Pass the matches.

Sky News are reporting that Pastor Terry Jones (and I keep expecting this to be a stunt to announce the reformation of the Python boys) from the seemingly inappropriately named 'Dove World Outreach Center' has given the New York imams a two hour deadline to talk to him about the building of something that isn't a mosque on some land that isn't quite Ground Zero or he'll. . .

Well, he doesn't say. But the threat is clear.

It reminds me of the episode of the Young Ones when they wake up in the morning to find a nuclear bomb in the kitchen, and Rik threatens to appropriate it if Thatcher doesn't do 'something', for 'the kids'.

Of course the wild eyed wavy arm brigade across the Muslim world have shown that they don't like the idea of their book being burned in a disrespectful way, by burning the American flag and other stuff in a disrespectful way. It's kinda like Argentina playing Germany, you want both sides to lose.

Anyhow, he's an idiot. Indeed he's a nutter so nutty that even Westboro Baptist Church would probably look at him and say 'this guy's nuts!'

You want your book burning Mr. Jones? Fine, then burn away old chap, burn away. But if I were the Commissioner of Gainesville Police Department or the Sherriff of Alachua County, then I would be pointing out to him that if some odd looking dark skinned chaps with entertaining beards turned up with an impressive selection of automatic weaponry, then I probably wouldn't be too bothered about finding out what they were up to, nor would I be responding to any panicked phone calls from the Dove World Outreach Center with any sense of urgency.

The One That Is Saying 'Burqa, burqa, burqa' . . .

Yes, I’m still banging on about this burqa thing.

I don’t want to start a flame war over at Trixie’s place, but as you’ll see from the comments I’ve attempted to explain why I think the UKIP policy is wrong.

Her response to my comment is succinct to say the least: ‘You know what? When one of your mates is blown to shit by a group of fanatical muslims you just hate them.’

I really don’t see the connection between suicide bombers and the burqa. It’s like trying to connect fanatical Christians killing abortion doctors and a nun’s habit. The logic is flawed, the London bombers claimed to be devout Muslims, some women who claim to be devout Muslims wear the burqa, therefore the burqa is representative of suicide bombers.

If what Trixy is really trying to say is that ‘the burqa should be banned because I hate fundamentalist Islam’ then that is what she should say. I don’t much care for fundamentalist Islam either. Granted none of my friends have been blown up by them, but that doesn’t alter my dislike. I’d say the same for fundamentalist Christians, Jews and anyone else who seeks to destroy and kill in the name of their beliefs. It seems obvious that Trixy lost someone she cares about in an attack, and for that she has my sympathy, but it doesn’t alter the fact that banning an item of clothing is just plain wrong and unproductive.

What would the ramifications be of banning the burqa? Would it send all the Muslims ‘home?’ No. Would it serve to send the nutters over the edge into real fruit loop territory and the pissed off into the nutter camp? Probably. What is certain is that you’d see fewer Muslim women on the streets. These women would not just sigh and discard their burqa in favour of a permitted item of clothing? No. They’d be even more isolated and alienated because they’d never leave the house. This isn’t going to help assimilation, it’s going to set it back. It would imprison some Muslim women, not liberate them.

An easy response is to say, ‘well, they chose to wear it, they can just as easily choose not to if they want to leave the house.’ But why the hell should they? What business is it of anyone’s what someone else chooses to wear?

As I said in the comments over at Trixy’s; I was considering voting for UKIP at the next election, but things like this which demonstrate a mania for control in line with Labour, Tories and the LimpDims gives me real cause for concern. If they want to regulate what people are allowed to wear then what else is going to be regulated before and after it?

Trixy herself says that women wearing the burqa ‘make themselves unapproachable and many people find them intimidating.’ Well, suppose they don’t want to be approached? I would maintain that being left alone if you want to be is fine and dandy. As for people finding them intimidating, so what? Why do they find them intimidating? Is it down a specific incident they have encountered personally, or is it down to the fear of ignorance? Would they feel intimidated by a bishop in full garb? A skinhead in braces, tight jeans and cherry reds? A cyclist wearing a face-mask? A man wearing a football shirt? A woman in full punk regalia? An officer in police uniform? Should all these be banned because many people could find them intimidating? Is the problem with the image you are projecting or with your perception of the person you are looking at?


