So the Czechs have been given an exemption from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (link in Czech), obviously those rights aren't as fundamentally important as getting Klaus to sign on the dotted line then.
So that leaves the Czech Constitutional Court as the remaining bulwark between the status quo and complete ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It would seem that the chances of this treaty being live at the time of a British general election are somewhere between slim and none then.
All too often we Libertarians are accused of nihilism, so I'm going to buck that stereotype. I'm not about descend to the very bottom of the slough of despair, I'm not about to write Cameron off.
Just yet.
At conference he said something about not letting it rest there if he got the keys to No. 10 with the Lisbon Treaty on the statute. I don't know what that means, I hope (and this hope is waaaay bigger than any expectation I have) that out of the blue Cameron announces that we're going to have the BIG one. But I'm not holding my breath.
As with much to do with the Conservatives, I don't actually know what it is Cameron wants to do. I get the impression he's in the middle of a fine balancing act, the old EUrophile and EUrophobe divisions are still in the party, they haven't gone away. I have a feeling that Dave is leaning towards the anti camp, his detatching the party from the old centre-right grouping is especially interesting but with Ken Clarke such an important part of his pre and mid election campaign staff, he's got to be very canny.
If he gets in with a healthy majority, then that will give him a lot more room to spread his wings and show us what he's got. I just hope that when he does spread his wings, it was worth the wait.
Anyhow, as sceptical as I may be, I'm not about to condemn a man who has not done anything wrong yet. It would be nice to see him do something right, though.
Perhaps he'll decide to hold a retrospective referendum. An unusual step, but the will of the electorate must take precedence over any other tool of government and if we don't want it, we don't want it. The word of the people is sovereign.
I can't wait for the attack from the left and Brussels if we are given the chance and if that chance results in a 'here's your refund, now fuck off' result. They will then show themselves to be the contemptible and anti-democratic slime they are.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Monday, 26 October 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
The One That Is Saying 'Enough. Stop Now'. . .
It really does beggar belief. I can think of no pithy or salient introduction to this absolute arsewater, so let's just jump straight in, shall we?
It's the Muslims, must be, they don't have afternoons, not proper afternoons like Christian people, their's are probably different. And because Senior Police are so consumed with the feeling that we aren't all just members of the public, this imaginary afternoon problem must be stamped out.
'Hello? Is that the IPCC? This un-PC came around my gaff and accused me of having my tea, at dinner time, he thought I was common. I'm incredibly offended, I demand a five figure sum in compensation and that the officer be cast into a dark pit.'
That seems a little unlikely to me.
Right, well, that makes perfect sense then. I'm not gay and have no strong feelings on the gay/homosexual word debate, I understand that queer and poof are not well thought of, so that seems fair enough. Being straight (deep offended intake of breath) I don't particularly care if I'm referred to as straight, heterosexual or even just hetero. I was even called a 'Breeder' once, I think it was supposed to be perjorative, not that it bothered me.
I'm not a breeder, by the way, I'm a civil servant. Perhaps there's money in breeding? Perhaps I could do that instead?
Anyhow, let's think of the chiiiiiiiiiildren:
Now I really am offended.
Does that mean that a married woman who raises the kids is an outdated stereotype? What about all those men who wear those off the peg suits and sit on the train into London everyday, on their way to an office where they do God knows what, but the end result seems to be a paunch, baldness, stomach ulcers and an aneurism? Are all they outdated stereotypes as well?
This, people of non-judgemental, all perfectly equal gender is what happens when you have a phalanx of equality and diversity officers.
Mrs. Snowolf has responsibility for the disability stuff at her place of work, most of it goes right over my head, the legislation seems to be complicated in the extreme, but given the phone calls she gets from other places for her advice, she seems quite good at it.
She writes the policy, makes sure it is applied and then puts the policy on the shelf. Once in a while, the policy is reviewed to make sure it is still current. Simple. If you employ Equality and Diversity Officers once all this stuff is done, they're left with nothing to do, so they have to dream up enemies, slights and struggles to be fought.
