The Spell is Broken: Dealing Healing and Repealing

WARNING: In this post I will use the d-word – deprivation.

Two kinds of true deprivation stand out in the dimension of recent disturbances, IMHO, one is to deprive people of their livelihoods, property and safety and the other is to deprive a child of the upbringing they need to become a well-adjusted human being[0].

What jumped out for me was the behaviour of Turkish, Bengali and other groups of shopkeepers and residents in defending their businesses, property and homes - a very British thing to do[1] - and some very interesting articles which repeat long said truths, but which should now be a mighty slap in the face to some people.

Dealing

The immediate issue is defence, of lives, livelihoods and property. A strong, visible defence is the best deterrent. I am not talking about locks and shutters, but a pro-active defence whereby those who try it on will be met with a real, immediate, physical response and a real and highly probable legal consequence. If certain groups look around the street and see ordinary people all around them, but know that those ordinary people can suddenly mutate and coalesce into an organized defence force, then even the less controlled individuals will exercise self-restraint.

The problem is we have had decades of emasculation and disempowerment of ordinary citizens, brainwashed and brow-beaten to abdicate their own personal safety and defence to the Police. This drive for abdication is nearly all-pervasive, infesting education, health, welfare as well as personal defence. It becomes a meme, a Pavlovian, passive, sheep-like response. Add wolves and the result we have seen for ourselves.

The spell of Police “protection” was broken, creating chaos. However, that broken spell is part of the wider necromancy mentioned above, which is now in the process of breaking, too, for ordinary people. It is no coincidence, in my view, that some of the communities that have the least exposure to the Fabian witchcraft [5] reacted first and foremost. We saw the Turks of Dalson, for example, take to the streets to defend their community.

Healing

Children do not chose to be born into dysfunction. They rely on their parents and family to instill proper codes of conduct, to distinguish right from wrong, to engender a sense of restraint, deferred gratification, of consequence. Should a child be denied that – deprived of it – that child is not to blame for the lack. However, essential in the rehabilitation of such people is the need to learn right from wrong and too soft an approach risks entrenching the problem, not curing the malaise. Throwing someone in jail with no rehabilitation is equally short sighted.

I have read posts such as that by Camila Batmanghelidjh and Katherine Birbalsingh [2] . Although they approach the situation from different angles, I agree with both of them. Neither set out to excuse, but to understand and try to explain why such things have been a tinderbox and offer their solution or advice. The problem we have, some say, is that there is only one Camila and only one Katherine.

What we should NOT do is try and Xerox Camila or Katherine, systematizing their approach to be implemented by rote-learned practitioners following a protocol. There are others who, though they might use a different methodology, use ways that are effective, that can reach out and heal. If you try to impose wisdom, it ceases to be wisdom. We must try not to get hung up on one way, not to create a monoculture as that will ossify any system and reduce the speed in which innovation and, yes, experimentation can occur in tackling damaged individuals[3] . I am sure Camila and Katherine are not so arrogant as to think they have nothing to learn from others.

The State is pretty hopeless at doing anything other than form monopolies or monocultures. I am not convinced that the State is the right way to implement or drive the spread of good practice in a pluralistic and consensual way.

Repealing

I do think, however, that we still need to go deeper. Healing those damaged and quickly is one thing, but the rate in which such people are being damaged or left to get damaged is way too high, diluting efforts and resources, however superb and heroic, to near homeopathic levels.

I am not talking about the State performing some kind of “pre natal intervention”, which is a stock-in-trade for the Socialist mind of perfecting the clay that we call people. No, we need, first and foremost, for the State to STOP funding and doing things that creates the problems or creates the environment for such problems to occur or multiply.

An example is benefits and housing that should not be focused on those who bear others into poverty. Funding those who cannot afford to have children to have children is madness. Women who know that there is no source of support and accommodation "by right" will be far more discerning as to whom she interacts with, when and how. Of course such things are never perfect, but we are not talking about perfection – I leave that delusion to the Fabians – but about the basic truth that if you subsidize something you tend to get more of it. Such an approach will not eradicate, nor is it the business of the State or politicians to eradicate, the existence of single motherhood. However, it is not the business of the State to make certain choices viable “by right” when they otherwise would not be. The issue here is not support for single mums or those unable to support their children per se, but the automatic right in law for taxpayer support regardless of circumstances.

The failure of education is linked to this in part, for while you have the ability to exist regardless, then the basic, visceral incentive to survive is defused, rendering the absolute necessity to get an education redundant.

