Bravery and banners.

Several times over the last few years Mrs R has mumbled to her family that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as something completely different by some sections of the British and international community. That idea has been brought home, again, when a bunch of Muslims decided to shout and wave banners at soldiers of The Royal Anglian Regiment during their homecoming march in Barking - that's in Essex, England, by the way.

These Muslims shouted things such as

'British troops go to hell'

and

'murderers, murderers, murderers'

They also resorted to using Godwin's Law by mentioning Hitler and one protester, safe behind his Police protectors, apparently shouted:

'This is a protest against parading in a Muslim area. We love death the way you love life.'

Errm!

As Mrs R has already said, Barking is in Essex, England. Let's quickly grab a bit of history from ever-reliable Wikipedia.

The manor of Barking was the site of Barking Abbey, a nunnery founded in 666 by Eorcenwald, bishop of London, destroyed by the Danes and reconstructed about a hundred years later in 970 by King Edgar. At the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1536, Barking Abbey was demolished: the parish church, St Margaret's stands upon its site, where some walling and foundations are all that otherwise remain. The Norman church of St Margaret was where Captain James Cook married Elizabeth Batts of Shadwell in 1762.

Sounds to Mrs R as if it's a typically British sort of place, with ancient roots and quite a bit of Christian heritage too.

So, how come these relative newcomers to Britain reckon it's a Muslim town area? - Actually, Mrs R can't answer that, she doesn't recall visiting Barking and has only the Wikipedia article and other stuff on the internet to refer to and so, apart from deciding that they must think it's a 'Muslim town' because they're Muslims and happen to live there, she'll move on.

Quite a few bloggers are a bit miffed by the way this incident has been reported, as are one or two of the commenters in the Mail - but she won't say much about that either, except to simply show what's been written (my bold):-

The [40] Muslim protesters chanted ... as they had an uneasy stand-off against a [100-strong] mob, some waving St George's Crosses, Union flags and an English Defence League flag.

It would seem that the want-to-get-some-publicity protesters belong to a little group calling themselves 'Muslims against the Crusade'. Mrs R has taken a look at their website (No, you don't get a link, you'll have to find it for yourself). She noticed that the group doesn't seem to come from Barking, and she thought some of the things written on the site were quite inflammatory, with death threats and so on. It also had pictures of people in long robes attacking somebody who looked remarkably like a mediaeval Knight, and who was carrying a shield emblazoned with the Cross of St George - not the Union Flag. Historical stuff, stuff that happened centuries ago. There were winners and losers in those old battles, same as in all battles. It's history. Next!

Okay, umm, so what's next?

Just a few thoughts, and Mrs R's going to remind these brave, shouty, placard-waving, protesters what's going on in Afghanistan - where the Royal Anglians had been.

First of all she'll remind these 'protesters' that 15 men of the Royal Anglian Regiment, their ages ranging from 19 to 31 years, have lost their lives in Afghanistan since 2002. Many more Royal Anglians have been wounded, some suffering life-changing injuries.

Being incredibly simplistic, and probably wrong, it seems there are groups of 'my Islam is better than your Islam' who have for very many years been trying to make other groups of Afghan Muslims do as they're told. And they're quite nasty and brutal about it too, including stoning women to death for looking at a man and executing little children if they think they're spying for the other chaps.

Quite a lot of people left Afghanistan some years ago, on arriving in the 'West' whether it was Australia or USA they told terrible tales of oppression and brutality and asked their new countries to help those they'd left behind, so America and a few military chums from other countries, including Britain, decided to go riding to the rescue of those they thought were the least bad good guys. The idea was, they said, to get these arguing Muslims to stop fighting each other - to stop arguing, and be a bit more friendly towards each other. The idea was to try to get these different groups to 'live and let live' - something that's quite common outside the world of Islam, where lots of religious groups with all sorts of different ideas rub shoulders and tolerate get along with each other, mostly by minding their own business.

Trouble is that this idea of 'live and let live' seems to be seriously against the old values of some people who've now made their homes in Britain. Some of these don't like the idea of compromise and 'getting along', they want to be in charge and tell everybody else how to live their lives - and that's probably why these chaps were waving their placards and banners in Barking, and why they've got plans to wave them in other British (not only English) towns too. What these mostly-young men don't seem to have sussed out is that they're using a loud-mouthed argument that's a bit alien and unpleasant to many modern Brits, and they don't seem to understand that some people think they're a bit old-fashioned and silly - not least because in the western, non-Islamic, world women tend to have equal rights to western men these days, and don't like to be told what to do, what to wear and which deity to worship. Others think these noisy young men and their friends are almost, literally, biting the hand that feeds them and so they should go and live somewhere else, and take their protests with them and see what happens to them in a different country.

Those protesters are protesting in Britain because they can - that's all.

They're 'exercising their Freedom of Speech' too. It's one of those Human Rights, enshrined in International Law, but is something that's denied to many in Afghanistan by, possibly, the groups of Muslims these chaps claim to support. If so, it's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Mrs Rigby thinks there are other things these chaps could do, but they probably won't because she thinks they're cowards. By waving placards and name-calling they're doing exactly the same as many adolescents - making an easy point that makes some grown-ups a bit uncomfortable. After their little vociferous protest they walk, maybe get on the bus or train, or perhaps even drive their cars to their nice and cosy homes, where they'll be safe and sound - and then they can watch themselves on the television and pat themselves on the back for making their point so brilliantly. This is, naturally, the same sort of thing their peers in Afghanistan do, so much better than dodging bullets and not stepping on land mines whilst trying to grow their food.

