An interesting and relevant comparison?

Anna Raccoon is confused:

'Pastor Terry Jones burns a copy of the Koran, and Islamists respond by cutting off the heads of some of the UN delegation in Afghanistan. Islamists burn a symbol of our debt to servicemen and women, and we respond with a £50 fine.'

Underdogs bite upwards  is as well:
'If you burned Bibles the Christians would be offended. If you burned the Bhagavad-Gita, Hindus would be offended. These groups, along with Jews and Buddhists and the others, would tut at you most ferociously but they aren't likely to cut your head off. Have you ever seen an enraged Church of England guy? He might give you tea with no sugar in it if you really, really push him to the limit. Then he'll apologise. If all religious people were like that, the world would be an easier place to live in. All you'd have to do is carry your own sugar.

To kill people who had nothing at all to do with the book-burning is not the act of the offended. It is the act of the totally and irredeemably insane. This is insanity beyond any hope of treatment, this is melt the key and brick up the doorway time. Someone on one side of the planet, obviously a bit of a fundamentalist, burns a book, and someone on the other side of the planet responds not by burning his holy book but by cutting a totally uninvolved person's head off. How the hell can anyone, even a Socialist, consider that in any way a rational response?'

'Hindus have ‘no intellect’ and that they ‘drink cow p***'

Channel 4 will broadcast a programme tonight entitled 'Lessons in Hate and Violence'.

Channel 4's preview includes this:

'It is an assembly hall of the sort found in any ordinary school. Boys aged 11 and upwards sit cross-legged on the floor in straight rows. They face the front of the room and listen carefully. But this is no ordinary assembly. Holding the children's attention is a man in Islamic dress wearing a skullcap and stroking his long dark beard as he talks.

'You're not like the non-Muslims out there,' the teacher says, gesturing towards the window. 'All that evil you see in the streets, people not wearing the hijab properly, people smoking... you should hate it, you should hate walking down that street.'

He refers to the 'non-Muslims' as the 'Kafir', an often derogatory term that means disbeliever or infidel.

...

We recorded a number of speakers giving deeply disturbing talks about Jews, Christians and atheists. We found children as young as 11 learning that Hindus have 'no intellect'. We came across pupils being told that the 'disbelievers' are 'the worst creatures' and that Muslims who adopt supposedly non-Muslim ways, such as shaving, dancing, listening to music, and – in the case of women – removing their headscarves, would be tortured with a forked iron rod in the after-life.

In 2009 this school was praised by government-approved inspection teams for its interfaith teachings. The report said that 'pupils learn about the beliefs and practices of other faiths and are taught to show respect to other world religions'.

It seems that the inspectors were unaware of the teaching methods revealed by our undercover reporter, Osman. He was taken on as a volunteer at the Darul Uloom school in Birmingham in April 2009 and was allowed to sit in on some lessons – but not their Islamic classes.

So, in July last year, he went into one of the rooms where we'd heard they taught Islamic studies and left a secret camera to record the lessons. Filming intermittently over a period of four months, the camera recorded children being taught a hardline, intolerant and highly anti-social version of Islam.

...

In just two days of filming in December 2010, the camera recorded the teacher hitting children as young as six or seven at least ten times, in less than three hours of lessons.'

Time after time there are investigations and exposes into teaching methods and sermons at British Islamic schools and Mosques and everyone is surprised whilst the Muslim institutions claim to be shocked and come out with statements like this

'The school said that a speaker who made comments about Jews was 'visiting', and his views did not represent school policy. It denied that its religious instruction was hardline or extremist and said it did not tolerate hatred towards any faith group.'

When will we realise that much of the Islamic teaching and giving of sermons in this country is not as tolerant as we might wish and Islam might claim. Hatred and intolerance are spread and nothing is done.