We have seen that gangs of ordinary citizens can assemble with weapons and no robbing occurs, no looting and no unprovoked violence. Law abiding people with weapons are not the problem here, but law abiding people WITHOUT a means of self-defence is. We need to repeal laws that limit law-abiding people while exposing them to the lawless who care not for such laws.

The spell restraining the thuggery has been broken somewhat, but that this has also broken the wider spell over the population as to the all-pervasive power of the State.

We need to deal with those who do wrong, heal those who are on a path to or involved in wrongdoing and to repeal the entitlements that contribute in part but certainly not exclusively to the creation of those who grow up without essential foundations for civilized living.

[0] Some of you may know I reject the use of the word “deprived” when it is used to mean “poverty” or “bad housing” or “lack of jobs”, which is to trivialize it and demean the real issues that exist for those who are truly deprived. It is an all too familiar behaviour of the Left to hijack such words for their own agenda.

[1] I now hear that, sadly, three men, and I repeat the word, Men, have been killed, run down by a car, in what appears to be a defence of their community from looters. My condolences to their family and friends.

[2] I have also read some utter tripe from the usual peddlers of such guff, for example Yasmin Alibia Brown, who might on the surface sound reasonable but is in fact a denial of the environment they have pushed for.

[3] I say, damaged, for I feel so very few, an infinitesimally small number of babies are born bad. Almost all are made bad. Many could be maladjusted, but with the right upbringing, guidance and boundaries they could be imperfect – and who is not? - but still decent and productive human beings.

[4] This is not to say that a single person cannot deliver both aspects, but that task is

[5] Those who have engineered it in the law-abiding majority while not managing to deal with the minority are, I am certain, still in denial.

Rule of Law

It is at times like this we see who really believes in Rule of Law or not. Who gives it lip service or who actually wants to see it upheld and, for even those who appear as the enemy, that due process take place.

Rule of Law cuts both ways and must apply to all, big or small, without fear or favour.

My Libertarianism is centred around Rule of Law, which should come as no surprise to anyone who follows my witterings and twitterings.

Drug Decriminalisation shock response - more heads recommended for self-boiling

Nicholas Green QC, the chairman of the Bar Council for England and Wales, said it was “rational” to consider “decriminalising personal drug use”.

Quite right. Locking up an addict is going to solve what exactly? Rehab? Yes. Incarceration in an establishment with EVEN GREATER access to drugs? FAIL.

But wait!

Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Commons' Home Affairs Committee, said: “I am shocked by the suggestion that drugs should be decriminalised for personal use.

"The legalisation of drugs would simply create the mistaken impression that these substances are not harmful, when in fact this is far from the truth.”

“The answer to the issue of drug abuse is not to merely decriminalise it. This is not the best solution for the wider public or the police.”

Shocked, I tell you! Vaz decides the public are (as) stupid (as him?) and decides to support the criminalisation of people on that basis. But never passing up the chance to keep one buttock on each side of the fence, he ends it with an arse-covering soundbite so he can later jump back on the bandwagon.

James Clappison MP, a former member of the Commons’ Home Affairs Committee, said the remarks were “not entirely a helpful contribution to the debate”.
He said: “There seems to be a very strong link between recreational drug use, leading to drug addiction leading to crime fuelled by drug addiction. I would have thought the chairman of the Bar Council would have seen that for himself.”

I suspect James Clappison, MP, thinks only words in agreement with the consensus are "helpful to the debate". Clappison forgets the far higher street cost of drugs while they are illegal, which often requires criminal activity to fund. Clappison should have seen that for himself.

Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, added: “It is a ludicrous argument to say let’s legalise drugs to take pressure off the police and the courts. That is an argument to legalise everything.”

FAIL. Philip Davies, MP is expected to legislate and revise laws on our behalf and yet he displays the critical reasoning of a wasp.

Debra Bell, a mother whose son developed severe personality changes after smoking cannabis from the age of 14 with his friends, said: “What is talking about? This will send out the wrong message to youngsters.

“There are children as young as 10 getting involved in drug use. Recreational drugs are addictive – that is why there are controlled"

Ms Bell, who now runs the “Talking About Cannabis” advice website, added: “For some adults it might not be a problem, but that is not the case for children and adolescents. It divides families.”

So alcohol being legal is "the wrong message to youngsters"? Decriminalising does not mean "please take it". In fact, while it is illegal and highly lucrative, there is a vast army of scumbags out there doing just that - pushing it onto kids. Making it legal DOES mean making it controlled. Right now, drugs are out of control the very reason being they are outlawed.

Yet again a dismal display from our elected representatives. And we allow them to VOTE on our behalf?

