The Rot Of British Socialism

There is an utter rot at the heart of British socialism. Four stories over the past few days from across the pond highlight that rot - the joint attack on British identity by socialists and Muslims, the refusal to let Ghurkas immigrate to the UK, Health and Safety nazis run wild, and the British government's disarming of its citizenry, leaving them unable to defend themselves when their lives are at stake:

The Trinity Cross is a medal that has been awarded to "62 distinguished residents of the former colony of Trinidad and Tobago over more than 40 years." No longer. It has now been ruled "too Christian" and its design changed after a complaint was lodged by a Muslim lawyer. If the people of Trinidad and Tobago wish not to receive an award of a Trinity Cross, they can certainly refuse it. Why on earth should Britain acquiesce in order to assuage what is clearly just one more in a series of relentless attacks from today's politicized Muslims aimed at discrediting Britain's history and destroying it's Christian identity? Obviously, it suits the socialists of Britain who have in fact, since acquiesced to the Muslim demands. As I pointed out in the post Change and the Cessation of British History, the UK's socialists fully share the same interim goals as the radical Muslims - to defeat Christianity and discredit British history as something evil.

In Britain, immigration is at crisis proportions, largely because EU law mandates open borders. This has led to an ever growing spike in the radical Muslim population. Now, the Labour government has finally seen fit to draw a line in the sand as to that portion of immigration which it can control. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims who wish to destroy Western Civilization, they can immigrate. A few thousand Ghurkas, famed warriors whose regiments have fought and died for British freedom and the protection of Western civilization in all of her wars since WWI, they can't.

It is impossible to imagine a more skewed view. Indeed, the most recent idiotic justification for this policy was offered yesterday by Phil Woolas, the socialist Labour Party's Immigration Minister, who said "I can't say "let the nice people in and the nasty people not". We have to have a law." That statement came on the day another Ghurka died fighting for the UK in Afghanistan.

The socialist chattering class in Britain is so deeply immersed in multiculturalism that they seem congenitally unable to distinguish real friend from real foe. The UK's governing socialists reach out to Muslims without distinguishing between the non-radical and the radical, pretending they are all benign because they see in them a reliable voting bloc. They ignore the brutal reality that the huge portion of radicals among them are a viper in their midst that will, at the first chance, consume them and all of Britain whole. (I wrote on a similar, though exponentialy less severe problem in the U.S. here).

It would seem that the socialist's see their greatest enemy as those citizens within their borders who threaten socialist dogma. Thus we see socialists spend their greatest efforts in a war on free speech and Christianity (see also here) in an effort to destroy traditional society and remake it in their own secular marxian vision. As to actual external enemies, socialists invariably rationalize their hostility as justified using the canard of moral relativism. Thus these socialists clearly feel no great compulsion to act with loyalty to those who have defended Britain's traditional values against an enemy the socialists view as equal or morally superior to Britain itself. It is a travesty and a national disgrace.

Then there are the Health and Safety Nazis - another innovation of the socialists taken with the best of intentions - to protect the public from themselves by exercising intrusive control over their daily lives. The latest comes from Oxford University's Bodleian library, where a series of historic books have been kept on equally historic high shelves that, for four centuries, have been accessed, by step ladders. No longer. The public can't access these books anymore because the Health & Safety Officer has decided that using a step ladder is too dangerous for the general public. Using the dictatorial powers of her office, she has effectively shut down a portion of the library to the public.

This mentality, of not trusting the average person to take care of themselves, is a hallmark of the socialist left. Under Health and Safety laws, it simply stifles daily life. Its consequences turn deadly, however, when the government takes away all means for a person to defend themselves from society's predators. In Britain of today, you cannot protect yourself with a handgun as they are illegal. You cannot use a taser to momentarily stun an attacker, they too are illegal. You cannot even use pepper spray, as even that is illegal. What is left to allow the weak to defend themselves from the strong, the prey to fend off the human predator?

Well, there is the government, acting through the police. But police act retrospectively to arrest for crimes committed. They are not, as a rule, a particularly effective means to stop attacks before they happen. By the very nature of crime and predation, the chance of police being on the scene and able to intervene to stop an attack as it occurs is infinitesimal. And thus do you have people such as Melanie Griffiths, 39 year old mother of three, murdered in her house by a man who stalked her for over a month and after she called the police and asked for help on the eve of her murder. This from the Daily Times:

Mary Griffiths, a 38-year- old fitness instructor, had told friends that she was concerned for her safety because of the unwanted attentions of a man. At around 6pm on Tuesday she dialled 999 saying she was being harassed and asking for help.

