More Demos...

11:18am

Ooops.

(I think that's enough on Demos for a while.)

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

Demos' chilling uncertainty

3:19pm

There's a post at Harry's Place by a rep from Demos. It's very revealing. The writer clearly thinks he is being persuasive, but it's actually chilling. Here's his last paragraph:

We need to take the values we, and so many Muslims and non-Muslims, share as liberals and wage a battle against those values that make us deeply uncomfortable. If ours are as resilient as we hold them to be, then they will prevail.

I'm not sure I've ever read a more terrifying sentence from a mainstream think tank. Demos, remember, claims to be about 'everyday democracy'. And yet the best thing the writer can muster is a hope that our values are resilient.

Does he doubt they are? I'm not surprised, since Demos itself is happy to work in tandem with genocidal theocrats.

The writer seems utterly ignorant of the scale of the threat. Or is he simply ambivalent about khillafa dhimmi?

 UPDATE: Unbelievable. I don't think I have ever read a worse defence of a case. 

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (4)

Demos and genocide.

10:12pm

I've always thought Demos was a wonderful joke, and assumed it was a Chris Morris style skit, this time on think tanks. My favourite was the biography of one of its former staffers, Helen Wilkinson, which described her as being renowned for surfing the zeitgeist.

As satire goes, that is surely unimproveable.

But it seems I was wrong about Demos. There's nothing amusing at all about it. As Harry's Place points out:

Demos sponsored and participated in a debate at IslamExpo and a seminar on “Political Islam”. That’s right: a left of centre think tank worked with a clerical fascist party to organise a conference about its racist, genocidal theocratic political programme.

Demos says this about itself on its site:

Demos is the think tank for 'everyday democracy'. Our aim is to put this idea into practice by working with organisations in ways that make them more effective and legitimate.

Quite how working with an organisation dedicated to genocide and theocracy fits with that outline, I have no idea.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

M&S' problem is clear

9:33pm

I've not set foot in an M&S for months. I went in to a Simply Food today and now have some idea why it's in such trouble.

This woman:
If only it was simply food. The shop is more of a gallery of Mylene Klass pictures than a retail outlet for food. It is impossible to walk for more than a few paces without being confronted by another picture of her. As I was waiting at the checkout, I counted. Without moving my head, I could see - had to see, in fact - nine pictures of her. If I moved my head there were many, many more. 

Ms Klass is one of the most annoying people in the public eye. She appears to be almost entirely talentless but to consider that an ability to play Richard Clayderman-esque arpeggios on the piano entitles her to be considered as a serious musician. (I've written before about this.)

What on earth the bosses of M&S think she offers them is beyond me. Just as I would happily pay more for my mortgage than take one out with Halifax, because of their deepy irritating singing bank clerk, so too I will not go near M&S again until they take down the ludicrous number of pictures of the awful Mylene Klass.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (20)

Monbiot and libel

11:41am

One of two things has happened this morning. Either I have turned into a nutter; or George Monbiot is right.

I am troubled, you see. I've read a piece of his and agree with every word. I am pretty confident, however, that it's the latter of the two possibilities.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (14)

MPACUK and its lies about me

10:00am

My post last week on MPACUK, which lied about its sponsorship from the Journalism Diversity Fund, has prompted a post by the extremist liars themselves. Many of the extremist Muslims are, whatever one might think of their views, clever. The great thing about MPACUK is that they are - as their claim to be sponsored by the JDF shows -  really very stupid.

Here's some of their response:

Stephen Pollard is a Zionist and Islamophobe, a commentator, loved by right-wing, anti-Muslim hate sites, and he watches MPACUK like a hawk. So much so that when we put an advert up on our site from the ‘journalism diversity fund’ he had to change his nappy, he got so excited!

His shocking discovery... that the words ‘our sponsors’ was above the advert in tiny words. We normally put paid adverts in this section but in this case because we realised the great work the journalism fund is doing was just what young Muslims needed – we put the advert up for free.