Jacqui Smith: Hypocrisy and Conflation

Jacqui Smith is a hypocrite. Further to her blatant display of parasitism, she now goes on to say:

"Coming to the UK is a privilege and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life. Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here.

Well, Jacqui, your fiddling and disingenuous and mealy-mouthed self-justification via the letter and not spirit of the regulations is abusing our standards and values, and undermines our way of life. Coming from a Home Secretary is obscene to start with. This is why when you pontificate as above, you just make yourself out to be a ridiculous hypocrite. Life is about what you SHOULD do, Jacqui, not what you CAN.

Jacqui then goes on to conflate "extremism", which is rather a nebulous opinion, with presumption of guilt and throws in erosion of the freedom of speech, to boot:

"The Government opposes extremism in all its forms and I am determined to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country. This is the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour".

I consider New Labour's Authoritarianism as "extreme" and unacceptable behaviour, so by that definition, it needs to be excluded, no? Only when it impinges on my life must it be curbed in my view, and right now it needs to be curbed, but not "excluded" from the country. No, let them rave on, so that others may know them mad.

If these people actually commit crimes of incitement, then they need to come here first, surely? If these were murderers or rapists or actually proven guilty of conspiracy to commit outrages then I might understand their being excluded, but "potential thought crimes" are another matter.

Bigots and rabble-rousers need to be exposed, ridiculed and confronted with rational argument.

One day Jacqui or her successor may refuse the return of a UK citizen because they are an Anti-Statist "extremist", or an anti-EU "extremist". If and only if we do not bring in a Libertarian Party government, I suspect this will happen at some stage.

Democracy. Rule of Law

Hat tip, Samizdata.

"Democracy is nowadays a greatly over-hyped blessing, particularly by Americans, who have no pre-democratic history to provide a perspective. It is clearly less important than freedom, the rule of law and constitutional government, which ideally it should entrench, but may well not do so." - Nigel Lawson, former UK finance minister, journalist and more recently, a fine debunker of global warming alarmism.

Nigel points out key beliefs of the LPUK. Rule of Law is more important than Democracy. Democracy's main role is to remove bad governments. It is not very good at providing the good. It is also the least damaging system so far devised to existing Rule of Law, but no guarantor of it.

The threats to Rule of Law will change slightly under the Tories, but it is by no means safe.

Obama has a spine (for once). The UK Premier must also.

I am no fan of Obama. He uses brain-dead non-phrases - "Change!" - to mislead people into thinking he is going to do what they want. He has shown his willingness to engineer vast transfers of wealth from the many to the few without consent in bailout after bailout.

He has done at least two things right.

One was to extend the hand of friendship to the Iranian people.

The second was to give the nod to allow lethal force in the rescue of the Captain captured by Somalian pirates.

Three pirates were killed. This will give a moment of pause to all thinking of doing similar deeds. They will pick their targets more carefully. The chances of them letting a US ship pass them by has gone up dramatically and so the lives of US merchant sailors are safer now.

Begs the question. Would Brown do the same? I say no. He is vain, vacillating, cowardly. Would Blair? Unlikely, in my view. Thatcher? Does that need an answer? Mrs T has form. Her willingness to make a similar decision in the Iranian Embassy Siege enabled it to be resolved in a professional manner. The SAS knew - to use an American phrase - that Mrs T had "got their back", i.e. she would cover them, and it was her who gave the go-ahead not to have any "untidiness" at the end and she made it clear that she was the one from which the order came.

For all the anarchy, I suspect Somalian pirates are, on the whole, rational actors. Britain needs to ensure that we exploit that to the advantage of our shipping. I suspect that it will need another incident and another firefight to sort that out. Our PM needs to make that decision. Until we get a new PM, I suspect our sailors and shipping are still at risk.

p.s. We are told that the Somalians "respcet their village elders". Ok, so why don't these elders openly say that piracy is wrong and end this behviour? I leave you to come to the blatantly obvious conclusion.

Harriet Harman: Perverting the Course of Justice?

Further to Gordon Brown's intention to undermine or bypass the Rule of Law the other day, we now have Harriet Harman QC MP saying this on the Andrew Mmmmmaaaaarr* Show:

"Sir Fred should not be counting on being £650,000 a year better off as a result of this because it is not going to happen," she said.

"The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted.

"It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract, but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that's where the Government steps in."

So, we have a person who is a Lawyer, an MP, a Queen's Council, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal who is openly and brazenly pushing for subverting the Rule of Law in exchange for the Rule of the Mob.**

Harriet Harman should not only be stripped of her QC, Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal position, but should be, in my opinion, indicted for attempting to pervert the course of Justice.

