Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, is not my favourite man. He is not a liberal and in seeking to make laws against religious hatred a crime, he does not represent a liberal cause. He does not want Islam to suffer criticism or be the subject of debate. Our free speech will suffer if he succeeds.
Yet he has my sympathy as he faces a police investigation into remarks he made on the BBC's Radio 4 PM programme on 3rd January, when he said homosexuality is harmful.
I doubt the police will find there is a crime to prosecute, even as they try to piece one together under the Public Order Act. That crime is one the government intends to bring on later as it looks at a clutch of 'hate crimes'. Meanwhile the government presses the police to investigate all complaints of crime 'aggravated' by 'hate'.
Were there a law banning comments critical of homosexuality it would be very sad indeed for Britain, and a severe blow against freedom and free speech here. But there is no law, and it is outrageous that police are leaning on people and 'investigating' them. They should be telling the complainants where to go.
January 11, 2006
December 15, 2005
Teacher Convicted of Kissing
Samantha Grixti, a teacher, has been sentenced to 180 hours of forced labour (aka community service) after being convicted of kissing a 16 year old pupil.
As I have said before, it may be unprofessional to have relationships with pupils, but it is not a matter for the law. At 16 people are over the age of consent, and free to embark on sexual relationships with anyone else over 16. It is perverse to make it a criminal offence for others to have relationships with them.
All the more so when the state is happy to support widespread promiscuity among the under 16s, offering confidential contraceptive and abortion services, often in defiance of parental wishes, and seeks to encourage unconventional relationships, for example through 'gay marriage'.
As I have said before, it may be unprofessional to have relationships with pupils, but it is not a matter for the law. At 16 people are over the age of consent, and free to embark on sexual relationships with anyone else over 16. It is perverse to make it a criminal offence for others to have relationships with them.
All the more so when the state is happy to support widespread promiscuity among the under 16s, offering confidential contraceptive and abortion services, often in defiance of parental wishes, and seeks to encourage unconventional relationships, for example through 'gay marriage'.
November 09, 2005
Why Protect Red Squirrels?
The Telegraph reports that grey squirrels are to be 'excluded' from red squirrel areas in England on pain of death.
There is an evolutionary struggle going on and the red squirrels appear to be losing out to the greys, which was introduced (by man, of course) from America.
Why should we intervene in this struggle? There is no malice between squirrels. There are no 'good' or 'bad' squirrels, there are just little creatures struggling (as we all do) to survive.
If the greys are spreading at the expense of the reds, it is because in evolutionary terms, they are the fittest to survive - the fittest for the environment in which they live.
For man to take sides is ridiculous.
In fact it is worse than ridiculous. It is not clear that more red squirrels will have suffered short lives then would have been the case without the grey, because there are always factors at work limiting a species' population size.
But if we have in some sense caused red squirrels to suffer by introducing the grey, it simply compounds our failing to cull greys. Unless we exterminate the greys entirely there will never be an end to the slaughter. So to assuage our collective guilt over the change in squirrel populations we embark on an endless campaign to inflict suffering on grey squirrels.
Who are we to say one little animal is worth more than another little animal, especially when the difference between them is that one is red and the other is grey?
There is an evolutionary struggle going on and the red squirrels appear to be losing out to the greys, which was introduced (by man, of course) from America.
Why should we intervene in this struggle? There is no malice between squirrels. There are no 'good' or 'bad' squirrels, there are just little creatures struggling (as we all do) to survive.
If the greys are spreading at the expense of the reds, it is because in evolutionary terms, they are the fittest to survive - the fittest for the environment in which they live.
For man to take sides is ridiculous.
In fact it is worse than ridiculous. It is not clear that more red squirrels will have suffered short lives then would have been the case without the grey, because there are always factors at work limiting a species' population size.
But if we have in some sense caused red squirrels to suffer by introducing the grey, it simply compounds our failing to cull greys. Unless we exterminate the greys entirely there will never be an end to the slaughter. So to assuage our collective guilt over the change in squirrel populations we embark on an endless campaign to inflict suffering on grey squirrels.
Who are we to say one little animal is worth more than another little animal, especially when the difference between them is that one is red and the other is grey?
October 21, 2005
Another Teacher Pupil Love Case
Shelley White, a 24 year old geography teacher, has been convicted of 'abuse of trust' by having sexual activity with a child, a 15 year old boy. The 'sexual activity' was kissing (or 'snogging' as the Telegraph puts it).
It may not be desirable conduct in a teacher, but it is not something that warrants a conviction. The difference in age was not so great, and the acts were consensual, and in any case fell well short of intercourse.
A matter of school discipline perhaps, but not the criminal law.
The jury probably thought so too, because it was a 10 - 2 majority conviction. In the old days that would have meant an acquittal, and should have done so yesterday.
Instead, another life ruined.
It may not be desirable conduct in a teacher, but it is not something that warrants a conviction. The difference in age was not so great, and the acts were consensual, and in any case fell well short of intercourse.
A matter of school discipline perhaps, but not the criminal law.
The jury probably thought so too, because it was a 10 - 2 majority conviction. In the old days that would have meant an acquittal, and should have done so yesterday.
Instead, another life ruined.
Government Planned Population Explosion
Official forecasts from the ONS suggest the UK's population will grow from 60 million now to 67 million in 2031. Much of the increase will be in south east England.
The growth results from greatly increased immigration - net migration into the UK last year was 223,000, against 50,000 a year in 1997. The new forecasts are greater than Migrationwatch has put out, when it has been called 'alarmist'.
So will those who have been encouraging this massive wave of immigration free up the planning system so people can live decently and affordably in southern England? Or will the government inspired rabbit hutches continue to proliferate, for those that can afford them, and we come to live in ever closer proximity to each other as more spacious houses are demolished to accommodate increasingly cramped ones, and traditional gardens disappear?
