Thursday, 29 November 2007

An Image of.......

A rather fetching teddy bear, neatly attired in blue fur. Obviously an image of the final prophet of God. Of course it is a totally ridiculous notion. Nearly as ridiculous as the concept of the final prophet himself, religion, God or indeed arresting, imprisoning and threatening a school teacher with flogging for allowing 8 year old school children to call their classroom teddy Mohammed; accusing her of blasphemy and inciting religious hatred. What a joke! If it weren’t a fact, one would think it wasn’t possible to be that stupid. But yet again, Muslims manage to conjure up an act of unbelievable idiocy. The sheer backward, dim-witted, brainless and unquestioning ignorance of the followers of this utterly pathetic religion is, quite simply, staggering. They are the epitome of why, in the long run, the human race is, hopefully, doomed.

To think that that poor woman was in Sudan to educate Sudanese children, to try to build a better future for the Sudanese state, only to be repaid with imprisonment and the threat of being flogged. It is just staggering! But it seems that everything in connection with that country brings bewilderment. None more so than the fact that the Sudanese state gets millions of dollars in aid from western tax-payers just so they can commit institutionalised genocide of their own people and fellow Muslims. It’s as big a joke as the predicament Ms Gibbons finds herself in.

The British government for once should show some backbone and warn the rabble that run that failed and worthless wasteland that there will be serious consequences should Ms Gibbons not be released immediately. We should not allow a weak and wretched nation like Sudan to indulge in an attempt at humiliation of a major western power. Iran did it earlier this year when they illegally captured sailors of the Royal Navy. It must not happen again!


Political Umpire said...

I thought the Trident replacement might need testing at one point ...

What really grated was the fact that so many in Britain and elsewhere agreed that the arrest of this woman was wrong, but argued nevertheless that it was a 'misunderstanding' and that we should be careful to 'respect' the beliefs of those responsible.

Why respect beliefs just because someone happens to hold them very strongly? I am sure Dr Shipman and Fred West must have had very strong convictions, but that does not render them worthy of respect. Indeed, Peter Sutcliffe specifically warbled on about voices from the almighty telling him to kill prostitutes. Those beliefs are dismissed out of hand as the worthless ravings of madmen. Why not the teddy bear oppressers?

Witchfinder General said...

I think I noted one of your comments on your blog about Palmerstonerian Diplomacy. Sounds like a good idea.

I am sick of hearing about the political correctness of respecting religious beliefs, and that is any religion not just the idiocy of Islam. Religions should not be respected. They should be insulted and ridiculed as often as possible, for the worthless nonesense that they are.

Political Umpire said...

I just hope Mrs Gibbons is careful about whom she chooses as her neighbours now she is back in Britain. After all, this is a country which in 2002 granted asylum to a former Taliban soldier who admitted having fought against the British and Americans in Afghanistan, but feared returning now his lot were out of power, as the regime there was now favourable to Britain & American and disposed to oppressing former Taliban combatants. I'm sure he's a civilised, Guardian reading member of the North London dinner party set at heart, but I still wouldn't risk offending his precious religious sensibilities if I were Mrs G.

Witchfinder General said...

Re Taliban soldier: he sounds like an ideal individual to grant asylum. No doubt he has made an outstanding cultural and economic contribution to our nation.

Only a country as weak as this would do it.

Political Umpire said...

Sad to say he might not even be the least deserving of our tax-beneficiaries. There was a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of an admitted Sikh terrorist a few years ago. He could not be deported to India, despite everyone accepting he was a terrorist, because there was a risk he could face the death penalty there. So he gets to live here in a state house on state benefits, theoretically indefinitely, instead. But I'm sure the Guardian and Independent newspapers will be thrilled to give him a job on the basis he is the living embodiment of the rights-based culture they are anxious to have control our immigration policy.

Witchfinder General said...

An excellent riposte, if thoroughly depressing! Still, I don’t know why I should be surprised. If we can grant hijackers asylum, anything is possible.

Political Umpire said...

Ah but they weren't real hijackers, but merely people who staged the action (at a cost of however many millions to the Britsh taxpayer through the SAS deployment, the court case, prison costs, social housing, interpreters and everyone else involved) in order to get to Britain (apparently it was cheaper than the lorry fare which is the usual transport of choice). One of the 'hijackers' had 40 members of his own family on the plane.

Of course the sacrifice of dozens of British servicemen and billions of pounds to make their country safe from the Taliban regime they claimed to be freeing means that they have been returned there, to assist with rebuilding the nation. Oh, sorry, they haven't.

It used to be the case that a gentleman's agreement operated between Britain and France regarding the channel-crossers: anyone without a ticket and passport would be discretely put on the next ferry back. The numbers trying it on were correspondingly low.

Unfortunately, lawyers got involved (and I know it's an ill bird that fouls its own nest, but it has to be said anyway).

The agreement was 'formalized' by the Dublin Convention of 1992, which provided that refugees were bound to claim asylum in the first safe country they entered. Two things followed:

1. Everyone got a right to a court hearing, to determine their claim including whether Britain was the first safe country the refugee entered.

2. Though it would often be obvious that Britain was not, it would be impossible to prove which was (and if you are in the back of a lorry with no windows, you probably wouldn't know yourself). Thus you could not be returned.

3. Just to top things off, the Human Rights Act imported the European Convention and thus added another string to the claimants' bows. They could say that returning them would breach their rights to life and right against torture, and also their right to private and family life if enough of their clan had made it here already.

Thus, everyone could now stay in Britain and tie up resources in legal proceedings (at public expense) for years at a time. Of course, most failed claimants melted away into the underground economy anyway, leaving the Government to pursue the ones it could find, namely the few who had actually made a respectable life for themselves, like a Nigerian chap who had started a broking firm in the city and was by all accounts a model citizen - to his downfall, as he paid tax and put his name to other official documentation.

4. The solution isn't difficult. It does not take a judicial process to determine that someone hopping off the Eurostar or a channel ferry or a plane arriving from Europe is not an asylum seeker at all, but an economic migrant. Absent valid documentation they should be returned to the country which wrongly let them on said vehicle/vessel/plane and the operator of the same should be fined. France, Holland, Belgium and Spain might then have an incentive to stop people wrongly entering their countries in the first place, instead of waving them on to the channel ports/airports.

The much reduced numbers in Britain could have their claims dealt with much more quickly. In the meantime they should receive temporary work permits (of a fixed duration to coincide with the legal process) rather than benefits. At the moment they aren't allowed to work whether they want to or not. The low level of benefits they receive encourage them to work in the black economy and lie about it to officialdom - a wonderful message to receive from your first few months in a country.

It is said that asylum seekers perform jobs the British don't wish to, at knock down rates too. Great, so back to sanitised slavery then. In fact they do do such jobs, but without any sort of labour law protection or unions, so they get exploited badly, and have every reason not to bother doing their jobs properly. Such is the reason fast food places in London are now samonella joints that serve food I wouldn't offer to my dog. Others drive unlicenced minicabs with the attendant risks to passengers and other road users (they are unlikely to be familiar with the Highway Code in my experience).

To the extent that the country needs immigrant labour it should follow the example of Australia, the US etc and have a green card system. It certainly isn't an argument for having the present chaotic asylum system.