest forced some corporations, such as cable companies NTL, and even the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency to ban the flag in every form due to fears from reactions of Muslims.
Hmmm. The Muslim headscarf symbolises systemical oppression of women, and yet the right to wear it is enshrined in "Human" Minority Rights Law.

What we have here is a brutal oppression of the majority culture of the United Kingdom. Not just by Islamic groups, who want to Islamicise the West, but also by fringe groups like the Welsh nationalists (and militant gays and lesbians). The Establishment has swallowed this "majority=racist" BS whole, and is evidently afraid to stand up for our Judaeo-Christian heritage. Self-loathing has our nation's elites by the throat.

Yes the Flag of St. George is a Christian symbol, but it's OUR Christian symbol - part of our nation's heritage and history. I hope you will fly the flag with pride this summer, like I will be doing.

Listen to Her

2006-06-06T09:51:00.000+01:00

Melanie Phillips is one of those few journalists and authors who has seen the signs and is speaking openly about the danger to our society from radical Islamo-fascism.

She's recently written a book, Londonistan, which everyone with an interest in preserving Britain's Judaeo-Christian culture should purchase. A courageous woman, her speech to the Heritage Foundation is a superb foundation for any understanding of the nature of the threat we are facing.

She's got an article in the Times today - essential reading. Writing about a fundamental misunderstanding of the reason why Islamists are so ready to attack the West, she notes;

The problem lies in a refusal to acknowledge that Islamist extremism is rooted in religion. Instead, ministers and security officials prefer to think of it as a protest movement against grievances such as Iraq or Palestine, or “Islamophobia”. They simply ignore the statements and signs that show unequivocally that the aim is to Islamicise the West.

The main thrust of what she seems to be saying is that if Britain is going to survive the enslaught of Islamism, it needs to find faith in its values and realise the extent to which it has been held hostage by minority groups. The majority culture needs to act now to integrate true moderate Muslims and provide an example (with particulars) of how one should behave in this society.

One of the major enemies she identifies is the moral inversion of post-modern relativism. I can only agree with her on this one.

Inside the Muslim Council for Britain

2006-06-05T19:19:00.000+01:00

Friend of Jew-haters, Muhammad Abdul Bari, whose mosque is linked to radical Saudi Wahhabi groups, was not the only new official to be elected on Sunday. Alongside him were Dr. Daud Abdullah as Deputy Secretary General and Mrs Unaiza Malik as Treasurer.

Unsurprisingly there's a good deal of dirt to dig on both of them.

Dr. Abdullah can be found on an invitation (along with Iqbal Sacranie) for a conference with Friends of Al Aqsa, an organisation described as being “concerned with the defence of Al Aqsa Haram Sharif and the protection of Palestinian Human Rights”;

SPEAKERS:
Sh. Riyadh ul-Haq, Sh. Shoeb Desai, Sh. Said Desai, Sh. Ismail Nakoda, Sh. Ahmad Desai, Sh. Rashid Musa, Sh. Mohammed Sidat, Sh. Ahmad Ali, Sh. Sulaiman Ghani, Mufti Sayful Islam, Mufti Zubair Dudha, Sh. Faisal Dad Sh. Mohammad Sindi, Sh. Adam bin Yousef, Dr. Azzam Tamimi, Br. Moazzam Begg, Br. Ibrahim Hewitt, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Br. Anas Altikriti, Br. Masoud Shadjah, Dr. Farid El-Shayyal, Dr. Daud Abdullah, Dr. Kamal Helbawi, Br. Gulam Rasool,Br. Maroof Shaffi, Dr. Adnan Siddiqui, Sh. Hanif Dudhwala Br. R. E

There they are. Logging onto Friends of Al-Aqsa tells a different story. Dr. Daud Abdullah was a speaker at an event organised by an organisation that seems to get its ideological grounding from the Hamas charter.

Israel has been built upon the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian Arab populations

it cries in its most recent newsletter, calling on Muslims to boycott Arsenal football club because of its sponsorship deal to promote Israel as a tourist destination. The website drones on about Israel's "illegal occupation" of the whole of Palestinian (clearly stating that only 6% of Palestine should be occupied by Jews - apparently they only "own" that amount). Dr. Abdullah's writings can be found in various sections of the website - all militantly anti-Israel.

Dr. Abdullah is also described on the Muscular Liberal blog in pretty damning terms. Talking about a speech he made to a seminar at University College London, Muscular Liberal says;

There were quite a few bloopers, including a rather strange argument that involved criticising Israel for accepting a million "Russian" refugees between 1993 and 2000 of which a third weren't Jewish. Apparently Israel should have "given them [the million Palestinians in Gaza] a bus ride and driven them home if they wanted to solve the problem." By his estimation, 78% of "Jews" (I assume he meant Israelis) live on 16% of the land - they are "urban people" - that's why the kibbutz failed. Call me stupid but isn't Gaza a tad urban?

Well clearly I'm not as stupid as Abdullah who then told us why Israel hadn't given the Palestinians a "bus ride" back home - it's all because Israel wants to be an exclusively Jewish state.

In the course of four sentences he managed to undo his whole argument. If Israel was supposed to be "exclusively Jewish", how do 300,000 non-Jewish Russians he'd just got so upset about fit into the picture?

Being a fair and balanced debate and a "War on Error", it was a little disappointing to hear him describe Israel's "greed" being responsible for a failure in the Oslo Accords, without once mentioning the reasons for the failure of the later Camp David agreement. He didn't dwell on this for too long as he had far more important things to talk about.

