George Galloway has spoken out against Pegida at its march in Newcastle today. Before I comment on this, I will draw the reader's attention to a comment by Richard Littlejohn about Muslims from this country who go abroad to fight for Islam. I agree with him when he talks about institutionalised cowardice, but he does have trouble joining the dots at times.
Pegida has been described as far-right and extremist in the national press, and George Galloway has been quoted as calling them a German Nazi group. A Pegida spokesman has been quoted as saying that they are not anti-Islam, but rather that they are opposed to extremism. Here are some facts.
The term far-right is so hard to define as to be almost meaningless. The words extremist and extremism are utterly devoid of practical meaning. Adolf Hitler was tolerant of Islam, and allowed Muslims to serve in the Waffen-SS, and so it is not clear on what basis we should regard Pegida as Nazi. This quote is from Wikipedia:
He [Himmler] was personally fascinated by the Islamic faith and believed that Islam created fearless soldiers. He found their ferocity preferable to the gentility of Christians and
believed their martial qualities should be further developed and put to
use. He thought that Muslim men would make perfect SS soldier
I am not a supporter of Pegida, but neither am I a supporter of the cowardly and infantile British establishment.
Islam is a belief system which is founded on a book which says what The Koran says. Instead of accepting this simple fact, however, the establishment expects us to be blind to the truth.
I will admit in defence of George Galloway that he is opposed to Britain going to war against Muslim countries. When we have around three million Muslims in this country and at the same time we allow our armed forces to kill Muslims in other countries, then we should not be surprised if some Muslims in this country take up arms in the cause of their fellow Muslims.
Rather than admit this, however, the government continues to wage illegal wars, and continues to allow more immigration, thereby swelling the Muslim population of this country.
Related previous posts include:
Respect MP assaulted
The future of the Muslim world
Saturday 28 February 2015
Friday 27 February 2015
We don't need the likes of Rifkind
Veteran MPs Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw have both been caught out offering cash for access, and Rifkind has since announced his intention to quit parliament.
Rifkind has tried to justify his behavour by saying that he wants to have the standard of living that his professional background would normally entitle him to have. Rifkind was originally a lawyer, and I quote from a previous post about Godfrey Bloom MEP:
The salary of an MEP is I believe £66,396, and I will take Bloom's word for it that lawyers tend to earn more. Nevertheless £66,396 is more than the salary of a university professor, and also more than the typical earnings of road maintenance workers - but of course they do an important job and do it well.
I want this country to be governed by politicians who are driven by principle and not by personal greed. If you can earn more as a lawyer than as a politician, then you are free to stay away from politics. If you choose to enter the world of politics, then please do not use a professional background as an excuse for selfish behaviour.
Related previous posts include:
Nigel Farage is still a coward
Rifkind has tried to justify his behavour by saying that he wants to have the standard of living that his professional background would normally entitle him to have. Rifkind was originally a lawyer, and I quote from a previous post about Godfrey Bloom MEP:
The salary of an MEP is I believe £66,396, and I will take Bloom's word for it that lawyers tend to earn more. Nevertheless £66,396 is more than the salary of a university professor, and also more than the typical earnings of road maintenance workers - but of course they do an important job and do it well.
I want this country to be governed by politicians who are driven by principle and not by personal greed. If you can earn more as a lawyer than as a politician, then you are free to stay away from politics. If you choose to enter the world of politics, then please do not use a professional background as an excuse for selfish behaviour.
Related previous posts include:
Nigel Farage is still a coward
Saturday 21 February 2015
Two more teenage deaths ...
Sacha Wheeler was fourteen years old when she was killed on a pedestrian railway crossing in Whitstable. Other people had previously been killed on this crossing, but some of these are believed to have been suicides. Some news reports have quoted Network Rail as saying that they want to close this crossing, but that closing a crossing is not an easy process.
Milena Gagic was sixteen years old when she was killed on a pedestrian crossing in the village of Hipperholme. She and a friend sat down on the crossing late one evening because they believed that the last train had already passed. The friend managed to leap out of harm's way as a train approached, but Milena paid for their mistake with her life.
Surely it would make sense for the government to take a lead on this matter and require Network Rail to close every pedestrian railway crossing in the country. It could also make funds available to replace pedestrian crossings with bridges or with underpasses, but instead the government sees fit to squander money on illegal wars and similar follies.
Followers of my blog may recall my having written on this subject before. Sadly I expect that many more teenagers may have to die on our railway lines before the British people stop voting for evil politicians.
Update: It has since been reported that:
Who killed Katie Littlewood?