Police assured her they would be with her within an hour, but never showed up.
She was discovered dying from stab wounds to the chest at her home in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in the early hours of Wednesday.

. . . IPCC Commissioner Len Jackson said: 'People will be understandably shocked and concerned by this vicious attack on a woman in her own home. It is important that we look carefully at how the police chose to respond to contact from Mary Griffiths prior to her death. 'We will therefore carry out a full and independent investigation into the police response.'

The investigation is far too limited. It needs to include an examination of why Ms. Griffiths was denied all means of protecting herself by the British government. Indeed, as I wrote in the post A Constitutional Lesson In British History, the right to own a weapon for self protection is a part of the 1689 British Bill of Rights and, until less then a century ago, in a much more peaceful and law abiding Britain, anyone could own a firearm and travel about with it. Is the enlightened socialist Britain of today better off? If Ms. Griffith, who had been stalked for some time according to the article, knew full well the dangerousness of her situation, why was she not allowed the tools for her own defense. Are we all children in the eyes of the socialists, unable to live life without their constant adult supervision?

The Socialists of Britain can be credited with solving the class distinction problems that existed in the UK when they took power decades ago. Britain of today is much more of a meritocracy today, and the better for it. But that necessary cure was imposed along with a bevy of unnecessary toxins. Those toxins will destroy Britain if it stays on its current trajectory. I oft wonder when the rank and file of Britain will finally say, enough is enough, and force the issue.

Read More...

Summary only...

UK Socialists & Savage Thought Control (Updated)

A few months ago, Geert Wilders was invited by several members of the House of Lords to screen for them his movie, Fitna - a short piece that expresses his opinion that the Koran is a cause of violence and that Islam presents a danger to the West. The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith denied Wilders entry, not because Wilders advocated violence - Wilders never has - but ostensibly because Britain's own anti-western, radical Muslims threatened violence if he was allowed into the country. Now the UK's Home Office has gone one further. Britain has declared U.S. shock jock Michael Savage persona non grata becaue . . . well, because his opinions challenge their dogma and might spark open debate on issues the socialists wish to treat as sacrosanct.

Michael Savage has never advocated violence. He hasn't organized bands of fighters to take part in a jihad. He has not spoken glowingly of the beheading of a takfir, nor has he suggested that we should throw gays off a mountain as far as I know. He has yet to say that a person who switches their religion should be stoned to death. His sin, however, as the socialist UK government sees it, is to express thoughts at variance with their own dogma, particularly on issues of immigration and Islam - two tools the UK's socialist left are using to work fundamental changes to British society. This from Phillip Johnston writing at the Telegraph:

The Home Office has issued the latest list of people it believes should not come to the country because they hold extremist opinions.

It is a state's prerogative to decide who it wants to come to its country. That is, after all, what a visa system is for. But those banned from entry used to be people who were likely to cause public disorder or who had criminal records. . . . Now we are more likely than not to ban someone for what they think. The list of people banned over the past six months includes a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, a neo-Nazi, a Hamas MP, a Baptist pastor and his daughter barred for homophobia and a Jewish extremist. Oddly, it also contains the name Michael Savage, a US "shock jock" talk-show host whose views on Islam, rape and autism have stirred controversy in America. By all accounts, his views are pretty offensive; but is that reason enough to ban someone? The test usually is whether the individual in expressing his views would threaten public order. . . .

The Government claims Savage engages in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence. But is not the real reason he is barred because he preaches dislike of other groups rather than violence against them?

Home Office officials say Michael Savage . . . holds abhorrent views on immigration, Islam, rape and autism, which have caused great offence in America. That may be so. But are we now banning people because we don't like what they think or say; or are we accepting that anyone who responds violently to a view of which they disapprove can effectively veto other people's right to free speech?

Now we learn that Savage may sue the Home Secretary for defamation. He said he was outraged that he had been named alongside hate preachers and a member of Hamas.

He said: "For this lunatic Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of England, to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in (the same) league with mass murderers who kill Jews on buses is defamation.

"I thought this was a joke or a mistake." He has a point. Jacqui Smith said the people who were banned were those whose views the country 'would not tolerate'.

But who is she to make that decision? While it is the job of the Home Secretary to ensure the security and safety of the nation, it is not for her to decree what we should hear and to whom we should listen.

Read the entire post.

The UK's Home Secretary is just doing what comes natural to the left - using the police powers of the state to punish thought with which they disagree. We see the socialist left in America attempting and, to a much lesser degree, succeeding with the same things. We see the left pushing ahead with challenges to the OLC attorneys for green lighting policies with which they disagree. And just the other day we were treated to the passage of a Hate Crimes bill, ensconcing an unequal system of justice in favor of Marxian defined members of a "victim class." But the left cannot go too along far on this path in in the U.S. We still have the First Amendment It is an oak oak which the left chips at daily but has yet to fell.