Trixy continues; ‘I don't agree with the excessive amount of CCTV cameras. . .’, I am imagining because she feels it is wrong to watch and track people when they are going about their lawful business. ‘. . . but I also don't agree with fundamentalist muslims dressing up in Burkhas and veils knowing that they can't be recognised’ Does this mean that Old Holborn should be banned from wearing his V mask on Novermber 5th? Or is it OK as he’s not a suicide bomber or a Muslim? (I’ve met OH on a few occasions, I don’t know if he is Muslim or not, I’m guessing not, but I’ve never asked, it’s none of my business and I couldn’t care less anyway)

Again, if Trixy is saying ‘the burqa should be banned because I hate fundamentalist Islam’, then where do we draw the line? Do we also ban men wearing traditional Muslim garb? Will that make terrorism more difficult? Or did the 7/7 bombers dress in a Western fashion to avoid drawing attention to themselves? How about banning Mosques? Banning the practice of Islam in the home? The deportation of Muslims from the UK? How about the Jews, should we do that too? Are people intimidated by Hassidic Jews and their dress? What about Blacks? Many people get very nervy when they see a black person, just look at the gun crime stats, should we be afraid of them? Catholics as well, the Irish have been blowing things up for years.

Or is this just lashing out at something because it has harmed you? Is it acceptable then to punish one whole section of society for an injury caused by a very small part of that section? I would suggest that in any other discussion, Trixy would say that it is not acceptable.

I’m not accusing Trixy of being a racist, that’s a ridiculous argument, and it’s a lazy one as well, it’s just one step from Godwin’s Law. I’m just trying to illustrate a point that once this particular box is opened, you can justify the control and restraint of any group in society with great ease.

Banning things which cause no injury or harm to anyone or their property is a bad thing, it restricts liberty, it does not extend it. Banning things because they are a symbol of something you don’t like or that is different from you is very bad and will more often than not end in tears.

The One That Is More Equal Than You. . .

So the political backlash against the decision of the Swiss to ban the construction of minarets has started.

Cards on the table. I don't much care for Islam. Neither do I much care for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion. They are all vessels for the perpetuation of bigotry, hatred, intolerance and control.

You can keep them. You can follow them, don't expect me to. Don't try and force it down my throat. Keep it to yourself.

I have no problem with the Swiss banning the construction of minarets, just as I would have no problem with the Swiss banning the construction of church towers with bells. If I had a problem with it I'd not go to Switzerland and I'd probably boycott toblerone and Swiss army knives.

I do enjoy playing Football Manager. I wonder if I would be allowed to rig a PA system that sent out a call for the faithful to come to play whenever I booted it up? No? Didn't think so. If people follow a religion, they tend to know when the services are, so probably don't need bells and wailing to summon them. For those who don't follow the religion, bells and wailing are just an annoyance - noise pollution.

Note that the Swiss have not banned the construction of Mosques, nor have they banned the practice of the religion, they just don't want the minarets. Well, it is their country and their decision to make.

The politicians, even in Switzerland, don't like it. The conspiracy theorist in me (who is starting to grow) thinks that it is not because it hurts the poor old Muslims, it is because politicians are uneasy with the idea of the public ushering in arbitrary and ridiculous bans. That is the job of the government, councils and un-elected officials.

Of course, they can't couch it in those terms, so they have to attack from a different angle:

A decision by Swiss voters to ban the construction of minarets poses a risk to Switzerland's security, the country's foreign minister says.

Micheline Calmy-Rey said the Swiss government was "very concerned" about the ban, adopted by voters on Sunday. "Each limitation on the co-existence of different cultures and religions also endangers our security," she told the European security body, the OSCE.

"Provocation risks triggering other provocation and risks inflaming extremism," Mrs Calmy-Rey said at the OSCE meeting in Athens.

I wasn't aware that extremism was a problem in Switzerland. No matter, the people have spoken, and that must be challenged because they are endangering their own national security, according to some woman who looks a bit like her from Swing Out Sister.

The UN has waded in as well:

A top UN official has called the ban "clearly discriminatory".

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the ban was "deeply divisive" and at odds with Switzerland's international legal obligations.

This is the same UN that passed a resolution banning any criticism of Islam. They didn't do this for any other religion. You were talking about discrimination? How is this at odds with international legal obligations? Are we obliged to allow the construction of minarets in Western Europe?

If so, how will an application for planning permission for a pretty little Saxon church in downtown Riyadh be received? Will the Iranians allow the construction of a reproduction of Salisbury Cathedral in Tehran? No. Didn't think so. It cuts both ways.

And then the Muslim leaders:

Muslim leaders across the world, as well as those of other faiths, criticised the minaret ban as a blow to religious freedom.

What's the phrase? 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' I think that's the one.

More from Micheline Calmy-Rey:

She said if an appeal against the referendum was lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, it would be up to the court to decide on its legality.

Up until such time as a referendum from the Swiss people tells the ECHR to go stick its head in a pig.

The One That Is Sorely Tempted. . .

These seem to be people we can do business with.

Leg-Iron points out that if it does kick off, The Righteous will be sent into a meltdown akin to that suffered by Norman the android in 'I Mudd'.

I can just see the poor old PC's despatched by their political masters. 'Errrr, Sarge? Which ones are being racist?'

