European Political News

I haven't said it yet, but I hope that both Lord James Higham of Strath-Pfeffer and Welshcakes Limencello enjoy themselves. Sometimes life does give us a free lunch ...

From Noodle Pie via Twitter:

Watching crabs wriggling their last in boiling water. I know I'll have to pay for this in another life. But they do taste good.

Noodlepie is a cookery and "bio blogger, journalist, media trainer, dietary explorer".

We're a society in restless pursuit of change: detox, makeover, upgrade, there's an ever increasing list of words for it. But the more we talk about it, the less clear it is what we want to become.

George Handlery on the week that was. Chimp rights. How blind is color blind? Obama Wright or wrong? The rule of law and criminal rights. The science of bogus facts. Direct democracy and bureaucratic regulation. Peace rockets and warmongering missiles. How to get a lot for nothing?
 
1. The European Court of Justice for the protection of human rights will examine the plea to grant recognition to a chimp as a person with corresponding rights. The litigant is not the chimp personally. If successful, this individual will get a guardian to represent his interests. In a future case one anticipates, institutionalized discrimination against chimps will be charged. Putting someone under tutelage because he is a chimp has implications. They are that all chimpanzees, regardless of their personal merits, are deemed to need a guardian. This is, indeed, a clear case of racial profiling.
 
2. More from the this-cannot-be-true file. A dentist in Hungary is dragged before a court. The crime: he failed to collect a 300 HUF ($2.00) registration fee from his patients. The Doc gave away what was his own as the state earmarked the sum for the treating physician. Between the misdemeanor and the trial, a referendum abolished the short-lived ordinance upon which the fee was based.
 
3. Observing America’s election campaign a question arises. Does the term “color blind” include the component of needing to be blind to faults?
 
4. Given the public’s disenchantment with the engagement in Iraq, Sen. Obama benefits from his refusal to vote for the intervention. Question marks emerge upon the examination of his now lucky opposition. Was, in terms of what he knew then, his vote justified? Was this opposition the result of wisdom, or did it come about by an application of Reverend Wright’s views of the US? Even with a smoking gun in Saddam’s hands, mentor Wright would have judged any action as unjustified. Criminal America has no right to defend herself from the wrath of the righteously angered. So, was Obama Wright or wrong, this is the question.
 
5. A government that is committed to maintaining an order designed to secure the greatest possible liberty of the governed can, nevertheless, lose its legitimacy. This happens not infrequently. It comes about when normal people are led to conclude that, in practice and to their detriment, the theory of freedom tolerates criminality. Nothing will discredit the intended rule of law more than the perception that the law protects the impostor more than his victims.
 
6. It appears that some of the organizations that are ideologically committed to green issues are willing to employ any means to further their cause. A research project and its uses serve as an example. Two studies using data developed in Vienna 2005-08 proved damage is caused to the cell structure through the rays of mobile phones. By now we have a confession of data manipulation to prove the project’s hypothesis. Nevertheless, some scientists that authored studies based on bogus facts (they represent institutions in Berlin, Munich and Vienna) are reluctant to revise their findings.
 
7. The EU is rather charitable in accepting members with shaky qualifications. A revealing contrast is the treatment of those that do not wish to join. Here the challenged bureaucracy’s generosity ends abruptly. Encircled Switzerland’s snub is especially galling to Brussels. On the 27th that country’s Minister of Justice – nominally from a right-of-center party but in reality a creation of the Left – visited Europe’s capital. At issue was the residency of the citizens of newly admitted Bulgaria and Romania in Switzerland under EU terms. The country’s largest party, the Swiss People’s Party SVP, does not wish to grant full EU privileges to these entities. To make its point, the SVP threatens with a referendum. The Minister, Ms Widmer-Schlumpf, who is for total cooperation, received welcome help in Brussels. A commissar in charge made things clear. Should the Swiss electorate vote to deny free immigration then all EU – Switzerland’s bilateral agreements will be nixed. The translation: this independent island in the middle of the EU will be strangulated. Characteristically, Ms Widmer insists that the message is “in no way” a threat. The ancient practice of direct government by the people and Brussels’ idea of regulation are clashing. There is a related example of the concern of the governors who fear their people. We find it in the studied Europe-wide non-submission of EU membership and constitution to the popular vote.
 
8. Meanwhile, on 28 May: Franco Frattini, an ex-EU Commissar, is thinking aloud. The trigger is the criminality that is associated with the Gypsies from Romania. For linguistic reasons, Italy draws many of these settlers. In self-defense, Italy might close herself to entrants from that country. Unlike Switzerland, Italy is a member of the EU.
 
9. May 23. At their meeting in Peking, Medvedev and Hu struck, as they claim, a major blow for world peace. They discovered that the planning and the setting-up of missile defense is a threat to peace. Such arrangements do not facilitate the maintenance of “stability” and of the “strategic balance”. Furthermore, developing the ability to shoot down “incomings” undermines the “trust between states”.
 
10. Once at home, Medvedev inspected an intercontinental rocket base. He must have liked what he saw, so more money was promised. Relax, in case you detect some inconsistency with the stance taken in the above item. The trusty Topols are not defensive missiles.
 
