The Madness of the UK Elites

Culturally Sensitive Policing

In the United Kingdom this past year systemic abuse and extreme criminal acts over a long period of time have come to light, yet the police and local council officials have turned a blind eye and ignored them.  Some have warned darkly that what has come to light is the tip of a vast iceberg.  If you have not caught up with the explosive revelations, take a look at reports about Rotherham. 

The question is, how could this come to pass?  While the causes are always multi-form it would appear that a large contributing factor is the sea-change that took place in the UK police force fifteen or so years ago.  As a result of the Macpherson Report into the apparently racially motivated slaying of  Stephen Lawrence the police were officially required to become racist in their approach to community policing and crime.  We mean, of course, they were required to apply a filter of “multi-cultural sensitivities” to crime.  Race was mandated as a filter in apprehending and detecting crime.

First of all, let’s define racism.  The Macpherson Report helpfully provided its definition:

A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person. [Maitland Report, p.376]

No doubt, dear reader, you have just fallen off your chair. Racist incidents take place whenever anyone perceives they have.  This bizarre claim was to become part of police and government procedures.  But worse, the police had to take race (that is, the cultures of different races) into account when policing.

A new atmosphere of mutual confidence and trust must be created. The onus to begin the process which will create that new atmosphere lies firmly and clearly with the police. The Police Services must examine every aspect of their policies and practices to assess whether the outcome of their actions creates or sustains patterns of discrimination. The provision of policing services to a diverse public must be appropriate and professional in every case. Every individual must be treated with respect. “Colour-blind” policing must be outlawed. The police must deliver a service which recognises the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society. [Maitland, s.45.24]

Colour blind policing is outlawed.  Instead the police had to recognise “the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society”.  “Recognising” has to do with acknowledging in a positive light.

From that time onwards, the police were not allowed to be “colour-blind”, but they had to be culturally sensitive.  Putting it baldly, since it was a long established cultural practice for Pakistani youth to prey upon young girls and boys, groom them for sex, and systematically rape them, the police clapped the proverbial telescope to the Nelsonian blind eye and saw no evil.  Its just what they do, and police needed to recognise “the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society.”  Behold the mandated and required racism of the modern UK police force.

Consequently, since many of the horrendous crimes being perpetrated in our day can be linked to historical cultural practices, the Police are, therefore, expected to see no evil, hear no evil.  Crimes such as female genital mutilation, honour killings, paedophilia, compulsorily arranged marriages are all wonderful manifestations (don’t you know) of a diverse rich multi-cultural society which the Police must welcome, endorse, and celebrate–along with all the vast machinery of state and its army of bureaucratic functionaries–or, if not, risk being charged with racism.  At the least, this is not the most enlightened career move one could make. 

Peter Hitchens comments:

The Macpherson Report is one of the most extraordinary documents ever to be published by any British government.  Its language, tone and style are quite unlike anything else ever printed by the austere presses of the state.  Its accusation of “institutional racism” against the police is by definition impossible to prove and therefore impossible to refute.  Yet it has highly disreputable origins.  The inventor of this idea and expression was the American black radical Stokely Carmichael, an anti-Semite who was at one time banned from this country and who proclaimed that Hitler was a genius. . . . Despite this tainted source, it has been difficult for anyone to combat the new ideology presumably for fear of being damned as institutionally racist themselves. [Peter Hitchens, The Abolition of Liberty: the Decline of Order and Justice in England (London: Atlantic Books, 2003),   p. 209f.]

When secularism overthrew the Christian faith, it did not introduce a wonderfully tolerant society.  Rather, it made room for the re-introduction of idols (secular idols, to be sure, but idols nonetheless).  As will always the case, these particular idols are ruthless, bloody, primitive and benighted as were Bel, Nebo, and Molech.  

Multi-Culturalism has Limits

14 Somali Men Convicted of Running Prostitute Ring

[Thankfully there are limits still in place against the claims and prerogatives of multi-culturalism.  Thankfully the police in the south of  England appear to be more vigilant and effective and less of the “see no evil, hear no evil” policing that had operated in places in the north of England.  Ed.]

by A.B. Sanderson  

27 Nov 2014

BreitbartLondon

A court in Bristol has heard about a sickening gang of Somali men who groomed underage girls and forced them into a life of rape and sexual abuse. The thirteen men abused girls as young as 13 and tricked them into thinking they were their girlfriends.

In total, the men have been convicted of 31 sex crimes against seven vulnerable girls and have been handed prison sentences totalling more than 75 years, the Bristol Post reports. Some of the men told the girls that it was a Somali cultural practice for girlfriends to sleep with their boyfriend’s friends.

There were two trials, the last of which finished yesterday when a jury deliberated for 32 hours, which were brought as a result if a two year investigation by Avon and Somerset Police called ‘Operation Brooke’. Prosecutor Anna Vigars told the jury during the case: “It is about the defendants simply using the girls to satisfy them whenever they felt like it, doing it so often that, no doubt, it began to feel normal so far as these girls were concerned.  “There are elements of exhibitionism, with sex taking place in front of other people in the group. Much of it sordid, none of it is romantic.”

The jury heard how one girl was trafficked across the city to a Premier Inn hotel where she was raped four times, by three different men.  Speaking about the event, Ms Vigars said: “Sadly, by that point in her young life, it was simply one of the things that happened to her from time to time. She got raped, she moved on.”
After she was raped and abused the girl told the police she felt “nasty” and “just wanted to disappear”.

The girl considered one of the men, Deeq, to be her boyfriend. He told her that she needed to have sex with his brother or he would go to hell, because he “wanted to turn gay”. She was persuaded to go ahead with the abuse under a bridge near a DIY store.  Deeq – who was also abusing another teenager – first claimed he had never met the girl. Later he admitted knowing her, but claimed they had never done anything more than kissing and cuddling.

The same girl was incited into prostitution by another of the gang, Kamal aged 22, at his flat in Easton, Bristol.  One victim was raped by another man in the same block of flats after he blocked a bedroom door so there was no escape while another resorted to raping a girl in a bathroom. She told police that because she was trapped by the man she “just did it” even though she did not want to take part in any sexual activity.
The men from the second trial are expected to be sentenced tomorrow by a judge and experts say their convictions are likely to be of some duration.

Life in the Beeb-Hive

Islamophobia: the Greatest of All Evils

We have been following the scandal of Rotherham in the UK.  Thousands of young girls were preyed upon by predatory Pakistani men.  They did it not only to feed and satiate their own lusts, but because their religion, Islam both condones and commends such acts.  Virtually any depravity is permissible in the conduct of jihad, or holy war.  And jihad against infidels is a perpetual state of Islam.  But the scandal has been exacerbated by the authorities having a very bad case of Nelson’s eye.  They saw no evil.  Why, one asks?  Were the police and welfare authorities in the pay of the Pakistani/Islamic gangs?  No.  Were they too busy elsewhere?  Only by their own design.  Were they understaffed?  Not at all.

Why did the authorities turn a blind eye?  And, why did the media hush the whole thing up by a “hear no evil, see no evil” editorial stance?  It turns out that the ideologies of multi-culturalism and political correctness saw a greater minatory evil threatening to consume all.  The evil of a right-wing fanatical reaction.  Therefore, it was better to ignore the plight of the young girls, the rape, and the murders, lest the right-wing hear of it and be provoked to the most horrible of all evils–Islamophobic discrimination and intolerance, which, it turns out, are cardinal, blasphemous violations of the cult of multi-culturalism.

James Delingpole, writing in Breitbart News, provides a case study of an actual evil stalking the land, an evil which matches that of predatory Islam, as manifested by the Beeb.

Memo to the BBC: The ‘Far Right’ Did Not Decapitate David Haines nor Rape 1400 Girls in Rotherham

By James Delingpole  

18 Sep 2014

Bretibart London

Here is the news: in Australia, a plot by Islamic State sympathisers to capture random members of the public and chop their heads off has been foiled by security services; in Syria, two Americans and a British hostage have been beheaded by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John – and another innocent Briton (a taxi driver captured while working for an aid convoy) has been told he is next on the list; across Britain, in the aftermath of the Rotherham enquiry, more and more evidence is emerging that in towns and cities all over the country mostly underage white girls have been systematically groomed, raped and trafficked by organised Muslim gangs, with the complicity of local government authorities, charity workers, police officers and the broader Muslim community.

