MichaelCD - The Blog.

The thoughts of Michael Cadwallader. Coffee loving, history book reading, Cheshire man.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

More on Equality Law

In today’s Daily Mail, Melanie Phillips points out the fundamental illiberalism of New Labour’s new ‘Equality’ law:

For with this decision, the country that first invented the concept of liberalism — the land of John Locke and John Stuart Mill, who fashioned the model of a free and tolerant society for the world — is now set to destroy the concept at its very heart.

That concept is freedom of conscience, the right of religious bodies to organise their own affairs in accordance with their own religious and moral precepts. For that is the real issue at the heart of the gay adoption row.

My views on the adoption row have been widely disseminated, and are fairly similar to Melanie's – I also believe it’s an attack on freedom of conscience. And like me, Melanie has also likened the behaviour of modern 'secular moralists' to the behaviour of Medieval Inquisitors.

The other issue involved in this debate, which I did touch on in my post but only briefly, was the refusal by some landlords to accept homosexual couples to share a room in their B&Bs. Now this is to be outlawed, and is plainly viewed as discrimination, not just to leftists, but also liberals and so-called conservatives. Yes Matthew Parris, I am talking about you.

The argument about this has tended to be brought out by supporters of the bill when they’re losing the argument over the adoption row.
As soon as the illiberal nature of it is pointed out to its supporters, the cry comes up “well what about the B&B’s? Surely by supporting the exemption for adoption, you believe that there should be an exemption for them, too”. This is an attempt to lead into "well then, you would probably agree with discrimination on a racial basis as well".

The thing is, to call this discrimination is outrageously disingenuous. Because, quite simply, the individual cases are not about withdrawing services based on sexual preference, it’s about the acts involved within the landlords own premise.
The landlords have no problem with the people involved staying at their premises, therefore they are not discrimining, but they do not wish to condone homosexual sex under their roof. That is why Tom Forrest disallowed homosexuals from sharing a bed together.

The crux of the matter then, is not whether you believe gay adoption is right, but whether you believe that everybody should be forced to condone your beliefs by threat of law.
And, the same thing stands for the landlords of B&B’s; they are not discriminating against the individual or barring them from staying, but are unwilling to allow homosexuals to have sexual intercourse on their premises. If you believe that the person has no right to their own beliefs in this matter, then fine, go ahead and support this act. Just don’t use the word ‘liberal’, in the classical sense, for you are not a social democrat wearing liberal clothes.

All social democrats hate morals and ideas opposed to their own form of secular morality. Inevitably, they attempt to crush these rival ideas in the same way that most totalitarian states do: by state coercion. This is the point we have crossed over into, we’ve become another ‘one-idea state’. So, before British people take the moral high ground about dictators of the world, they should remember that one-idea states are, in their methods, at least as totalitarian and authoritarian as those we regularly accuse of being ‘undemocratic’.

Labels: , ,

Monday, January 29, 2007

Something for Osama Saeed..............

Osama Saeed has managed to get himself quoted in the Times today, decrying David Cameron's use of the word 'Crusade'. Osama, doing his best Winston Smith impression, wants the word consigned to the 'dustbin' forever.

I came across this website recently. Perhaps Winston, sorry Osama, should have a read of it, learn some history, and drop the ridiculous rhetoric about the Crusades being some sort of mass proto-colonial Holocaust:
1. Some authors contend the Crusades were wars of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. What is your position in this matter?

It is difficult to see how anyone familiar with the sources could make such a claim. The original goal of the First Crusade, as it was annunciated in the papal call as well as numerous crusader charters, was to respond to Muslim aggression against Christians in the East and to restore those lands taken by Muslims to their Christian owners. [...]

3. Some accuse the Crusades of being a sort of medieval colonialism disguised in religious trappings. Is this true and could you comment on this?

Colonialism, if it is to have any meaning at all, requires certain things: most importantly a mother country that funds and directs the colonial expansion, a colonial government linked to a home government, and policy of colonization or exploitation in the colony. The Crusades had none of these things. No mother country supported the Crusades. Rather they were funded and undertaken by individuals across Christendom for the benefit of their souls and their co-religionists overseas. The governments in the Crusaders States were independent, with no direct ties to any European countries. And the Europeans had no policy of colonization or exploitation in the East. Rather, the overriding purpose of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was to safeguard the Holy Places and the lives of Christian pilgrims coming to visit them.

Labels: ,

Friday, January 26, 2007

Steve Moxon for Home Secretary?

Oh, how hard we would laugh at the embarassing Home Office, if it wasn't for the fact that the consequences of its idiocy are so dire.