If the "Court of Public Opinion" had any force, Harriet, Gordon Brown and the entire pestilential pustule that is the Parliamentary Labour Party would have been dragged out into the street and shot like the dogs they are - and that would be the humane option for them, as I suspect many would like to see a Spandau Ballet.

However, I believe in the Rule of Law, so that is not a move I endorse. Rule of Law is more important than "voting". Democracy serves two purposes, as the least bad way to preserve and protect the Rule of Law and as a means to remove bad government. It is not very good at installing good government as we have seen for decades. 

With Rule of Law upheld, the Government becomes far less important, for if it is obeying the Rule of Law it will busy itself with issues of Law and Order and National Defence and be doing all it can to keep it and other people's hands off our property, mouths, ears and bodies.

Some hope that the Guardianistas and other sorts have now seen how New Labour (and indeed Old Labour given half a chance) is Authoritarian and most certainly no friend of Civil Liberties, let alone the Economic Liberties which most never agreed with in the first place - except for themselves and their own children, natch. I am not sure if they have had a deep enough realisation. I do wonder if they will remain in denial despite the now constant dissonance all around them. I bet they will protest that this is not "real" or "proper" Social Democracy or even Socialism. They will remain in denial that while the State is seen as "the answer" or in any way as a "good", it will grow and grow, taking over more and more of our lives. It is in its DNA. To deny it is to deny fungus. 

The State needs to be considered a necessary evil that needs constant re-justification in what it does. Unless it is restrained by our constitutional DNA and the constant vigilance of the population and our institutions of Law, it will cease to be a useful organ of life and turn into a tumour that will drain our resources, cause untold pain and eventually kill us all.

The only party that clearly understands this about the State and recognises the true value and supremacy of the Rule of Law and its best articulation and realisation in the form of English Common Law, is the Libertarian Party, UK.

* Interviewer for the Sheeple.

** I also consider the move as a means for Harriet to appear to support Gordon Brown. It is of zero cost to HH, though, as I am quite sure she already wanted to do this or worse. One can even see it as a triple win - she gets to kick and humiliate Jacqui "Jackboot" Smith, the Second Home Secretary.

Fred the Shred, Grabber Gordon and the Rule of Law.

I hear that Gordon is aiming to sue Fred Goodwin, ex of RBS and receiver of a mighty £650k/year pension*. I suspect it may be to act as a diversion over the Right Royal pasting Gordon has been getting from Mervyn King of the BoE at the Treasury Select Committee hearings. This, coming hot on the heels of a similar slippery-slopey-shoulderation from the FSA's greasy emanation Lord "Stomach" Turner.

As far as I can tell, to force this issue is to break Rule of Law - contracts. 

Gordon &Co are to blame for a lack of due dilligence...which about sums up the entire "toxic debt" debacle. THEY should pay, NOT the taxpayer.

One angle I would suggest is to see if the Remuneration and Compensation Committee acted improperly, THEN the contract could be deemed a fraud, THEN it could be torn up. Otherwise it will be sheer Robber Baronacy.

Apart from that, it will be interesting to see who comes out in favour of upholding contracts and who is in favour of the State in a fit of shame/envy/hubris tramping on the Rule of Law, and thu unlibertarian.

This event will sure flush out the fake Liberals and Libertarians for sure, who will be very happy to trample on the Rule of Law in a fit of pique.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! 
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? 
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! 
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! 

We have enough laws laid flat in the pursuit of terrorists, money laundering and the convenience of bureaucrats in Westminster, Town Halls and Brussels.


Maybe this will give some reminder as to the above passage. Some excellent force!

UPDATE: Seems Prodicus also quotes the same passage, but I had the beat.

* though the way things are going £650k might only buy him a new shell-suit.

Chris Huhne is no Liberal.

He supports the ban on Geert Wilders, the chap who created the film "Fitna".

As far as I can tell, Mr Wilders has not asked for the death of any group or individual. He may say things that others find objectionable, but then that would apply to the entire Labour Cabinet!

Huhne clearly cares not for Freedom of Speech, nor for the Rule of Law, yet was aiming to the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I doubt he was speaking on R4 today without some backing from Nick the Clegg.

Considering the discussions, below, isn't it high time that the LibDems dropped the term "Liberal"? As we know, "democrat" just means you support Tyranny of the Masses, so the label is theirs to embrace if they wish. They are in truth Social Democrats at best. Far too quick and comfortable to use State power to impose their opinions.