It's all bullshit, no-one is going to be offended because a Police officer rolls up at 1720 and says good evening, when you consider the evening to start at 1730.
Why not spend money on fighting crime and fires rather than agonising over what part of the day it is?
Give me strength. . .
Police have been urged to avoid using greetings such as "evening" and "afternoon", because the words are "somewhat subjective" and could cause confusion among those from different cultural backgrounds.
It's the Muslims, must be, they don't have afternoons, not proper afternoons like Christian people, their's are probably different. And because Senior Police are so consumed with the feeling that we aren't all just members of the public, this imaginary afternoon problem must be stamped out.
This is just an avoidance of the old dinner/tea debate, isn't it?A spokesman added: "Terms such as 'afternoon' and 'evening' are somewhat subjective in meaning and can vary according to a person's culture or nationality. In many cultures the term evening is linked to time of day when people have their main meal of the day.
"In some countries including the UK, the evening meal time is traditionally thought of as being around 5-7pm but this might be different say for a family say from America who might have their main meal earlier and thus for them 'evening ' may be an earlier time.
'Hello? Is that the IPCC? This un-PC came around my gaff and accused me of having my tea, at dinner time, he thought I was common. I'm incredibly offended, I demand a five figure sum in compensation and that the officer be cast into a dark pit.'
That seems a little unlikely to me.
Confusingly, staff are also barred from using the word "homosexual", for which they are instructed to use the term "gay", while they are warned against using the phrase "straight", and told to say "heterosexual".
Right, well, that makes perfect sense then. I'm not gay and have no strong feelings on the gay/homosexual word debate, I understand that queer and poof are not well thought of, so that seems fair enough. Being straight (deep offended intake of breath) I don't particularly care if I'm referred to as straight, heterosexual or even just hetero. I was even called a 'Breeder' once, I think it was supposed to be perjorative, not that it bothered me.
I'm not a breeder, by the way, I'm a civil servant. Perhaps there's money in breeding? Perhaps I could do that instead?
Anyhow, let's think of the chiiiiiiiiiildren:
Well now hang on a moment, if you call the nearly dead 'old people' the indignant whining from the Righteous reaches such a pitch that dolphins start knocking on their front doors asking them to leave it out as it's giving them a headache. Surely this should be 'younger people'?A number of organisations, among them Essex Police and Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, now instruct staff to avoid the phrases "child, youth or youngster".
The 52-page guide used by both organisations states that such phrases could have "connotations of inexperience, impetuosity, and unreliability or even dishonesty". It also states that addressing someone as "boy" or "girl" "may cause offence". Instead, officers and firemen are instructed to use the phrase "young people".
Now I really am offended.
London Fire Brigade instructs its staff not to use the terms "businessmen" or "housewives", because it says they "reinforce outdated stereotypes".
Does that mean that a married woman who raises the kids is an outdated stereotype? What about all those men who wear those off the peg suits and sit on the train into London everyday, on their way to an office where they do God knows what, but the end result seems to be a paunch, baldness, stomach ulcers and an aneurism? Are all they outdated stereotypes as well?
This, people of non-judgemental, all perfectly equal gender is what happens when you have a phalanx of equality and diversity officers.
Mrs. Snowolf has responsibility for the disability stuff at her place of work, most of it goes right over my head, the legislation seems to be complicated in the extreme, but given the phone calls she gets from other places for her advice, she seems quite good at it.
She writes the policy, makes sure it is applied and then puts the policy on the shelf. Once in a while, the policy is reviewed to make sure it is still current. Simple. If you employ Equality and Diversity Officers once all this stuff is done, they're left with nothing to do, so they have to dream up enemies, slights and struggles to be fought.
It's all bullshit, no-one is going to be offended because a Police officer rolls up at 1720 and says good evening, when you consider the evening to start at 1730.