Milena Gagic was sixteen years old when she was killed on a pedestrian crossing in the village of Hipperholme. She and a friend sat down on the crossing late one evening because they believed that the last train had already passed. The friend managed to leap out of harm's way as a train approached, but Milena paid for their mistake with her life.
Surely it would make sense for the government to take a lead on this matter and require Network Rail to close every pedestrian railway crossing in the country. It could also make funds available to replace pedestrian crossings with bridges or with underpasses, but instead the government sees fit to squander money on illegal wars and similar follies.
Followers of my blog may recall my having written on this subject before. Sadly I expect that many more teenagers may have to die on our railway lines before the British people stop voting for evil politicians.
Update: It has since been reported that:
Network Rail
level crossing manager Robert Lamoon admitted the sight line to the
crossing for trains heading London bound from Whitstable was 'close to
the minimum limit'.
He said it had last been rated high risk in August 2014 but admitted there had been no improvements.
Asked why, he said: 'It's a very long, drawn out process.'
Related previous post:Who killed Katie Littlewood?
Monday 16 February 2015
Dresden, the Archbishop, and the BBC
The Archbishop of Canterbury has come in for a lot of criticism in the past few days because he dared to express regret for the Allied bombing of Dresden. It has been widely reported that he apologised for the bombing, which he has denied.
The BBC has also been criticised for referring to the bombing of Dresden seventy years ago as a war crime. Some critics have mentioned the sacrifice of the Allied bomber crews, but I can't recall ever hearing those people mention the sacrifice of German bomber crews during the Second World War. The word hypocrisy comes to mind.
It is true that more than 55,000 mostly British crewmen died in the bombing raids, but that was during the entire war. By contrast, around 25,000 people were killed by Bomber Command in just four raids on Dresden. Furthermore, the bomber crewmen who were killed were engaged in murder, whereas the citizens of Dresden had committed what crime exactly?
If very single one of the Allied bombers had been shot down on their very first raid, then a lot of innocent human lives would have been spared.
Related previous posts include:
Have you seen the Bomber Command thug?
The BBC has also been criticised for referring to the bombing of Dresden seventy years ago as a war crime. Some critics have mentioned the sacrifice of the Allied bomber crews, but I can't recall ever hearing those people mention the sacrifice of German bomber crews during the Second World War. The word hypocrisy comes to mind.
It is true that more than 55,000 mostly British crewmen died in the bombing raids, but that was during the entire war. By contrast, around 25,000 people were killed by Bomber Command in just four raids on Dresden. Furthermore, the bomber crewmen who were killed were engaged in murder, whereas the citizens of Dresden had committed what crime exactly?
If very single one of the Allied bombers had been shot down on their very first raid, then a lot of innocent human lives would have been spared.
Related previous posts include:
Have you seen the Bomber Command thug?
Monday 2 February 2015
Britain First and the fiction of a free country
As I write, a national newspaper is lamenting the failure of the government to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of VE Day. The writer refers to the Allied victory in the Second World War as the liberation of the free world, when it should more accurately described as the triumph of evil.
Before anyone accuses me of endorsing Hitler or what he stood for, let me make it clear that I am not endorsing either side in the Second World War. Saying that the victorious side was evil is not the same as saying that the defeated side was without fault.
Many people from the defeated side were tortured by the Allies, and then prosecuted for crimes which they had confessed to under torture. Is this the hallmark of a free society?
By contrast, no charges were brought against Allied soldiers who murdered fifty Germans at Dachau, no charges were brought against any member of Bomber Command for murdering civilians, and no charges were brought against anyone in the Royal Navy for the murder of two thousand sailors who were on board the battleship Bismarck when it surrendered.
The one prosecution of Allied personnel that I am aware of was just a lame attempt to cover up the torture of German prisoners (which took place in a town called Bad Nenndorf). Four army officers were charged with various crimes, but only one of them was convicted of a few very minor charges.
It is common for countries which took part in the Second World War to have laws which unfairly curtail free speech, which makes me wonder if the Allied victory really had anything at all to do with freedom.
I have recently found out that Paul Golding, the leader of Britain First, has been convicted of wearing political uniform. If I've got it right, this law was introduced in the 1930s as a means to oppose the British Union of Fascists. Before I continue, I should make it clear that I am not a supporter of Britain First, and that I do not aspire to wear a political uniform. Nevertheless I fail to see why any reasonable government should prohibit the wearing of political uniforms, and I fail also to see how such a prohibition is consistent with a free society.