Luckily, thanks to the BBC, we know what the real problem is here. It is, of course, our old friends, “Islamophobia” and “the spectre of a far right” backlash.

Both of these alleged threats featured prominently on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, including an interview with a former, self-confessed “far right” thug who revealed – presumably to no listener’s especial surprise – that the organisation to which he had belonged was racist, prone to violence, and likely to react strongly to issues like the Rotherham rape gangs.

Today also ran an interview with Tell Mama – the one-man activist organisation run by Fiyaz Mughal which has long since been exposed for its exaggerations and its threadbare methodology in cooking up an alleged spate of “anti-Muslim” hate crimes.   When, for example, last year Tell Mama reported that there had been 212 anti-Muslim incidents, it turned out that 57 per cent of these comprised disobliging comments on Twitter or Facebook, many of them emanating from outside Britain.

And the BBC Today show rounded off with a Muslim spokeswoman who was given space to assure listeners that mosques around Britain were already doing a great deal to combat extremism but hadn’t been given credit for it.

Phew. So that’s all right then.  Except, of course, it’s really not all right.

If the “Far Right” really is the pre-eminent menace in Britain today, though, it has a funny way of showing it. How many schoolgirls has it raped, recently? How many people has it killed or maimed? How many bombs has it exploded? The grand total for all the above, I believe, is as near as makes no difference to zero.

Perhaps it wouldn’t matter so much if this BBC feature were a rare aberration. But it’s not. It’s long-term house policy. Barely were the bodies of the 52 victims of the 7/7 London bus and tube suicide bombings cold than the BBC’s reporters were out pounding the streets looking for evidence of the real issue of concern – not Islamist extremism and its numerous fellow-travellers, of course, but yes, for the spectre of Islamophobia and an anti-Muslim backlash by “the far right.” It responded in the same way after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby – complete, of course, with an interview about the “cycle of violence against Muslims” and the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” by our friend Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama.

It’s not just the BBC which plays this game. Earlier this week Sky News afforded a similar indulgence to convicted terrorist Shahid Butt, allowing him to justify the atrocities being committed by Islamic State by blaming them on the alleged culture of violence created by video games.  The left wing Daily Mirror meanwhile decided to hail the northern Muslim stronghold of Bradford the “second-most peaceful of Britain’s top ten cities” – in contradiction of a survey which suggested quite the opposite.  

A scandal like this on so epic a scale ought to be meat and drink to any half-way decent reporter, even in an organisation as ideologically-blinkered as the BBC. How can it not be a major story that over a period of 25 years communities across the country have been terrorised by gangs operating with near impunity, for all the world as if they were bandits on the lawless North West Frontier, not citizens of a liberal democracy?

But the BBC is the worst. For as long as I can remember, it has been talking up the “Far Right” threat, not just in its news bulletins but even in its dramas with neo-Nazis and their ilk often being invoked as the sinister bad guys in thriller series from The Professionals to Bonekickers and Spooks.

If the “Far Right” really is the pre-eminent menace in Britain today, though, it has a funny way of showing it. How many schoolgirls has it raped, recently? How many people has it killed or maimed? How many bombs has it exploded?  The grand total for all the above, I believe, is as near as makes no difference to zero.

Now this isn’t to say that the boot-boys who join these fascistic organisations are the loveliest of people nor that they don’t hold racist views. But it seems to me that if we are to use our limited resources to address the most pressing problems of our time, we ought to bend our attentions to those dangers which are most clear and present rather than to politically correct chimeras like “Islamophobia” and the “spectre of the Far Right”. (The clue for the latter is in the name: a spectre is, by nature, ghostly, insubstantial).

Otherwise what will happen is what is already happening now: you get the police turning a blind eye to antisocial behaviour by the Muslim “community”, the better to concentrate on arresting louts from the English Defence League or dads (both white and Sikh) who have had the temerity to try to take action against the gangs which have been raping their daughters. And you get a media culture which fails in its duty to expose, without fear or favour, corruption and wrongdoing wherever they are found.

As we have reported before, those 1400 victims of the Rotherham rape gangs are just the tip of the iceberg. The first case involved girls trafficked and raped by Muslim gangs dates as far back as 1989. We also know that this has been going on in towns and cities across Britain, from genteel Henley-on-Thames to Telford to parts of Norfolk.

A scandal like this on so epic a scale ought to be meat and drink to any half-way decent reporter, even in an organisation as ideologically-blinkered as the BBC. How can it not be a major story that over a period of 25 years communities across the country have been terrorised by gangs operating with near impunity, for all the world as if they were bandits on the lawless North West Frontier, not citizens of a liberal democracy? Why is not the BBC devoting its still fairly lavish resources to harrying all the bent councillors and police chiefs who have turned a blind eye to the problem and who have yet refused to resign?

And how, in all conscience, can it be so insensitive as to insult its licence-fee-paying listeners by preaching to them a gospel which most of them know not to be true: that a “far right backlash” that might happen is more worthy of our attention than a spate of rapes, bombings and murders that actually has happened, is continuing to happen, and will go on happening for as long as our politically correct establishment (of which the BBC is chief Cultural Commissar) goes on ducking the issue for fear of sounding “Islamophobic”?

 

 

Industrialised Crime Meets Multi-Cultural Self-Loathing

Let God Arise

A retired senior policewoman involved in the Rotherham crime scandal in the UK has gone public, exposing more of the terrible state of affairs which permissively tolerated the rape and slavery of thousands of young girls.  Yes, this is the UK we are speaking about.  (A couple of pieces addressing this evil can be found here, and here.)

There are two main points which come out of this new piece.  The first is the potential of police targeting to be perverted by venal, time-serving, careerist police bureaucrats.  The second point she makes reinforces one already made in the media–that is, the terrible fruits of political correctness and the political and social ideology multi-culturalism.  In this light, the worst thing we could do is shrug our shoulders at the outrage and conclude that Rotherham is an extreme outlier, not an avatar of a perverse trend. 

Firstly, the background:

Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, retired Detective Inspector Merial Buglass said she had had “many sleepless nights” knowing that the abuse was ongoing but lacking permission from her superiors to investigate further. . . .

In April 2010, whilst in her role as head of Rochdale Police’s public protection unit, Ms Buglass compiled a report detailing how predominantly white children, some as young as 12, were being groomed by gangs of Asian men as sex-slaves, and were violently abused. It has since emerged that some of the girls who were attacked in Rochdale between 1997 and 2013 were murdered at the hands of the men. The report included the details of 35 children, ten perpetrators and a further 40 suspects, and contained a plea for more resources to be granted to further investigate the heinous crimes.

It transpired that these crimes were not top of the priority list for Rochdale Police at the time.  Other, less severe, crimes were.  Police had become fixated with burnishing their crime fighting statistics.  Property crimes were believed to provide the biggest bang for their bucks.  It was relatively low-hanging fruit. Rape and murder took up too many resources, the cases were too complex, results were hard to come by.  

We believe that police targeting is an unavoidable necessity and can be extremely effective when administered by senior police officers with a dedicated and proven passion to fight, detect, and prosecute crime, rather than burnish their cv’s with falling crime statistics.  An organisation which is unable to focus its resources becomes wretchedly inefficient.  But, targeting can be a double edged sword in the wrong hands.  Far too often the “wrong hands” are senior police officers who have long ago left the front line for lard accumulating desk jobs which amount to little more than an endless cycle of “management meetings”.   Undue political pressure to “get results” for reason of making the politicians look good is also usually a major factor.

The force claims that it came under pressure from the Home Office five years ago to cut acquisitive crimes such as car theft and burglary, although the targets were removed in 2012.

 The second problem is the evil consequences of the ideology of multi-culturalism and its “attendant lord”, political correctness.

“Management appeared not to be interested, they were only interested in targets, it was a completely target-driven culture,” she said. “The main priorities were acquisitive crime – robbery, burglary and car theft. Money was being piled into [the investigation of] these crimes.  They didn’t want to class the abuse as Asian [Pakistani] on white girls. They didn’t want to cause a fuss. I took the view that this wasn’t about racism, it was about child abuse – but political correctness and cultural sensitivities were important to management.”