Why not spend money on fighting crime and fires rather than agonising over what part of the day it is?
Give me strength. . .
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
The One That Is Saying Well Done. . .
I give the BBC stick quite a lot of the time, but I will always give credit where it is due, and it is due to the BBC trust this evening. They have decided that the BNP will appear on Question Time, I believe it is right a proper course of action for a party that holds two seats in the European Parliament and polled around a million votes in the recent election.
Usual and predictable caveat. Snowolf does not support the BNP and holds only one of their policies close to his heart, to get the UK out of the EU. Although I suspect we approach that conclusion from different angles.
I do not support the Labour party, nor the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or the Green Party, but I understand that they have a role to play on a political discussion programme.
Again, as I've pointed out time and again, the only way to ensure the BNP go precisely nowhere (beyond actually representing and speaking for the people you claim to represent) is to give them every single opportunity to espouse their nonsense. People aren't stupid, they'll see them for what they are.
Peter Hain's protestations about them not being a legally constituted party were a right chuckle and hold very little water.
Personally, as far as I'm concerned, it is their party and they can have whatever rules they want, they can restrict membership to whites only, to men only, to married men only, to married white men aged 48 called Nigel and working as greengrocers only if they want. I don't care.
Whether they are 'legally constituted' or not really doesn't bother me, and it doesn't seem to be a condition of entry on to the panel of QT either. If it were, Ian Hislop, Janet Street-Parker, Him out of Blur and the Chakrabati woman wouldn't be able to go on either, they are not legally constituted parties, and no-one has ever voted for them.
Still, what's to stop the BNP from trotting out the same excuses given by the Labour politicians? They could have said it was a technical breach of the law, in the style of Baroness Scotland. They could have claimed that everyone knows who they are, so what's the problem? Like Harridan Harperson. They could have claimed it was an oversight or an error, like countless MPs. No-one would have believed them, but that doesn't seem to bother the others.
No, the BNP admitted that this was the case, and Nick Griffin gave an undertaking to rectify the situation. From where I'm sitting, and as reprehensible as he is, that puts him way ahead of a large number of other elected representatives, and maybe makes him less reprehensible than them. It is not only views which marks a person out, it is their actions and the way they conduct themselves.
I don't like them, but accept that until things change in this country, they are here to stay. I can deal with that, it would appear that many others cannot, and they would stamp out a corner of democracy in the name of the same.
For shame.
Usual and predictable caveat. Snowolf does not support the BNP and holds only one of their policies close to his heart, to get the UK out of the EU. Although I suspect we approach that conclusion from different angles.
I do not support the Labour party, nor the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or the Green Party, but I understand that they have a role to play on a political discussion programme.
Again, as I've pointed out time and again, the only way to ensure the BNP go precisely nowhere (beyond actually representing and speaking for the people you claim to represent) is to give them every single opportunity to espouse their nonsense. People aren't stupid, they'll see them for what they are.
Peter Hain's protestations about them not being a legally constituted party were a right chuckle and hold very little water.
Personally, as far as I'm concerned, it is their party and they can have whatever rules they want, they can restrict membership to whites only, to men only, to married men only, to married white men aged 48 called Nigel and working as greengrocers only if they want. I don't care.
Whether they are 'legally constituted' or not really doesn't bother me, and it doesn't seem to be a condition of entry on to the panel of QT either. If it were, Ian Hislop, Janet Street-Parker, Him out of Blur and the Chakrabati woman wouldn't be able to go on either, they are not legally constituted parties, and no-one has ever voted for them.
Still, what's to stop the BNP from trotting out the same excuses given by the Labour politicians? They could have said it was a technical breach of the law, in the style of Baroness Scotland. They could have claimed that everyone knows who they are, so what's the problem? Like Harridan Harperson. They could have claimed it was an oversight or an error, like countless MPs. No-one would have believed them, but that doesn't seem to bother the others.