11. The passing of the baton from Castro the Original to Castro the Lesser initiates a campaign to lift sanctions imposed on Cuba. A few of the arguments are of doubtful quality. Removing sanctions bolsters the moderate course for which the Lesser is thirsting. Alternatively, could it be that the new Leader, eager to overcome sanctions, concluded that a moderation in the form might save the substance of his system? The main claim in favor of their lifting will be that sanctions do not work. This may or may not be true. What makes the shibboleth interesting is that the circles that now claim that sanctions are ineffective are the ones that, at the time of the Apartheid, demanded a total quarantine to bring that regime down. Apparently, the efficacy of sanctions depends on who is using them against whom.
 
12. We heard sighs of relief when Burma’s junta graciously allowed help into the country. There is a pattern to this. The instructions to follow give you the political equivalent of eating that famous cake and having it too. The easy steps are (1) Do something horrible and make a totally outrageous demand. (2) Face the protest and wait until your reluctance to budge creates desperation. Note that the more despicable your position the greater the nervousness. (3) Make your move once the perennially confused are at their wit’s end. Not knowing what to do, as they are unwilling to do the obvious, they will have Jimmy Carter dropping in to talk. Now you relieve tension by indicating that you might be willing to negotiate. (4) Suggest that you could be persuaded to backtrack on half of your demands. Ask a high price and demand commendations for being reasonable and for saving the peace. Some talk about a Nobel Prize might be added. (5) Conclude the operation. “Compromise” by taking only the half of what you offered to negotiate about. Indicate that due to your generosity you did not get what you should have had. (6) In response to your graciousness, you will be widely praised. You will also get international recognition. Furthermore, you will gain much more than what Western diplomacy would have conceded had you opened the game with a sane move.
 
13 Until now, if your raised the issue of the nuclearization of Iran, you were religiously intolerant, multiculturally insensitive and generally a hard-liner. Given these traits, you will be shocked to find out that, your status as a political skunk conferred by “backwards benders”, is wobbling. In the eyes of this crowd you are in danger of rehabilitation. This threat comes from being suddenly in better company than you used to be. On the 26th of May the UN‘s IAEA (the atomic energy agency) reported to the Security Council. The body found that Iran ignores the Council‘s appeals and continues its enrichment program. Accordingly, the effort‘s military goal is within the range of the probable. “Seriously concerned” about the concealment of Iran‘s activities, the IAEA is moving close to the position of the vast Zionist Neocon conspiracy.
 
14. Iran has responded (28 May) to the IAEA report. Tehran claims that it has fulfilled its obligations. It also considers the report to amount to the seal of approval it did not need to have to do what it sees as appropriate. With this, all questions are resolved. Therefore, Iran‘s activities are not any more an issue for the Agency and the Security Council. Here Larijani, a favorite moderate of the appeaser crowd, the newly elected President of Parliament, entered the picture. Larijani accused the IAEA of playing an unclean game. If that continues, Tehran might lower the level of its cooperation with that body.

A quote from John Lukacs in The American Conservative, 2 June 2008

There was a consistency in Churchill’s view of Europe and of the world. To him, and for Britain, there were only two alternatives: either all of Europe dominated by Germany or the eastern half of Europe dominated by Russia, and half – especially the western half – of Europe was better than none. Besides, Churchill said that the Russians could swallow Eastern Europe but not digest it and that Communism would disappear from Eastern Europe before long. If Hitler had won the war, German rule would have been much more enduring.

A quote from Tottenham Lad at his blog, 7 March 2008

[T]he courts have also stepped in more than once to ban the media from reporting the full details of a particular gang rape case, as for example in the attack on the Austrian tourist, detailed before, where the Daily Mail was found in contempt of court for giving details of certain matters, a ban which the newspaper later challenged.

All of these factors in the reporting of ethnic immigrant gang rape; the police attempting to replace the term 'gang rape', the deficiency of full descriptions and consistent reportage in the media, local newspapers not reporting national stories local to them, the courts trying to suppress 'certain details', demonstrations against factual television programs by ethnic immigrant pressure groups, and documentaries on the subject of gang rape being pulled from advertised schedules, combine to prevent a completely clear picture of the problem of gang rape emerging.

Adding to this lack of full and consistent media reporting the lack of full and consistent official data and statistics on gang rape, results in anyone wanting to know more, to prove or disprove any thoughts they may have on the occurrence of this crime, having to rely on purely anecdotal evidence gleaned from reports in the media.

Although one thing is very nearly absolutely clear; ethnically English gang rapists are noticeably conspicuous by their absence.

If, therefore, there is no way, for whatever reason, of knowing exactly what the figures are for inter-racial gang rape, at least it is possible to use some mathematical logic to estimate what these figures should, approximately, be. […] Making this estimate the results show, unintuitive as it may seem, that the incidence of inter-racial gang rape should be reciprocal: that is for every case of ethnic immigrant gang rapists with English victim(s) there should be a reciprocal case of English gang rapists with ethnic immigrant victim(s).