Then, have a look a the one that got away, Steve Moxon. Steve represents everything that the Home Office is not: principled, rational and decidedly anti-PC. Just compare this post, with the hysterical reaction of the mainstream media:

It is a guffaw inducing irony that of all organisations Channel 4 is in the dock. Rightly it defended that there had been a clash that was not racist but merely about culture and class. A spokesman for JSP cited her public record on anti-racism, as if hysterical anti-racism is itself any defence. We live in the post-MacPherson world: any incident is officially deemed to be racist on the say-so of anyone deeming themselves the victim, or by anyone who witnessed it. Absolute lunacy. In any case, Shilpa is on record as saying that she did not consider Jade and Danielle's attack as racist. That leaves those BB viewers who sent in complaints. Pehaps we should use the more TV interactive viewers of Emmerdale to redaft the law on robbery or fraud?

If we can’t call an Indian and Indian, then we can’t call a Canadian a Canadian. We are already absolutely forbidden to call a Pakistani a Paki, yet Australians are always known as Aussies.

Wait for the backlash. It's coming. Anti-racist hysteria is anti-integration and deadening to the human spirit. The only place for it is as laughing stock. Being able to wind each other up is essential for social interaction, and all the idiots in politics and the media had better get wize to this and fast.

To say that people - white people to be more precise - are racist simply for calling an Indian 'the Indian', is lunacy. And as Steve correctly states, it shows that anti-racist hysteria is out of control. It doesn't stop there though. The hysteria has spun even further out of control on the back of the 'Big Brother' row:

Welsh Assembly Member Eleanor Burnham has apologised for referring to the Japanese as "Japs" in a chamber debate.

The Liberal Democrat AM for north Wales made the comment while talking about Japanese trains.

After criticism by other AMs she denied intending any slur, adding: "I had no intention in mind. I do apologise."

Labour AM Carl Sergeant said: "This was appalling behaviour from the Liberal Democrat AM for north Wales, especially coming hot on the heels of the Big Brother racism scandal.

"The Liberal Democrat leader in the assembly Mike German should take the action Channel 4 executives were too scared to take.

"He should immediately remove Eleanor Burnham from the North Wales regional list for this year's election."
Now, I am not much of a fan of the Lib Dems, but the reaction of Carl Sergeant sounds so far over the top, he'll be disappearing over the Moon sometime soon. If that is not the definition of hysteria then I don't know what is.

However, we must realise that, as Steve says, this hysteria is damaging to both race relations and integration. Therefore, in this anti-white climate, any attempt to 'teach' Britishness and to make society more cohesive, is bound to fail.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Equality - The Killer of Freedom

The law is the law is the law, quoted Nick Robinson, claiming that those were the words of a Labour cabinet minister replying to the Catholic criticisms of the new ‘Equality law’. The first question that arises in my head from hearing this is: does that little mantra apply to Muslims as well? If so, perhaps you should mention that to Sir Ian Blair.

But what the act, and the reaction of the government, really shows is that fundamentally liberalism is intolerant of any opposition to its belief system.
In sum it’s a type of extreme fundamentalism, which may be the reason for its cosying-up to radical Islam. Note the almost Korannic nature of liberal doctrine – equality is good, discrimination ‘evil’, for instance.

This is where old-school conservatives, like myself, come into grief with liberalism. We try to be tolerant. Questioned on homosexuality, I tell people that really I am not interested in interfering in other people’s bedroom habits, and that the state has no place prosecuting people for sexual orientation.
I also have no desire to abuse people, either verbally or physically, for their orientation. But, I will not accept and support gay marriage, civil partnerships, or gay adoption, ever. If a gay couple want to draw up some legal documents recognising them as next of kin, fine. But civil ceremonies are a charade; they are designed, like normal marriage, to show community approval of the union, but I will never approve of recognition of a marriage, other than the ones between a man and a woman.

I’d also say that it is up to an individual hotelier, and adoption agency, whether or not they accept gay couples. Freedom of conscience is a right we should all have. Yes, this is discrimination, and therefore probably doctrinally unacceptable to liberals, but criminalising this makes liberals as intolerant as those who prosecuted homosexuals in the past.

In many ways the modern Church, has also reached what seems to me to be an amicable accord.
Namely, that homosexuals can live as they want, but those who oppose it do not have to ‘celebrate’ or condone their activities. And what’s the reward for those who have taken this moderate, tolerant line? Extremism and intolerance. A secular fundamentalism, led by a modern day Torquemada, Lord Falconer. I must obey, or I am a ‘criminal’.

The ludicrousness of this world-view should be obvious. It seems that to the nutty ‘rights’ brigade, there is no difference between the Catholic Church’s objection to this law, and a Muslim Iman who calls for homosexuals to be thrown from a mountain.
And my belief that people should have freedom of conscience and the right to discriminate between what behaviour is viewed as good for society, and what is viewed as bad, probably makes me a Nazi sympathiser. And that’s the point about modern politics mired in a liberal epoch, there is no room for compromise, rationality and debate. Instead, there is only good and evil, equality or 'oppression', and an axis between secular and Islamic fundamentalism.