The cuddly face of the UK left

The Guardian's Comment Is Free have a piece entitled

'Why Michael Heseltine has returned
City-loving, leftie-bashing Michael Heseltine is just the man Cameron needs in the critical year ahead'

And the first comment posted is:

'VoxAC30 29 December 2010 9:05PM
Oh God, isn't he dead yet?'

And yet the Tories are the 'nasty party'!

Protecting the BBC's favourites from ridicule or even scrutiny

Earlier this morning I saw this piece of video on Theo Spark's site...
Wow, I thought that show "The View" just gets worse as it runs to the liberal agenda of Whoopi Goldberg, a dominating figure.

I wasn't going to post about this video as it seemed too US centric. Then I noticed it being reported on Sky News along with a reasonably long description of what happened, here's an extract:

'Whoopi Goldberg stormed off the set of a top American TV show during a row about plans to build a mosque near the site of the New York terror strikes.

She and co-host Joy Behar walked out in disgust when Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly said the proposals were "inappropriate" because "Muslims killed us on 9/11".

"No! Oh my God!" shouted Goldberg as her daily talk show The View descended into a slanging match.

Goldberg's next sentence is covered by a bleep, but she can clearly be seen mouthing: "That is such b*******!"

"Muslims didn't kill us on 9/11? Is that what you're saying?" replies O'Reilly.

Goldberg says it was "extremist" Muslims that carried out the attacks, as O'Reilly states that 70% of Americans are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque.

Behar stands up and shouts: "I don't want to sit here. I am outraged by that statement".

She is soon joined Goldberg and the two women walk out of the studio.

Co-host and veteran ABC broadcaster Barbara Walters apologises to the audience, saying: "We should be able to have discussions without washing our hands and screaming and walking off stage."'

What I find revealing is that as of now, teh BBC have not covered this story at all; why?

Might this explain why Fraser Nelson has had his lobby pass removed?

The Tap reports that:

"Four journalists, including Fraser, were found not to have declared their up-to-date outside interests, and have been reprimanded and punished to some extent by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.

But only Fraser Nelson has been actually banned from the Lobby, his pass removed. The others were more mildly rebuked. We don't know the full facts of the case, but it seems strange that the only confident voice declaring that Labour are, in his opinion, through, is the only one being chopped."

So why would the Labour leadership be so keen on banning Fraser Nelson? It couldn't be anything to do with his unwelcome questioning of the Prime Minister last June, could it? Note that Guido Fawkes reports that the Daily Mirror’s political editor Kevin Maguire hadn't registered a very obvious outside interest, his column in Public Affairs News "that he admitted, with a raucous cackle, having had for two years.". I wonder if the Labour defending Kevin Maguire will have his Lobby Pass revoked? Somehow I doubt it.

Note that in the video above Gordon Brown was still denying any planned Labour cuts (2.3% year on year for three years) and decrying the Conservatives for planning 10% cuts. Gordon Brown claimed that 10% cuts would lead to schools and hospitals closing, perhaps someone might ask him whether Labour cuts planned for 2011 of over 10% will result in similar closures. Maybe Evan Davis could ask Gordon Brown to explain his claim in June last year that "The public spending in our Country is rising and it's going to continue to rise, if you want to debate about public spending cuts have it with the Conservative party who are determined to have them.... that is a fact, I've said it, public spending continues to rise."

Climate Change update

Three pieces today:

1) The Telegraph reports that those delightful leftist 'warmists' don't like 'deniers':

"Veteran children’s TV presenter Johnny Ball was booed off stage last night after denying man-made climate change before an audience of liberal atheists. "

Read the story and feel the hatred of the warmists for anyone who dares to doubt 'the revealed truth'.


2) Here is some video of how journalists who dare to question 'warmists' are now treated...


3) Minnesotans for global warming...

"Two of you attacked that poor guy." SEIU: "No, we didn't." White Polo: "Yeah, you did!" SEIU: "He attacked America!"