No, the BNP admitted that this was the case, and Nick Griffin gave an undertaking to rectify the situation. From where I'm sitting, and as reprehensible as he is, that puts him way ahead of a large number of other elected representatives, and maybe makes him less reprehensible than them. It is not only views which marks a person out, it is their actions and the way they conduct themselves.
I don't like them, but accept that until things change in this country, they are here to stay. I can deal with that, it would appear that many others cannot, and they would stamp out a corner of democracy in the name of the same.
For shame.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
The One That Thinks He's Guilty. . .
The law is the law. It may be an ass, wrong, misguided or just plain stupid, but it is the law and I'm not going to break it, mainly because I don't want to give them the opportunity to get their hooks into me.
Doesn't mean I won't fight to overturn or revise a law which I think is unjust or ill thought-out. Neither does it mean I support people who break the law, even the really stupid ones.
That may change if laws get any sillier.
Regardless, sometimes (and just sometimes, occasionally, rarely) you can't help but develop an appreciation, respect and admiration for people who really couldn't give a fuck about the law and demonstrate it in grand style:
Never mind, he's undoubtedly very naughty, but you can't help but admire him really, can you?*
* Note to the righteous and safety-nazis. Yes he could have killed someone, but he didn't. So there's no real damage done, is there?
Doesn't mean I won't fight to overturn or revise a law which I think is unjust or ill thought-out. Neither does it mean I support people who break the law, even the really stupid ones.
That may change if laws get any sillier.
Regardless, sometimes (and just sometimes, occasionally, rarely) you can't help but develop an appreciation, respect and admiration for people who really couldn't give a fuck about the law and demonstrate it in grand style:
A driver has confounded Swiss police by committing 15 traffic violations in just over 10 minutes, officials say.As always, Al-Jabeeba have to try to haul their bloated carcass onto the moral high ground by calling him a serial offender. Has he done this before? Or is it the number offences in such a small time? If I killed 15 people in 10 minutes would I be a serial killer, or just embarking on a massacre?
The 47-year-old initially raced past an unmarked police car in heavy rain at 160 km/h (100mph) before weaving close to other cars and the road's kerb.
The serial offender clocked up further offences for speeding, driving on the hard shoulder, running a set of red lights and failing to stop for police.
When finally pulled over by St Gallen police, he failed a drugs test.
Never mind, he's undoubtedly very naughty, but you can't help but admire him really, can you?*
* Note to the righteous and safety-nazis. Yes he could have killed someone, but he didn't. So there's no real damage done, is there?
Monday, 19 October 2009
The One That Can't See The Difference. . .
So this is how one brings about the 'post-democratic' age then.
The Electoral Complaints Commission, responsible for overseeing the Presidential election in Afghanistan has thrown out ballots from 210 polling stations after uncovering what it claimed was 'Clear and convincing evidence of fraud'.
I can't say I'm surprised. It was all so predictable. The ballots thrown out now mean that Karzai has only a 48% share of the vote, so a run-off with the imaginatively named Abdullah Abdullah is sure to take place.
You can bet your arse that electoral fraud will be perpetrated again. No doubt the commission will get involved again, no doubt people who have voted properly will get their papers thrown out again, no doubt some kangaroo court in Afghanistan will have its say, no doubt American troops will be stood outside the courthouse as deliberations go on.
To make it even less democratic, these elections are being held with foreign troops running around and people not turning out because some nutjob has threatened to kill them if they do, assuming that is, that the same nutjob hasn't blown up the polling station the night before.
This is hardly a democratic process. It isn't going to work. It was never going to work. It will never work as long as other countries are propping up and dictating to the regime in 'power' and Taleban fighters are running around the country.
'Well, we tried' will be the refrain, if it isn't drowned out by whichever cheating vote rigging bastard happens to do enough to influence the result of this election being held up as a convincingly and resoundingly elected President given a mandate from the masses.