The Libertarian Party takes a very strong stance with regards to Fraud and misrepresentation. The Liberal Democrats are in danger of committing misrepresentation.

UPDATE: Huhne on C4 just now. He *almost* used justification that Geert himself was in danger but also blustered that in some way minorities might be targeted because he would be entering the country. Utter codswallop. No, he was banned I suspect, as otherwise it would make certain people bust a vessel and/or organise their own civil disruption not in support, but against - i.e. he was kept out because others would protest and the Police incapable, it seems of properly responding to Islamist* behaviour, would not be capable of maintaining law and order.

* i.e. not Muslim.

Jacqui Smith: Bare Faced Parasitism.

There is really no other word for it.

Jacqui Smith stays with her sister in South London and pays her rent for a room which she now calls her primary residence. 

Her husband - paid £40,000p.a. by us, the taxpayer - sits at what is claimed as the second home. 

The Homes Secretary can claim council tax (IIRC), fit out, repair and cover mortgage interest payments for such a residence.

Anyone with an ounce of self-respect, honour, integrity and professionalism would class the room she rents at her sister's house as the second home.

It is not good enough to say that the claims conformed to the letter of the law. It is just as, if not more important to obey the spirit of the law. 

For such acts and attitude from any public servant is appalling. For it to be held by the Home Secretary is an outrage. She had the bare-faced cheek to demand that only one question be asked on the matter. Pure and simple she cannot cope with reality and wishes to avoid being held to account, to avoid freedom of speech and to manipulate the message. This, our "Home Secretary".

Jacqui Smith should be sacked, let alone be permitted to step down. However, we are talking about an administration that has not a Tesla, not a Weber in regards to the magnetic polarity of their so-called "moral compass". 

New Labour is morally, economically, ideologically and spiritually bankrupt.

Obama: 2 Vital Objectives

Barak O'Bama proposed two keynotes to his administration: Transparency and the Rule of Law.

If he delivers that, IMHO, he need not deliver anything else.

Like a Kipper

Further to my post, below, about State intrusion, now that the Police can, without a paper trail, enter your hard drives, then surely anything that they find is inadmissible, seeing as it was not obtained with a warrant.

However, if they do subsequently get a warrant and enter the premises, there is no way of knowing if they, as in some other agency, did not plant any data "via the back door".

Who knows all the files on one's hard drive. A hidden file (very easy to do) can lurk on one's disk for months and then be 'discovered' by the Authorities. They can create supposedly old files and sneak them on at any time, giving the impression that the file has been around for ages.

One group could plant the evidence and then tip off the regular Plod who just come in, take away the machines and discover all manner of  material. As with the hapless chaps in Forest Gate, false, presumptive and self-serving leaks and rumours* can get out surprisingly fast - guilty until proven innocent.

Warrants were created for a very good reason. EUdenrats, Federasts and New Labour Lickspittles are clearly too arrogant and ignorant to realise how important they are. Forget the Boston Tea Party and taxation, the real unrest that spawned the American War of Independence was over the unwaranted (as in NO WARRANT) entry of private property by the King's Soldiers in search of documents not bearing the Stamp, and so the lack of the tax that goes with it. Sounds a bit like TV Licensing, if you ask me.

So, beware. A warrant is a vital part of property rights and thus Rule of Law. This has been tampered with. It is at their peril. They know not what they are doing, but think they do. Regardless, ignorance is no defence.

* they were "accused" of possessing child pr0n. It would be very easy to miss the retractions and corrections that dribbled out later, but by that time their names would be mud.

The Mask slips still futher

At times the Government puts up a little effort to pretend to be our elected representatives.

I now hear that the UK Police will be asked/allowed/enabled/directed to enter your property, vis your computer hard drive without your permission, without notification, nor with a warrant. They will do so if the active agent is a "foreign" Police force, i.e. another EU force.

Therefore, "our"* Government is happy to see our Police be a proxy for an EU Member State force, bypassing our Courts and English Common Law.

The EU is not one for Rule of Law and the EU is the source of this outrage. I doubt the EU will see it as an outrage, for it probably makes it "easier" for them to perform their activities -NEVER a sufficient justification for reducing the rights of the individual.

This Labour Administration has shown it is now no more than an EU Gaulieter. The UK Police is clearly considered no more superior with regards to our liberties than any other EU force. We have seen how foreign courts can demand the UK Police jump and arrest someone, but again, I do believe that the UK Government no longer considers them "foreign", just as they do not appear to consider other EU forces as "foreign".

This is how it now appears - that the Labour Administration does not consider EU Member States as "foreign", nor the EU Parliament, nor the EU Commission, but views the UK as just a collection of Regions with no more or less sovereignty over us as any other EU Region.