There is an odd story gaining traction in the USA but very little in the UK. It concerns a Kenneth Gladney who was handing out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" at a protest against Obama health care at a big health care town halls in St. Louis. It appears that he was beaten by SIEU members:

"He was handing out flags to anybody who wanted them...The SEIU guy came up to him and said, "Why is an n-word like you handing out these flags?"

"Kenneth didn't say anything to the guy. Before Kenneth could even say anything or act in any way shape or form, the SEIU representative punched him in the face."

"He went to the ground. Subsequently, two other SEIU representatives or members, however you want to say it, jumped on top of him, yelled racial epithets at him...kicked him, punched him.""

Here's some video that seems to be of the same incident
Here's a description of what seems to be happening in the video from The Weekly Standard report:

"In the video, a black man in a tan polo shirt (Gladney) is clearly being picked up and pulled to the ground by a much larger white man wearing the signature purple SEIU t-shirt (:05).

A black man and a white man, both wearing SEIU t-shirts walk away from the melee after other protesters bring attention to it, and call for police. The black SEIU member, rubbing his shoulder, says at one point, "He pushed me," as protesters accuse him of attacking the man in the tan shirt. The black SEIU guy sounds like he's looking for his "keys," but I can't be sure. In the background, the white SEIU guy is in a verbal argument with someone in a white polo who says, "You attacked him. You're going to jail!," which elicits and "F*** you" from the white SEIU guy.

When Gladney is brought back over to the scene, this time with an escort, he yells, "Where are my glasses?" at which point the black SEIU guy seems to hand something over to him, but it's obscured.

"What the hell is wrong with y'all?" Gladney exclaims. "Why'd you hit me? Did I bother you?" (0:43)

The camera then pans back to the man in the white polo and the white SEIU guy:

"You attacked that guy for nothing," says white polo.

"No, we didn't attack him for nothing," SEUI guy replied, adding something I can't understand. (:53)

As the camera pans back over to a bewildered Gladney and surrounding witnesses, you can hear White Polo say, "Two of you attacked that poor guy."

SEIU: "No, we didn't."

White Polo: "Yeah, you did!"

SEIU: "He attacked America!" (1:01)

At around 1:25, the person filming asks Gladney what happened.

Gladney: "That guy attacked me."

Cameraman: "Which guy?"

Gladney: "The black guy, there."

Cameraman: "Why?"

Gladney: "I don't know. I was standing there, you saw me. You saw me, I'm standing here selling my flags."

He flags down a cop car, at which point the rest of the video is of police cuffing a protesting white woman (not sure what her role was) and the white SEIU guy, who protests that he didn't attack Gladney; he was simply removing him from his fellow SEIU member. The police are also detaining White Polo, but don't cuff him or anything in the video."

Here's a first hand account of events from Pajamas Media.


It does seem that "Change" has come to America but not necessarily change for the better.



FYI the SEIU is described on their website thus:

"Service Employees International Union is the largest and fastest growing union in North America, focused on uniting workers in the key service sectors"

The intolerance of the left

I have blogged previously (most recently here) about the intolerance of the left when faced with argument and two videos I have seen very recently brought this home to me.

The first is from America where the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) held a meeting in Dallas on 4 August and the facilitator says

"You'll notice on the agenda we've called it a "listening session", that's because we want to hear from you as well as tell us what we're working on."

As soon as people disagree with something she says out comes the leftist whining aggression:

"Excuse me but I would really appreciate it if everybody could keep their comments quiet until there is time for the public, we're going to have .. questions and answers and I would appreciate some courtesy. Really, I mean this might be fun for you but this is not what we're doing today."

Do keep watching as you see various AARP facilitators walk out of the meeting and take their microphone with them.


Listening to the lady facilitator have her rant it struck me that there was another piece of video of a leftist getting aggressive when someone dared to question them. It was some video from a while back of Sion Simon reacting very aggressively to some fair questioning from the Sky interviewer.