Firstly, how the UN bullied Assad out of Lebanon but doesn't bully Israel to the same extent. You'd think in a hall full of students, someone trying to equate the leaderships of these two countries would be laughed out of town. Of course not.

He went on later;

There was then a question about whether Hamas's use of violence should rule them out of the democratic process. Abdullah immediately went into a froth about the French Resistance and when it was pointed out they didn't target German cafes he resorted to quoting UN Resolution 2955 claiming that Hamas had the right to resist "by any means necessary". Nice. He backed off a little claiming that it wasn't for us to judge - "Let the Palestinians decide if Hamas are a terrorist group." But I think he knew he didn't really have a leg to stand on and was stalling to use up the allotted 15 minutes of question time.

Isn't this quite significant? Dr. Abdullah believes in the right for Hamas to terrorise civilians for political ends. Dr. Abdullah is a terrorist sympathiser. It's right there in black and white. Try to dispute it. Quite aside from his links to an immoderate anti-Israeli group, he's also in bed with Hamas.

In February of this year, Dr. Abdullah also expressed his essentially restrictive view of free speech. Speaking to Kerri Ritchie, an Australian reporter he said;

DAUD ABDULLAH: There should be some restraint from these journalists, so they would not engage in this anymore. We believe that there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. There are limitations if that freedom of speech is going to create social unrest and create instability.

In the longer term, it is important that Europeans recognise that Muslims in these countries are not going back to the Islamic world, the vast majority will be staying here, this is their home, and they should be integrated.

Not sure if I get what he's saying. So you're gonna deny us our right to freedom of speech, but you want to be integrated? That's not integration, that's taking over. Indeed, not going back to the Islamic world, bringing it here with you.

Abdullah was also one of the leading figures behind the MCB's boycott of Holocaust Day. His argument was that because there was no memorial for the victims of "Israeli apartheid", there was no point in remembering the worst genocide in world history. Veiled anti-semitism? You draw your own conclusions.

I'm increasingly worried about the state of the officials in the Muslim Council. It's not in any way moderate, clearly, if its leading figures are representative. And if the Government supposes to use them as a way of preventing radicalisation of the Islamic community, people should be aware of the facts. If only mainstream media would be a little more honest about them.

Remember Osirak

2006-06-05T16:06:00.000+01:00

25 Years ago on Wednesday, Israeli pilots bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, averting what can only be described as catastrophe for Jews throughout the Middle East if Saddam Hussein gained nuclear warheads.

At the time Prime Minister Menechem Begin described the reasoning behind the attack to angry American ambassador Sam Lewis;

"What greater act of self-defense could there be than to demolish Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, designed to bring Israel to its knees, kill our people, vaporize our infrastructure - in a word to destroy our nation, our country, our existence? Over these past months I've told you again and again, Sam, that either the US does something to stop that reactor, or we will have to."

Of course the UN hated it. Security Council Resolution 487 condemned "the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct." Faced with the choice between Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons and Israel existing, the UN would gladly choose the former.

Self-defence should be in all our minds right now, especially at a time when Iran (the terrorist state) has a number of facilities broadly similar to Osirak (e.g. Natanz). According to the Institute of Science and International Security;

The Natanz site is surrounded by a security fence and has many buildings, including underground facilities, representing a large uranium enrichment complex. Underground buildings currently under construction will be devoted to enriching uranium, and these well-protected buildings are sized to hold over 50,000 centrifuges.

ISIS goes on, worrying to note that;

even if the Natanz site was destroyed militarily, Iran's decentralized gas centrifuge program could not be bombed out of existence, meaning that Iran could relative rapidly build a small gas centrifuge facility that would be extremely difficult to detect.

That was in 2003. So what are they waiting for? We have to act soon, and act decisively!

Peru's New President

2006-06-05T13:06:00.000+01:00

Alan Garcia

It's a sad day indeed when right-thinking Westerners are forced to turn to men like President Garcia to defend democracy and free-markets from Chavistas like the Pan-Latino Socialist Ollanta Humala.

Garcia is not the Colombian President Uribe. He's a Keynesian economic failure who just happens to be the least worst option for those Peruvians not brainwashed by the fanciful ideas of petro-socialism. Let's just look at his record. According to BBC news;

During Mr Garcia's previous five years in power, prices went up by more than two million per cent as his government printed money to maintain high levels of public spending.
The ravages of chronic inflation took their toll on the currency, the inti, which was subsequently replaced by a new unit, the sol, at an exchange rate of a million intis to one sol.
During the same period, the number of Peruvians living in poverty went up by five million, rising from 41.6% to 55% of the population. Peru's gross domestic product shrank by one-fifth.

Wow. And this guy's supposed to be more competent than the other one? But there's more. This is what he thinks about economic theory;

"Other governments, other ideologies and other social sectors have postulated that if the government's income is 100, it can only spend 100.
We say that if the government receives 100, it can spend 110, 115, because those extra 15 will provide credit for peasant farmers."

Riiight. For some reason his promise of an 'austere and thrifty' administration doesn't really stick with me.

Am I the only one who sees parallels between Peru and our own Scotland? You've got a choice between the SNP (militant nationalists with an unhealthy obsession with taking "their" oil back) and Labour ("moderate" social-democrats with a history of financial misdealing and corruption). Small world.

Leave it to the Aussies

2006-06-05T12:08:00.000+01:00

Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor), population 1,062,777 and falling, is a model for World-Government incompetence.