Superb stuff. At last the silent majority have found their voices and are showing they will not put up with this foolishness.

The One That Says It Isn't All About Killing. . .

We are told time and time again that Islam is a religion of peace. It isn't.

That's not an attack on Islam, but all three of the big religions in Europe, Mid-East, Africa and America. I can't comment on the Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Confuscians, Sikhs or Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monsterists as by and large they seem to keep themselves to themselves.

The big three, just as in British politics, are agents of hate, intolerance, control and oppression. But we hear time and time again that Islam, especially, is a religion of peace.

OK.

The winners of a quiz organised by Somali Islamists have been given weapons and ammunition as prizes.

Prizes included AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades and an anti-tank mine.

The quiz ran during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan in the port city of Kismayo, and included questions about the Koran and Somali geography.

A representative for the al-Shabab militant group said the quiz aimed to stop young men from wasting their time and focus on defending their territory.

"The reason the young men were rewarded with weapons is to encourage them to participate in the ongoing holy war against the enemies of Allah in Somalia,"

Yes. That sounds very peaceful.

Then there's this:



(A tip of the hat to OH for drawing my attention to it.)

Yes. That sounds very peaceful as well. Calls for executions. The very epitome of a civilised, rational and peaceful society. So you don't like him and don't like what he has to say. Call him an arsehole. Ignore him. Threaten to kill him and you merely prove what he says about your religion. You're being played like a cheap violin.

Stop sniggering at the back Chrisitians, your copy book is far from spotless, is it? The Crusades? The cluster-fucking in this country when the family Tudor couldn't quite make their minds up? The enthusiasm for locking Jews in buildings and burning them to the ground during the Middle Ages? The Inquisition?

Oh, did someone mention Jews? The appalling treatment of the Palestinians? The Old Testament (and that phrase really pisses practicing Jews off) enthusiasm for invading other countries?

You are all shits of the highest order. It just seems to me that Islam is acting the shittiest of them all at present.

No, I'm not saying all Muslims are gun toting maniacs who want to see infidel blood running down the streets. Indeed I know quite a few Muslims, and not one of them, as far as I know, own an assault rifle or bomb making equipment.

It would be nice to see the moderate halfway sensible majority of Islam stand up and slap these arseholes down. Many Germans didn't much care for the National Socialists, but they didn't want to make a fuss, and just sort of got carried along. It was a disaster.

What did we do? Appeased and didn't make a scene. That was a disaster too.

Anyone? No?

Didn't think so.

This is going to get ugly. . .

The One That Is Thinking About Flying South . . .

It’s all really starting to fall apart now. For the last twelve years, a Labour government and their Righteous infantry have kept tigers as pets. All of a sudden, these tigers don’t want Whiskas for dinner, they want real meat that they’ve caught themselves.

The problem is that when you keep a wild animal in captivity it does not lose its desire to act like a wild animal, but it does lose the skills to live as one.

The first tiger to roar has been Anjem Choudary of a ‘fundamentalist’ (not too much fun, plenty of the mentalist) Islamic organisation who would see the imposition of Sharia Law in the UK. I’ll oppose that as strongly as I would oppose the imposition of any value system in the UK. In his video he basically tells the ‘English Defence League’ that they will lose, that the green flag of Islam will fly over Number 10. Well, he would say that. He also goes on to tell the United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism to go and screw themselves and that they are perfectly capable of looking after themselves, thank you very much.

The tiger has awoken, and he is hungry and wants to stretch his legs.

The English Defence League are not one of the pet tigers that have been kept by The Righteous. They’ve been left out in the cold and have had to fend for themselves. They may not have the lustrous coats and full bellies of Choudary tiger, but they have survived, learned to hunt and have even resisted the urge to kill those who come to take their catch to feed those pet tigers. Until now.

A tiger in captivity will attack its handler as a substitute for the hunting sized hole in its life, it doesn’t do it out of hate, but because hunting and killing is what a tiger does, and it wants to feel more tigerish. A wild tiger will hunt to live, but will only attack another tiger as an absolute last resort. There is the difference between them, the captive tiger wants to fight to prove it is a tiger, the wild tiger knows it is a tiger and knows that the best way to remain being an alive one is not to scrap unless it has to. When that wild tiger fights though, it is to the death. This wild tiger has backed off and backed off and now has nothing more to lose, it is very, very dangerous.

The handler has a dog as well. A big dog. A ferocious yet very obedient dog. He sees the handler feeding his tiger, and as the handler also feeds him, reckons that the tiger is part of his pack. The dog will fight to the death to protect his pack, from the Alpha to the underdog, they stick together and see off any threat to the pack, or die in the attempt. United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism are that dog.