"Just let me finish. Let me finish. Let me explain.'ang on! Do you want me to, do you want me to explain or not?!... Do you want me to explain? Right then, be quiet then while I speak."

What a charmer and he's now in government with some responsibility for digital media...


In case you missed it at the time, here's the Sion Simon satirical piece on David Cameron... Witty isn't it? I'd say a cross between Wilde and Swift; maybe not.

Guido links to Sion Simon's blog piece for the New Statesman in September 2007 which explains that

"shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain."

and that:

"The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready."

For what "the people" think of his piece, do read the comments...


The left: proudly democratic and ready to listen, so long as nobody dares to question them.


Thanks to Calling England for the American video and Guido Fawkes for the Sion Simon video.

Is this man serious - Tom Harris, MP

Tom Harris is a Labour blogger who I have little time for at the best of times but his piece on Daniel Hannan today cannot be left uncommented upon.

Here's the offending passage, can you spot the hypocrisy?

"What was truly repugnant about his speech was the total absence of any sense of patriotism. Some Tories on the extreme right of the party share the problem of some Republicans in the States: they don’t regard the head of government to be the nation’s leader unless he or she is also a member of their little party.

Gordon Brown isn’t just Labour’s prime minister; he’s Britain’s prime minister, and for any UK politician to launch such a disgraceful, personal attack on his country’s leader — in a foreign country — is nothing short of disgraceful."

Just remind me how much respect the Labour party gave to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. It's odd how the "left" expect the "right" to just "suck it up" when events go against them but are less happy when the boot is on the other foot (apologies for the very mixed metaphors there).

Where should Daniel Hannan have made this attack? Surely making it on the floor of the European Parliament is showing how EU democracy works.

Does Tom Harris believe that Gordon Brown should be protected from any criticism at all times. After all Gordon Brown's team successfully cleared his path of any opposition to ensure a smooth, unopposed succession to the position of Prime Minister and have mostly ensured that media criticism has (until recently) been muted.

Would Tom Harris prefer it if it was illegal to criticise Prime Minister Gordon Brown or to vote for anyone other than Gordon Brown within the Labour party. Would Tom Harris prefer it if it was illegal to vote for any party other than the Labour party.

"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Would Tom Harris see that type of "system" as preferable to free speech?

Road Safety

I commend this article from the Waendel Journal about this Labour government's obsession with speed and drink-driving:

"In 2006 excessive speed was reported in 15% of all accidents and in 26% of fatal crashes. In the current figures given by the Department for Transport (2007), drink-driving was a factor in 6% of all accidents and 16% of road deaths.

The figures are too high. But what is being done about the causes of the 74% of fatal crashes where excess speed was not a factor and the 84% of fatal crashes where alcohol was not a factor? Why is there this relentless focus on speed and alcohol when failure to look properly, driver or rider error or poor reactions and losing control of a vehicle or motorbike were the overwhelming contributory factors in deaths and serious injuries on our roads?"

How long before the book burnings start?

Trixy has the details of another authoritarian over reaction:

"Listening to the Today programme this morning I heard an item which shocked even cynical old Trixy. In summary, an author had a long standing arrangement with Hackney Library to launch his yet-to-be-published book, at their invitation. Just a small launch in a community facility for an author who takes a keen interest in local affairs.

So why did the council order the library to halt the plans? Because, in previous articles, the AUTHOR HAD BEEN CRITICAL of the Olympics.

AND?

...

...on what level does this mean he shouldn't be allowed to read some of his book in a local facility which he helps fund through his taxes? Along, of course, with the Olympics he dares to speak out against. Taxes don't take into account personal preferences of the payer, do they.

Who are these petty local government pen pushers who look longingly at the totalitarian measures our government are putting into place and seek to emulate them."

Well said, Trixy. The totalitarian instincts of so many politicians, national, local and of course supra-national, scare me - I really believe many of them would be capable of the sort of "policies" towards the general population that we hoped had died with the end of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.