Of course Islamophobic racists don’t like Muslims being involved in the mainstream, so can you believe he actually called the people up to see if they sponsored what he called 'an extremist group?' Bit like the Klu Klux Klan claiming Black people are extremists, but in this day and age any old bigot can get away with saying any Muslim group is ‘extremist’, ‘radical’ or ‘jihadist’ or whatever words they want to make up to trick the public into being afraid and trusting them as protectors.

That’s not the bit MPACUK are concerned about; a Zionist is going to watch MPACUK, like the Klu Klux Klan watched Malcolm X.

The concern is how easily these Zionists and racists can use words like "extremist" about any group, and mainstream media and politicians accept it. In short the language of racism and stereotyping is now considered acceptable.

Of course the reason is simple. Most Muslim leaders would not know Islamophobic racism, unless it hit them in the face, and so couldn’t care less – it’s not written in Urdu or Gujarati is it?

No other leadership of any other community would allow racist stereotypes to be set like we have without mass demonstrations, lobbying of parliament, and action around the UK. Racist language leads to racist mind sets, racist mind sets leads to racist actions. It’s a simple equation. Mosque monkeys don’t like maths.

Our leaders will kick you out of the student Islamic society and Mosque for even asking for some action to take place. The net result is these bigots and racists attack the very groups that protect you, instill hatred in society and ‘best’ of all leave the Mosque Leaders and student leaders to hide under the table – which is how they like Muslim leaders, nice and cowardly. Muslim leaders listen better when they are on their knees.

First, it reveals that they can't read. I didn't call anyone. I didn't make the discovery. I didn't have anything to do with it. I linked to the work of a fine site.

But let's accept that that is an honest mistake and they didn't bother to look at the links I provided. More important is the still clearer evidence that they can't read. They claim to know a lot about me and my views;to have so much knowledge about me in fact that they are certain that I am a racist, Islamophobic, ZioNazi, gangster bigot (to use the labels they attach to me).

Given the rest of their site, it's no surprise that they clearly don't know the first thing they are talking about. But I'll be charitable. Yes, they might have lied about their sponsorship. But I'll assume that they are not deliberately lying about me and are simply too stupid to read pieces of mine in which I defend the right of Muslim women to wear the burka and the existence of Muslim faith schools.  But heh, I attack Muslim extremists (just as I do Christian, Jewish or any other brand of extremist) so I must be an Islamophobe. 

(Oh, by the way MPACUK - that's sarcasm. I'm not chaitable to you at all. I think you are a poison in race relations and a bunch of liars.)

As for their charming decision to illustrate their piece with a picture of graffiti of a Star of David and the words 'Kill ARABS', implying that's my view: if I believed in using the libel courts - which I don't - I would take this bunch of lying extremists to the cleaners.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (21)

Who would want to be stared at by a thug?

9:06am

One further thought on knife crime.

It's all very well suggesting that offenders meet victims to see the impact of their crime, but if I was the victim of a stabbing the very last person I would want to meet would be the thug who stabbed me. Indeed, I find the whole move towards so-called restorative justice (in reality yet another excuse to avoid imprisonment and proper punishment) to be, at best, insulting. The only place I would want to see my assailant would be in prison.

I imagine that most people would have the same reaction.

I have been assaulted twice:  a mugging and a kick in the balls by a complete stranger. And if I saw either of them again, I would - unhesitatingly - seek to give them a dose of their own medicine and kick them where it really hurts.

UPDATE: Heaven help us. There's some chap on FiveLive at the moment who organises meetings betweens offenders and their victims and says how it helps the victims to realise that the offenders can themselves be victims of 'life's circumstances'.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (5)

Mamma Mia - absolute cack indeed

8:42am

I couldn't disagree more with Melanie Reid, who raves about Mamma Mia:

The result is an uninhibited, fun, cheesy, hugely tongue-in-cheek women's film that has, as few others have done, parted the critics like the Red Sea. The highest-browed men, poor things, entirely missing the irony, have struggled to cope with Streep in a popular role, or to find words hate-filled enough to describe the result: “absolute cack”; “silliness unredeemed by wit or polish”; “super pooper... soulless panto”; “hideous... a crock of hooey”; “Streep meets her Waterloo”. My colleague James Christopher, the Times film critic referred to “Hollywood blancmange” and said that the “sight of a Greek conga of local scrubbers vamping to Dancing Queen on a wobbly wooden pier is a truly terrifying spectacle”.