More to the point if this fraud has been carried out by any of the parties and politicians involved, then why the hell aren't they under lock and key, or at least barred from standing for election ever again?
This is ridiculous.
Democracy? Don't make me laugh, it is a pretence, there will never be democracy whilst we are in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) as there will be this mortal fear that people will vote the 'wrong' way, just as the Palestinians did with Hizbollah. You can be certain they wouldn't have won if American or British troops were on the ground there.
The problem being that the people we want them to elect are self-serving, venal, money-grabbing, corrupt toads out to grab what they can with the big boy standing behind them scaring people off if they want to make something of it. Whereas the people they might want to elect are self-serving, venal, money-grabbing, corrupt toads out to grab what they can whilst putting the fear of God into everyone.
Looks like a lose-lose situation to me.
The Electoral Complaints Commission, responsible for overseeing the Presidential election in Afghanistan has thrown out ballots from 210 polling stations after uncovering what it claimed was 'Clear and convincing evidence of fraud'.
I can't say I'm surprised. It was all so predictable. The ballots thrown out now mean that Karzai has only a 48% share of the vote, so a run-off with the imaginatively named Abdullah Abdullah is sure to take place.
You can bet your arse that electoral fraud will be perpetrated again. No doubt the commission will get involved again, no doubt people who have voted properly will get their papers thrown out again, no doubt some kangaroo court in Afghanistan will have its say, no doubt American troops will be stood outside the courthouse as deliberations go on.
To make it even less democratic, these elections are being held with foreign troops running around and people not turning out because some nutjob has threatened to kill them if they do, assuming that is, that the same nutjob hasn't blown up the polling station the night before.
This is hardly a democratic process. It isn't going to work. It was never going to work. It will never work as long as other countries are propping up and dictating to the regime in 'power' and Taleban fighters are running around the country.
'Well, we tried' will be the refrain, if it isn't drowned out by whichever cheating vote rigging bastard happens to do enough to influence the result of this election being held up as a convincingly and resoundingly elected President given a mandate from the masses.
More to the point if this fraud has been carried out by any of the parties and politicians involved, then why the hell aren't they under lock and key, or at least barred from standing for election ever again?
This is ridiculous.
Democracy? Don't make me laugh, it is a pretence, there will never be democracy whilst we are in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) as there will be this mortal fear that people will vote the 'wrong' way, just as the Palestinians did with Hizbollah. You can be certain they wouldn't have won if American or British troops were on the ground there.
The problem being that the people we want them to elect are self-serving, venal, money-grabbing, corrupt toads out to grab what they can with the big boy standing behind them scaring people off if they want to make something of it. Whereas the people they might want to elect are self-serving, venal, money-grabbing, corrupt toads out to grab what they can whilst putting the fear of God into everyone.
Looks like a lose-lose situation to me.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
The One That Gave A Chuckle. . .
From a 'contact' of mine on Facebook this evening:
Masterful.
Tell Louis Walsh that if those twatty twins stay in this weekend another boy band member gets it!!
Masterful.
The One That Is Motioning With His Head. Discretely. . .
The more aware of you may have realised that Dover port was closed yesterday. This was due to the staff at SeaFrance going on strike.
I believe they may have changed the brand of coffee in the staff canteen or something.
Anyhow, I hear on the jungle drums (I feel like I should be using lots of +'s like Guido) that disruption on channel crossings to come, may not be entirely down to our French cousins. I understand that they may join in with striking workers from another EU nation though.
If you want to intrude on private grief, you could probably do worse than keep a weather eye on this chap.
The Snowolf is led to believe that things could get a little tasty quite soon, and may inconvenience a good number of the travelling public. . .
I believe they may have changed the brand of coffee in the staff canteen or something.
Anyhow, I hear on the jungle drums (I feel like I should be using lots of +'s like Guido) that disruption on channel crossings to come, may not be entirely down to our French cousins. I understand that they may join in with striking workers from another EU nation though.