Come on, you bunch of Fabian Fifth Columnist lickspittles. Admit it. Have the stones. Then we can begin your trial for Treason.

BTW, forget the Tory Administration, they are Centrists who are part of the problem. The LibDems are a nest of Fabians for sure. Any Libertarians therein have got to realise this now, especially after the horsetrading that is going on over some so-called "National Unity" Government. Anyone who thinks this will do anything other than swallow up and spit out the Lib Dems is naive. Not forgetting that UKIP has an historic membership of albatrosses who are united by one thing only - a hatred of all things EU, so the true Libertarians therein are also up the swanee.

Nope, the one party that stands for Rule of Law, yet sees the EU and a bloated State as a threat to it, is the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is the one party that will not stand in the way** of you to live your own private life as Tory or as Socialist as you want to be, as long as you do not try and coerce others to be also, or make them pay for it against their will. Set up your voluntary workers collective or go it alone and set yourself moral standards...for yourself, we will not stop you. Try and impose your dogma on others and you have another thing coming, mind.

* "our" as in a cockroach found in one's kitchen could be considered "one's cockroach".

** note the term "not stand in the way", as opposed to the language of the others, which talks of "allowing". Allow - who do they think they are!

Disingenuous or just ignorant?

We see that a relationship counsellor has been fired from Relate because he would not deal with same-sex couples due to his Pavlovian bigotry religious beliefs.

Tough.

Relate is not a Christian entity and, matey, you should have known full well what you were getting into and so excused yourself from such a role and worked for another organisation that allowed you to exercise your prejudices, er, I mean, religion.

The councillor, Mr McFarlane bleats:

"The issues are way bigger than one individual. Society will be the poorer if we do not balance rights fairly and respectfully."

Yes, the issues ARE bigger than one individual, and not in his favour. It is the freedom of an employer to decide what they wish to pay for, i.e. in return for a salary. His assertion that society will somehow be "poorer" is poppycock. Rights are not some item to be horse-traded "fairly" and "respectfully". Rights exist, are equally applied and some rights are superior to others and take precedent. This doubletalk of "respectfully" is just a cover to say that he feels, incorrectly I must add, that his personal beliefs are superior to other rights, including the right of his employer to determine and enforce terms of engagement. Once you let this sort of thinking worm in, we will see more and more illiberal salami-slicing by religious groups who will begin to try and impose their personal beliefs upon the rest of us. A nightmare. 

His idea is that we surrender our rights and in return he gets respect. Of course he is in favour of such a deal. He can go hang.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of some ghastly self-righteous pressure group Christian Concern for our Nation, said: "Mr McFarlane had an unblemished record of service for Relate and was trying to work out a way in which his Christian views could be asserted accommodated.

"It is astonishing to think that in 21st Century Britain we are unable to ensure that people like Mr McFarlane are able to stay within the system. Unless, we are able to achieve this in law then there will never be true equality and respect for all."

Andrea, Mr McFarlane's personal beliefs can be accommodated by him keeping them where they belong. Mr McFarlane can stay within the system if you are able to ensure that he delivers his side of his employment contract. Note how this group is trying to get their beliefs "protected" in Law. Anyone with two unbiased braincells to rub together would, after a brief mulling over of possible scenarios, consider such legislation irresponsible and against the Rule of Law. 

Brown-Straw Bill of Wrongs

So, we see a Cabinet kerfuffle over plans for a new "Bill of Wrongs Rights".

Brown talked earlier in the year about a new constitutional settlement. This "Bill of Wrongs Rights" is part of that. Brown likes the term "new settlement", for he has used it in terms of the financial crisis, too.

What Brown &Co forget, is that a Bill of Rights is - or damn well should be - about restraining government, NOT restraining people. I take that back. Brown did not forget this. He knows that is what it should be, but I suspect the old Marxist-Manse nexus inside him cannot but interfere with, pester and control the population.

Brown said that such a bill would open a new chapter on British liberty. Epilogue, more like, for he is using the idea of "rights", which are more like "entitlements" to then justify restraining "responsibilities" upon us. 

We can see a precursor of what is to come in the attempts to bully fat people by threatening them with the withdrawal of NHS treatment. It is insidious to do this, for those so bullied are hardly in a position to opt out of the NHS, not pay into it and seek an alternative provider. The law demands you pay, so instead of being a customer, free to choose, you become a cost and subject to a squeeze. Funny that they do not offer to reduce their NI contributions due to lower life expectancy and thus pension obligations, but that is another thing.