The ideology of multi-culturalism  elevates racism into the list cardinal sins, more important than murder and rape.  If police arrest a black person or focus on offending by a group which just happens to be Pakistani or Indian, the multi-culturalists and political correctors cry, “racism”.  Sadly, the police do not appear to have the corporate moral fibre to confront this slur head on and shame everyone who voices it.  Possibly it may be due to the police being guilty of actual racism in the past.  The upshot, however, is that organised crime in non-white communities gets an easy pass.

The day after the report was filed, Buglass met with Superintendent Martin Greenhalgh. During the meeting, she alleges he essentially told her “If I choose to investigate it, we will,” and that she replied “This is huge, there are massive threats and it will come back to bite us if you don’t do something!”

The response of the multi-culturalist infected police has been to say, yes, mistakes were made, but they are in the past.  We are no longer what we once were. But others reject that:

Commenting on the scandal, Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk said “The scandal of how police and other agencies failed children being raped on an industrial scale is getting worse every week. Police leadership have completely lost touch with ordinary people’s values.”  In 2012, nine men from Oldham and Rochdale were convicted of running a child sexual exploitation ring and were sentenced to between four and 19 years for their parts in the crimes. However, it is now clear that many responsible have still not be brought to justice. 

The police now say that they are planning to arrest hundreds of suspects in a “day of reckoning.”

Ms Buglass told reporters “I had many sleepless nights over this. We tried our best but the fact is the police failed those girls. I could not have been more vocal about the threats and risks… but I was appalled at the response.”

The idea that all cultures are equally valid and good, and that political correctors and multi-cultuaralists decry anyone who makes well reasoned distinctions between the good and bad in cultures, bears rotting fruit.  As always, it is the most vulnerable and easily preyed upon that suffer.

There are two tap-roots of these evils.  The first is a pervasive doubt and uncertainty about one’s own culture that verges on self-loathing.  Stripped from a Christian foundation, modern secularism predominantly sees the cultural values of the West as a factory of evil.   It is so consumed with the huge log of doubt and uncertainty in its own eye that it knows itself to be myopic and blinded–and hating itself all the while.

The second tap-root is like it: the self-loathing leads to a militant demand that no criticism should be made of other cultures and their values and traditions. Thou shalt affirm all cultures and their values and deny none.  Behold the wondrous works of postmodernism.

When these two tap roots become institutionalised to the extent that they shape the classrooms, the community authorities, the universities, the police, the law courts, the media, the churches, and the Parliament  then evil itself becomes institutionalised and “industrialised” whilst the community becomes riven with double standards and a wretched “hear no evil, speak no evil” cowardice.

May the Lord Jesus arise to break the arms of predatory Pakistani gangs and extend mercy and compassion to the young girls preyed upon by such evil men.  May the blood of those murdered children and young women cry out to Him from the ground.  May the respective UK authorities humble themselves in the dust before Him.

God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered;
and those who hate him shall flee before him! . . .
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows
is God in his holy habitation.
(Psalm 68: 1, 5)

Letter From the UK (About Consequences of Perverse Multi-cultualism)

Islamic Rape Gangs

Rotherham is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James Delingpole

Breitbart London

7th September 2014

If you haven’t yet listened to the latest Radio Free Delingpole podcast I urge you to do so: but first you’ll need a strong stomach.

In it, I talk to George Igler of the Discourse Institute who has been following the Rotherham child rape gang story closely for the last three years. The full story is more shocking than you can possibly imagine, not just because of the ugliness of the abuse itself (redolent of that horrible scene from the movie Taken where smack-addled girls are serially abused in a filthy dive by countless grubby men) but also because of the extent of the cover-up by the left-liberal establishment of social workers, local government officers, child welfare charities, diversity co-ordinators, not to mention the regional police forces and even imams.

Truly this is one of the biggest scandals of our time. And it’s going to get bigger.  Here are some of the disturbing revelations in the podcast.

• The rape gang phenomenon has existed in the UK for at least 25 years, the first recorded instance being of a trial in Birmingham in 1989. But – typical, this, of what was to come – the defendants were not Muslim rapists. They were the Sikh fathers of abused daughters who had tried to attack the perpetrators of the crime only to end up being arrested themselves while the police turned a blind eye to the sex crime.
• It exists not just in impoverished, racially-divided, working class Northern towns by also in places as white and genteel as Henley-on-Thames
The rape gang phenomenon has existed in the UK for at least 25 years, the first recorded instance being of a trial in Birmingham in 1989.
• It begins like this: a “Romeo” targets the girls, wins their affections, pretends to be in love with them, makes them feel grown-up with presents, treats, drink, drugs. Then the trapdoor shuts. Next thing they know these girls are being plied with booze and heroin, shut in a room with strangers – often related: cousins; brothers; etc – who serially rape them, with the whole business being filmed. The video footage is used to blackmail the girls, who in any case, generally feel too ashamed to report the crime to the authorities. Most of them become addicted to the heroin whose purpose is first to make them resist less and secondly to make them keep coming back for more, despite their better judgement.
• These practices have long been widely known to the police, to social workers, to child-care charities and local councils. All found an excuse to absolve the rape gangs of criminal behaviour by claiming that these sexual activities were consensual – ie that these girls, some as young as 11, were sluts who had it coming to them.
• Each child is worth about £200,000 (around $300,000) a year to the gangs – which makes them even more lucrative than the drugs trade.
• Money is also one of the reasons for the complicity of so many local councils. At a time of general spending cutbacks, money can always be found for jobs in the all-important “Diversity” industry. On salaries as high as £100,000 a year, senior council workers have a vested interest in not rocking the boat. Better to cover up these scandals and preserve the illusion of community cohesion then to have unwelcome public attention drawn to these unsavoury goings-on.
Rotherham – with 1400 girls abused – is just the tip of the iceberg. This has been going on, largely unchecked, all over Britain for a period of 25 years.
• Does the broader local Muslim community know what’s going on? Of course. Remember, the 200 prosecutions so far have been brought mainly against the gang organizers – not against the many thousands of men who have participated in these rape parties.
• Also, the Muslim community has deliberately exploited white liberal squeamishness by threatening race riots and by warning off police that if they try to take the matter further they will report them for “racism.”
• Why haven’t more people in authority lost their jobs? Because time and again they deploy a formulaic excuse which they may well have learned at diversity workshops organised by groups like Common Purpose: yes there has been a scandal; it may be worse than we think; but only we have the training and experience to deal with it, which is why it is vital that we keep our jobs.
• Why wasn’t this reported earlier? It was. But often the people protesting were members of the BNP or the EDL whose “far-right” taint meant that their complaints could safely be dismissed by the left-liberal Establishment as racially motivated and dishonest. The same “racism” accusation was levelled against anyone brave enough to speak out such as Labour MP Ann Cryer. Most people therefore found it more convenient to look the other way.
• Rotherham – with 1400 girls abused – is just the tip of the iceberg. This has been going on, largely unchecked, all over Britain for a period of 25 years. And, if people take apologists like this woman seriously, it may well go on largely unchecked for some time to come….

The Evils of Multi-Culturalism Take Shape

How Britain Became a Global Exporter of Terrorism

CBN News

Dale Hurd

August 29, 2014

LONDON – No one who has been paying attention to the growth of radical Islam in Britain should have been surprised that the terrorist who stood over murdered American journalist James Foley had a London accent.

Over a thousand British Muslims are now fighting for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. And more are joining every day. 

“The key thing to realize about British fighters in Syria is they’re not there to take a back seat role. They are very much at the forefront of this conflict,” Shiraz Maher, an expert at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, said.

Exporter of Terror

Britain is now a major exporter of terrorists, the result of multiculturalism. There have been warning signs for years.   Eight years ago, CBN News showed viewers Muslims protesting in London against the Mohammed cartoons and chanting “Jihad is on its way.” Today, Britain has functioning Sharia courts and Sharia patrols enforcing Islamic law on the streets.

Islamic halal food is everywhere. And Islam is today the fastest growing religion in the United Kingdom.

YouTube video shows a young white English woman in Muslim dress saying, “I gave up a successful modeling career to become a Muslim and I’m very happy.”

Even though Muslims are still a relatively small minority in Britain, many Britons feel as if their nation is being handed over to Islam, that the government doesn’t care about promoting or protecting traditional British, Judeo-Christian values either because it doesn’t believe in them anymore, or because it doesn’t want to be labeled as “intolerant.”