A question then arises, as already mentioned, about the conspicuous absence of the ethnic English in the crime of gang rape; where are all the cases of violent English gang rapists preying on ethnic immigrant victims? As from the many examples given above they do not exist; and if they do not exist why is this so?

Since the "Galloway Cats" series has just finished, and I will be spared the possible purgatory of keeping an eye on the "Lolcats", I thought I'd post a few that proved unsuitable but were still memorable for their different reasons.

I have had a reader question today: How can I convert a pdf file into something that anyone can download from my blog? Here are my comments.

There are two issues here:

• Converting the PDF File.
• Making the result accessible from a blog website.

Being objective, there was only ever going to be one destination for Mr Galloway ...

... the dustbin of history.

Inspired by Friday Lolcats meme.

And that concludes this series.

This communiqué from Jean-Marie Le Pen summarizes another directive from the European Union on "multiple discrimination". This post can be added to my two recent posts on anti-discrimination measures taken by the EU:

Scarcely had the French Parliament transposed [into the French Constitution] three directives from the EU on the fight against discrimination, than the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to decree a new directive, this one against all discrimination, direct and indirect, and adding to its catalogue the designation of "multiple discrimination."

But at the same time it justifies the discrimination known as "affirmative action", disguised as "positive action", and insists that it be put into general use.

This totalitarian document, that defies the most elementary distinctions, requires a special legislation, multiplies the potential for punishment and lawsuits, and gives an exorbitant role to the anti-racist and ethnic lobbies.

It goes so far as to claim that different treatment based on nationality or language can constitute indirect racial or ethnic discrimination.

The French citizens must know the extent of anti-discrimination madness, conceived as an instrument for the destruction of nations and of the most legitimate differences. They will have an opportunity to express their refusal of this intolerable dictatorship during the next European elections.

French readers can turn to Yves Daoudal for extended excerpts of the new directive. English-language readers suffering from profound insomnia can read the whole thing here. Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:

The European parliament, […] whereas the inconsistent application of non-discrimination policies in Member States contributes to the lack of implementation in practice of Community directives prohibiting discrimination, as is reflected in reports such as that of the European Group of Experts on Combating Sexual Orientation Discrimination entitled "Combating sexual orientation discrimination in employment: legislation in fifteen EU member states", […]

16. Urges the Member States to promote more effectively the application of the rights of EU citizens under Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, and urges the Commission, the Member States, trade unions, employers, as well as governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to do all in their power to improve awareness of rights under those Directives and to ensure that victims of discrimination have access to a range of advocacy support to enable them effective to exercise their rights thereunder; notes that the burden is often on the victim to challenge the alleged perpetrator of the discrimination, frequently with neither support from any public authority nor access to legal aid; urges Member States to empower concerned independent bodies to provide effective help to victims of discrimination;

17. Is concerned about the low level of awareness of anti-discrimination legislation among citizens in the Member States and calls on the Commission, the Member States, trade unions and employers to step up their efforts to raise that level of awareness; recalls that the Directives impose an obligation on Member States to disseminate information to the public on the relevant provisions of the Directives by all appropriate means;

18. Recommends that Member States undertake independent reviews of preventive and restitutive anti-discriminatory measures and the effectiveness of protection against victimisation and ensure that statutory and non-statutory bodies that participate in the prevention of discrimination and that support the victims of discrimination are adequately resourced; recommends also that the Commission include peer reviews in its ongoing monitoring exercise;

22. Stresses that in any event Member States should ensure that victims of discrimination are automatically assisted in legal proceedings, if necessary by public funding through legal aid schemes;

23. Calls upon the Commission practically and effectively to support the adoption of measures by Member States through the Progress programme and the European Social Fund in order to support programmes promoting equal opportunities and the eradication of discrimination;

24. Recommends that, in order to provide a more effective level of protection, Member States should empower associations, organisations and other legal entities to engage in legal proceedings, including on behalf or in support of any victim;

30. Welcomes the Commission's interest in multiple discrimination, including its launch of a study on this subject; calls on the Commission to adopt a balanced broad concept of multiple discrimination and for the Commission to examine and supply data on multiple discrimination and hate crimes; calls on the Commission to include provisions explicitly designed to combat multiple discrimination in any future legislation adopted under Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which can be invoked on either one or a combination of more than one of the grounds;

31. Stresses the importance of networking between groups active in combating discrimination at European, national, regional and local level;

34. Stresses that the Commission must produce a common, EU-wide definition of, or at least work towards a consensus about, the meaning of positive action, thereby dispelling the myths surrounding its meaning and its application in some Member States, particularly given its effectiveness for successfully tackling discrimination and producing equality of outcomes in some Member States;

"Positive action" is what Americans call "affirmative action". Note also the term "equality of outcomes", a totally fallacious and evil attempt to make everyone "equal".