It really is hard not to be severely depressed and despondent, when faced with such truths. But we must battle on, for there may yet come a day when the public realise that to the gods of equality, freedom itself has had to be sacrificed.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Martin Kelly

Martin Kelly has ended his blogging career. For those of you who were not aware of his work, Martin was one of the most productive and incisive members of the right-wing blogosphere.

His departure will leave a very large hole.


Friday, January 19, 2007

The Inflationary Rabbit's Escaped

Who’d have thought that inflation would be such a big topic in general conversation? Certainly not me, that’s why I relied on my blog to vent my opinions on why we were headed for higher inflation, last year. And, as inflation is a lagging indicator, it’s the effects of last summer we are feeling now. So, if the BofE had raised rates in May, more than likely the ‘shock’ that that would have produced, would have led to no renewed housing inflation, and a slow down in the high street instead of people continuing to overspend, so inflation would now be under control.

Even the media have come to this conclusion, now. For instance, the Sun’s Fergus Shanahan states in his column today:
The Bank has been sloppy too, waiting too long to act and letting inflation get a dangerous hold again which will be difficult to break.
What effect the rate rise will have is difficult to fathom. It's obvious that previous rate rises have not stopped inflation. However, from what they have said, the government and the Bank are convinced that inflationary pressure will reduce by the end of the year. Presumably, that will be due to the lowering of energy prices in the last five months, feeding down to lower prices in the high street.

They may have a point with regards to energy prices, as we have had a winter without a hint of frost and snow here in North Cheshire. It’s scheduled to change soon, but I am not exaggerating when I say that I can never remember a winter this mild. And, the same is true not just of the North of England, but the whole of England, the British Isles, Europe and the other side of the Atlantic. So, the result of mild weather has directly led to oil prices falling to a two-year low, stuck in the $50-55 barrel range. Natural Gas has suffered, too, with lower use of central heating.

But what goes around comes around. What the weather has given with one hand it has taken away with the other. Because of scorching drought in Australia, the grain harvest was severly affected. That has sent the grain price soaring, which will feed through into higher prices for all staple produces.

The effect of the wheat prices will not, however, be as inflationary as high oil prices, so all in all that could help to reduce inflationary pressure. So, with oil prices unlikely to go anywhere near $80's a barrel this year, perhaps the government are right not to worry too much. But, it could be only a temporary respite when you consider the China factor. And, finally, with retail prices still climbing, it suggests that inflationary pressure is still in the process of building up. Only when that falls will inflation likely to come down, and even then it will take a while to filter down.

All in all, I find it very difficult to see a situation where the Bank will be able to lower interest rates this year. So, any sign of a spiral towards stagnation or recession cannot be counteracted by an interest rate cut, without inflation being set free to wreak havoc.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The Act of Union

This blog is celebrating the Act of Union, signed 300 years ago today.

As an aside, I have also print-screened the front pages of numerous UK websites, and then saved them as jpegs using Photoshop. As there is another anniversary coming up in March, it will be very interesting to compare the media's coverage of them.


Friday, January 12, 2007

Islam's Global Nature

There is a discussion on View From the Right, centring on the numbers of Muslims in Europe, and their ‘power’ being disproportionate to the actual numbers they possess. I am not sure about the numbers involved, and which census was used in compiling the figures. What is missing from the discussion is acceptance of the fact that the problem is that Muslims are a whole, not a disparate, isolated set of people. When there is Islamic pressure on governments and people, it is the entire Islamic world that is involved. The Denmark debacle was a case in point. And, the point has been reinforced this week, with a letter sent to an Italian MP.

In October Daniela Santanchè, Alleanza Nazionale Member of Parliament, appeared on an Italian television debate about the veil. Santanchè had previously written a book about women under Islam, and that was the rationale behind inviting her on to the debate. An Iman, Ali Abu Shwaima from the Segrate Mosque, was also present, and took exception to Santanchè’s hypothesis that the veil has no religious justification and is simply a cultural tool used to control Muslim women living in the West.

The Iman's response, calling Santanchè an infidel, was construed as a 'fatwah' being placed on Santanchè. And, as is the way that people who criticise Islam usually have to respond, Santanchè had to have police protection:
An Italian politician will be given police protection following comments she made about the Islamic veil on television.

The MP, Daniela Santanche, from the right wing National Alliance, said the veil was not required by the Koran.

She was labelled an infidel by an imam appearing on the same programme and there are now fears for her safety.

