CHRISTIANS vs YAGS - LATEST The Archbishop of Canterbury, bearded theologian Dr Rowan Williams, wrote (in Times Higher) urging compromise by saying that all groups surely must have the right to criticize the chosen behaviour of others and that Christians' spiritually informed criticism of homosexual acts should not be treated as 'hate speech' (Ulster TV, 7 xii; Pink News, 7 xii). He especially said:"It would be very bad ..if the idea were allowed to gain ground that a student {guild or association} could be an arbiter of publicly acceptable belief."
His statements came after several Christian leaders had spoken out against the new Sexual Orientation Regulations {being introduced in Northern Ireland by Government fiat}, claiming they were an attack on "freedom of conscience." He seemed just about game for confrontation with the likes of E.LU., expressing his belief that the banning by universities of religious groups threatened 'the integrity of the whole educational process'.
Several London medical schools were said to have joined E.LU. & ilk in backing yag 'rights' to disrupt Christian Union meetings by their tireless questioning of the Church's position(s) on homosexuality (This is London, 6 xii).
The National Secular Society prepared for battle, saying Bullying Christians Demand the Right to Mistreat Others On Campus (7 xii) and reckoning Edinburgh's Christian Union would soon launch legal action against E.LU.
Edinburgh and Exeter LUnis were named and shamed on BBC Radio 4's flagship programme 'Any Questions' (8 xii) for their attacks on their Christian Unions.
The director of Share Jesus International, the Rev Dr Rob Frost, criticised the university bans on Christians which he called "a great tragedy". He told Christian Today: "The loving, serving and gracious ways in which the Christian Unions have carried out their ministry over the last 80 or more years is to be applauded. "The fact that they are now being pushed off of university campus property, and out of the mainstream of student life is a great tragedy." (Christian Today, 9 xii)
E.LU.'s compromise offer to its C.U. of 'a room with a health warning' for the PURE course was rejected by C.U. officials (Scotsman, 9 xii).
Pretty Mid-Bedfordhire MP, Nadine Dorries, 39, backed the C.U.'s against the lunis (10 xii). "Any moves to impose on the leadership teams of CUs individuals who do not share their beliefs should also be opposed," she said as she tabled a C.U.-backing motion in the House of Commons.
Pink News recorded E.LU. to be "deadlocked" over the PURE course. Said LUni PR personages: "This is a complex and delicate matter and the university is working to strike a balance which will be acceptable to everyone involved, and is staying in close touch with Edinburgh University Students' Association (EUSA) in this regard."
MULTICULTURALISM IS DEAD! LONG LIVE PEECEE! Just eight years after announcing himself a champion of the multiculturalism which had been Labour policy since 1976, Prime Minister Blair
announced that this particular game was over and that 'integration' and 'balanced multiculturalism' were now the flavour of the month (Daily Telegraph, 8 xii). Rev Bliar thus brought welcome annoyance to Muslim 'leaders,' who feared he would insist that females should have full access to mosques; but others* were understandably cynical, noting:
(1) that NuLabour's enthusiastic admission of millions of third-world immigrants had - while generating temporarily a boom economy based on slave-for-the-time-being labour - undermined all possibility of serious integration occurring into the British way of life (itself under attack by Labour, which had weakened the family, eroded free speech and provided the conditions for yag domination) and
(2) that producing 'integration' out of his hat was as likely as Blair ever realizing his former promises of 'education, education, education' or peace and democracy in Iraq. Bliar might also turn out to have upset Christians themselves by saying that "No culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of the UK." Anyhow the likelihood of the new 'policy' resulting in much more than occasional withdrawl of funds from some mad mullah's favourite 'charities' looked slight - for Muesli slave women would be unlikely to respond to any legal liberation of them, never having produced any noticeable Muslim feminist movement in a generation. And Bliar's demand for acceptance by all of the 'British' value of tolerance could well prefigure an actual intensification of peecee pressures to disallow insensitivity to the sensitized.
Bliar's policy change, whatever it might turn out to involve (and 'Opposition Leader' David Cameron - praised by Blair for not 'playing the race card' -- needed to press Bliar urgently for details), was made in a lecture to the Runnymede Trust, which had been working for a 'multi-ethnic Britain,' but with increasing realism; and the change was accompanied with the usual 'celebration' of diversity, which had merely to be 'balanced' with integration. In the left's hands 'integration,' like multiculturalism, could actually have big dangers for Whites - resulting in busing, forced cohabitation and even eventually state-funded pressures for intermarriage as called for by Black Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson in Rituals of Blood.
However, the Labour-backing
Daily Mirror tabloid's interpretation (in agreement with the Torygraph) was that some genuine positive change was underway: "His words are a clear sign Labour fears it is alienating working class voters who feel ethnic minorities are a higher priority;" and the Sun said Blair's patience with extremist immigrants had "snapped." The Guardian said the Government had "announced a crackdown on foreign imams by requiring them to have a proper command of English before they are allowed to enter the UK."
* See e.g. the correspondents who wrote in to the Sun newspaper, 11 xii.
Amusingly, Rev Blair's effort had been anticipated a week previously by BNP leader Nick Griffin, who had told followers in the BNP's top Barking & Dagenham constituency that 'multiculturalism was dead - killed by the BNP.' The Rev's advice to immigrants to Britain that they should 'like it or bugger off' was also splendidly reminiscent of the favourite advice of the French National Front to immigrants about France, 'love it or leave it' ('Allez-la ou quittez-la'). Evidently, having bullied the 'Conservatives' into silence on race, immigration, crime and the lunacy of comprehensive schools, NuLabour wanted to move into the political space that the terrified Tories had left wide-open. Rev. Bliar, always supposedly concerned with his 'legacy,' was making sure that Labour would win another election and that he himself would surely go down in history as a political, if no other kind of genius.