The arrogance is astonishing. Who do they think they are to decide how people live and what responsibilities people have at such a level? They clearly feel they are in some way the arbiter of "correct" behaviour. 

They are not.

At the very best this Bill will be the Tyranny of the Majority, but I suspect it will be the Tyranny of the Minority, a Tyranny of pressure groups and vested interests. It will begin the codification of "social justice", which as a word ranks in vileness alongside "deprivation", "progressive" and "entitlement". As you may know, social justice comes from the concept of social rights and social rights, as J.S. Mill has said, are "monstrous":-

A theory of "social rights," the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language--being nothing short of this--that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them; for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious, passes any one's lips, it invades all the "social rights" attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.

This odious "Bill of Rights" is just such a manifestation of the monstrosity outlined above. People think they have the right to control and oppress people in its name.

We will see limitations on our freedom to act and react because, make no mistake, certain kinds of acts will be protected, the kind that the Sociofascists and Statists approve of, while others that are inconvenient to them, contradict their world view or would enable people to demonstrate that they were wrong risk being curtailed. The Taxpayer will foot the bill under pain of imprisonment. Instead of people reforming themselves - for I believe 90%+ of the feckless will if no longer encouraged to remain so by bad policies and Welfarism - they will be forced to reform. Forced to reform instead of coming to the conclusion of their own free will. This road will, in my view, lead to the criminalisation of non-conformists*. 

The Bill is expected to contain such utter wibble as "the right to healthcare". That is only half the story. What it should say is "those whom the State so chooses should pay for other people's healthcare of a quality and composition as decided by the State if those other people are deemed to deserve it in accordance with criteria also decided upon by the State". Now, THAT is what will happen, yet it is not a right, is it? A right would be "Let no person, body, government, agent or organisation prevent any person gaining access to healthcare that is willingly provided". The same goes for education - religious carpet-munchers cannot prevent women from accessing schools, for example. However, that is a world away from saying the State will decide who will have to pay for that schooling and what form it will take.

So, under the umbrella of "rights" we see the scope for enormous powers collected to the centre and the bureaucracy. As J.S.Mill says above, there will be no violation which it would not justify.

And Brown and Straw try to sell this noxious brew as "Constitutional Reform".

* It will create the need for S.T.E.N.C.H. - the Society for the Total Extinction of Non-Conforming Humans -  Carry on Spying

Treason: Sharia "Courts" in the UK

It was hinted and "nudged", but finally the news is out (anything to distract from Gordon's woes, I suppose) that Sharia "courts" are operating in the UK.

This is both treasonous and utterly wrong-headed.

1. The UK operates an adversarial system where one has a right to defend oneself and be judged by a jury of one's peers. This was created for very good reason - Rule of Law. In Sharia, there is no right to speak or present evidence. The "judge" will decide what evidence will be "permitted" and can disregard whatever they feel like. For all its bogus "religious" pretensions, Sharia is Rule by Men, not Rule of Law.

2. Anyone who thinks this will not result in coercion to agree to a Sharia court is naive, a "useful idiot".

3. Anyone who thinks this will not result in calls for any case involving a Muslim or extension to criminal cases is also naive and a "useful idiot".

Now, Sharia as a voluntary arbitration with no force in law is another thing entirely, for that occurs in a multitude of social interactions, not just Sharia. What is now occurring is quite different - a legally enforceable wedge. It is discriminatory, unequal, divisive, Mediaeval and if people want to live that way personally, then it is their funeral, but it is another thing to tarnish what can be described as the best legal system in the world, English Common Law,

by making it recognise a backwards leap.

This is the work of self-loathers, quislings, appeasers. I suspect most Muslim citizens of the UK will be against this too. It is the last thing they need.

The Libertarian Party will kick this nonsense back to where it belongs - a private matter between individuals.

Who Will Rid Us...

...of this turbulent Priest?

The bearded old goat Archbishop of Canterbury, thinks that adoption of elements of Sharia in the UK is "inevitable".

I suppose anything bad is "inevitable" when you are a self-loathing, guilt-ridden fifth columnist like "Dr"* Rowan.

He is an imbecile. A dangerous "useful idiot", a panderer, an appeaser. I suppose he is hoping for a seat at some religious table, but you bet he would be happy with a subordinate seat, as long as he had a seat. He is a loathsome creature.