39. Is firmly convinced that in combating discrimination, a holistic approach to raising public awareness must be developed, beginning with school programmes;

41. Takes the view that differences in treatment based on nationality or language, which are neither objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim nor achieved by appropriate and necessary means, may constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin contrary to Directive 2000/43/EC;

42. Considers that discrimination must also be seen as interfering with the four fundamental freedoms – particularly the freedom of movement for persons – and as such constitutes an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market; calls on the Commission to encourage the Member States to review their transitional provisions regulating access to their labour markets in order to eliminate differentiation between European citizens in this respect;

43. Considers that minority communities, and in particular the Roma community, need specific social protection, since their problems of exploitation, discrimination and exclusion have become even more acute in the areas of education, health, housing, employment and women's rights following recent enlargements of the European Union;

And it goes on and on and on...
 

See also:

Europe Defines Heterosexuality. The Politics of Appearances and Madness, 20 May 2008

Statements that would not be heard in Great Britain:

Construction work for mudroom/verandah is on slow-down for a couple of weeks. Carpenter has gone to hunt bear.

Source:Jen on Twitter. Blog Link: Wildapricot.

They’re ahorrent. The very way they act is just morally unacceptable in the modern world. Their use in modern warfare just cannot be justified, especially considering that “normal” wars between massed armies no longer actually happen. So cluster bombs are just killing innocents [or at least non-combatants]. So this treaty signed by 109 countries to ban [...]

A quote from Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, in Standpoint, June 2008

It is indeed ironic that Britain had to cope with large numbers of people from other faiths and cultures arriving at exactly the time when there was a catastrophic loss of Christian discourse. Thus Christian hospitality, which should have welcomed the new arrivals on the basis of Britain’s Christian heritage, to which they would be welcome to contribute, was replaced by the newfangled and insecurely founded doctrine of multiculturalism. This offered “tolerance” rather than hospitality, in some cases benign neglect rather than engagement, and an emphasis on cultural and religious distinctiveness rather than integration. […] [T]he result has been segregated communities and parallel lives, rather than an awareness of belonging together and a common citizenship which foster integration and respect for fundamental freedoms for all. […]

While some acknowledge the debt which Britain owes to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, they claim also that the values derived from it are now free-standing and that they can also be derived from other world-views. As to them being free-standing, the danger, rather, is that we are living on past capital which is showing increasing signs of being exhausted. Values and virtues by which we live require what Bishop Lesslie Newbigin called “plausibility structures” for their continuing credibility. They cannot indefinitely exist in a vacuum. […]

The assumptions and values by which we live have been formed in the crucible of the Christian faith and its aftermath, the Enlightenment. This is the result of a quite specific history, and it is not at all necessary that such beliefs and values should arise in or survive in quite different contexts. To argue for the continuing importance of these is not necessarily to argue for the privileging of any Church. It is quite possible to imagine a situation where there is no established Church, but where Christian discourse remains important for public life. For better or for worse, the United States is a good example of such a situation.

Right folks, it's Whitsun recess, so no roundups of the highs and lows of life in the Westminster village today.

CROWD: boooooo!

Fear ye not, normal service will resume next week.

This week, Miss Wagstaff has been climbing down from a high octane family weekend, only to pick at the odd bits of Welsh news before raking over the bones of the Labour electoral turmoil of weeks past... it seems that it will take a while before we get over recent events – London fell; Councils fell; then it was the turn of Crewe and Nantwich. It's no wonder that God invented recess!

On 12 June, my latest book, A History of Political Trials from Charles I to Saddam Hussein will be published. The book was born out of one sentence written in the Introduction to my last book but one, on the Milosevic trial. There, I had written that the Milosevic trial did not break new ground, as supporters of the brave new world of international tribunals maintain, but that instead its precedents lay in the great revolutionary trials of the past. It was in order to examine those precedents more closely that I decided to look at all the trials of heads of state and government in history.
 
The story begins with King Charles I in 1649 and ends with Saddam Hussein, executed in December 2006. Or rather, it does not end with Saddam since there are currently two former heads of state on trial, Charles Taylor of Liberia and Alberto Fujimori of Peru. Meanwhile, the newly created International Criminal Court is happily issuing indictments to people accused of war crimes, most recently against the leader of the opposition in Congo. Indeed, all the indictees of the new ICC are Africans.
 
Various conclusions emerge from the historical account. The first is that, in three hundred years of trials of former heads of state and government, there has never been a single acquittal. The only former heads of state who have escaped conviction have been Erich Honecker, the former head of state of East Germany, and Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president – the former by being about to die, the latter by actually dying while still on trial. The grim words of Danton to a French exile who returned from London to Paris in 1792 to help the defence of Louis XVI have been proved right: “Can one help a king who is on trial? He is dead as soon as he appears before his judges.”
 
The second conclusion is that all the trials have been rigged in one way or another. The most common form of rigging is by the use of retroactive legislation or retroactive jurisdiction: special laws are passed and special courts created in order to obtain the conviction of the defendants. It is also common for juries or judges to be politically motivated and therefore biased; indeed, it is common for there to be a political purge in advance of the trial to ensure the “right” outcome.  The British House of Commons was purged by a military coup d’état in December 1648, known as Pride’s Purge, and only implacable opponents of the King were allowed to remain MPs and sit in judgement over him. Marshal Pétain’s jury was selected exclusively from members of the Resistance; the Iraqi judiciary was purges of all Ba’ath Party members before Saddam’s trial.
 