You would've thought that after several years of stewardship the UN would've been able to get a handle on a minute country like Timor-Leste.

Clearly not. Despite sending in 8,950 Blue Helmets (accompanied by a further 1,640 international police), armed gangs now rampage through the streets leading to the deployment of Australian troops in an effort to control the violence.

The UN even dispatched Sergio Veiera de Mello, considered by the BBC in 1999 to be a "rising star" (surely a plaudit any serious official wants to receive), to oversee the transition from occupation by Indonesia to independence.

So what went wrong? Basically the UN doesn't understand or like nation states. That's why they hate Israel. That's why their Secretary General is so enthusiastic about immigration. Put them and their internationalist bureaucrats in any nation building situation and they're likely to fail. Look at Haiti, look at Somalia.

It's only when an established nation state, with a clear interest in maintaining security and democracy in the region, steps in that problems are solved. Enter Australia. Clearly Tim0r-Leste is struggling right now so some sort of partnership and assistance-pact between the two nations is essential in helping Timor achieve some stability.

The Australians have received very little praise in the media for their positive contribution to this crisis. 1,800 may only be a small detachment but there's clear evidence that it's making a difference. According to the BBC they've;

managed to restore calm to some areas and disarm some gang members of spears, guns and machetes

Rich, democratic nations like Australia have a responsibility to look after less fortunate states. They should realise that they're far more likely to make a difference through targeted, specific assistance in a place they have interests in protecting. The kind of weltanschauung the UN endorses is utopian and unrealistic (especially if the UN lacks the balls to enforce it - Rwanda).

Of course some might call this imperalism. I call it common sense.

New Leader for the Muslim Council of Britain

2006-06-04T19:45:00.000+01:00

***Update*** Just found the BBC's new profile of Bari. Hardly a twitter about any controversy surrounding the man. But it's interesting to note he had a hand, however indirect, in electing George Galloway by telling Muslims they have a duty to vote. I swear the BBC think this is supposed to make us like him.

Muhammad Abdul Bari is the new "moderate" leader of the Council for Britain's Islamic community.

Of course a small amount of digging into this man's background reveals a less than rosey picture of the man the Government will be trumpeting as the bridge between us and the savages.

Bari is Chairman of the East London Mosque which opened a £10 million Islamic centre in 2004. All well and good - just that the guest of honour was S heikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Sudais, who gave a speech about "peace and harmony", neglecting to remind listeners of his call for Allah to;

"annihilate the Jews... the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs... These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption..."

So lets get this straight. The new leader of Britain's "moderate" Muslim community is friendly with a guy who thinks Jews are "the rats of the world"? Maybe a problem? But that's not all Al-Sudais believes.

"Worshippers of the cross" and "idol-worshipping Hindus" ... should be fought.

Great. So that's Jews, Christians and Hindus he hates.

I'm willing to forive Bari inviting a militant West hater to open his new Islamic centre. Maybe he didn't know what Al-Sudais really thought? I mean, I wasn't quite sure whether David Davis was brought up on a council estate by a single mother until I googled him recently.

But I then came across this transcript of a Panorama interview between Bari and John Ware in August 2005. Bari was closely questioned about Al-Sudais' trip to Britain.

Asked whether he shared the view that Hindus were "idol-worshipping", Bari replied;

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari: Well... why are you bringing all this?
John Ware: You, er, I mean you do not regard Hindus as idol worshippers?
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari: Well Hindu... you mean the definition? When it's idol worshipper, different people worship God in different manners.
John Ware: Mmm.

Mmm, indeed. After this highly ambiguous answer from Bari, he went on to question the accuracy of the BBC's facts, despite Al-Sudais' sermon being plastered all over Saudi websites at the time.

Given Bari's refusal to deny association with his guest's comments, and the fact that his Mosque in East London received a £1 million donation from a Saudi Wahhabi group, it doesn't give me the greatest of confidence in his ability to stand up to the enemies of the West.

Does he even hold the confidence of the Muslim community? Probably not, if the loud opinions of Iron_Lady on the Active Ummah blog are to be believed. I quote;

A man who cannot speak english....BARELY! a man who appeared on Panaroma few months back got slated by a hardcore zionist. Now why are such individuals chosen to represent the Muslims? maybe because they are easy to shut up? hmmmm!!!!

Despite the clear irony in her denunciations of his inadequate English, I don't feel wholly confident in his ability to prevent the full ravages of Islamic fascism from disrupting the Western way of life.

I've also unearthed evidence that Bari is in bed with people respectable Britains will find unpalatable. He took sides with Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens), describing his inadmission to the USA as "a slap in the face of sanity". Fair enough, but Yusuf Islam has been linked with militant Islamists in Palestine, but if he considers Hizbollah sane then, of course, he's right.

Bari has also objected to legitimate criticism of Islam, calling it "poisonous hatred." If that's what he describes bringing up the fact of the poor treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic countries, then I'm poisonous and full of hatred too.

I'm not claiming to know Dr. Bari inside-out. Clearly he's quite a complex figure (and perhaps has as many faces as his friend Sheik Al-Sudais). But bear all this in mind when hearing him trumpeted as a new unifying, moderate figure for British Islam. He's undeniably dodgy. And he doesn't keep good friends.

Nick Clegg is a Twat

2006-05-31T22:10:00.000+01:00

Eurgh. Just look at him. There's something about those faux-doe eyes, that floppy mop of school-boy hair, that frank look of pro-European liberalism in his complexion that makes me want to punch his face in.