Paul Golding's defence was that Britain First has no uniform. Instead it has merchandise. It sells clothes bearing the party logo, which the buyer may well choose to wear in public. I have just checked the websites of the evil Conservative Party and the evil Labour Party. They both sell tee shirts bearing either the party name or the party logo. If clothing sold by Britain First is deemed to be political uniform, then I wonder whether or not clothing sold by the evil Conservative Party and the evil Labour Party should not also be classed as political uniform.
Update: I spoke recently with an employee at Conservative Central Office. She told me that the banning of political uniform applied only to marches (which is not true), and was aimed at extremist organisations. I asked her if the Conservative Party is an extremist organisation, and she said no. I asked her how she knew that, and put it to her that the word extremism is meaningless, but she did not want to continue the conversation.
Provision 1 of The Public Order Act 1936 reads as follows: any person who in any public place or at any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence. The word extremism does not appear; neither does the word march.
At the time of writing, the Conservative Party website is still offering tee shirts for sale bearing the party logo. This in itself does not appear to be illegal, and presumably it is not illegal to buy such a tee shirt or to wear it in the privacy of your own home. Nevertheless it is illegal to wear it in the street, and the Conservative Party is perhaps acting irresponsibly by not urging its supporters to refrain from wearing party merchandise in public.
As a final point, the conviction of Paul Golding has not so far as I am aware been taken to the Court of Appeal. Therefore the ruling does not represent a binding legal precedent, but it does nevertheless provide a precedent which can be referred to in future prosecutions.
Second update: a prosecution in 1937 was thrown out by magistrates in Luton. Apparently it is not illegal merely to wear a colour with political associations.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
Before anyone accuses me of endorsing Hitler or what he stood for, let me make it clear that I am not endorsing either side in the Second World War. Saying that the victorious side was evil is not the same as saying that the defeated side was without fault.
Many people from the defeated side were tortured by the Allies, and then prosecuted for crimes which they had confessed to under torture. Is this the hallmark of a free society?
By contrast, no charges were brought against Allied soldiers who murdered fifty Germans at Dachau, no charges were brought against any member of Bomber Command for murdering civilians, and no charges were brought against anyone in the Royal Navy for the murder of two thousand sailors who were on board the battleship Bismarck when it surrendered.
The one prosecution of Allied personnel that I am aware of was just a lame attempt to cover up the torture of German prisoners (which took place in a town called Bad Nenndorf). Four army officers were charged with various crimes, but only one of them was convicted of a few very minor charges.
It is common for countries which took part in the Second World War to have laws which unfairly curtail free speech, which makes me wonder if the Allied victory really had anything at all to do with freedom.
I have recently found out that Paul Golding, the leader of Britain First, has been convicted of wearing political uniform. If I've got it right, this law was introduced in the 1930s as a means to oppose the British Union of Fascists. Before I continue, I should make it clear that I am not a supporter of Britain First, and that I do not aspire to wear a political uniform. Nevertheless I fail to see why any reasonable government should prohibit the wearing of political uniforms, and I fail also to see how such a prohibition is consistent with a free society.
Paul Golding's defence was that Britain First has no uniform. Instead it has merchandise. It sells clothes bearing the party logo, which the buyer may well choose to wear in public. I have just checked the websites of the evil Conservative Party and the evil Labour Party. They both sell tee shirts bearing either the party name or the party logo. If clothing sold by Britain First is deemed to be political uniform, then I wonder whether or not clothing sold by the evil Conservative Party and the evil Labour Party should not also be classed as political uniform.
Update: I spoke recently with an employee at Conservative Central Office. She told me that the banning of political uniform applied only to marches (which is not true), and was aimed at extremist organisations. I asked her if the Conservative Party is an extremist organisation, and she said no. I asked her how she knew that, and put it to her that the word extremism is meaningless, but she did not want to continue the conversation.
Provision 1 of The Public Order Act 1936 reads as follows: any person who in any public place or at any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence. The word extremism does not appear; neither does the word march.
At the time of writing, the Conservative Party website is still offering tee shirts for sale bearing the party logo. This in itself does not appear to be illegal, and presumably it is not illegal to buy such a tee shirt or to wear it in the privacy of your own home. Nevertheless it is illegal to wear it in the street, and the Conservative Party is perhaps acting irresponsibly by not urging its supporters to refrain from wearing party merchandise in public.
As a final point, the conviction of Paul Golding has not so far as I am aware been taken to the Court of Appeal. Therefore the ruling does not represent a binding legal precedent, but it does nevertheless provide a precedent which can be referred to in future prosecutions.
Second update: a prosecution in 1937 was thrown out by magistrates in Luton. Apparently it is not illegal merely to wear a colour with political associations.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)