This inherent bias pertains even to that icon of war crimes trials, Nuremberg. I show in the book that Nuremberg was in fact only one trial out of many of former heads of state, conducted more or less simultaneously after World War II. Not only the German leaders at Nuremberg but also former leaders in France, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Finland were put on trial. They were all either imprisoned or shot. In all cases, it was the Soviets who were the driving force: they demanded war crimes prosecutions as a condition of the armistices they administered in Eastern Europe and, in countries where their political influence was weaker (Finland and Greece) the defendants got off relatively lightly. Where the Soviet influence was strong, they were generally executed.
 
The bias in Nuremberg was particularly disgusting because it is widely accepted that the Nazis did indeed commit horrific crimes against humanity. But they were not prosecuted for these, at least not principally, but instead for a new invented charge, that of waging aggressive war. Not only was this new principle invented for the purposes of creating a new international system (the United Nations) and for exculpating the Allies for their own violations of the laws of war and international law during the conflict, it has also proved to be a legal dead letter. Although I have much personal sympathy with the idea of outlawing aggressive war, history shows that it is legal nonsense. No one has been prosecuted for it since Nuremberg and Tokyo, and the crime of aggression has been quietly kicked into touch by the charter of the new International Criminal Court (which says it will have jurisdiction over it only when there is agreement on its definition, i.e. never).
 
I say that the bias at Nuremberg was disgusting because the collusion between the Western Allies and the Soviets was intense to ensure that their own war crimes never came under scrutiny. The Soviets demanded that the Nazis be prosecuted for the Katyn massacre of some 20,000 Poles because Goebbels had publicly accused them of guilt for it. The NKVD had, in fact, committed the crime but the Soviets wanted to blame the Germans instead and so the Western Allies obliged. But the collusion also led to real German crimes being covered up. This happened on two important occasions, concerning the war at sea and the war in the air. When the German admiral, Erich Raeder, was accused of waging unrestricted submarine warfare, his defence lawyers got his American opposite number, Chester Nimitz, to write an affidavit saying that the Allies had done the same thing. The charges were dropped. Similarly, the Germans were never prosecuted for the Blitz because the British and the Americans had won the war with terror bombing of German cities which made the Blitz look like a tea party. In other words, a German crime was not considered a crime if the Allies had committed it as well.
 
Today’s international tribunals are no less hypocritical and political than Nuremberg. Anyone who knows my writings on Slobodan Milosevic and the Kosovo war will know what I think about the Yugoslav tribunal in The Hague. But is the conclusion, then, that we should improve procedures are set up a truly independent court?
 
There are two answers to this question. The first is that we do have an excellent independent international court, the International Court of Justice, whose pedigree is impeccable (established as the high court of the United Nations in 1946, it is really the continuation of the Permanent International Court of Justice in 1920) and whose rulings are not only uniformly excellent but also completely incompatible with the post Cold War view that international law ought to be coercive. The ICJ has notably ruled illegal an arrest warrant issued by Belgium against the former Foreign Minister of the Congo, on the basis that one state does not have jurisdiction over an official of another state even for so-called “universal” crimes; it also posthumously exonerated Slodoban Milosevic in 2007 when it ruled that Serbia had not, after all, controlled the Bosnian Serb army and that Belgrade therefore did not bear responsibility for the Srebrenica massacre.
 
The second answer is connected to the first. The ICJ’s rulings are inspired by the law as it stands – as expressed by the United Nations charter, treaty law and customary international law. They are not inspired by legally nonsensical appeals to vague notions about human rights. The ICJ and the UN Charter are based on the view that it is best if states resolve their disputes peacefully and do not regard each other’s internal affairs as their own business. This is the principle which has come under sustained attack by the supporters of universal human rights and international criminal law.
 
When we look back over more than a century of international efforts to legislate on the laws of war, what do we conclude? Since the Russian Emperor, Nicholas II, convened the First Hague Peace Conference in 1899, the world has been plunged into conflicts far bloodier than those anyone could then have imagined. Total war and revolution have characterised the twentieth century. At some point, we have to ask: are these two facts connected?
 
I believe that they are – although I do not develop this argument this in my book. I believe that the criminalisation of the enemy makes war worse. In the classical tradition of international law, that which obtained in Europe from the end of the Thirty Years’ War to the First World War, the enemy was regarded as legal and justified. Defeated enemies were treated with courtesy – as witnessed, no doubt in an idealised form, by Velazquez’s beautiful depiction of the surrender at Breda in 1625. In the modern tradition, by contrast, born essentially in the First World War, the mentality of colonial and anti-insurgency war was applied to European conflicts. The enemy was demonised as an “enemy of humanity”, a “tyrant”, a “terrorist”.
 