British civilization has been a gift to the world. But the British elites don’t care so much about their own civilization anymore. And it is into this vacuum that Islam is advancing.  Sure, the British still care about their queen and tradition, but radical Muslims have been allowed and even encouraged to build a parallel society within this officially Christian nation.  It’s a problem in several European countries. 

The West’s Sin of Self-Hatred

“The reason we have capitulated in the West so much to Islam is self-hatred,” said Anne Marie Waters, a former leftist who runs Shariawatch UK, and a rising star within the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

“There’s an underlying self-hatred of our own societies, of our own cultures,” she explained. “It’s perpetuated by the Left. We’ve got this multiculturalism, this dangerous multiculturalism in Britain, which is killing women, killing girls.”

“And the Left not only doesn’t say anything about it, but continues to push for it, even though it knows, even though it can see that it’s killing girls,” Waters continued. “We know for a fact there are mosques in this country where little girls of 8,9,10 years of age are being married and being raped.”

When British soldier Lee Rigby was decapitated in the streets of London, one of the first things Prime Minister David Cameron said was that the murder was not because of Islam.  After the Foley decapitation, Cameron said it again.  

And to be sure, many Muslims have condemned the murder.  Shuman Khan, a London Muslim, said, “As a Muslim, I feel this shouldn’t be. You shouldn’t do bad things.”  “I think it’s disgusting. I think a lot of extremists have taken over and hijacked Islam,” Qaiser Iqbal, a London Muslim, said. But Waters said that while peaceful Muslims are not to blame for the violence of radicals against women and non-Muslims, she said the religion of Islam is to blame. “We come back to this ‘It’s only a tiny minority of extremists. It’s got nothing to do with Islam.’ But the point is, this stuff is coming directly from the Quran, from the Hadith,” Waters told CBN News.

Enough Is Enough

The British government’s weak response to radical Islam has led to the formation of citizen groups and protest movements like the English Defence League and BritainFirst.  BritainFirst confronts Sharia patrols and has horrified the British establishment by having the nerve to go into mosques to pass out Bibles to Muslims.

Video shows Britain First Chairman Paul Golding giving a Muslim a Bible and saying, “There is a nice British Army Bible, spreading the word of Jesus Christ around Bradford. Reject the false prophet Mohammed and accept Jesus Christ.”

Golding defends the actions.  “This is a Christian country. Our heritage is Christian. We hold it dear,” he said. “So, giving out Christian Bibles in a Christian country on British streets to people who are British citizens – we don’t see anything wrong with that.”  But when CBN News was with Golding, he was dodging the police, who seem to view him as a troublemaker.  The British government is going to have to decide whether it cares more about being viewed as tolerant, or about stopping terrorism because the whole world is now paying the bill for Britain’s experiment in multiculturalism.

“We’ve got to start dealing with this,” Waters said. “We’ve got to say, ‘Look, we have freedom of speech. You can’t beat up women. We don’t stone people to death for their sex lives. You have to accept that or you can’t live here.'”

See the video, here.

Ignominious Multi-culturalism

Rotten Fruit

Multi-culturalism is at first glance an empty anodyne proposition.  Because it ostensibly embraces all cultures, regarding them all as equally valid and good, it has nothing meaningful or helpful to say about any culture.  (To be fair, in reality multi-culturalists are usually marked by a deep loathing for their own culture, but that’s a personal failing, not one of the ethic of multi-culuralism per se.)

Discrimination is a necessary aspect of critical and rational discourse.  Proposition A is “sound” or “unsound”; conclusion C is “invalid” or “valid”.  Action D is “ethical” or “unethical”.  The scale of “good”, “better” and “best” is always useful for critical discernment.  But multi-culturalism requires a pre-commitment that no culture or cultural group shall be subject to such critical analysis or discrimination.  When the Apostle Paul wrote, “one of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’  This testimony is true.”  (Titus 1: 12, 13) he was violating the ethic and principles of multi-culturalism, which requires that we do not say anything bad or negative about a culture.  The endless, relentless positive sentiment of multi-culturalism is nothing more than a Pollyannaish anodyne gush.

But it produces, say the multi-culturalist Pharisees, peace, tolerance and harmony in society.  Everybody tolerates every other group.  Being critical of a culture is a manifestation of intolerance, discrimination and hate speech.  Actually, on the contrary, multi-culturalism foments, encourages and empowers evil.  Society X practises cliterodectomy.  No problem. Who are we to judge another culture.  It has significance and meaning, harmony and purpose in its own context.
 

An horrific illustration of what we are describing has come to light in the UK.  Fourteen hundred children have been sexually abused in one area because multi-culturalism forbad focusing upon an ethnic group perpetrating the crimes.  This from the NZ Herald:

A new report concluded that some 1,400 children were sexually exploited in one northern England town– a damning account of the collective failure by authorities to prevent children as young as 11 from being beaten, raped and trafficked. . . .  The independent report came after a series of convictions of sex offenders in the region and ground-breaking reports in the Times of London that prompted the local council to launch an inquiry.

“The collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant,” said Jay, a former chief social work adviser to the Scottish government. “From the beginning, there was growing evidence that child sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham.”  Attention first fell on Rotherham in 2010 when five men received lengthy jail terms after convictions of grooming teens for sex. Later, investigations began into why authorities failed to act even after frontline social workers suggested things were amiss.

Why were the authorities turning a blind eye to this systematic gross abuse of young people and those that preyed upon them?  Because of the ethic and dominance of multi-culturalism.  It turns out the perpetrators were all of one ethnicity, and such things shall not be identified or spoken of.  

Even more damming was the fact that victims described the perpetrators as “Asian” and yet the council failed to engage with the town’s Pakistani community.  “Some councilors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away” Jay said. “Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”  Jay cited examples of “children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally-violent rapes and threatened they would be next.” [Emphasis, ours]

Since it was not politically correct to focus upon an ethnic group as the perpetrators of a criminal acts,  officials and politicians just hoped it would go away. 

James Delingpole describes the multi-culturalist mindset that led to this debacle:

Q: When is the sexual abuse of children culturally, socially and politically acceptable?

A: When it’s committed with industrial efficiency by organised gangs of mainly Pakistani men in English Northern towns like Burnley, Oldham and Rotherham, of course.

But obviously you’re not allowed to admit this or you might sound racist. That’s why, for example, in today’s BBC report into the fact that at least 1400 children were subjected to “appalling” sexual abuse in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, you have to wade 20 paragraphs in before finally you discover the ethnic identity of the perpetrators.

And even then, the embarrassing fact slips out only with the most blushing mealy-mouthedness:

By far the majority of perpetrators of abuse were described as “Asian” by victims.

Well hang on, a second. What this phrase seems to be hinting at is the possibility that the men involved weren’t “Asian” (note to US readers: Asian is UK PC-speak for Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, not orientals) but that the victims mistakenly took them to be so. Is that actually the case or not?

Let’s have a look at the names of the Rotherham men found guilty by Sheffield Crown Court in 2010 of raping or sexually abusing girls as young as 12 shall we. Maybe that’ll help.

• Zafran Ramzan
• Razwan Razaq
• Umar Razaq
• Adil Hussain
• Mohsin Khan

Nope. Absolutely no clues there, then…

It turns out the authorities knew exactly what was going on–both that large numbers of children were being systematically abused, and who the perpetrators were, but they decided that a greater good would be achieved if the authorities refrained from any appearance of racism and a transgression of multi-culturalism. 

The local authorities, in other words, knew exactly what was going on. Yet still they did nothing. Why?  Well we’ve already answered that, pretty much. It’s because the kind of politically correct, left-leaning and basically rather thick people that local authorities like Rotherham Council tend to have working for them are so paralysed by modish concerns about cultural sensitivity that they have made an obscene judgement call: better to allow at least 1400 kids to be hideously abused than to be thought guilty of the far greater crimes of being thought a bit racist or accidentally offending someone.