Let us not be mistaken. Anyone who thinks that Sharia will remain an option once it gets its claws into the system is a fool. It is Totalitarian creed practised by Totalitarians. I suspect it is touted as an option, a "voluntary" code as long as both sides wish it. Do you really think for an instant that this will remain so? Very soon it will become mandatory, maybe not in law, but by brute aggression. Muslims will be intimidated to conform to Sharia "courts". It is easy to see how it can be done - if you do not, you are not "muslim", but apostate...and we all know what that can lead to. Once this is entrenched, we will see demands for any dispute or legal action involving a Muslim to be performed via Sharia "courts". Sharia "courts" will become the "superior" system, and by superior I do not in any way suggest better - quite the reverse - just in terms of precedent over people's lives.

Sharia "courts" operate the inquisitional system as happens in Europe. A "judge" collects evidence and makes a judgement. There is no right to your day in court, no right to cross examine. It is not the adversarial system we have where defence and prosecution work to produce the evidence before a jury which is then advised by a judge, but who's advice the jury can decline to take. We are judged by our peers in the UK, for all its faults, not some self-absorbed, bearded totalitarian with a chip on his shoulder.

Inquisitional systems are VERY BAD for Rule of Law.

We have recently seen the moonbattery that is paying out benefits to imported illegal extra wives. We see more hints at pandering:

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at." Gordon Brown.

This is the road to serfdom. Let me say that again. This is the road to Serfdom. Very soon we will see the need to get "approval" from the MCB or whohaveyou to ensure that any new tax is "Islamic". They will have a veto, or even finagle an exemption. They will get to see the budget before anyone else and their approval will be sought. It is utterly unacceptable. We saw hints of this when the MCB were worming their pimply backsides into meetings to "pre approve" anti-terror raids. MADNESS.

To "Dr" Williams, Gordon Brown, Jack "shit" Straw, the MCB and all totalitarian mysogenistic bearded goats out there I have a message for you:

If you want a disgusting inquisitional legal system, live in a place that practices it. England has the finest legal system known to mankind - HANDS OFF.

* "Dr of fairy tales" does not really wash with me, frankly.

Political Cancer UK pt.1: Harriet Harman

Hain has gone. Why is Harman still here?

Rule of Law

The Critical Faculty Dojo is musing on the idea of Democracy.

I chip in thus:

Democracy without Rule of Law will not stop the mob taking your stuff and stopping you doing what you want.

If you have Rule of Law (as in property rights over your body, thoughts, assets and capital, few laws applied transparently and equally to all) then Democracy is a bonus, yet what can an oligarchy do to you if rule of law still exists? It must first remove or undermine Rule of Law before it can do you any real harm.

One could argue that Democracy is the least worst safeguard against the erosion of Rule of Law, but that Rule of Law is, actually, what is of most practical benefit to people. Democracy is just a means to the end, the end being Rule of Law.

Sir Ian Blair

After the various report summaries.

Should Sir Ian go, either resign or be sacked? I say yes. Why? Not for the shooting, but for the 24 hours afterwards.

Either Sir Ian was in the dark or he knew an innocent man was shot. If the latter, then he should go immediately not really for the fact that he lied at the time, but that he has lied since then. If he was in the dark, then he should also go, as he clearly has created an environment whereby he is not told the honest, if ugly, truth. This can be for many reasons - e.g. his subordinates also did not know, they were too scared or were busy butt-covering themselves first etc etc. I do not want to guess what unpleasantness was the reason writhing beneath Sir Ian in his chain of command, only that corporate culture has one prime source - the chief. If the culture was one of butt-covering, incompetence, cowardace or whatever, then Sir Ian is to blame for allowing such people to remain or to allow a view to form that such behaviour is acceptable. I do not recall him sacking anyone himself, so, if he was indeed unaware, he has not fixed it (if I am wrong and people have been kicked out, then I stand corrected). Two reasons for him to go if he was actually unaware.

The rumour has long existed that Cressida Dick was at fault yet she would be "untouchable". She was responsible on the ground in the room. The mark, IIRC, was made with insufficient evidence or intelligence. Once the mark was made and taken as unequivocal truth, the path was set. I see Cressida Dick as the one responsible for permitting the mark to be accepted.

There has been alot of criticism at the "resignation culture" - i.e. the baying for heads. This is a spectacular inversion - no surprise these days considering it is a classic tool of Sociofacsists. The clamour is that resignations and in extremis, sackings do NOT happen when they should and we have the squalid spectacle of people clinging on to their positions long after they should have resigned. In a way it is not unsurprising - all those perks, fat salary, cars and future pensions and sinecures in some sleepy QANGO somewhere.

Unfortunately for us, many people in office these days, and certainly in most Party apparatus, have long had their "Moral Compass" demagnetised.