A Punch Line

From "The Local" (Switzerland's news in English) comes news that a Muslim family has been fined CHF 1,400 for refusing to let their daughters partake in mixed swimming classes.


From the letters page of today's Daily Telegraph:

"SIR – Alcohol, cheap or otherwise, is only a small contributing factor to drunken and disorderly behaviour (Letters, March 26). The greater factor is the mind.
In Switzerland, young and old people drink just as much as those in Britain, but seem to manage to get home without vomiting, swearing, urinating or violating others’ property. Why? Because they have always been taught that this is not the proper way to behave and the Swiss police do not tolerate such behaviour.
Perhaps the Government should consider a more moral education system.
Blaise Craven
Zurich, Switzerland"

When considering an ultimatum that should be given to immigrants whereby they are informed that if they wish to live in our country then they respect the rules of our society, coupled with the question of acceptable behaviour among society; then a certain 'Punch' line springs to mind in regard to the two items above:

"that's the way to do it"

Just saying..................... 

Compare & Contrast

It is reported that Frank Carson counted Bernard Manning as a friend and defended him against charges of racism. “How could anyone call Bernard a racist?” he wondered. “He even had black horses at his funeral”.


In the same newspaper we read of a man who, having placed his belongings including a scarf on the belt to pass through a scanner, noticed a woman in a hijab pass through without showing her face. Querying what would happen were he to cover his face with his scarf resulted in a lengthy questioning session in which he was accused of making a racist remark. After considerable time, during which the police were called and management from BAA, a compromise was reached in which this man agreed that his remark could be considered offensive to a Muslim. So it is possible for racism to be an offence if a remark could have caused distress?


How have we allowed ourselves to be conditioned to the extent that free speech and even our private thoughts can be held to be verboten? As with the health & safety brigade, so have the politically correct brigade built an industry, ones that the taxpayers fund.


Frank Carson was renowned for suffering from what might be called verbal excess, yet this man - because of the pc brigade - was prevented from talking the hindi leg of a donkey. Is it not better that we allow a thousandfold abuses of free speech than to deny free speech? Likewise, does not free speech carry with it the another freedom; to listen?


To underline my point that we do indeed live under a system of democratised dictatorship, I am reminded of a quote by Herbert Hoover:

"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."

 On that note - and to borrow a legal phrase - I believe I am entitled to say that I rest my case!

More on racism and racists

Readers will know that on Sunday last I ventured into the subject of racism with this post, one which asked the question of what defines racism. I return to the subject with two newspaper articles dealing with an incident that occurred seventeen months ago in Leicester. The events are recounted in the Daily Telegraph and the Mail, the latter with 'stills' from cctv cameras.

The incident to which the two newspaper articles refer concerns an attack by 4 Muslim women on a white woman who was accompanied by her boyfriend. If an attack by 4 Muslim women on a white woman, whilst using phrases such as "White Bitch" and "White Slag", is not racist then perhaps it is now necessary to redefine the term 'racist'. That the resultant sentencing process produced suspended sentences with one defendant receiving a curfew between 9pm and 6am, whilst the other three were ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work, totally beggars belief.

Let us suppose for one moment that the racial origins of those involved had been reversed, one that involved 4 white women carrying out an unprovoked attack on a Muslim woman. It is extremely unlikely that William Hill or Betfair would even be prepared to quote odds against the full weight of the judicial system descending upon the 4 white women; accompanied of course by the shrieks of condemnation from the likes of the Equality and Human Rights Commission or the Institute for Race Relations, plus their associated 'stakeholders' plus those of politicians and the police in the vanguard.

In passing it has to be noted that it is surprising the two reports do not contain any statement condeming the attack from the police officers involved in this case. And when the positions are reversed......? Also, if the boyfriend caused harm in defending his girlfriend then it would appear the 'stills' do not bear this out as it would appear from them that he was no more than a spectator, or was that selective editing on the part of those who made the 'stills' available - or even by the press in deciding what they would print?

It is necessary to end this post before something is written that causes plod to knock on the door with charges of inciting racism, however suffice to say that, nowadays, it would appear the scales of justice appear to be somewhat out of balance.


Update: And Emma West gets remanded in custody..........? 

Update (2): Up Pompeii has a video - apologies to the boyfriend, he was no spectator'!