...Never have the posh male critics been marooned higher or drier. They have missed the joke, you see. Almost everyone else in the world, it seems - especially women - got it. People love this movie despite its flaws. They love that it celebrates middle-aged women; that it laughs at itself continuously; that it is shamelessly silly and heart-warming.

I think she misses the point completely. Criticism of the film has nothing to do with criticism of Abba. I am man enough to admit that I like Abba. Most pop music lives me cold but I think Abba's music is infectiously memorable and the lyrics perfect. But the film is indeed absolute cack, and that judgement has nothing to do with my gender.

I saw it on Friday night with my wife. We both went in the same frame of mind - looking forward to some mindless but well produced and fun rubbish. I'd seen the stage version and guiltily enjoyed it.

But the film is not just rubbish - it is hideously bad: appallingly written, witlessly directed and sung as if by mice being tortured. I think most five year olds would find it insulting to their intelligence. It makes Teletubbies look like The Iliad in comparison.

One other thing. I suppose I will sound hopelessly blimpish when I write this, but what sort of message does it send when a film which is hailed as delightful froth is centred on the story of a woman who sleeps with three different men on three successive nights and doesn't know which one is father of her child? Is it any wonder family life is collapsing?

It is beyond my comprehension how anyone with an ounce of intelligence could argue that Mamma Mia has any merit whatsoever. As the first commenter on Melanie Reid's piece puts it:

The most dreadful film I have seen in my life. Ever.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (6)

The UN decision on Zimbabwe is based on neithermorality nor decency (The Times)

7:22am

I also have a piece in The Times, on the UN. Here's an extract:

There is an old, perhaps apocryphal story of a small girl who, watching the ranting, gesticulating Randolph Churchill, tugged at her mother's skirt and asked: “Mummy, what is that man for?”

The same must now be asked of the United Nations.

...There could be no clearer case for action. No civilised nation can regard Mr Mugabe's behaviour as anything other than obscene. But decisions of the Security Council have never been based on decency or morality. They are based on realpolitik. The UN's very constitution as a body including some of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet necessitates that.

Indeed, the UN is structurally incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of civilised behaviour. Whether it is its failure to stand up to the Burmese regime or to deal with the threat to Israel posed by a nuclear Iran, or its support for Hezbollah, the UN has shown itself to be not the promoter but the enemy of human rights.

The most bizarre reaction to the Security Council's rejection of sanctions is disappointment. Could anyone seriously expect the Chinese Government, which locks up and tortures dissidents and props up the Mugabe regime to further its own economic interests, to overturn decades of foreign policy and act in support of democracy and human rights? In 2005 the Chinese signed an aid agreement with Zimbabwe and made an explicit promise not to interfere in its “internal affairs”, saying that it “trusts Zimbabwe's Government and people have the ability to deal properly with their own matters”.

The idea that the UN holds some special legitimacy and moral worth is not merely naive - it can make a bad situation worse. Mugabe now claims that he has been exonerated by the UN. Had the UN not existed, no attention would be paid to the failure of Russia and China to criticise him, because that is entirely to be expected. And if, as they should, the EU's member states were to impose stronger sanctions, that would not be seen as somehow in opposition to the UN.

The UN has never had greater moral legitimacy than any other ad hoc assemblage of states. Far more legitimacy would attach to a league of democracies, as suggested by the US presidential candidate John McCain. Its decisions would have the moral force of democratic backing. It is time to say goodbye to the moral bankruptcy of the UN.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (5)

So why not just throw them in jail? (Daily Mail)

7:17am

I have a piece in today's Daily Mail on knife crime and the Home Secretary's plans. Here's an extract:

...Yesterday we learned from the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, that the full power of the government and the criminal justice system will be deployed to...rely on offenders' sense of decency, and assume that when they are made to see the consequences of their actions they will undergo a magical conversion and realise the error of their ways.