I hate that there's something evil about his birthday. Not only was 7th November the day in 2000 when Jonathan Aitken was released from prison, the day in 1965 when the Krays were put in custody on menace charges, the day in 1976 when Iceland and Britain clashed in the Atlantic, and in 1990 when the gorgeous Leaning Tower of Pisa was closed to the public, but he was also born on the exact same day as Mark Lamarr - that hideous presenter of Never Mind the Buzzcocks.

I hate that he went to the 'College of Europe' in Bruges.

I hate that he's listed on the Liberal Democrats 1999 EU Parliament Candidates Site as speaking four European languages, not one of them English.

I hate that he wants the EU to have a presense at the UN (which I also hate).

I hate his cheap little tie on his tacky M&S shirt (go to Primark, man. At least they're honest about using slave labour)

I hate that he voted against special schools for children with special needs.

I hate how he votes consistently against anti-terrorism legislation yet wants us to think him tough on crime.

I hate that he proposes to be environmentally friendly, but is so opposed to nuclear power (surely the only viable solution?)

I hate that he now complains about Ming Campbell's leadership style, but lacked the balls to stick his neck out and run in the first place.

I hate that he considers "right wing populist" a term of abuse.

I hate how he treats marriage as "old-fashioned".

I'll continue this another day. Paintballing and a trip to the fairground have taken it out of me.

The Death of the Family

2006-05-31T21:15:00.000+01:00

What is happening to marriage in this country? This new proposition suggests;

"...giving live-in partners the right to claim maintenance and a share of each other's wealth after a break-up."

Some of you might remember a time when this bond between a man and woman was special. Sadly I don't.

My lifetime has seen God's sacred institution eroded to such an extent that not only have fringe groups peddled influence far greater than their numbers to meddle in an ancient and natural establishment to turn it into a "right" for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles, but now unmarried couples will be given some of the same rights as married couples.

Doesn't anyone look at the statistics?

Children brought up in stable heterosexual relationships are far more likely to do better at school, not fall into bad ways, not commit crime, and be good citizens than those brought up in broken homes and by same-sex parents. Single parents, of course, do a valient job in bringing up children and should be praised for their hard work. Often their children go on to be extremely successful. But their job would have been far easier if they had the prop of loving husband to take some of the considerable burden.

Marriage needs to be encouraged and nurtured and made financially special. Not denigrated and hurt by continual pummelling from liberals and other family-hating groups.

And where is the Church in promoting God's institution? Absolutely no-where. They're too busy sticking their heads up their own arses about the bloody minimum wage, and market capitalism.

Andrew Rosindell - true conservative and patriot

2006-05-30T18:17:00.000+01:00

I love this guy.

He's combative, he's patriotic, he's fiercely local, and he's someone conservatives up and down the country should be trumpeting as the example of how inspiring a right-wing MP can be for an area.

Famous for campaigning in Romford, in 2001, with his bulldog, Spike, all dressed up in a Union Jack waiscoat (sadly Spike passed away on St. George's Day, 2002), he won that seat with a huge swing 9.14% swing from Labour to Conservatives.

Not content with 53% of the vote in 2001, he scored a 7.51% swing at the last election, doubling his majority to 11,589.

This man isn't just an election winner, he also holds proudly "controversial" (for the left-wing media) positions on a whole range of issues.

He's anti-euro, anti leftwing judges, anti-immigration, pro-death penalty, pro-family and pro-gun. In short, a perfect candidate.

Can't we have more candidates like Andrew Rosindell, and less like Adam Rickett?

Proudly Bucking the Trend

2006-05-29T14:01:00.000+01:00

Hurrah for Uribe!

Guardian to Latin America, the great nation of Columbia, has put two fingers up to evil meddling interference populism of Chavez and Morales (of Venezuela and Bolivia respectively) and shown the people of that continent that not only is free market liberalism an engine for growth and better living standards (look at Chile), but also that a tough stance against terrorists brings both better security and a flush of votes at the ballot box.

Described my many newspapers as the "law-and-order President", Uribe won a huge 62% of the vote, up from 53% last time around.

He's already cut the number of murders by half to 15,000 a year, and slashed the number of kidnappings by two thirds.

In this second term he needs to beef up efforts to disrupt the production of cocaine. Doing this would not just slash the income of the left-wing FARQ rebels, but would also be a stick in the eye to the global drugs trade.

We Must Stay the Course!

2006-05-28T15:42:00.000+01:00

This has really been getting on my tits recently.

It seems a matter of course for left-wing politicians (and tough talking Nick Clegg, who we all know is a girly-boy) to appear on Question Time or some other liberal media extravaganza, note that they were always against the war, and then demand that we pull out our troops in a matter of weeks.

They seem to think that things will only get better if we remove the only stabilising force in the region, cut and run, and leave things to Moqtada al-Sadr to run.

Quite obviously, they're wrong. Whatever you once thought about the war (and don't lie and pretend you were always against it - that 60% who were once so pro are still out there), you have to realise that we have a responsibility to stay the course and fix the problem. Why not let us stay in to fight the insurgents, kill their leaders, and provide law and order for millions of respectable Iraqis?

Withdrawal now could bring a catastrophe similar to withdrawal from Vietnam. If we're not the largest military power in the region, Iran are. And I guarantee that in 20 years time (if we withdraw now) and people are looking back on the victors of the Iraq War, Iran will be top of the list with its nuclear warheads, and its radical Shi'ite militias tearing apart the region with suicidal aplomb.