Daniela Santanche recently published a critical book on living conditions for Muslim women called Woman Denied.

She is known for her forthright comments.

'Ignorant talk'

On Friday she appeared on a chat show on Sky Italia for a heated debate which quickly spiralled out of control.

"A veil," she said, "is never a symbol of liberty and it is not required in religion".

"There is a law which forbids - for reason of terrorism - people to go around with masks on"
Daniela Santanche

"And in our country," she went on, "there is a law which forbids - for reason of terrorism - people to go around with masks on".

Her comments brought a furious response from the imam who appeared alongside her.

Ali Abu Shwaima, from a mosque near Milan, called her an infidel.

"I will not allow the ignorant to talk about Islam," he said. "The veil is an obligation required by God."

Ms Santanche has now been offered police protection for her own safety.

All had gone quiet with regards to this story until this week, when Santanchè’s office received an envelope originating from London. The envelope contained two pieces of paper, one written in Arabic, the other in English, and photos of Ayan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh. I’ll have a go at
translating the message, but I can’t promise that it’s entirely accurate with my level of Italian. But it seems to be saying ‘this is the hour of my liberation, now it’s yours, too. Clearly this is a serious threat to the life of Daniela Santanchè.

This cuts to the very heart of the debate about Muslims and Islam. Since October it has clearly been discussed in the Mosques of Europe, so much so that one 'true-believer' wants to teach the ‘infidel’ a lesson. And this fact should worry everyone who cares for the future of Europe; for, the more organised Islam is, and the more Mosques there are, the more the power of Islam in politics and against free-speech increases.

What the graphs do is make us think, errantly, of fifty million people scattered around Europe and disconnected from each other. In fact, we need to view the fifty million as one, powerful nation within Europe, and that their means of communication is through Mosques and Imans. And, in approving more of these, we are creating more problems for ourselves in the future.

Daniela Santanchè's official website.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Posting Drought

My postings have come to rather a crawl, lately. There’s no doubt that the barren spell has a lot to do with the news, or, lack of it to be more precise.There are other more personal reasons, however, that are really the root cause of the ennui.

It is rather silly and superstitious to believe that a change in the calendar date dictates a change of luck.
But 2006 ended with a pay rise, taking me from being lowly paid, to being on the low side of average. Needless to say, this heightened my enjoyment during the so-called ‘party season’. The comparison with the only a-week-and-a-half old 2007 is marked, due to a rather bad turn of events at work, leaving myself covering a colleague’s position. And, as many people know, being in a position of stress hardly helps those of us who are a little, ahem, highly strung.

These turn of events, also leave me in a bit of a quandary. I am hardly the most energetic of people, let alone bloggers, so struggle to do many of the things I wish to, even with a large amount of free time. This free time now looks set to evaporate. What this will do to my postings and comments, I simply don’t know. Perhaps my brain will be so fired up that I will actually be posting left, right and centre. And, what is better than responding to a stressful day than a long moan at the government’s expense!

Of course, that is the positive side.
I may, on the other hand, disappear from commenting and posting altogether. I really can't be sure at the moment. But, if there are no new posts on this blog, keep checking back, because I will resume posting when things get back to some sort of normality.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Transport UK

Oh dear. Railway users have been hit by 'inflation busting price rises':

Chris Grayling, the shadow transport secretary, said: "When the Government seems determined to introduce a national road pricing scheme, it is ludicrous to be pursuing a policy that will price many people off the trains too.

These increases are coming at a time when overcrowding on many services is very serious and set to get worse. It looks like the Government has decided to collude with the train companies to tackle overcrowding with inflation-busting rises that will force people off the rail network.

National road pricing scheme? Like the M6 toll? The price of which has, erm, also increased above inflation:

The cost of using the motorway will rise by up to 20 per cent on January 1 taking the standard fee for cars to £4.

The charge for cars exiting at either end goes up from £3.50 while people leaving at toll stations along the route will pay £3 instead of £2.50.

Vans and lorries will face an £8 day rate instead of £7.

So, that's rail prices up, road prices up, and lots of mention of that word, overcrowding. Strangely, no mention was made of possible causes of overcrowding, like, well, immigration. Of course not. Silly me for thinking that more people equals more demand on the transportation infrastruture.

The CBI certainly can't join any dots. Here's a quote from them today:

But Susan Anderson of the Confederation of British Industry said Migrationwatch was "seeking to score a few cheap political points".

Migrants to the UK bring valuable skills and ideas with them and help to fill job vacancies where Britons are unable or unwilling to do so," she said.

Their taxes help pay for our public services and our pensions, long after many migrants have returned home.

And yet, they have had the gall to moan about the UK's transport infrastructure, in the past. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!

Labels: , ,