It transpired that Mr Blair agreed with a windy and self-contradictory November letter from some 'New Generation Network' in the Grauniad which, while protesting belief in "freedom of expression" went on to advocate the elimination of all prejudice against Blecks, Mueslis, yags etc, (20 xi) - no prize for guessing how such elimination would be achieved. Having bullied the (admittedly timorous) Whites into silence about race, the lordly 'moderate' left suddenly favoured free discussion so as to disguise the rampant 'anti-racist' anti-White authoritarianism which they had permitted until it succeeded. Now, apparently, was the time to put knives back in sheaths and pretend that all was sweetness and light in the oh-so-decent immigrant-slave society which lefties had created, despite that society spawning thousands of new welfare-dependents daily with the importation of ever more slave-women from Pakistan and drug mules from Jamaica.
In the Observer, dotty-leftie columnist Mary Riddell quickly arrived at her own preferred version of Tonyman's new 'integration' proposal: "This is the opportunity to defuse the public power of all gods, to ban religious schools of every hue, to end the cross-contamination of faith and policy and to move towards a secular state." This was the opportunity to get the bishops out of the House of Lords, thought daffy Mary (10 xii, 'Integrate? Tell that to the Christian church, Mr Blair').
Rev Bliar's demand for 'integration' by Mueslis was accompanied by a fresh attack on the family as he announced a crackdown on 'deadbeat dads' who declined to support runaway wives and accompanying useless children. Fathers who thus rejected marriage break-ups were to be 'named and shamed' on the internet (this modern version of the pillory being introduced after twenty years of successive governments persecuting fathers who had no wish to finance their wives' adultery and desertion). No wonder it seemed that the Blairite house of cards must soon tumble, even if the wretched 'Conservatives' were incapable of lifting a finger to help the process!
The pseudo-drama of Rev Bliar's pseudo-conversion was captured by columnist Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times (10 xii): "Immigrants to this country have a "right to be different" and a "duty to integrate", according to Tony Blair. I think this means clear off if you don't like it here, but one can never be entirely sure with him. For example, he also said multiculturalism had always been about a balance between conformity and difference, which is a breathtaking assertion - a little as if he had announced: "There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - and, y'know, we never said there were." Government-sponsored multiculturalism for 30 years insisted there was no imperative to share the core values of society - if there were core values of society, which there probably weren't. People who disagreed were branded "racist". If Blair had made his speech 10 years ago he'd have branded himself "racist", which would have been fun to watch, I suppose."
The Torygraph also made good points (
9 xii): "True, the ideology which Mr Blair now decries has been advanced chiefly by his own party. Given his readiness to apologise for ancient wrongs, it would perhaps have been appropriate to acknowledge this more recent mistake. Still, we are delighted that Mr Blair has come round to the view that this newspaper has always held, and that our countrymen have clung to through decades of official bullying and hectoring. What, though, are these "British values" that Mr Blair wants everyone to accept. It will not do to carry on about freedom, fairness and tolerance: admirable as they are, these virtues would serve equally well for Ecuador or Finland. British values, surely, are bound up in our institutions: common law, a sovereign parliament, habeas corpus, counties, army regiments: the very institutions that have often been traduced by this ministry. Perhaps Mr Blair might devote his final months to reparing some of this damage."
Top columnist Simon Heffer was still more scathing: "Saying you want people to integrate but remain multicultural is like saying you want them to stay sober but still drink a bottle of vodka each night."
America's National Review welcomed Blair's 'bigger than babyish' steps away from classical Labourite multiculturalism, but noted that he had not dissociated himself from voices in his party wanting still further free-speech-dampening laws against 'stirring up religious hatred' (11 xii).
In the Guardian, columnists Madeleine Bunting, Faisal al Yafai, Simon Woolley [Black] and Dave Hill whinged that Blair's speech had shown insufficient appreciation of the hard times that Muslims had in Britain, especially because of the Government's joining the War on Terror, and virtually denounced as 'racist' Blair's saying "Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. Conform to it; or don't come here."; but they met with rather little support from correspondents, who tended to reckon Blair was sensibly reining in PeeCee so as to halt Labour's slide in the polls.
Rev Bliar found himself fortified in his turn-around by his former Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, revealing that Britain had argued hard in Washington not to disband Madman Insane's half-a-million-strong army, and not to cast equally into unemployment the further half-a-million state servants (doctors, teachers, nurses etc.) who had joined Saddam's Ba'ath Party not as convinced ideologues but only because there was little alternative except emigration. Some high-ranking American civil servants backed up Hoon, saying the USA had simply ignored British advice. The possibility thus emerged of Blair re-branding himself as a pseudo-true son of the Empire - if only he could resist the temptations to make pseudo-apologies for slavery (in which the English had never engaged on their own soil until they allowed the importation of Pakistani brides into forced marriages).
LYNN & VANHANEN LATEST A warm welcome was given to "IQ and Global Inequality", which extended "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", by Phil Rushton (VDare,
7 xii). For example: "In my view, Lynn and Vanhanen have made what is arguably the most important contribution to economic understanding since Adam Smith showed that free markets promote economic development. They have shown also that national IQs explain much of the variation between nations in a wide range of economic and social phenomena-not just income levels. Their book extends the explanatory power of the concept of intelligence in a way that makes a major contribution to the integration of psychology with the other social sciences."
------------------------------------
Comments?
Email Chris Brand.
Some history.
-----------------------------------