The UK, which exists in today what can only be described as a tyranny of the majority, has no such protections for speech. Predictably, the left in Britian - they being the tyranny in the majority at the moment - have gone much farther in punishing thought then they could ever get away with in the U.S. And on two critical issues facing the UK, immigration and Islam, the left has essentially shut down all debate for decades. Anyone in Britain who speaks against immigration or Islam, particularly if while doing so, mentions as a motivation the protection of British natavist culture, is demonized, subject to losing their livelihood, and indeed, subject to arrest by the state. You can see my post here for some particularly egregious examples. At any rate, it should come as no surprise that the socialist Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has sited Savage's views on Islam and immigration as the first two reasons why he should not be allowed into the UK.

George Washington warned that, without freedom of speech, we may be led "as lambs to the slaughter." Jacqui Smith apparently wants to insure no one gets into the UK who can induce in the lambs any thought that might lead them from that path.

Update: Brits At Their Best have two posts touching on the blacklisting of Michael Savage and freedom of speech in England, both of which are worthy of a read. The first discusses the irony that Michael Savage recently hosted Lord Monckton on his radio show for the purpose of giving Monckton a platform to speak to the U.S. public - something denied Lord Monckton by Democrats during Al Gore's testimony to the House Energy Committee. The second involves something that Brits At Their Best does better than any blog on the internet - put our modern issues in their historical context. In this case, the authors discuss the free speech issues raised by the Home Secretary's actions in respect of Henry VIIIth and William Tyndale, the man who lost his life for translating the bible into English. Read the post here.

Read More...

Summary only...

RedLasso, CAIR, Fair Use & The First Amendment (Updated)

RedLasso is a tremendous program that allows bloggers to search through all the newscasts of the last two weeks and make clips of up to ten minutes in length. Unfortunately, today, it appears that the site has been shut down by lawsuits brought by two broadcast companies.

This appears on the RedLasso website, dated July 25, 2008:

To Our Loyal Users:

We would like to thank you for your continued support of Redlasso. You have been essential to making Redlasso a household name online. Unfortunately, due to the legal actions taken against Redlasso by two networks, we are left with no alternative but to suspend access to our video search and clipping Beta site FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. The networks have provided a big blow to the blogger community’s right to exercise the first amendment and comment on newsworthy events. It is anti-Web. During this service suspension, we will continue our conversations with content providers, with the goal of establishing formal partnerships that will quickly help us restore access to the Beta site. . . .

This is unfortunate to say the least. I am not a first amendment scholar, but RedLasso's service would seem to fall within the "fair use" doctrine. Given the grotesque bias oft displayed by the MSM, services such as RedLasso are of incredible import to the blogging community and the ability of the blogging community to provide an alternative voice.

The "fair use doctrine," a common law doctrine originating in the 1840's and codified as part of the Copyright Act of 1976 provides:

US COPYRIGHT ACT, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

This doctrine was unchanged by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

For example, the "fair use" doctrine was recently used by CAIR to defend successfully against a lawsuit brought by Michael Savage over their use of clips from Savage's show:

Savage sued the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, for copyright infringement and racketeering lawsuit late last year, claiming the group violated his rights by using a segment of his "Savage Nation" show in a letter-writing campaign to get advertisers to boycott the program. In the broadcast used by CAIR, Savage also called the Muslim holy book "a throwback document."

In her ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said people who listen to a public broadcast are entitled to use excerpts for purposes of comment and criticism. She also said no evidence was presented to show that advertising on the show's broadcast was affected by CAIR's actions.

Without considering the commercial aspects of CAIR's use, I otherwise have no doubt that the Judge got this decision right. I do hope RedLasso has good lawyers. This is a matter that could have huge ramifications for the blogopshere.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News - 2 January 2008

I took the serious road in calling Huckabee a cynical and hypocritical politician whom I would not consider for any elected office, let alone President. Scott Ott has a much more humorous take on the Huckster.

Hillary Clinton displays her fundamental failure to grasp what is going on in possibly the most important foreign state today – the nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In 2006, there were an average of 15 attacks per day on police and emergency services and almost 3,000 police officers were injured in clashes. In addition, an average of 112 cars were torched each day. No, its not Iraq. Its the low grade civil war occurring in France amongst the Muslim population.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred look at the 11 most corrupt politicians of 2007. It reads like a who's who of Presidential candidates. Most of this post is reposted from Judicial Watch. SC&A adds on of the most contemptible of all politicians, Ted Kennedy, to the list.