(And this isn’t an incident confined to Rotherham by the way. The same thing happened recently in Oxford, again involving men with decidedly un-Anglo-Saxon names, again over a long period of time because all the relevant authorities were scared of sounding the alarm in case they came across as racist)

Yep, these people really are that thick and warped. They’ve had it drilled into them – probably on courses like this one, organised by Common Purpose – that they must celebrate “diversity” at every opportunity. And if that means letting a few Pakistani men rape kids, douse them with petrol and threaten them with guns, well who are we to judge? Quite possibly it’s one of those vital cultural differences that we’ll be trained better to understand when we attend our next Common Purpose course with some title like Embracing The Other: Leadership Strategies For Multicultural Community Development. Till then, let’s not be quick to cast the first stone, eh? After all, there may be aspects of our culture that they find equally alien and troubling. The rule of law say; respect for women; children’s rights; trendy Western liberal crap like that…

The reality lies here: a finite point has no ultimate meaning unless it is seen in relation to the infinite.  Remove the infinite, eternal and unchangeable God from one’s world-view, and nothing has any real significance or meaning.  Multi-culturalism is an attempt to make all cultures equally valid, equally insignificant.  But its necessary ethical accompaniment is that no culture, no ethnicity may be singled out, identified, or discussed negatively.  Better to tolerate everything, even the grossly criminal. 

Multi-culturalism is a rotten fruit of the West’s regnant atheism. 

Defence of Britain Hangs on Skyhooks

Trojan Horse debate: We were wrong, all cultures are not equal

For years, we all turned a blind eye to the segregation of Muslim pupils. Now it is time to stand up to propagators of barbarism and ignorance 

We have been following the “Trojan Horse” issue Birmingham where a group of dedicated, consistent Islamic activists have sought to take control of some public schools by means of infiltration, subterfuge, and dissembling, until it is too late.  They regard this attempt as jihad–a manifestation of holy war.  The matter has become exposed, the government has reacted, and for now, it seems, the effort has failed.  We said at the time that this would shake the British establishment, for two reasons.

Firstly, the establishment for years has told itself and everyone else that Britain is a multi-cultural, tolerant nation.  Thou shalt not judge.  Thou shalt not offend.  Thou shalt accept each and all in good faith–etc. etc.  Secondly, the establishment has chosen to adopt the view that underneath all cultures and religions everyone really is a thoroughly good chap.  Therefore, all cultures are benign, positive, and fundamentally humanist in their ideological framework.  

In this view, Islamic schools would basically be schools where teachers and pupils dressed quaintly, but apart from that delightful oddity, would be champions of secular humanism.  

The Trojan Horse project of an attempted Islamic takeover of some public schools has shaken the toleranzistas up a good deal.  But, ideologically the establishment has nowhere to go.  Long ago it threw out the Christian faith in favour of secular rationalistic jibberish.  It’s between a rock and a hard place.  It does not want Islamic schools, but the grounds of its opposition are tenuous indeed.  

Allison Pearson, writing in the Telegraph provides us with an example of the confused melee now on display.

Let me quote Myriam Francois-Cerrah, a writer and Muslim convert, who told Channel 4 News on Tuesday that she rejected calls by the Prime Minister and Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, for schools to promote British values. “In many ways, the problem is creating a hierarchy of cultures when you say you need to promote British values,” she objected. “What does that say to children in a classroom whose heritage harks from outside the British Isles? It says this country has superior moral values and you are coming from some backward culture whose values you … must not consider equal to our own.”

Funnily enough, that’s exactly what we are saying, Myriam. Spot on! A Muslim girl who winds up in Bolton or Luton should thank her lucky stars she doesn’t live in Sudan – or Pakistan, where, only last month, a woman was stoned to death by her family for the crime of marrying a man of whom they disapproved. Farzana Parveen’s father explained: “I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it.”

Are British values superior to Mr Parveen’s? I do hope so. 

Yes, but here’s the rub.  By what standard are British values superior?  Rigorously remove the consideration of the command of God, Thou shalt not kill–as Britain has done, on what basis does one prove conclusively and certainly that Mr Parveen’s values are wrong, or evil. 

Ah, yes, we cannot say that–for to speak of evil implies there are ultimate standards by which things are to be judged, which in turn requires, or presupposes a holy eternal, ultimate God.  The best that the establishment can intone is that such things are not British.  But Britain has already committed itself to the ultimacy of multi-culturalism.  It’s a bit late now to raise objections.  Despite this, Pearson makes the attempt:

Unfortunately, the great lie underpinning the creed of multiculturalism, as spouted by Francois‑Cerrah and her ilk, is that all cultures are “equally valid”. Well, patently, they’re not. The reason irate Pakistani patriarchs are not chucking bricks at their errant daughters in the Birmingham Bull Ring is because Britain has a basically uncorrupt police force, a robust judiciary and an enlightened, hard-won system of liberal values that regards women and girls as equals, not third-class citizens.

But instead of standing up to barbarism and ignorance, too often we have looked away in embarrassment or fear. How many teachers have averted their gaze when 13-year-old Muslim girls suddenly disappear from the classroom to be taken “home” for a forced marriage, because this would present unwelcome evidence that some cultures are less valid than others?

How many health professionals in Bradford are concerned, but never say so, that intermarriage in the Muslim community – 75 per cent of Pakistanis in the city are married to their first cousin – is causing babies to be born blind, deaf and with other disabilities? Back in 2008, when Labour environment minister Phil Woolas said that British Pakistanis were fuelling the rate of birth defects, he was slapped down by Downing Street, with a spokesman for prime minister Gordon Brown saying the issue was not one for ministers to comment on. Government after government has filed this thorny issue in “The Too Difficult Box”, the title of a timely new book edited by former Cabinet minister Charles Clarke. . . .

Already reactionary forces are emerging.  Since Islamic faith schools appear unacceptable, let’s not discriminate against them.  Let’s get rid of all faith schools so that we can prove non-discrimination and even-handedness. 

Growing suggestions that all faith schools should be banned because some Muslims cannot be trusted to prepare their children for life in contemporary society are simply outrageous. Why should Catholic, Jewish and Church of England schools, which provide a terrific, disciplined learning environment for millions of children, be forced to cease their good work and shut down? Why must the tolerant be made to carry the can for the intolerable? 

But it’s secular humanism that gave us the relativistic framework in the first place–a world-view which preached the equality of all views ancillary to a secularist core, which all men of good will would embrace (unless they were reactionary primitives).   

The crisis in Birmingham made me look up Ray Honeyford. The headmaster of a school in Bradford, Honeyford published an article highly critical of multiculturalism around the same time that I was wondering why Muslim girls in west London weren’t allowed to learn how to swim. Honeyford was damned as a racist and forced to take early retirement, but how prophetic his words seem now. The alarmed headmaster referred to a “growing number of Asians whose aim is to preserve as intact as possible the values of the Indian subcontinent within a framework of British social and political privilege”. Honeyford questioned the wisdom of the local education authority in allowing such practices as the withdrawal of children from school for months at a time, in order to go “home” to Pakistan, on the grounds that this was appropriate to the children’s native culture.

“Those of us working in Asian areas,” he wrote, “are encouraged, officially, to ‘celebrate linguistic diversity’ – ie, applaud the rapidly mounting linguistic confusion in these growing number of city schools in which British-born Asian children begin their mastery of English by being taught in Urdu.”

Ray Honeyford died in 2012, so he didn’t live to see the Leeds secondary school where every single pupil, including a handful of white ones, is being taught English as a foreign language. He didn’t need to see it. He knew it would happen, and what the cost would be, and his warnings were shouted down or put away in the Too Difficult Box. 

Pearson’s naivete leads her to think that if children are really exposed to British values they will experience a gravitational pull.  What on earth is that, you ask.  Is she suggesting that the human heart is bent instinctively and natively to “British values”?  How parochial.  How quaint.  How Victorian.  How unChristian!  And there lies the rub.  We have arrived at the real problem.  Britain is not God-which doubtless will come as a bit of a shock to some.   It’s this kind of thinking which implies that Britain will not win this battle. 

I think the battle we must fight now really has very little to do with sincere religious belief. It’s about social control, repression, misogyny and cruelty. The battle is about Kamaljit, a 14-year-old girl I once taught, who chided me when I read the class a story about snakes in India, like the good, clueless multiculturalist that I was. “Please, Miss, we don’t like that stuff,” she said. “We’re English. We like ice skating.”