If the spate of knife crimes were not so serious you would have to laugh. The official reaction is, in a word, pathetic.

Asking teenagers nicely to stop might be polite, but as any sane person knows by now, it is pointless pleading. Just as it is no good making empty threats.

The missing link in knife crime  -  and across the criminal justice system  -  is the concept of punishment. The only way to deal with knife crime is to punish those directly responsible in a clear message which will deter others from falling into the teen-gang cycle of violence and retribution that so blights many inner-city areas.

To most people, that must seem obvious. But  -  as yesterday's announcement shows  -  it is viewed as outrageous among those who run our criminal justice system. Why? Because punishment has itself become a dirty word. Instead, any conceivable alternative is used.

Guidelines for magistrates say that those caught in possession of a 'bladed article' or offensive weapon can simply be given a fine or community order if the weapon is not used 'to threaten or cause fear'. So in 2006, just nine of the 6,314 people convicted of carrying a knife were handed down a maximum sentence. What sort of deterrent is that?

Last week, David Cameron demanded that anyone convicted of carrying a knife should be sent to prison. He is right. Only when we start to show teenagers that carrying a knife, let alone using one, is viewed as a major crime which will attract a severe punishment, will there be any hope of stemming the tide.

We simply cannot afford to let the status quo continue because, whichever way you look at them, the figures are truly shocking. Almost 14,000 people a year have become victims of knife attacks in Britain.

Over the past decade, the number of convictions for carrying a knife has almost doubled  -  from 3,360 in 1997 to 6,314 in 2006. Yet even these figures massively underestimate the scale of the problem, since they fail to record the vast majority of those caught carrying knives who are simply let off with a caution.

Indeed, the spread of cautions is perhaps the main problem in dealing with knives; it is a cancer which is rotting the entire criminal justice system, with the police actually given incentives to hand out cautions instead of taking things further.

The system works like this: if a suspect admits an offence, the police can administer a caution. They do so with astonishing frequency. Last year, some 300,000 offenders were let off with a caution  -  many for knife offences.

Thus knife crime  -  with its lethal consequences  -  is treated as no worse than shoplifting or any other minor offence. Even those who are convicted are treated leniently, because the criminal justice elite no longer believe in punishment, let alone prison, as an appropriate response.

They act, instead, as if they were a branch of social services  -  with all the warped views which have infected that profession.

Even when offenders do get to court, judges simply refuse to accept that prison is appropriate  -  despite all the evidence showing that, as Michael Howard famously put it when he was Home Secretary, prison works.

Organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders feed off and push this anti-prison, antipunishment dogma, rejecting the idea that criminals are responsible for their own behaviour.

Only last month, plans were announced to keep even more young criminals out of prison. The Home Office was reported as recommending that, because teenage reoffending rates have remained largely unchanged since 1997, responsibility and funding for tackling youth crime should be handed to new, local-authority-run ' children's trusts'.

Yes, it is true  -  as the bien pensants love to point out  -  that Britain already imprisons a higher percentage of its population than many countries. But this is a meaningless statistic, since it takes no account of the high proportion of the UK population who commit crimes. In fact, by comparison with other EU nations, Britain actually has a very low imprisonment rate.

Comparing the number of prisoners with the numbers of recorded crimes, the figure for England and Wales was just 12.4 while the European average was 17.5.

To put it another way, if we imprisoned offenders at the EU average rate, there would be 113,150 prisoners in British jails rather than current total of 80,000. Indeed, if we imprisoned offenders at the same rate as (socialist) Spain, our prison population would be a staggering 369,000.

Why does this matter? Because there is a direct correlation between high imprisonment rates and low crime rates  -  in those countries which are not afraid to jail offenders, the crime rate is consequently low. We come back to that old mantra: prison works.

The tragedy of knife crime is that, as well as the individual tragedies, we know how to reduce it. The evidence is clear. And yet all the Home Secretary can offer as a response is to rely on offenders' good nature. It is a disgrace.

 

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (4)