A cut and run is a selfish, block-headed irresponsible policy to take. It may be popular now, but when Iraq is the next Lebanon x10 and a factory for jihadists, what remains of the West won't be so happy.

Blair - this is one of the only things I've supported you on. Don't fail us now.

Too Much Time With Radical Islamists...

2006-05-26T12:42:00.000+01:00

...makes Georgie a bad boy.

Dhimmi to the Dhimmis, RESPECT Leader George Galloway's claim that a suicide bomb attack on Tony Blair is "morally justified" is just one of many examples of the left's submission to Islamic jihadism.

I've always thought there was something conspiratorial about RESPECT's membership make-up. They're a group of motivated Islamo-fascists using the guise of a totali-socialist political party to further their electoral ambitions (and make them RESPECTible?). Galloway is just an attention-seeking dhimmi who has clearly been given a speaking to by the west-haters in charge - hence today's statement with its incredible justifying of suicide bombers. Unsurprisingly, Galloway was unable to comment on his remarks. Evidently enjoying the company of yet another ageing despot in Cuba.

Hamas 'Branded' a Terror Group

2006-05-24T20:36:00.000+01:00

HAMAS DENOUNCES BUSH OVER BORDERS

Hardly a shock is it? The whole border's an insult to Hamas, so what's with the quibbling?

What does shock me is the BBC's description of Hamas. They're not Hamas the terrorist group. Not Hamas the anti-semites. Not Hamas the West-hating hell raisers. But Hamas, the political party that has been 'branded' a terror group. I quote;

Hamas, branded a terror group by the US, Israel, and the EU, won elections in January and formed a government.

Is that supposed to give them some legitimacy? Would the BBC be credibly reporting Al Qaeda's ravings as moderate political positions if they won election in some Arab state (that's if the Arab world moves away from medieval monarchies any time soon)?

The problem with the BBC's reporting is that Hamas are a terrorist group. I know they can't say the T word, and prefer militant, but still 'branded' does not suggest the 'brand' is the truth. A brand is something a cruel farmer burns onto his cattle. Not the considered name given to a group of Arabs bent on destroying Israel through the deaths of its civilians.

Bias in the BBC is clearly endemic. What's the solution? I don't know. But I do know that I don't want to be forking out buckets of cash for weaselly website managers to waste on loaded words, and biased reporting.

Church Just Won't Learn Its Lesson

2006-05-24T20:09:00.000+01:00

A bad day for Christians in Britain.

First the Church of England goes denouncing the very economic system that's made this country the place it is (that's capitalism by the way).

Now the Scottish sister Church to the Israel-hating Church of England (who attempted to disinvest in the company Caterpillar because their bulldozers were used to protect Israel from Islamo-fascist Palestinian Arabs), the Scottish Presbyterian Church, is considering blessing gay marriages.

Do they think they're winning recruits by attempting to accomodate fringe groups who have no intention of following the Gospel anyway?

They should be sticking to what it says in the Bible, not what they think it ought to say.

Who would've guessed?

2006-05-23T16:55:00.000+01:00

I should be an American...

Well I've always considered emigrating if the shit really does hit the fan here in Europe (as it increasingly looks like it will), maybe this is my omen?

Click HERE to take the test.

Eurabian Union Joins Iran in Bankrolling Hamas

2006-05-17T18:11:00.000+01:00

Quel surprise!

It seems this analysis of Hamas' donations needs a revamp..

The EU has today decided to resume aid to government officials of the Palestinian state (who make a massive 25% of the work force.) The theory is that the money will by-pass the terrorist organisation and will go to the people who need it.

Wrong. As Daniel Hannan explains in the Telegraph, Hamas has buoyed up the ranks of governmental departments with its own militants;

Eurocrats are aware of the awkwardness, and are trying to find a way to stay within the letter of the rules, perhaps by funnelling the donations through NGOs. But it is hard to see how this would work: most of the EU's money goes on salaries for Palestinian officials, and Hamas has swollen the state payroll with its militants, paying their wages while they serve their sentences in Israeli jails.

So in fact, with their good intentions the EU will be enabling Hamas to launch yet more armed militants into the Palestinian territories, which of course the BBC presents as some kind of minor police manoeuvre to clean up small-time crime.

Palestinian interior minister Said Siyam has announced the deployment of a new security force.
The move is in defiance of a veto by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and heightens tensions between his Fatah party and the Hamas-led government. It will be 3,000-strong, with some members from Hamas' military wing and others from existing security forces.
....
The unit will be led by Jamal Abu Samhadana, a militant who is wanted by Israel.

But the problem runs deeper than this. As Hannan goes on to elaborate, the Palestinians have grown fat off the malignant meddling of the Left and Islamo-fascists in Europe and the Arab World.

An unconditional welfare state is thus the perfect terrorist habitat. Think of the two London Tube bombers who had been living on income support and housing benefit. Had this option been closed, perhaps they might have found jobs, and so been too busy to work themselves into a suicidal rage.
...
The EU, as the largest overseas donor to the PA, has created a subsidy-based society, as sulky, lethargic and corrupt as any on earth. But it doesn't have to be this way. Palestinians are a naturally enterprising people who, in other Arab states, often form the professional and administrative class.

But the solution is not as easy as Hannan suggests. Simply to cut the Palestinians free and force them to be enterprising may be tempting, but it fails to recognise the other dangerous force that has harnessed them for its own ends - Islamo-fascism. Unless the EU can accept that militant Islamists are not going to be destroyed or put off by handouts (or capitalism, for that matter), but by focused isolation of terrorist leaders, the cutting of funding to extreme Islamist schools, the discrediting of jihadist ideology and a hardnosed belief in our principles of democracy, freedom and the right to a nation state, the Palestinian question will never be solved.