Oh, and by the way, when did the English ever ask for so many new neighbours?
The growth results from greatly increased immigration - net migration into the UK last year was 223,000, against 50,000 a year in 1997. The new forecasts are greater than Migrationwatch has put out, when it has been called 'alarmist'.
So will those who have been encouraging this massive wave of immigration free up the planning system so people can live decently and affordably in southern England? Or will the government inspired rabbit hutches continue to proliferate, for those that can afford them, and we come to live in ever closer proximity to each other as more spacious houses are demolished to accommodate increasingly cramped ones, and traditional gardens disappear?
Oh, and by the way, when did the English ever ask for so many new neighbours?
October 14, 2005
Has it ever been alive, European Democracy?
The EU cannot undo its lack of democracy by setting up national debates with students, young people, politicians, trades unions, academics and business groups as reported by the Telegraph. The problem is there is no EU demos - people's political activity, awareness, and allegiance is at the level of individual nation states. Democracy exists only within the nation state, not the EU, its antithesis.
Margot Wallstrom, the European Commission's vice-president for communication asks, "Has it ever been alive, European democracy?"
She should know when she says, "This [the EU] has been a project for a small elite, a political elite ..."
If the EU were a democracy there would not be a series of European Commission inspired 'debates' with a few groups, but elections where the electorate were regularly offered the power of decision at EU level. Yet not only are there no such elections, and the EU is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected, self-perpetuating elite, but EU political supremacy is not even wanted: in Britain at least, people want their nation state to continue and do not want to be subject to foreign control.
Parliament, wake up!
Margot Wallstrom, the European Commission's vice-president for communication asks, "Has it ever been alive, European democracy?"
She should know when she says, "This [the EU] has been a project for a small elite, a political elite ..."
If the EU were a democracy there would not be a series of European Commission inspired 'debates' with a few groups, but elections where the electorate were regularly offered the power of decision at EU level. Yet not only are there no such elections, and the EU is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected, self-perpetuating elite, but EU political supremacy is not even wanted: in Britain at least, people want their nation state to continue and do not want to be subject to foreign control.
Parliament, wake up!
October 06, 2005
The Craven Broadcaster
John Humphrys, the BBC Today presenter got a dressing down from his bosses last month for remarks which made fun of some Labour politicians.
But the Telegraph today reports that:
If it isn't true, it is a good reason to abolish the 'licence fee' and let the BBC find its own way in the world, because the idea that the BBC is in thrall to the politicians is all too believable.
But the Telegraph today reports that:
BBC chiefs wanted to sack the Today presenter John Humphrys over jibes he made about Labour leaders in an after-dinner speech ...If true, it is a good reason to abolish the 'licence fee' and let the BBC find its own way in the world, truly independent of any government.
... According to John Kampfner, the New Statesman's editor and a former BBC journalist, Mr Grade [the BBC chairman] was intent on making an example of Humphrys to placate the Government at a time when it is reviewing the corporation's charter. He said Mr Grade also saw the Humphrys issue as an opportunity to prove to politicians that the corporation's new governance system is effective.
If it isn't true, it is a good reason to abolish the 'licence fee' and let the BBC find its own way in the world, because the idea that the BBC is in thrall to the politicians is all too believable.
October 04, 2005
Being English Now Banned
On the same day I learn from Mark Steyn about a Tory council banning all pig related items, including an employee's box of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet tissues, due to Muslim sensitivities - and a so-called wish for 'tolerance', I now discover the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Ann Owers has been at it too:
To have pride and respect for our past, and support the ancient institutions that have grown out of it in the face of a new intolerance is to stand firm for our country's freedom and future. The tail cannot wag the dog. Down with PC prats and religious bigots.
It's nearly enough to start me eating meat again - pork, that is.
A section on race relations in Owers' report [on Wakefield prison] said: "We were concerned to see a number of staff wearing a flag of St. George tie-pin.CNN goes on to report:
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.I say wave the flag, sing the national anthem, march on St George's Day, and let's see who our friends are!
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
To have pride and respect for our past, and support the ancient institutions that have grown out of it in the face of a new intolerance is to stand firm for our country's freedom and future. The tail cannot wag the dog. Down with PC prats and religious bigots.
It's nearly enough to start me eating meat again - pork, that is.
Dogs' Dinners
Jamie Oliver exposed the dire state of Britain's school dinners on TV.
The government commissioned a report which says:
Very good. But would school meals have got so bad if schools were not controlled by the state, and obliged to direct their attention and resources to satisfying the bureaucracy and politicians rather than children and parents?
Having spent "more than two decades" making a dog's dinner of school meals, the government still thinks it knows best, showing no respect for the freedom of parents to determine what their children may eat. According to the Telegraph:
The government commissioned a report which says:
The state of many school meals is an indictment of more than two decades of public policy which has in effect stripped nutrients off plates, removed skills from kitchen staff and seen the take-up of school meals drop precipitously.So, caught out, the government intends to enforce nutritional standards and on-site cooking (even though it will mean building kitchens for many schools - another one-size-fits-all approach), while banning many 'junk' foods.
Very good. But would school meals have got so bad if schools were not controlled by the state, and obliged to direct their attention and resources to satisfying the bureaucracy and politicians rather than children and parents?
Having spent "more than two decades" making a dog's dinner of school meals, the government still thinks it knows best, showing no respect for the freedom of parents to determine what their children may eat. According to the Telegraph:
At first, the standards will cover only the provision of food. By 2011, however, they could be applied to its consumption, which would involve restricting the food children were allowed to bring into school.Government conceit joined by the heavy hand of an obese state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