If you want to intrude on private grief, you could probably do worse than keep a weather eye on this chap.
The Snowolf is led to believe that things could get a little tasty quite soon, and may inconvenience a good number of the travelling public. . .
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.
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. . .
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.
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. . .
Thursday, 15 October 2009
The One That Thinks It Could Make Quite A Difference. . .
Ah yes, our old friends the BNP.
Right, I'm not going to give the usual caveat here. The little icons dotted around this page make it perfectly clear who it is I support.
Looks like old Harridan Harperson is going to get what she wanted. It sits nicely with the old warning about being careful what you wish for.
Now as far as I'm concerned, it is a party with its own values. They are values I do not hold therefore I won't join them, just as a Labour supporter won't support Libertarian values and therefore won't be joining us. Fine.
Ahhh, yes, but black people can't join the BNP. Their rules don't allow it.
Well, fine. Their party, their rules.
I have a sneaking suspicion that not many black or Asian people would want to join the BNP, but discrimination is bad and it must be stamped out. The right of a hypothetical black person to join the BNP trumps the right of a very real BNP member to exclude them. I don't understand how one person's 'rights' can trump those of another, but there you go.
Let's just suppose for a minute that the BNP relents and alters it's constitution to allow 'non-indigenous non-Caucasian' people to join. What will the outcome be?
Will the BNP be flooded with ultra-nationalist Rastafarians and Taoists?
Doubtful.
Will the BNP find themselves hamstrung by a large faction coming into the party that is determined to work against their policies?
Possible, but then, the current BNP members will just leave and start up another party, so that won't work.
No, what would happen is that the BNP would hang an 'all welcome' sign on their front door, secure in the knowledge that the people they don't want to join, won't join. And then, when they start to appear on Question Time (which could be quite entertaining tonight given the reaction to their name last week, either that or someone released a shit load of snakes into the studio), the Big 3 will no longer be able to point their fingers and scream 'Racists!' at them, as they will have the constitution to prove they are not.
Much is written in the Libertarian blogosphere about this government's tactic of denormalising people, drinkers, smokers, the free of thought and will, but now Harman and her chums are doing something even more daft, they are normalising a party.
Eh? How's this going to work? On the one hand you use legislation to enforce your will and values on a political party. Legislation that, if the BNP have any sense, they won't break. So you can't very well screm 'Racist' at them anymore, what does that leave you? It is obvious you'll continue to do your best to ensure that they are shouted down at every opportunity, blocked from attending Parliament or debates and generally excluded, inspite of the fact that they are legitimately elected.
But of course, there's no room for views you don't like in your democracy.
The BNP will be able to point and give another example of the Labour mania for controlling anything their gaze happens to fall upon, and cries of 'but they're not very nice people' is hardly going to cut the ice, is it? Did they go to war in Iraq? Did they use expenses to fund their own companies? Did they promote their biggest trougher to the Lords to allow him to bleed us dry until the day he dies? Did they go back on a referendum promise? Did they desert their natural constituency in order to cling on to power? Did they plan a smear campaign against opposition MPs and then whine when they got caught out?
No.
The problem is, all of you Big 3, but specifically Labour, just because most people find the BNP objectionable, it doesn't follow that they like you any better, and at least the BNP are honest.
By enforcing normality upon them, you surrender your second biggest weapon against them and will do nothing more than generate sympathy for them, you will increase their membership as for many waverers using the law to force a political party to do as you want will be the straw that broke the camel's back.
It isn't the last straw for me, my camel's spinal cord was severed about nine years ago, but for a number of people this will be it, for others it will be what you do tomorrow.
What I don't understand is why you don't use the most effective weapon you have against the BNP; just let them talk. Or is it that you've made such a horlicks of your time in power that you are scared that the people you have a God given right to expect to turn out for you, will look at you, then at them, then back at you, and say to themselves; 'You know, this BNP lot aren't as half as bad as Labour'?