No doubt such demonisation was needed in order to curry public support for the terrible bombing campaigns with which the Allies won their wars – the enemy needed to be de-humanised before he could be killed, in the millions, in fire-storms and ethnic cleansing. But this criminalisation makes the enemy into an absolute enemy, who must be destroyed and not just defeated, and that is why modern war is now invariably ideological, and always accompanied by regime change and revolution. The result is that the militant supporters of international criminal law prefer their “just wars” to an “unjust peace”, aggravating out of all proportion (as in the Balkans and the Middle East) wars which could otherwise be brought to a conclusion much more swiftly.
 
I very much hope that my book will make some modest contribution to encouraging people to reflect on the merits of renewing with this lost classical tradition.

 

Just how influential is fundamentalist Christianity in mainstream public life in Britain today?

Simon Barrow looks back at recent history.

A quote from the editorial of The Church of England Newspaper, 28 May 2008

If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue.

This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims. […] At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland’s aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty. […]

[I]n Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day – a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true. Prisons are replete with imams who are keen to inculcate conservative Islam in any inmates who are deemed to be culturally ‘Muslim’: the Prison service in effect treats such prisoners as a cultural block to be preached to by imams at will. Would the Prison service send all those with ‘C of E’ on their papers to confirmation classes with the chaplain?! We could go on.

The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates. Charles Taylor’s new and classic work on the Secular Age charts the rise of the secular mindset and what he calls the ‘excarnation’ of Christianity as it is levered out of state policy and structures. Christianity is now regarded as bad news, the liberal elite’s attack developed in the 1960s took root in the educationalist empire, and to some extent even in areas of the church.

Today the Christian story is fading from public imagination, while Islam grows apace.

A quote from Der Spiegel, 28 May 2008

On Wednesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party said it would like to see Germany do its part to help out. At a press conference in Berlin, parliamentarian Erika Steinbach, the CDU's human rights spokeswoman, said her party wanted to see Germany accept thousands of Iraqi refugees. In particular, she said, the CDU wants to extend its welcoming hand to Iraqis who have suffered religious persecution in Iraq. In particular, that means the Christians. […]

Members of Yazidis and Mandaean religious minorities would also be among those allowed in, according to the party's proposal. The CDU argues that, in contrast to Muslim refugees from Iraq, religious persecution makes it unlikely that Christians, Yazidis and Mandaeans would ever by able to return.

Whether the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR would agree to the CDU plan, however, is unclear. As a rule, the UNHCR is unwilling to divide up refugees for resettlement based on their religious beliefs.

Buried under web feeds?

why not try an aggregator...

A quote from the BBC, 28 May 2008

Human rights group Amnesty International has said it is extremely alarmed by what it calls a "climate of discrimination" in Italy. […]

Last week, Italy's new centre-right government introduced a series of measures aimed at improving security. Illegal immigration will become punishable by up to four years in prison, it will be easier to expel illegal immigrants and there will be a three-year prison sentence for using minors to beg for money.

But the head of Amnesty International in Italy, Daniela Carboni, said the moves represented "heavy restrictions and new crimes that will target, above all, immigrants". […]

In April's national elections the centre-right coalition led by Silvio Berlusconi – which includes the anti-immigration Northern League and the post-Fascist Alleanza Nazionale – swept to victory, pledging to tackle illegal immigration.

A quote from Gazeta Wyborcza [Poland], 28 May 2008

Descendants of ten Polish officers murdered by the NKVD [the Soviet Union state police] in Katyn in the spring of 1940 are demanding from Russia's Chief Military Prosecutor's Office that they are recognised as victims of political reprisals and officially rehabilitated.The prosecutor's office replies it cannot do that, because there is no conclusive proof that the 25,000 Polish army and police officers, border guards, officials, and business owners were murdered on the basis of an unfair ruling issued by a Soviet court.

Indeed, there's no such proof, and there won't ever be. The executions were carried out on the basis not of a court sentence, but a decision of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) Central Committee's Politburo dated 5 March 1940, which stated explicitly they were to be shot 'without interrogation, without charges, without an investigation, and without an indictment'.

The Katyn victims' relatives appealed against the prosecutor office's decision through their Moscow lawyers to the district court in Moscow Khamovniki. The court issued a ruling on 16 May, and the official writ has just reached Poland.

Judge Igor Tulenev answered the Katyn victims' relatives in a style similar to that used earlier by the military prosecutor's office: 'The literal interpretation of the meaning of the Article 8.1 of the Russian Federation's Act on the Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Reprisals is such that only the citizens whose rights have been directly violated are entitled to appeal against the [Military Prosecutor's Office's] decision'. 'The judge told us clearly: only the victims would be able to appeal against the prosecutor's absurd decision. Their children don't have the right to demand justice', said Anna Stawicka, counsel to the families of the Katyn victims in Russia.

H/T Elaib Harvey

Splendid piece in the Telegraph by Bruno Waterfield about the shenanigans at the European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) yesterday which may well result in smaller – particularly opposition – groups being closed down after next year's European Elections. I witnessed it and though to be fair it was a debate about the Parliament's rules of procedure, I have rarely enjoyed a Committee Meeting like it. It was bums on seats stuff.