Muslims Desecrate Belgian Churches

2006-05-15T17:47:00.000+01:00

Stop this disrespect NOW!

Muslim Refugees Descreate Belgian Churches

Illegal immigrants have taken refuge in some Belgian churches and, according to the conservative Brussels Journal, these churches “are being turned into mosques before [the bishops'] very eyes.”
A recent report in the journal indicates that the Belgian bishops have opened their churches and offered sanctuary to illegal immigrants in order to pressurize the Belgian authorities to allow them to stay in the country.
Most of these illegal immigrants are Muslim, and the Brussels Journal accused the bishops of being “ignorant” to the fact that these immigrants are desecrating the churches.

According to the Belgian publication, the squatters live in tents in the churches. Catholic relief organizations provided the tents and offered radios, television sets and computers. They hold Islamic prayer services in the church and display banners showing the name of Allah. They have also moved the altar and covered the face of a statue of Our Lady with a cloth.

Even the clergy have gone bad in Europe. How can they look on as these refugees abuse their hospitality and defoul the House of God.

BBC Heart Monopoly Capitalism

2006-05-14T19:16:00.000+01:00

The thing leftists have been unable to grasp about Thatcherism and the competitive market economy is the fact that it expressly seeks to prevent the domination of a service or product by one single provider. Thatcher and her followers did more than anyone else to fortify this vital function by strengthening the Monopoly and Mergers Commision (now the Competition Commission) with the Competition Act in 1980.

Of course the BBC (and the NHS) have strangely been left immune to the proven doctrine that competition drives up results. Listening to any nostalgic-Bennite you're likely to here how these two great 'British' organisations are special, and deserve public funding. Exactly why they're special, and why they represent anything 'British' is not answered, but that's a nother story.

It's hardly surprising that the little guys, those dynamic individuals who only want to make a dime or broadcast their opinion on the airwaves are being crowded out by an overwhelming and dangerously dominant BBC.

In case you missed it, the Sunday Times ran a Special Report into the way the BBC uses the clout the license fee gives it to destroy competitors in the private market.

Similarly, Peter Preston wrote in the Observer today of a growing campaign amongst regional papers and small broadcasters to halt the march of 60 ultra-local radio stations the BBC plans to launch.

It comes after a week when David Cameron also criticised the BBC;

"We've all seen in our own constituencies small internet businesses, often involved in education or other information provision, working away to create a market, to make some money, and then the BBC comes along and squish, like a big foot on an ant, and that business goes out. And I think that we need to look at ways of actually making sure that the BBC doesn't over-extend itself."

And how exactly does the BBC respond? Well it broadcasts a factually improbable story about homosexual romps in the Thatcher era, along with a comical depiction of the 'Lady' taking a spin on the dance floor with a young gay just before he goes upstairs for a threesome with a Lebanese millionaire and a black social worker.

It's called the Line of Beauty and it's about discrediting the enemy. The BBC thinks that if it can mutate enough Thatcherite memories it can somehow destroy the ideas she propelled into the mainstream.

It's discrediting the enemy. It's what the BBC does best.

Sex and Pecks over Good Right Wingers

2006-05-10T19:34:00.000+01:00

The blogosphere has exploded over the new Tory "We Aren't Ugly White Men" A List.

Over at Iain Dale the tributes are pouring in for the man who lost the Right Norfolk North (I mean sure he's rich, successful and a policy wonk, but who's gonna vote for a man whose ideological fervour for Margaret Thatcher comes second to his love of Judy Garland?)

Readers of Guido Fawkes have reacted with dismay to the sexy pastiche of young, toned wannabes who we've got fighting for us now in our target seats.

Councillor Bob Piper predicts Cameron's castle will crumble, following the introduction of these pretty little things.

If Blogspot weren't so chock-a-block with eager readers I'd delve some more. There's gonna be some hot-heads by the weekend.

The Parasites in our Cities

2006-05-10T17:44:00.000+01:00

No not a post droning on about welfare addicts, or LibLab Councils for that matter, but a worrying article in the Independent today.

Apparently there aren't just 700 al'Qaeda recruits in our cities, but 700 people suspected of being involved in al'Qaeda terrorist plots.

Since the 2001 attacks in the United States, the number of identified al-Qa'ida supporters living in Britain who are considered a threat to national security has risen by 300 per cent, according to security sources. Although a total number has not been confirmed, sources have indicated that it is in the "high hundreds" and "far more" than the most recently quoted figure of 400.

My first impulse is to blame the Government for its less than effective anti-terrorism and secure-border policies, but read on...

"intelligence-sharing between Britain and Pakistan is poor"

...and...

Whitehall sources also disclosed that Islamist extremist groups in Pakistan have stepped up efforts to recruit young British Muslims visiting the country....

Wait a minute. Isn't Pakistan supposed to be on our side? Hum. Maybe not.

Conservatives win Harrow, Crush Lib Dems

2006-05-10T12:37:00.000+01:00

Any Harrow residents/political wonks will remember in 2002 the fiasco of the Limpferal Dumpingprats messing up their nomination papers by trying to hide behind the non-registered political pseudonym of 'Liberal Democrat Focus Group' (Were they ashamed or something?)

