Why Britain should ban Islamic headdress

July 24, 2010

This article by Sarah Hoenig spells out why it is in women’s interests that Islamic headdress be outlawed in the public sphere. The burka, niqub and hijab are symbols of male dominance over women in society. If we are as a society truly committed to women’s rights and sexual equality then this aspect of cultural barbarism must be broken. It starts with the law because the law is there to protect the invididual against pressures to which they have no other recourse.

Quote:-

“They got me. They caught up with me,” she intoned with a wry, wan smile.
At the beginning her husband was taunted about letting his wife parade about “promiscuously, like a Jewess.”
Then they called her a whore each time she walked down the main drag. She was harassed on the bus. Both she and her husband were threatened with physical violence. The straw that broke their backs were escalating jeers, sneers and bullying suffered by her nieces and nephews in school and even by her tiny children in kindergarten and at the playground.
“I was marked as a fallen woman. Even if I wanted to fight, I couldn’t bring shame on my whole family. My parents’ business was sinking into ruin because of me. So I gave in. I’m suffocated by the hijab, while my husband, father and brothers breathe free and stay cool… I hate this but I am scared,” she confessed.
“I can’t believe this is Israel, where women live like women do in the West. I used to take the hijab off out of town, but my neighbors come here too. They’re all over the place. People see me. Tongues wag.”


Problems with the International Criminal Court

October 14, 2009

How does a diplomat get to be a judge? And what does this say about the processes within the ICC?
See Joshua Rozenberg at Standpoint (God, I love that mag!)

More to  the point – when we were signed up to this international venture, why did no one in the UK government pick up on this serious weakness?


David Aaronovitch gets it in one

December 2, 2008

He’s right and has summed up the central dilemma that should be afflicting the left – “Why the rabbi?”

“I’m sure there are plenty of Deobandi followers who are in no way violent or dangerous, but one sees here an ideology, a psychosis in search of a grievance, not an expression of an existing grievance. And it will always find a grievance. ”

Read it yourselves.


Harry’s Place is right

December 1, 2008

I couldn’t agree more with this poster. The intelligensia of the “left” have already been trying to rationalise away the murderous hatred of the Islamists in Mumbai – without listening to a word that they actually say.

“The Nazis don’t want to kill Jews – that’s a Jewish lie!” Much difference?


John Bolton, man of vision

November 6, 2008

Yes, I mean it. Read this.

Advice to the President-elect.


Return to Blogging: Losing the Election but not losing our souls.

November 5, 2008

Hello, I’m back. Couldn’t really write anything the last few weeks – everything I felt was being written by my side already. The Obama voters have just done an incredibly stupid thing… To those on the left who are now crowing – Gene at Harry’s Place in particular – “fuck you”. You were blinded by your partisan hatreds into befriending your enemies – you WILL regret this.

To those who bravely voted for McCain, bad luck. And Damn, Blast, Fuck, Bloody Fucking, Fucking, Fucking Hell. Well the world’s not going to come to an end – there are real limits to a President’s power… just I have this nagging worry about Obama. Let’s hope the judiciary stand up to the barmmier ideas…wait…he can sack the lot…in fact he will – Bush did.
Does anyone know if the senior Dems are still talking about slashing the military budget?

Anyway, here’s the comment that I left on Shire Network News today. It sums up a lot for me.

Ok. We lost. And McCain did lose graciously – he always was gracious (unlike the opponent).

The world is not going to end suddenly…however, the USA will realise at some point in the future that it elected (and the media in particular) a disgraceful man to be president in the face of danger. The USA has just buried its head in the sand, and to Israelis I would say – hit Iran in the next two to three months – that’s how long you have to increase your chances of survival.

The unconstitutional and illegal tactics of the Democrats will become institutionalised as the Consitution will be subverted. To what ends? To whichever ends the left of the Democrat party decide.