The Socialists and the Christian-Democrats in the European Parliament want to make it harder to form official European Political Parties, by raising the number of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) needed to form a group. The proposal, which is being pushed by Labour MEP Richard Corbett, could prevent the Conservatives from forming a new group, and would probably prevent eurosceptic groups in the Parliament, like UKIP, from forming a group. It is necessary to form groups in order to be able to receive Parliament funding, get leading positions on committees, get a say in the Parliament's administration and power structure, and receive additional speaking time.

Corbett argues that his proposal “would prevent single issue politicians from being given undue support from the public purse.” He said: “We want to avoid the formation of a fragmented Parliament, deeply divided into many small groups and unable to work effectively.”

Current rules allow 20 MEPs from a fifth of the EU’s member states to form groups. Under the changes, the threshold would become 30 MEPs from one quarter of the EU’s member states. The Liberal Democrats, Greens, the far Left, Eurosceptics and others have vowed to oppose the plans. But the Christian-Democrat EPP group and the Socialist PES group have 64 percent of all the MEPs (61 percent without the British Conservatives, who belong to the EPP but some of whom would prefer to establish their own group) and may be able to push through the change.

Richard Corbett's report was up for voting at the AFCO at 10.00 am yesterday, but from a quick count it became apparent that the little groups had got their act together and had the numbers to win. At which point the Chairman, Jo Leinen, a German Socialist, started a filibuster. He was abetted by other Socialist and Christian Democrats one of whom a Greek socialist named Costas Botopolous made the procedure transparent by saying,

"We must continue this debate, that will give us time to get more members into Committee for the vote".

Anyhow, after half an hour they though they had the numbers. Wrong call, the opposition won by a single vote. This meant that legally the whole report fell and would have to go back to the drawing board. This in turn would mean that the report, scheduled to go to the full parliamentary plenary on 9 July would not get its new first reading in Committee until after the summer recess, which would inevitably mean that it would not get its second reading in Committee until after Christmas, which would mean that it probably would not get to plenary in time to have an impact before the next European elections.

Therefore the rules governing the formation of groups would stay as they are. Not something that the elite want to see.

The net result of this was that Corbett was raging. I know Richard and can tell by the tone of his voice how angry and disappointed he was. I am not sure if he has ever lost any vote on one of his myriad reports on procedural tampering. This was lèse majesté of the first order.

So after some harumphing the only Tory in the room, Timothy Kirkhope, who is Vice-Chairman of the Committee, came up with an oral amendment that would take out the figure of 30 MEPs need to form a group. Not a bad amendment as it happens, but irrelevant. According to the rules if the report falls, then the report falls. What Kirkhope, a British Conservative who wants to stay in the EPP group, had done was to throw the autocrats a lifeline. The debate continued slowly while more and more socialists and Christian Democrats turned up.

Brian Crowley, the Irish pro-European leader of the small UEN (Union for Europe of the Nations) group was almost on his feet with outrage (given he uses a wheelchair no small feat in itself). Andrew Duff, the British Liberal-Democrat of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) group, was slapping his hands together demanding to be heard. Hanne Dahl,a Danish Eurosceptic, was being forthright in her opposition to the move. But Leinen and Corbett ploughed on, ignoring the rules of procedure and finally went to a new vote. Crowley demanded that the Chairman justify this breach of the rule of law, Leinen just waved him away. Kirkhope meanwhile just kept on defending his amendment. By doing so he was allowing the big two to escape their defeat. Of course seeing as (as has been pointed out by Richard North) this rule change is not about destroying UKIP or the small eurosceptic groupings but damaging the prospects of the Tories setting up a breakaway group, maybe this was deliberate on Timothy's part, he never having been a fan of the breached promise of Tory leader David Cameron to leave the EPP.

The vote started after the big blocks had lumbered their members into position and they were able to vote this through.

A quote from The International Herald Tribune, 27 May 2008 and The New York Times, 28 May 2008

On the street [in Brussels], Malika El Aroud is anonymous in an Islamic black veil covering all but her eyes. In her living room, El Aroud, a 48-year-old Belgian, wears the ordinary look of middle age: a plain black T-shirt and pants and curly brown hair. The only adornment is a pair of powder-blue slippers monogrammed in gold with the letters SEXY. But it is on the Internet that El Aroud has distinguished herself. Writing in French under the name Oum Obeyda, she has transformed herself into one of the most prominent Internet jihadists in Europe.

She calls herself a female holy warrior for Al Qaeda. She insists that she does not disseminate instructions on bomb-making and has no intention of taking up arms herself. Rather, she browbeats Muslim men to go and fight, and rallies women to join the cause. […] She was detained last December with 13 others in a suspected plot to free a convicted terrorist from prison and to mount an attack in Brussels. But Belgian law required that they be released within 24 hours because no charges were brought and searches failed to turn up weapons, explosives or incriminating documents.

Now, even as El Aroud remains under constant surveillance, she is back home rallying militants on her Web site -- and collecting more than $1,100 a month in government unemployment benefits. "Her jihad is not to lead an operation but to inspire other people to wage jihad," said Glenn Audenaert, the director of Belgium's federal police force. "She enjoys the protection that Belgium offers. At the same time, she is a potential threat."