We have to expose Muslim children to as wide a range of experiences as possible so they will feel the gravitational pull of British values. . . . But there is another song, and a better one, and children will learn it if they are only given the chance: Belong, belong, belong.

Good luck with that.  

Letter From the UK (About The Lunatic Asylum)

‘Refusal will result in a Racial Discrimination note being attached to your child’s educational record…’

By Daniel Hannan 

Last updated: November 22nd, 2013
The Telegraph

What is the single most depressing aspect of this letter? Is it the idea of labelling eight-year-olds racists? Is it the moronic conflation of religion and ethnicity? Is it the ugly grammar (“As such our expectations are that all children in years 4 to 6 attend school on Wednesday…”)? Is it the bullying tone? Is it the unconscionable choice of font? Is it that someone can write that way and yet hold a position of authority in a school?

Or is it this: that how ever many times prime ministers declare multi-culturalism to be a failed ideology, a petty, officious, bossy, self-righteous, self-serving, Leftist chunk of the public sector remains stuck in 1980?

Strange Bedfellows

The Metamorphosis of Marx

They say that politics make strange bedfellows.  Never is this more evident in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  There is a strong current of support for Palestinians and Islamic causes generally in the West.  Often-times the support comes from “progressive” components of the political spectrum.  But echoes can also be found in residual anti-semitic groups, the main stream media, and the universities. 

Strangely, what is being defended and implicitly promoted is a cause which has overtly fostered and promoted the killing of innocents to make a political point and to terrorise others.  It is a cause notorious for its authoritarianism, its subjugation of women, its maltreatment of homosexuals, and its authoritarian subjugation of all under its sway.  How come?  How does it come about that Western feminists, homosexuals, libertines, and the licentious apparently are relaxed and comfortable supporting and advocating for those who would snap their necks in a second if they had the chance? 

One possible cause is ignorance and condescension.  Often times progressives in the West are so ideologically hidebound they remain remarkably ignorant of actual humanity and reality.
  The rationalisation runs something like this: all human nature is intrinsically good, therefore all humans are decent, upstanding, respectful, life-honouring, and noble.  All contrary beliefs and actions exist only because of external causes, such as poverty, oppression, and exploitation, over which these oppressed folk have little no control.  If these external conditions are changed, ignorant beliefs and brutish practices will fade away.  Change the circumstances and nirvana will break forth.  What is offensive in Islamic ideology will dissipate.  The need for Islam (and religion generally) will evaporate.  Palestinians in the West Bank will end up being the mirror image of a cardigan wearing, intellectual in the sociology department of Progressive College, New York.

At this point we need to acknowledge the perverted genius of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that misshapen child of the Enlightenment, who proclaimed that man was born perfect, but corrupted by society. His disciples are now legion.  We hear the muttered mantras throughout the Western Commentariat–“We are all Rousseauians, now.”  Indeed, you are. 

A second cause is related to this prevalent ignorance.  “Soft-Marxism” remains an extremely powerful force in Western minds.  When the avatar of the perfect society failed with the collapse of the Soviet Union the Marxists did not fade away.  The ideology morphed into other outlets.  For some reason, Marxists or those whose world-view was consciously or unconsciously shaped by Hegel and Marxism, were not persuaded by Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man.  Nor were they persuaded by Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations.  For these lingering Marxists–hugely influential in colleges and the media and the Commentariat–the belief in inevitable secular progress remained firm.  History continues to move forwards to a great and glorious climax.  The path remains the well-trodden highway of revolution.  Since progress is inevitable the basic commitment of Marxism and its fellow travellers remains to tearing down authority, structure, and powers so that the inevitable progress of history towards ultimate consummation can be hastened. 

This explains what homosexuals, feminists, and minority grievance groups find in common with other oppressed minorities, such as Palestinians.  These groups blame all their ills upon external oppressors.  They find natural ideological kinship with other minority oppressed groups such as Muslim enclaves in Western nations.  Instead of “workers of the world, unite!” the ideological slogan morphs into “oppressed peoples of the world, unite!”

As Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey put it

In the classic Marxist drama of history, the oppressed were the proletariat (urban factory workers); in the newer multiculturalist ideologies, the oppressed are women, blacks, or homosexuals.  In classic Marxism, the proletariat will rise up against their oppressors–the capitalists; in the updated form, people of various colors and genders are likewise called to harness their rage and do battle against their oppressors–usually white male homosexuals. 

The politically correct campus today offers countless variations on the Marxist theme, but the common core of all these variations is revealed by the way they overlap and complement one another.  The University of California at Santa Barbara offers a course listed as Black Marxism, linking Marxism and black liberation.  Brown University connects black and homosexual liberation in a course called Black Lavender: Study of Black Gay/Lesbian Plays.  UCLA relates Hispanic ethnicity with homosexuality n a course listed as Chicana Lesbian Literature. . . . As a result of this massive politicization of  education, college students are being taught to apply Marxist categories to law, politics, education, family studies, and many other fields.  [Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1999), p. 233.]

Given this backdrop it is not surprising at all that the Commentariat instinctively rushes to support embattled Muslim enclaves wherever they are found.  Stupid, to be sure.  Naive, without a doubt.  Myopic, unquestionably.  But, understandable nonetheless.  Marxism always was amongst the most stupid and foolish of ideologies and philosophies.  We expect nothing less from its modern step-children.

Western support for Islamic terrorism, for the “right” of Palestinian rockets to rain down incessantly upon Israel without Israeli retribution, for Islamic alls for the obliteration of Israel from the map, while grotesque is both expected and understandable, given the idolatries that wrack its collective psyche.  It serves to unveil the modern Western mind, exposing how perverted and corrupt it has become. 

>A Great Deal of Nonsense

>Islamic Multi-culturalism

A great deal of nonsense has been written about Muslim tolerance–that, in contrast to Christian brutality against Jews and heretics, Islam showed remarkable tolerance for conquered people, treated them with respect, and allowed them to pursue their faiths without interference. This claim probably began with Voltaire, Gibbon and other eighteenth-century writers who used it to cast the Catholic Church in the worst possible light. The truth about life under Muslim rule is quite different.

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0061582603&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrIt is true that the Qur’an forbids forced conversions. however, that recedes to an empty legalism given that many subject peoples were “free to choose” conversion as an alternative to death or enslavement. That was the usual choice presented to pagans, and often Jews and Christians also were faced with that option or with one only somewhat less extreme. In principle as “People of the Book”, Jews and Christians were supposed to be tolerated and permitted to follow their faiths. But only under quite repressive conditions: death was (and remains) the fate of anyone who converted to either faith. Nor could any new churches or synagogues be built. Jews and Christians also were prohibited from praying or reading their scriptures aloud–not even in their homes or in churches or synagogues–lest Muslims accidentally hear them. And, as the remarkable historian of Islam Marshall G. S. Hodgson (1922-1968) has pointed out, from very early times Muslim authoritities often went to great lengths to humiliate and punish dhimmis–Jews and Christians who refused to convert to Islam. It was official policy that dhimmis would “feel inferior and . . . know ‘their place’ . . . [imposing laws such as] that Christians and Jews should not ride horses, for instance, but at most mules, or even that they should wear marks of their religion on their costume when among Muslims.” In some places non-Muslims were prohibited from wearing clothing similar to that of Muslims, nor could they be armed. In addition, non-Muslims were invariably severely taxed compared with Muslims.

These were the normal circumstances of Jewish and Christian subjects of Muslim states, but conditions often were far worse. . . . This is not to say that Muslims were more brutal or less tolerant than were Christians or Jews, for it was a brutal and intolerant age. It is to say that efforts to portray Muslims as enlightened supporters of multiculturalism are at best ignorant.

Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (New York: HarperOne, 2009), p. 28f.

>Can Anything Good Come out of the UK?

>Are Children ‘Infected’ by Judeo-Christian Values?

By Paul Diamond
Posted in National Review Online on March 16, 2011

In an important case in the United Kingdom, the High Court held this week that Christian views on sexual morality could be “inimical” to a child’s welfare.

Mr. and Mrs. Johns wanted to foster a child as young as five as respite carers for parents who were having difficulty. Some 15 years earlier they had successfully fostered, but work commitments meant that they were unable to devote sufficient time to children. When they retired, they applied to be registered as foster carers again.