The captive tiger looks at the dog and doesn’t see a pack member. He doesn’t see a pack. The tiger is a solitary animal. The tiger looks at the dog and sees lunch. He owes no loyalty to the pack, the handler has kept him locked up and prevented him from being a proper tiger.

The wild tiger looks at the dog and doesn’t see an equal. He sees one dog, on his own. More an irritant than a threat. That dog is an irrelevance, he can be dealt with later, the captive tiger is the threat. The pre-fight posturing is now underway, soon the fur will start to fly.

Given the fairly explicit message sent out by Choudary, will United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism re-examine their loyalties? No. They fail to see the irony in combating a group they say are fascist, in support of a theocratic regime which is most certainly fascist by using tools employed by fascist organisations throughout history and around the world. Remember, United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism are the dog, and not the Alpha. The handler is the Alpha and will sort out any squabbles within the pack. As far as the dog is concerned, if the Alpha tells Choudary tiger to go to his basket, he will.

Alpha hopes that when he tells Choudary tiger to go to his basket, he will.

Choudary tiger couldn’t care less about his handler, or the smelly dog. It doesn’t matter to him whether they get out of the way or die.

The handler’s wife isn’t concerned with the tiger, she quite liked having him in the enclosure in the back garden at first, but he isn’t very friendly, she concerns herself with the puppies. She loves the puppies, they are very cute and she cares for them very much. The handler’s wife gets very annoyed when people mistreat puppies, and wants to make it as difficult as possible for this to happen. She’s implemented a programme where anyone looking after someone’s puppy whilst they are away, or takes a puppy to puppy classes, or occasionally takes a friend’s puppy out for a walk, or who even stops in the street to give a puppy a pat, has to be checked to make sure they’ve never been mean to a puppy. She’d be much happier to check everyone, whether they have puppies or not, just to be doubly sure.

The vet’s wife has said this is stupid. It is the first time that the vet’s wife and the handler’s wife have ever had a disagreement. It is very odd, especially as the handler’s wife employs the vet’s wife as her lady who does. The next coffee morning could see fireworks. The handler’s wife thinks the vet’s wife is most ungrateful, perhaps she’ll employ someone else to do her cleaning and puppy walking. The handler’s wife doesn’t actually look after the puppies, but she’s still an expert, and knows how everyone else should feed and train their puppies.

The puppies just want to be able to go out and play and to learn some useful tricks. They’re not allowed to go and play though, there could be someone who is nasty to puppies hiding at the park, waiting to get them. When they graduate from puppy classes to go and be a guide dog, or an earthquake search dog, they find out they’ve not been trained to use their noses, and being able to say ‘sausages’, sing along to the theme tune to East Enders and rolling over are not useful skills. Then they grow up into dogs. They aren’t cute puppies anymore, and no-one likes them, they get left on the streets, to rifle through bins and chase the cats.

They then come across the wild tiger and think, ‘well, if it’s good enough for him. . .’

So where do I fit in? I may be the Snowolf, but what I actually am is a swallow. Sat in the trees, looking at the streets below, wondering why some people keep pets. I notice the nights are drawing in and think that winter is coming, it looks like it will be a bad one. Perhaps it is time to fly off somewhere?

The One That Thinks It Should Be Left Where It Is. . .

Artist Sarah Maple is causing a bit of a stir with her exhibition being displayed at Rolling Stones' Ronnie Wood's gallery 'Scream'. The artist is of mixed religious heritage and apparently juxtaposes her Western Christian side with her Asian Muslim side. One of the images in her exhibition is a picture of her in traditional Muslim garb and cradling a piglet.

The professional theist-offendees are out in force.

Already, Mokhtar Badri, the vice-president of the Muslim Association of Britain, tells Mandrake that his organisation plans to visit the SaLon Gallery, in Notting Hill, west London, to demand that it remove Maple’s painting when it exhibits it next week.

Well, excuse me, who the hell are you to make such demands?

Oh it offends you does it?

Well, how about I pop around your Mosque (and I'm not singling you out due to your Islamic faith, I'll quite happily attend every Church and Synagogue in the area) and demand that you stop preaching your brand of intolerance, hatred, bigotry and misery spreading? Because I can assure you that I find it offensive in the extreme.

But you wouldn't stop spreading it, would you? No. Thought not.

What is it about these religious types that makes them think they must not be offended and they have carte-blanche to make demands and outrageous accusations whenever the mood takes them.

I find religious dogma and indoctrination offensive, therefore I stay away from venues that I know will expose me to this. If you find this artwork offensive, stay away. Don't make the argument that its very existence is offensive, as I could say the same about you. Rather than just making death threats, I'll ignore you for the irrelevance you are, try doing the same about this artist.

One thing I will add, if I were God and saw the hate and misery peddled by man in my name, I'd be going really old (testament) school and getting my smiting trousers on. . .