It seems like they did better when they weren't contesting most wards. Last Thursday saw them swept away from Harrow (except from winning one councillor in the ultra-loyal Rayner's Lane ward, which also elected two Conservative councillors). These mugshots show the faces of those councillors vanquished in the Harrow Weald ward, taken out the back and shot.

Harrow Labour Leader, Navin Shah, blamed this collapse in the Lib Dem vote on Conservative victory. A sign of something to come?

UN Adopting New Approach to Human Rights

2006-05-10T12:02:00.000+01:00

What's next? Beheading of apostates on the UN floor?

UN elects notorious abusers to new rights council

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN General Assembly elected Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia to the new Human Rights Council, putting notorious abusers on a panel created to replace its discredited predecessor.

If this isn't good enough reason to withdraw from this discredited body, I don't know what is...

Oh yeah, of course there's this; UN puts Iran in the driving seat in Nuclear Showdown .

At a meeting Tuesday, representatives of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France as well as Germany agreed to tell Iran the possible consequences of its refusal to halt its enrichment program and the benefits if it abandons it.

The move will delay a U.S.-backed draft U.N. resolution that could lead to sanctions and possible military action if Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment.

Condoleezza Rice stressed, however, that Tuesday's decision is not a substitute for a strong message to Iran from the Security Council "that their behavior to date is unacceptable, and that they need to return to the negotiating table."
The Chinese and Russians have balked at the British, French and U.S. efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to comply. Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.

Representatives from the three European countries that had been spearheading negotiations with Iran — Britain, France and Germany — will now spend the next few days preparing a package of incentives and sanctions, a European official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because there has been no official announcement.

The official said the package is likely to include issues related to energy security and civilian nuclear power. The package will be presented to European Union foreign ministers on the sidelines of an EU meeting in Brussels on Monday, and if approved will be presented to the Iranian government, the official said.

The day we stop getting dictated to by the Arab world and the Sino-Russian authoritarian axis of self-interest, is the day we can truly achieve Human Rights and international security in a dangerous world.

"Have your say"

2006-04-29T16:08:00.002+01:00

One of the little pleasures I allow myself from time to time is logging on the Have Your Say section on the BBC website.

As an organisation, the BBC is institutionally leftist. It has to be. It receives public money, therefore has an interest in making sure the British people want to keep giving it inflation-busting rises in the television tax.

There are entire websites devoted to exposing its red-corner questioning, and barely a day goes by without one or other of its Thatcher-hating platitudeitrons presenting some piece about the evils of oil-profits (no mention of the cash Gordon Brown gets from high oil prices), and the certainty of manmade Global Warming.

(In case you're interested, Iain Dale earlier highlighted the BBC's inability to call a terrorist a terrorist)

Anyway, back to the point.

You'd expect the BBC to use Have Your Say as a tool for promoting the kind of PC filth it's taken up as its governing mantra. And yet clicking on the Recommended button of virtually any subject the BBC allows us to discuss nearly always brings up a predominance of right wing, popular, conservative viewpoints.

For example, today the website has tried to achieve "balance" with two opinions over whether Charles Rodway (why do they never use his middle name?) Clarke should resign:

"It seems the majority of our population fail to realise the mess Labour got us out of in 1997"
Laura, Sheffield, UK

"Clarke should resign, but so should Blair"
Bob, Nottingham, UK

I looked for Laura's post... and looked... and looked... through 450 posts... found posts openly criticising Laura's views gaining 20 recommendations.... reached the posts getting only a handful of recommendations or less. Nothing. Where was Laura? And what was the BBC doing expropriating a comment made by someone who obviously represented such a small proportion of the browsing public? Or perhaps that's the BBC view?

What of Bob's view. Well that didn't turn out to be very popular either. The BBC treat it as the view of the Right. But to be fair, it's not really. Most of the Blair, Bliar crowd were bored lefties needing a target.

The BBC failed to represent the vast majority of recommended views on their website and instead chose to highlight a couple of opinions that wouldn't be out of place amongst the majority of workers in their Shepherd's Bush stronghold.

This is what they should have been using:

Foreigners shouldn't be jailed in UK in the first place as keeping them in jail is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. Instead, they should be immediately deported back to their own country to be tried and detained.

James Chan, London

But that's too scary for the BBC, and too popular - with 359 recommendations.

Roll on Fox News UK.

Cyber Attacks from Online Jihadists

2006-04-29T12:46:00.000+01:00

Just had word from Michelle Malkin, the sassy conservative columnist in the states, that websites openly critical of Islam or with the Mohammed Cartoons on them have been receiving "denial of service attacks"from hackers in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

Earlier in the year Security Pro News wrote this artical on how radical Islamo-fascists have been defacing websites with their "Dafacer team" (ugh, perhaps if these Muslims put more effort into refining their English than into scraping Jews off the tarmac, they would have indoor plumbing by now).

Worrying stuff, huh?

Slouching to Gomorra?

2006-04-29T12:23:00.000+01:00

So this is what they meant by "whiter than white"? John Reid is found to have cannabis in his Scotland home. (Is cannabis white, or is it cocaine? I wouldn't know - I'm not a junkie!)

Not that I'm one to judge, Defence Secretary Reid, but isn't that an illegal substance that if found on a soldier, as the excellent Iain Dale points out, would lead to a court martial?

Ordinarily this kind of scandal would shock me. Even if this stuff was found in a guest area - I mean, who does he entertain? The Camerons? - it's still something to get my heart racing.

But the truth is that I'm numb to this kind of scandal. The last few weeks have been full of allegations, kiss-and-tell, hypocrisy, and corruption on a scale last seen when Peter Mandelson tried to get some passports for some rich friends of his.