Early on in the assessment process, their Christian faith was identified (they are Pentecostals). It was felt their views on sexual ethics conflicted with the duty to promote and value diversity. Of course, the Johns said they would love and care for the child but they couldn’t promote the homosexual lifestyle. They were rather bewildered by the process, as they wanted to foster a five-year-old. Mr. Johns fatally said he would “gently turn them round,” and so the seeds for a major legal case were sown.

Derby City Council refused to register them as foster carers, with the Johns asserting that they were being denied because they were Christians.

The state-sponsored Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened and argued that it was the duty of the state to protect vulnerable children from becoming “infected” with Judeo-Christian values of sexual morality.

The rest is history, and in a startling judgment, the High Court held last Monday that the United Kingdom is a secular state and that Christianity as part of the law is “mere rhetoric.” For Americans to note, the United Kingdom is formally a Christian state with the Queen as the head of the Church of England.

The court made a series of statements to the effect that rights of sexual orientation trump religious freedom, that a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality, that the Johns’ traditional Christian views could conflict with the “duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked after children,” and finally that Article 9 (Europe’s pale reflection of the First Amendment) does not protect beliefs contrary to the interests of the child.

This is but one of a number of cases that display clear hostility to Christian and Judeo-Christian values. There are also cases on British Airways permitting the hijab, turban, and Siska Hindu ponytail to be worn, but banning the Cross; and cases on dismissal of employees not wishing to participate in recognition of same-sex civil partnerships, or voicing support of marriage (which discriminates against people who live together), or offering (Christian) prayer.

These examples must be juxtaposed with the excessive sensitivity in British society to the rights of Muslims. There has been an explosion of radical Islamists in London, the latest being the Detroit bomber Umar Farouk. The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for the introduction of sharia law, calling it “inevitable.” He was supported by the Lord Chief Justice.

It is important for Americans to understand these developments, so they can learn from the British experience. The first lesson is the speed and success of the secular ideology in replacing Judeo-Christian freedoms. In 1997, the United Kingdom was a more stable country than the United States; an evolving state with a millennium of religious liberty. If someone had told me then that within little more than a decade, stable Christian households would be deemed unsuitable to foster children, or that Crosses would be banned, or that hate-speech laws would be used to crush the very ideas of dissent, I would not have believed it. I would have been labeled an alarmist if I had expressed views to that avail.

The second factor to recognize is that the terms liberal, diversity, and tolerance are descriptors for a political program which logic and law alone cannot explain. Thirdly, the secular movement is but a variant of the utopian ambitions that have inspired man from the beginning of time. However, the endgame of such programs is always the same. To repeatedly promote a failed ideology is base ignorance or, at its worst, criminal.

A final note: Do not lose hope for the United Kingdom, we have been here before. And as Prime Minister Winston Churchill said: “Never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing great or small, large or petty — never give in.”

— Paul Diamond, barrister, was counsel in the Johns case.

>Multi-Culturalism Is Always Repressive

>A Peculiar Kind of “Freedom” That The Caesars Knew Well

When a nation officially ascribes to multi-culturalism, oppression and repression follow. Multi-culturalism is an ideology. The official adoption of multi-culturalism results in the imposition of that ideology upon the citizens. This is the situation to which we have been consigned in New Zealand. But we are not alone. Multi-culturalism is both dominant and regnant throughout the Western world, notwithstanding a slight crack in the edifice showing up in Angela Merkel’s Germany. (Merkel, of course, recently pronounced multi-culturalism to have “utterly failed” in Germany.)

The causal link between multi-culturalism and civil repression is neither hard to establish nor understand. The ideology of multi-culturalism asserts that all cultures (and their cultural practices and manifestation) must be tolerated. To be part of a specific culture is a human right, and no culture can, therefore, be regarded as superior or better than another, any more than women are to be regarded as superior or inferior to men. Both sexes are human; both sexes have human rights. Multi-culturalism puts all cultures in the same frame.

When multi-culturalism becomes official to the point it is enforced by law, it necessarily becomes illegal to discriminate against any particular culture, its practices and beliefs. This sanctioned non-discrimination requires that no culture within a society is officially criticised; more, it requires that no culture is subjected to criticism of any sort by any other culture or belief. To speak and act in such a way as to be critical of another culture causes offence to those of that culture. Such criticism, therefore, violates the human rights of other citizens.

Here is where repression necessarily follows. When multi-culturalism becomes the official ideology of a nation-state, only a certain kind of culture in the public square becomes tolerable and acceptable and approved. (By the “public square” we mean that which can be seen and observed by the public. This includes acts, views, opinions, and beliefs which occur within the four walls of one’s home, if those become known in public–as when a child for example may describe some family activity in its home to a teacher or class at school. At that point, what is done in that particular home has become part of the public square.) Multi-culturalism, therefore, can only proceed and be sustained if it endorses and establishes one particular culture only as not only superior to all other cultures, but alone enjoying the sanctions and protections of the law. That culture is the culture of multi-culturalism itself, which in turn, is built and predicated upon a particular ideology and religion (the ideology and religion of secular humanism.)

Thus multi-culturalism extends its tolerance and indulgence to other cultures and beliefs on its terms, and its terms alone. If other cultures do not accept its terms, the law will be used to oppress the adherents of alternative cultures, and repress the culture itself. The terms of multi-culturalism as the established church are as follows: everyone is welcome to follow and believe whatever culture they wish, provided that culture is itself approved by the uber-culture of multi-culturalism itself. (This is the civic and ideological equivalent of Henry Ford’s remark: “you can choose whatever colour you wish for your car, as long as its black.”) Multi-culturalism approves any and every cultural manifestation in the public square which tolerates all other cultures and does not in any way criticise them or disagree with them or offend them. That is the only kind of culture which multi-culturalism accepts.

Now this repression is eerily parallel to the religious and cultural “freedom” practised by the Roman Emperors. In the Empire you could believe whatever you chose and all cultures were welcome–provided they all acknowledged the overlordship of the Emperor himself. Caesar was Lord of all. This meant that no religion which proclaimed a god above Caesar would be tolerated. It meant that inevitably believers of the Christian religion would be persecuted and their religion repressed.

Thus, when multi-culturalism became the established religion and culture of the West, it was inevitable that some cultures, particularly the Christian culture would begin to be repressed. Firstly, manifestations of Christian belief and culture would be removed from the public square. Secondly, Christians would be forbidden to apply Christian teachings and beliefs in their public relationships with others: they would be told whom they could hire and fire; whom they were to do business with–regardless of the teachings of the faith. Thirdly, they would be repressed if they made their faith manifest to others. Such actions would be deemed offensive and not in accordance with multi-culturalism. Fourthly, they would be forbidden from spreading the good news of the coming of the Messiah of God to others. Such acts would imply the superiority of the Christian faith over others–a violation of the fundamental tenets of the multi-culturalism establishment.

We are not saying that the established religion of multi-culturalism intends aforetime to single out Christians and the Christian church in distinction from all other beliefs and religions, but it inevitably ends up doing so because, as in time of the Roman Empire, the total claims and prerogatives of the God we Christians worship and proclaim–that He is the Father of all, Almighty, and the Maker of heaven and earth–requires oppression and repression by the multi-cultural establishment. “All-roads-lead-to-Rome” cultures and religions are not equally oppressed or repressed precisely because such cultures and religions do indeed believe that all roads inevitably lead to Rome–something that pleases the uber-culture of multi-culturalism. In this case, however, the tolerable and acceptable dogma is that all roads lead to secular humanism and its overlordship of everything. Acknowledge that, and you’re sweet, as they say.

A recent article in the Daily Telegraph described the current state of oppression and repression of Christians and the Christian faith in the United Kingdom. The UK has rabidly extended the claims, prerogatives, and establishment of multi-culturalism over the past twenty years. It is, therefore, no surprise that oppression and repression of Christians and the faith is growing. As Pope Benedict has repeatedly warned the real enemy we face in the West is secular humanism and the establishment of multi-culturalism.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury is essentially talking sense, but unfortunately what happens with this debate, like those about political correctness and illegal immigration, is that the serious issue gets lost below the silly. Christmas lights are the light froth at the top that covers the real story, which is that practising Christians really are being harassed by Britain’s “equality and diversity” laws in a way that is quite new, illiberal and authoritarian.
Earlier this year Lord Carey criticised the judiciary for making “disturbing and dangerous” rulings that could lead to Christians being banned from the workplace. He was speaking before relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane lost his case against dismissal, after he refused to give sex therapy to gay couples.