Bookworm Room has a thoughtful piece on a world wide phenomena of ADS – America Derangement Syndrome.

As France’s President Sarkozy displays a very much needed tough attitude towards Middle East despots by cutting off relations with Syria, our own Pat Kennedy and Alan Specter make a trip to Damascus. Soccer Dad has the sad story. What useful idiots.

Israeli PM Olmert is planning on giving to Palestinians swatches of territory captured during the 1967 war. All of this has a segment of Israel’s population howling – the Israeli Paletinians. "Asked, "Would you prefer to be a citizen of Israel or of a new Palestinian state?" 62 percent want to remain Israeli citizens and 14 percent want to join a future Palestinian state. Asked, "Do you support transferring the Triangle [an Arab-dominated area in northern Israel] to the Palestinian Authority?" 78 percent oppose the idea and 18 percent support it."

One of the things I find most objectionable about Islam is its refusal to tolerate freedom of any other religion. The latest – which at least does not involve threats of death – comes from Algeria where legislators are asking the government to curb evangelical Christians in their country because they are succeeding in converting Muslims.

The Michael Savage v. CAIR lawsuit just took another turn. "The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida." If the judge allows this, discover in this case is going to be something to see.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cinnamon, Savage & CAIR

Saudi Arabia and individuals of that country have, since 1972, collectively spent an estimated $87 billion exporting and supporting Wahhabi / Salafi Islam - the heart of radical Sunni terrorism in the world. This has been a long term effort to make Wahhabi / Salafi Islam ascendent within the world community of Muslims, to prosteletyze, and to control the flow of information about Islam in the West through delegitimitizing any critical analysis of Salafi Islam and distorting both Salafi Islam's history and dogma. Those funds have not only gone to Salafi mosques, the training of Salafi clerics, and the building of madrassas, but they have also gone to fund the Islamic programs in our academic institutions, and to the creation of supporting organizations, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Nominally a civil rights organization that claims to represent virtually all American Muslims, CAIR in reality is a Salafi creation with a small membership that has been declining in America ever since 9-11. CAIR receives virtually all of its $300 million operating funds from twelve anonymous donors. CAIR exists to forward the Salafist agenda in America and to silence any criticism of Islam.

CAIR invariably labels any criticism of Islam as hate speech and "Islamaphobia." And CAIR commonly uses strong arm tactics, which in the past have included libel litigation and threats of boycots against businesses that advertise on shows CAIR has targeted to silence.

Enter radio talk show host Michael Savage, a man of many politically incorrect diatribes - one of which was apparently directed at Islam and/or CAIR. CAIR contacted several advertisers on the Savage show and was successful in getting them to withdraw their advertising. Further, CAIR copied Savage's diatribe onto their website and used it as part of a fund-raising effort. Michael Savage has filed suit. Cinnamon Stillwell, writing in the SF Chronicle, looks at both CAIR and the lawsutit:

. . . CAIR is a Washington, D.C., nonprofit organization that touts itself as "America's largest Islamic civil liberties group." As such, CAIR expressed concern over a number of statements made by Savage on his Oct. 29 program that the group felt were anti-Muslim in nature. In response, CAIR, along with the newly formed Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition, has attempted to mount a boycott aimed at advertisers on Savage's show. According to a Dec. 3 CAIR press release, a growing list of companies, including AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JC Penney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart, and AT&T, have joined the boycott.

But rather than taking CAIR's boycott lying down, Savage is fighting back, in court. Represented by his lawyer, Daniel A. Horowitz, Savage is suing CAIR primarily for copyright infringement. According to the text of the lawsuit, which is posted at Savage's Web site, CAIR "misappropriated" his work by posting the four-minute segment in question at its Web site and including it in outreach and fundraising efforts. Taking it a step further, the lawsuit accuses CAIR of misrepresenting itself as a "civil rights organization" and of "advocating a specific political agenda that is directly opposed to the existence of a free society." While the copyright infringement charges against CAIR may or may not pan out, the broader implications could end up holding the most weight.

Savage is certainly not the first to call CAIR's political motivations into question. CAIR is the leading Islamic lobby group in the nation and the organization is accorded a great deal of legitimacy by the mainstream media, the Bush administration and other politicians, academia, civil rights activists, and even military and federal agencies that have employed the group's assistance for "sensitivity" and "cultural training." Nonetheless, questions surrounding CAIR's philosophical underpinnings, foreign funding, and political goals continue to haunt the group's footsteps. . .

Read the entire article.

(H/T Bookworm Room)

Read More...

Summary only...