On the plus side. These next four years will give real leftwingers like myself and the conservative movement in the USA to put in some real coordinating thought on how to regroup and win the next election, so we can undo the damage that will have been wrought by the “messiah”.
It seems to me that one of the reasons that the Republicans never developed a coherent domestic message was that they never had one. Low taxes were a good idea, are a good idea but not as much as reforming the tax code to promote the benefits of work. The US tax code has been a mess for the last twenty years and Obama’s Democrats are not going to tackle it – too much like hard work.
The Republicans should be starting to work out a manifesto that provides a realistic and plausible small government platform to counter the Big Government excesses of an Obama presidency.
At the same time, healthcare is going to be an issue. I wrote a post on my blog months ago about this and the failings of the conservatives to really tackle why healthcare is a Democrat issue. To revisit the argument, healthcare in the US is semi-nationalised and semi-privatised; in Britain, we have mostly nationalised healthcare and it remains one of the institutions of which the British remain most proud, even when outraged by stupid decisions such as trying to punish people for using private healthcare alongside the NHS. Those are excesses but excesses which have no root in the spirit of the NHS, that the nation cares for all its subjects.

If the Republicans are bold, they can come up with a small government version of the NHS for the USA. I would propose something like this: the federal government provides a basic healthcare voucher which consumers can use to shop around for the best healthcare deal. In return for the abolition of corporation tax on healthcare providers, the government and the healthcare providers agree on a basic regulatory framework of consumer rights, a set of standardised insurance plans into which consumers must buy and an agreed limiting of drug prices based on a compromise between market and R&D costs and affordability for consumers. This would act in the same manner, I believe, as the regulatory framework the British government uses for energy, telephony etc in Britain where the companies then compete on price and service within a framework that guarentees a competative market.
The USA, not matter what the liberal left shriek, is not as poor as Britain was in 1945. For the Republican party, I think this would create a great deal of affection towards them from the working class Democrat voters and combined with a real reforming assault on Medicare, Medicaid, the pensions system, public education and the tax system, would give them a mantle of “real” reformers – the party of “competence”, rather than the Democrats who would be the party of “conscience” but “incompetence”. If you want your country to be run well – vote Republican. If you want your country to cater to special interest and minority groups in the name of “fairness”, vote Democrat but don’t be shocked at the waste and corruption.

Returning to the present. So Obama thinks that Bush administration policy was too aggressive towards Russia? Inconsistent would be a fair analysis but too aggressive? This means he’s still talking and in his victory speech about appeasement.
What was that saying about leopards?


On that UN speech…

September 28, 2008

I haven’t posted much on Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN. Why? Because it is all so familiar; as Meryl Yourish says, we’ve heard this before from Adolf Hitler.

What will it take for the West to act? Open evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme? (Wait. We’ve already got that). Open declarations of genocidal intent? (Got that one too…) How about…IAEA evidence of ballistic missiles being retrofitted to carry nuclear warheads? (That one too…)
Okay, how about Israel being attacked with nuclear weapons? Honestly. If Obama is president…nothing but words; if McCain is president, then at least the US and perhaps Britain under Cameron will go to war to disarm Iran. But I doubt the rest of the world will shed any tears for Israel – much better to blame the victims for bringing it upon themselves.
So when will the West act? Probably when Rome is bombed by Iranian nuclear terrorists…and the reaction? War, right?

Nah. They’ll try and surrender.