Other cases include a paediatrician thrown off an adoption board because she would not recommend giving children to gay couples, and a man suspended from a Christian homeless charity after a colleague asked him in a private conversation about his views on homosexuality. . . .

It’s not just about sexuality and it’s not just Christians; earlier this year a court ruled that the JFS, an Orthodox Jewish school in north London, had broken discrimination laws by refusing to accept a boy they did not regard as Jewish. The state, in other words, was overruling the Orthodox Jewish authorities in stating who they considered Jewish.

How is it the state’s right to decide this? Because under Britain’s equality laws, where public authorities are now required to “promote equality in everything that they do, also making sure that other organisations meet their legal duties to promote equality while also doing so themselves”, any belief that clashes with the state’s creed of “equality and diversity” is illegal. That’s not liberalism as I understand it. . . .

 It’s almost as if Britain’s social and sexual revolutionaries have gone all Animal Farm and started to mimic the most intolerant aspects of the old regime, so that we’re back to the days of Elizabethan England, where only those who believed in the state church could be full members of society.

>Rising Tides

>“Two Kingdoms” Will Always End as Only One

Peter Jones
Director, Truth Exchange

One Ring to rule them all

One Ring to find them

One Ring to bring them all

And in the darkness bind them

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie

J R R Tolkien

Having been rasied in the cultural centre of the universe–Liverpool, England–and having taught among the Gauls for 18 years in the South of France, I keep my eyes upon Europe.

In the UK, a new Government education policy require the teaching of “multiculturalism” is every subject. Multiculturalism takes many forms. . . . To the statement in a recent poll, “Religion is very important to me in my daily life,” only 24% of the British responded positively–the next-to-lowest rate in the world. It turns out that there is hardly any faith for the Queen to defend. Easy job, great pay!

The lowest response came from the French at 23%. Most “religious” Frenchmen call themselves “Catholic”, but only 52% of Catholics believe there is a God! Of those who do, around 80% believe that God is a “force” or “energy”. And France has another pressing problem: no French babies. The “Nation” is not reproducing itself. Is there a relationship between physical reproduction and religious commitment?

Into this spiritual and demographic multicultural void gallops militant Islam–armed with both faith and babies.

The highest response (to the question about the importance of religion in daily life) came from the Egyptians (96%). This figure is very typical for Muslims, who also have the highest birth rate in Europe. Mohammed is the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam (and in the UK). By 2025, one third of all European children will be Muslim. Then we shall talk of Eurabia, because young Muslims are increasingly radicalised. While only 17% of British Muslims over 55 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in the land of the Magna Carta, 40% of their children under 24 want sharia to rule.

For French writer, Jean Raspail, the present social crisis is a clash between two definitions of France: “the Nation” (with its long history, biological identity and “Christian” religion) and “the Republic” (a political notion based on the secular “values” of democratic utopianism). A comparable clash occurs in Germany between the children of Luther and Bach (who produced the secular pluralistic state of modern Germany, but are no longer making little Luthers or Bachs) and the recent Turkish immigrants (many of who do not speak and do not with to speak German, but who produce little Turks).

A similar crisis is brewing in the USA, bwere two nations of America are in tension. One is “America the free” (freedom of speech and religion, which has become the natural domain of pluralistic secularism). The other is “America under God” (the belief that the American experiment depends on a constant appeal to “the Creator” and to the ethics of the Bible). The spiritual domain hs always been tacitly granted to Christianity, exercising, as if by divine right, though without a Queen, a sort of spiritual custodianship of the culture.

All that has changed! The tension has become a clash. Christianity has been weakened by the power of secularism and by rising religious paganism that demands equal spiritual custodianship of the nation and free political expression of its view. (We still await the arrival in force of Islam, though a congressman was recently sworn into office, hand on the Koran.)

Secularism, paganism and Islam all have their sights on a this-worldly social victory. Christians have a more complicated stance, with one foot in the kingdom of this world, and one in the kingdom of Christ. This dual-citizenship frees them in this world to stand for truth and justice, have babies, build churches as signs of the coming kingdom of the transformed universe, and live for Christ, whatever the cost . . . .

One day Christians may be jailed in the brave new world of once “Christian” Albion–with no help from the Queen. But eventually they will live free forever in the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Kingdom of Christ, with those from every nation and tongue who honour Jesus as Lord of lords and King of kings.

>Welcome to Your Future

>Secular Multi-Culturalism Will Always Drive Christianity Underground

Multi-culturalism sounds like a neat idea. Reasonable people appreciate its implicit tolerance, acceptance, welcoming facade. Respecting, celebrating, and appreciating differences seems like a refined human attitude. And this is great–up to a point.

But if we live in a fallen world, where evil is intrinsic to life itself, indiscriminate multi-culturalism would rapidly becomes an oppressive disaster. We do, and it is. It destroys society itself–for there is nothing around which society can cohere. In the end the only force which can keep society from disintegrating when multi-culturalism is the regnant value is the oppression of the state.

Christians live under the rule of zero-tolerance of evil–within one’s own heart and life first and foremost, but also in one’s family and community and society. But Christians also live under the rule of the utter impotence of laws and regulation to remove evil. Therefore, Christianity alone holds a zero tolerance towards evil, on the one hand, and a belief in a very limited state and coercive power, on the other. Rules and regulations do not the righteous make. Christ alone can deliver mankind from evil, for He alone died for sin and to sin and rose again to newness of life totally lived for God (Romans 6: 1–11). When individuals and families are baptized into Christ, they are baptized into His death to sin and His life to God. For Christians rules and regulations are always servants of Christ and not His master.

Christians therefore live under the obligation of maximal lawkeeping (we speak of the law of Christ), but Christians also recognize the inability of non-Christians to reverence, let alone keep, Christ’s law. This means that Christians, on one level, tolerate an awful lot of evil in society, whilst at the same time they earnestly direct the attention to society-at-large to Christ alone as the One who can deliver from sin’s corruption and grasp.

Secular multi-culturalism, however, does not recognize evil within cultures. Therefore it sets itself up to tolerate every culture and defend its equal place and expression in society. Every culture has equal bragging rights. Every culture is to be affirmed. The one thing that will absolutely not be tolerated is any form of discrimination or criticism of a culture or cultural practice. So, Islam practises polygamy and the forced marriage of children. The multi-culturalist says, “That’s cute”. Islam practises honour killings. Multi-culturalism says, “How interesting”. The West kills off its unborn children. The multi-culturalism intones, “I believe in a woman’s right to choose”.

The Christian, however, not only must discriminate between evil and righteous cultural practises whether in Timbuktoo or Topeko, but is obligated to mould the culture of his own life around the commands of Christ. And this affects everything. Everything. Even down to how he eats and drinks (I Corinthians 10:31). It affects how he lives and with whom he will live. It affects how he worships and with whom he will worship.

Multi-culturalism, however, insists that you will either accept and tolerate all, or you will be punished. This is to say that multi-culturalism will tolerate only a certain kind of Christian religion–one that would dethrone the Christ and replace multi-culturalism as His overlord. This situation is a ground-hog day repetition of Roman multi-culturalism. Everything was tolerated so long as Caesar was recognized as the over-lord.

Here is a classic example of secular humanism’s multi-culturalism at work. It illustrates how it will always turn upon and oppress the Christian faith and Christians. The next step will be active persecution, if it is allowed to continue.

Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate

Published October 22, 2010

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

“It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.” Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling. “It’s really difficult to say at this point what could potentially happen,” he told the newspaper, noting that there are exemptions in the law for gender when there is a shared living space.

But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as “outrageous. Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with,” he said.  “Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church — an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity.”

Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization. The ad included the words, “Christian roommate wanted,” along with the woman’s contact information. Had the ad not included the word “Christian,” Haynes said, it would not have been illegal. “If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?” Haynes asked.

Oster said he hopes the case will eventually be dropped and that he’s sent a letter to the state asking the authorities to dismiss the case as groundless. “The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion,” he said. “And we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint.”

But Haynes said officials plan on pursuing the matter. “We want to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” she said.

Hat Tip: Andrei at NZ Conservative