What astounds me is that Labour seems to be dragging the entire political class down with them. And good news too. As long as they don't lodge their votes with the Traitors Party, I'm happy.

Anythings better than that old codger.

Who should we really be deporting?

2006-04-28T22:26:00.000+01:00

It's common knowledge, innit? The BNP is racist. You're racist if you vote for them. You're a fascist if you support their policies. You're far-right if you want to end the plague of illegal and unassimilated immigration that's been ripping the social fabric of our country apart for 50 years.

That's the view the Establishment media would like you all to believe. But is it really true?

Sure, the BNP does some very nasty stuff. I don't deny it. But is it really fair to tar all BNP supporters with the brush of their more extreme comrades-in-arms?

I mean, c'mon. When was the last time the media launched into a frenzy at the latest activity of the Marxist-Leninist front of Respect? Never. It's just not PC. Abolishment of private property and bloody, violent revolution's OK. But British nationalism is not.

You don't get much of this kind of story either.

Kiron Mittra, an immigrant from Kenya, said to his local newspaper:

I don't believe in political correctness.
I am British and I am proud to be British. I want to fly the Union Jack and the BNP seems to be the only party that is willing to stand for that.

Sure, they wouldn't have him in their party, but it kinda goes against the white-wash, working class ignorant impression the Establishment media gives of BNP supporters.

Then the not-so-white-sounding Daoud Fakhri writes in the Independent of:

middle-class liberals [who] have patronisingly lectured the working class as to the benefits of immigration

Clearly immigrants aren't the entire problem. We have these sensible guys making realistic noises about the problems that mass immigration has caused not just white people, but patriotic Britons the country over.

It's the middle class liberals - the rich, cosmopolitan, globalised urbanites - who are the problem. If they love the benefits of immigration so much - the cheap nannies, the handsome foreign waters in the local Lebanese, the cocaine brought over in a Colombian's intestinal system - why don't they let the newly arrived Kurds into their neighbourhoods, not speaking the language, living off the welfare system, lacking education, malnourished, and demanding of state provision? As soon as they see released foreign offenders assaulting their drivers on the pavement, for money to buy the next fix, they won't be so happy.

It just seems obvious, Britain would be better off without the liberals, not the immigrants. If immigrants were allowed to assimilate, learn our language and our customs and be proud to be British, like conservatives want them to, and were not forced into ghettoes by the failures of multiculturalism, Britain would be a far more secure and happy place to live.

So Nick Griffin should take this message. Stop hating the blacks. Start hating the liberals.

That prisoner problem..

2006-04-28T22:10:00.000+01:00

...it's just not gonna go away, is it Charles? You thought you could sweep those Jamaicans under the carpet and live to fight another day. This story is gonna run and run...

Seventy-nine of those released foreigners have committed offences since being let out the back door. Violent disorder, drugs crimes, grievous and actual bodily harm, these are just some of the major felonies committed by men Clarke lost track of.

The Home Office may have been in the middle of a "dramatic change", but that's no excuse. Clarke has a responsibility to protect the public from evil men and their evil thoughts BEFORE Home Office spring cleaning.

And what's that, he still doesn't think he should resign. Perhaps he should hear from the victims of this elephantine mistake before he makes such a judgement. What a cock.

Let Justice be Done

2006-04-26T20:17:00.000+01:00

I've always thought the legal system was there to ensure justice for the victims of crime. They've been shat on by some anti-social, malicious little creature and they want to feel like:

1) the person who's caused them so much pain is given a punishment that fits the crime
2) the criminal is either too locked up to re-offend or sufficiently convinced by his punishment that a repeat offence would be a bad idea

Seems simple to me. I don't go in for all that mushy liberal crap about "understanding" men like James Roger Brodie. Personally it makes my blood boil when women like Rahella Khanom are let off punishment for bull-shit reasons like "ignorance".

Now this guy, our jolly Home Secretary Charles Rodway Clarke, is exposed as having released 288 foreign prisoners from our jails when they were due for deportation after he KNEW about the problem. Not to mention the other 800 odd who slipped out before the Government were aware.

I know it sounds obvious - but what the hell was he thinking? Is this Government so unaware about the hardship, misery and fear that British criminals, out on early release, do to British communities that it thought it wouldn't matter if it would release 1,000 murdering, thieving, raping foreigners? I'm just waiting for the press to find evidence of one of these evil men committing crimes after their release (I mean it's only a matter of time...)

The second question CRC needs to answer is why we have so many goddamn foreigners in our prisons?!

The BBC puts the figure at 10,265 (February 2006), 13% of the entire prison population compared to 1% of foreign-nationals in the UK today. No wonder our prisons are always decried as overcrowded by the liberal media (I personally don't see the fault in making murderers go cattle class) if we're locking up 1700 Jamaicans (17% of the total).

According to Jeremy Paxman on last night's Newsnight the Government spends £380 million of OUR money on this. Somehow I don't see us billing Kingstown for £65 million for the pleasure of its citizens spending time in our great country... (perhaps this expenditure should be taken out the International Development budget?)

As far as I can see it, the Government has been acting like a repeat offender - treated softly by the authorities and now so certain of its invincibility that only the harshest punishment will get it back in line.

The victims of this crime (the public) have the right to demand a punishment that fits it (how about inviting one of these rapists round to visit Mrs. Clarke?)

And the government needs to be treated in such a way that it will never do this again. There is only one way to do that - kick the bums out.