Identifying our Enemies

September 22, 2008

The international insitutions of the 20th Century are decrepit and falling apart from the moral decay at their heart. The European Union is stuck in the pursuit of a utopian dream of the abolition of the nation state as the cause of war; Germany is siding openly with the tyrannies of China and Russia against the West, against the US and Israel in particular.
The United Nations is corrupt; invested with utopian hopes of ending war and in turn achieving international concord, these aims are left in the hands of the enemies of freedom, liberty and humanism. In the UN, most of the nations of the world are openly, to one degree or another, aligned with the enemies of the West.
And within the West, the liberal-left are the subversive, seditious element, whose identification of humanism and freedom as the creator of human misery though capitalism and democracy, causes them to emerge as the followers of the enemy within; they follow the extreme left like the “moral majority” of Germans followed Adolf Hitler. Why is this?
I believe that Evan Sayet and others put the collective finger upon the reason for this: they yearn for a utopia, to believe in and follow the leaders to a utopia. So we have the Greens with “principal speakers” – to avoid the appearence of formal leadership and dictatorship, nonetheless impose a totalitarian mindset upon each other and all those who might listen to them. Hitler offered a utopia – a future of racially defined harmony and glory; the liberal-left follow the extreme left into a dream of a utopia, where freedom is proved to be a sham to create misery and those who perpuate misery, who cut the heads off of little boys, who would murder and impose a tyrannical and truly oppressive state, are the harbringers of “true” freedom, the creators of utopia.

Right now, Germany is in bed with its real enemies, its’ elite and people fooled by the liberal-leftists of the 1960s and the political remnants of National Socialism. There are those who attack the covert anti-semitism of the political dialogue of Germany, but they are very much a minority. I believe that for somewhere like Germany, David Horowitz of Frontpage Magazine is right in that the eventual reaction will not be politically liberal in the old sense of the word but nationalistic and possibly neo-fascist in outlook. By destroying the intellectual frameworks of European civilisation, the liberal-left are opening the ground to their enemies who will draw upon the most avastic emotions to promote an agenda of true hatred.
When this happens, will the liberal-left – those like Andrew Sullivan or Jonathan Freedland – recognise their folly? Will they recognise that by destroying rational criticism and promoting ideological indoctrination, by appeasing and assisting their declared enemies in Islam and in the world tyrannies that they will have destroyed themselves? I don’t know if they could because they are so morally bankrupt that those who are not put to death or imprisoned will switch sides and pretend to be progressive.

Will they recognise that organisations like Amnesty International exist because of the West and the Enlightenment and not despite the West? Will they wake up to the manipulation of their stupidity by the extreme and totalitarian left? In the 1990s, we thought in Britain that the far-left were redundant and gone, but did not listen to those who were telling us that the far-left were still lurking in the woodwork of education, destroying and corrupting the teachings of the Enlightenment – the majority of the practitioners were liberal-left, not consciously aware of the ends of the methods employed and fixated on illusory enemies – the political right. Capitalism and Democracy are being undermined by the far-left from within; I still need to read the sources that Melanie Phillips gave, but I believe in my heart that she is right in declaring that Barack Obama is a far-leftist and ideologically related to the Communist Party. There are too many trails leading back to the Communists and their totalitarian fellow travellers from his person to dismiss and scaremongering.

There is an interesting discussion begun on Harry’s Place by Adam LeBor about is the Right the place of intellectual coherence and confidence today? The left is frightened, split and confused by the modern world: the right is not exactly unified but is much more so than the left. I remain in the small (and perhaps slightly expanding) part of the left who can work with the majority of the right against this threat. I share the company of men like Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens, and women like Meryl Yourish and am proud to know what is right and to be prepared to fight for it.


In Remembrance

September 11, 2008

Today is the 11th of September and it is seven years since I sat at work in the afternoon and heard of the attacks over the radio.

On that day, the West finally realised that someone had declared war; a war without rules and without a negotiable end.

This is a fight to the finish.


The choice for France

September 4, 2008

The French nation today faces a stark and real choice, between realising the glorious past of French arms or succumbing to the legacy of defeat and defeatism left over from the six weeks of 1940. Will France say to its leaders and political elite – the Taliban have pissed on our soldiers’ graves and insulted our honour, we will fight – or, will the French clamour to retreat and leave the fighting to others?

There is no middle way here. Either France decides to fight and commits more troops to the battle, waving aside their former mistrust of the British and Americans; or France pulls out, does as defeatists like Simon Jenkins say and declare the war lost and tacitly admit that only Europeans and Americans are allowed to live as civilised beings.

The future lies before France; it is now she must choose glory or ignomy.