Born in Morocco, raised from a young age in Belgium, El Aroud [...] operates from her three-room apartment above a clothing shop in a working-class Brussels neighborhood where she spends her time communicating with supporters on her main forum, Minbar-SOS. Although she insists she is not breaking the law, she knows the police are watching. And if the authorities find way to put her in prison, she said: "That would be great. They would make me a living martyr."

I just can’t believe that this idea was proposed. I just can’t believe it. I am utterly gobsmacked. How could they possibly think that it would be a good idea? In any respect? Seriously, just giving MPs a block grant £23,000 per year to pay for “expenses” and having absolutely no requirement for any receipts at [...]

The European Union, the "free trade organization with a few added extras," is officially turning into a pan-European dictatorship. The Daily Telegraph reports:

The European Union assembly's political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings. Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP's pan-European Eurosceptic "Independence and Democracy" grouping. Under the rule change, the largest and most pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament's political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.

The EU already has clear authoritarian leanings and is moving in a totalitarian direction with astonishing speed.

The pace with which these changes are occurring is so breathtaking that it even surprises me sometimes, and I'm one of the most militant anti-EU persons around. Within the past two years, EU leaders have ignored the referendums in several countries rejection the EU Constitution. The Lisbon Treaty is virtually identical to the Constitution, and is now being pushed through without referendums, with the exception of Ireland. This Constitution/Lisbon Treaty will more or less dismantle the existing nation states throughout much of Europe, which constitutes high treason against dozens of countries simultaneously.

That's bad enough. What's worse is that the same EU leaders, including the British Foreign Minister, the French President and the German Chancellor, have officially announced the enlargement of the EU to include Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. A proposed European Arrest Warrant lists a number of crimes, including terrorism, armed robbery, rape, and racism and xenophobia, which are punishable throughout the EU. The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state. The accused must then be transited for trial to the issuing state within ten days, without any interference, judicial or otherwise, by the executing state.

Racism includes "Islamophobia," according to numerous EU documents. Which means that "Islamophobia" will soon be treated as a crime as serious as rape and armed robbery across most of the European continent. At the same time, European leaders are busy enlarging the EU to include North Africa and the Middle East, thus flooding Europe with tens of millions of additional Muslims. Not far into the future, EU authorities can arrest a person in, say, Denmark or Italy, who has published a cartoon that could be considered offensive to Islam. He or she will then be quietly handed over to the authorities in Algeria, Egypt or Jordan. Remember that blasphemy against Islam potentially carries the death penalty according to sharia. Multiculturalism in Europe is thus reaching its openly totalitarian phase. Those who think this is a joke can look at the Dutch cartoonist who was arrested recently. Several documents that are publicly available (but little known by the general public because they are never referred to by the mainstream media) state that the EU should "harmonize" the education and legal systems with the Mediterranean "partner countries" within the coming decade. This is being negotiated as we speak, behind our backs.

This is part of a long-term plan to merge Europe with the Islamic world. As I've said many times before, the creation of Eurabia constitutes nothing less than the greatest betrayal in the history of European civilization, possibly the greatest betrayal in the history of any civilization. An entire continent, the cradle of the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen, is to be culturally dismantled and turned into an obedient dumping ground for demographic warfare by its Islamic enemies. Those among the indigenous peoples who object to this will be harassed, and opposition to these policies will be banned by law. This is done by the very same individuals who are supposed to be these nations' entrusted leaders.

The time has now come for the natives of Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries to treat the European Union for what it is: An aggressively hostile organization fundamentally opposed to anything we hold dear.

A quote from The Copenhagen Post, 27 May 2008

Danmarks Radio [Denmark's equivalent of the BBC in Britain] will hold a beauty contest for women with the only requirement being that they are over 15 and wear a headscarf. [...] DR's youth club, 'Skum', is behind the project which they believe will display the 'cool Muslim women' who 'often make up a very fashion-conscious and style-confident part of the Danish street scene'. The competition is, however, also open to non-Muslim females.

Participants are urged to send in pictures of themselves wrapped in the appropriate headwear via email or mobile phone to DR. The photos will be judged by fashion expert Uffe Buchardt with first prize being an iPod and a specially-designed headscarf from top fashion house Mads Nørgaard.

In addition, the top five contestants receive a year's subscription to 'Muslim Girl' magazin.

A quote from the Dutch press agency NIS, 27 May 2008

The Amsterdam police corps is giving its officers a discount if they buy the Koran translation of writer Kader Abdolah. Officers should thereby be encouraged to get a better insight into Islam, according to a corps spokesman. [...] Officers who buy the book pay half price. The other half is paid out of the Amsterdam police budget.

I’ve posted one definition of Brownism before: Definition of Brownism: (braun’i(z’?m) 1. (verb) The subtle art of combining of words into sentences that are meant to deliberately mislead or confuse the general public. Origins: A term coined to categorize all of Prime Minister Brown’s eccentric speech. Example: A sample Brownism: “This will be a government of no spin.” Notes: See [...]

I see this as being both sides sometimes - the press AND the performers.

A cartoon from ASBO Jesus.