If that is the case, then who is to blame?
a) The BNP
b) Those two Irish lads on the X-Factor
c) The Cybermen
d) You
Right, I'm not going to give the usual caveat here. The little icons dotted around this page make it perfectly clear who it is I support.
Looks like old Harridan Harperson is going to get what she wanted. It sits nicely with the old warning about being careful what you wish for.
BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.
Now as far as I'm concerned, it is a party with its own values. They are values I do not hold therefore I won't join them, just as a Labour supporter won't support Libertarian values and therefore won't be joining us. Fine.
Ahhh, yes, but black people can't join the BNP. Their rules don't allow it.
Well, fine. Their party, their rules.
I have a sneaking suspicion that not many black or Asian people would want to join the BNP, but discrimination is bad and it must be stamped out. The right of a hypothetical black person to join the BNP trumps the right of a very real BNP member to exclude them. I don't understand how one person's 'rights' can trump those of another, but there you go.
Let's just suppose for a minute that the BNP relents and alters it's constitution to allow 'non-indigenous non-Caucasian' people to join. What will the outcome be?
Will the BNP be flooded with ultra-nationalist Rastafarians and Taoists?
Doubtful.
Will the BNP find themselves hamstrung by a large faction coming into the party that is determined to work against their policies?
Possible, but then, the current BNP members will just leave and start up another party, so that won't work.
No, what would happen is that the BNP would hang an 'all welcome' sign on their front door, secure in the knowledge that the people they don't want to join, won't join. And then, when they start to appear on Question Time (which could be quite entertaining tonight given the reaction to their name last week, either that or someone released a shit load of snakes into the studio), the Big 3 will no longer be able to point their fingers and scream 'Racists!' at them, as they will have the constitution to prove they are not.
Much is written in the Libertarian blogosphere about this government's tactic of denormalising people, drinkers, smokers, the free of thought and will, but now Harman and her chums are doing something even more daft, they are normalising a party.
Eh? How's this going to work? On the one hand you use legislation to enforce your will and values on a political party. Legislation that, if the BNP have any sense, they won't break. So you can't very well screm 'Racist' at them anymore, what does that leave you? It is obvious you'll continue to do your best to ensure that they are shouted down at every opportunity, blocked from attending Parliament or debates and generally excluded, inspite of the fact that they are legitimately elected.
But of course, there's no room for views you don't like in your democracy.
The BNP will be able to point and give another example of the Labour mania for controlling anything their gaze happens to fall upon, and cries of 'but they're not very nice people' is hardly going to cut the ice, is it? Did they go to war in Iraq? Did they use expenses to fund their own companies? Did they promote their biggest trougher to the Lords to allow him to bleed us dry until the day he dies? Did they go back on a referendum promise? Did they desert their natural constituency in order to cling on to power? Did they plan a smear campaign against opposition MPs and then whine when they got caught out?
No.
The problem is, all of you Big 3, but specifically Labour, just because most people find the BNP objectionable, it doesn't follow that they like you any better, and at least the BNP are honest.
By enforcing normality upon them, you surrender your second biggest weapon against them and will do nothing more than generate sympathy for them, you will increase their membership as for many waverers using the law to force a political party to do as you want will be the straw that broke the camel's back.
It isn't the last straw for me, my camel's spinal cord was severed about nine years ago, but for a number of people this will be it, for others it will be what you do tomorrow.
What I don't understand is why you don't use the most effective weapon you have against the BNP; just let them talk. Or is it that you've made such a horlicks of your time in power that you are scared that the people you have a God given right to expect to turn out for you, will look at you, then at them, then back at you, and say to themselves; 'You know, this BNP lot aren't as half as bad as Labour'?
If that is the case, then who is to blame?
a) The BNP
b) Those two Irish lads on the X-Factor
c) The Cybermen
d) You
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)