Mrs R would like to tell these chaps of the Rigby's friends and neighbours youngsters - young people we've seen grow from almost nothing to near adulthood - who are planning to join the British Army, Navy or Air Force. She knows increasing maturity and increasing realism might change their minds, or their minds might be changed by a military assessment panel. Only time will tell.

Our young people are also also doing this 'because they can', because they're free to choose how to live their lives. Nobody's telling them to fight a war because of their religion, or lack of it. Nobody's telling them to go into the forces because 'it's the right thing to do' they're doing it because, for them, it's the right career choice - nothing more. On their way through their lives these young Brits have already made lifestyle choices. They've never been in too much trouble, have had part-time Saturday jobs and still managed to pass lots of exams and are now making near-adult decisions about what they will do with the rest of their lives - and, even if they don't end up in the forces, they don't plan to spend any part of the rest of their lives shouting, or waving threatening placards, at unarmed troops on the safe streets of Britain.

Frankly, Mrs R knows which of these groups of young men she'd trust if she was in trouble, or if there were a crisis - and it isn't the ones who, tucked safely behind a load of hi-vis jacketed British Bobbies, waved their banners and chanted their slogans whilst two hundred well-disciplined soldiers marched through the streets of Barking, Essex, England.

....

'I don't have to accept someone who lives off a state they reject'

"I don't have to accept someone who lives off a state they reject, ..."

This, apparently, is what Mr Sarrazin, who works for the Bundesbank and was Germany's finance minister, said when referring to some German immigrant populations.

He also said the influx of immigrants is making Germany 'dumber', because

immigrants from 'Turkey, the Middle East and Africa' were less educated.

and

Because immigrants tend to have more children than Germans - who have the lowest birth rate in Europe - this caused 'a different propagation of population groups with different intelligence

So ... picking apart the article it seems that a man has looked at a load of statistics relating to new arrivals in Germany and has, perhaps clumsily, said that, many newcomers :-

1) Have limited education in their home country.
2) Choose to ghettoise their living arrangements, and
3) Are reluctant to integrate and adopt the German way of life
4) Have more children than the average German family, and
5) Pass on their own cultural and education aspirations to their children

According to the Mail Mr Sarrazin shouldn't have done any of this and he

has not yet apologised. and It is thought his position at the Bundesbank may now be untenable.

Mrs Rigby wonders why he should even imagine apologising? There's no point, he's already been condemned by both the media and a respresentative of a presumably vocal self-interest group because ...

A spokesman for a Muslim group in Berlin said: 'He is a tired old white Christian male full of prejudice and few ideas.'

Mrs Rigby is delighted to acknowledge that this response as a wonderful example of the freedom of speech we enjoy in the Western world. So let's look again at what Mr Serrazin said

'I don't have to accept someone who lives off a state they reject'

That, is for Mrs R, the bottom line - and she turns it into a question.

Is it not reasonable to ensure that those who live off the state accept, acknowledge and abide by, the rules of that state?

....

Christians and agnostics are dirty - official

Department for Health has ruled that

female Muslim staff will be permitted to cover their arms on hospital wards to preserve their modesty.

Presumably, before either rolling their nice clean sleeves back down to preserve their modesty, or pulling on the nice disposable sleeves the hospitals will buy, they'll scrub their arms really carefully.

Ah, maybe not.

Leicester University said some Muslim females ‘had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate handwashing’, while Sheffield University reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to ‘scrub’ as this left her forearms exposed.

It would be interesting to know how a clean piece of fabric covering arms and hands that haven't been washed is going to either improve or enhance patient safety, especially as nurses etc wear their uniforms when travelling to and from work.

The latest guidance is at odds with previous DoH guidance guidance, which said that

... all staff should be ‘bare below the elbow’ after long sleeves were blamed for spreading bacteria, leading to superbug deaths

Those rules were a waste of time then.

It would seem that jewellery will not longer be forbidden either, as long as it's worn on the arms - where patients are likely to come into contact with it, because

Sikhs can wear bangles, as long as they can be pushed up the arm during direct patient care

Presumably they'll be expected to wash their hands both before and after pushing their bangles up their arms?

Mrs Rigby wonders why, if all these rules can be varied according to an individual's background and personal preferences, patients are required to remove wedding rings etc before even the most minor of surgery.

Surely, these days, washing hands or putting a piece of sticking plater over ear rings would be enough to stop germs from migrating from something as aseptic as gold.

The decision was reached by a working party

comprising two Health Department officials, a member of the Health Protection Agency, two female Muslim hospital chaplains, an Imam and two members of MSCP (that's Muslim Spiritual Care Provision in the NHS)

It's hardly surprising that

"Lord Carey, one of seven bishops to sign a letter supporting Mrs Chaplin at her tribunal, said the Government was guilty of ‘double standards’"

and

"campaigners for the rights of Christian nurses to wear crosses said the Health Department had failed to consult them adequately"

The revised rules were quietly issued on March 26 2010.

Shirley Chaplin lost her appeal relating to the wearing of a crucifix on 6th April 2010 - 11 days after the DoH announcement.

Oh, and separately, thanks to Old Holborn for letting us know that the Met allows Islamic protesters to throw shoes

Scotland Yard has bowed to Islamic sensitivities and accepted that Muslims are entitled to throw shoes in ritual protest — which could have the unintended consequence of politicians or the police being hit.

Protesters can still be charged with "violent disorder" if they throw stones, plastic juice bottles etc, but not if they throw footwear, of any description, including nice soft things such as

ski-boots and clogs

It would seem that no special announcement was made, it the 'concession' was slipped in quietly following the arrest of more than 70 Muslim protesters outside the Israeli Embassy in London

Judge Denniss agreed that the act of shoe-throwing should not be considered in a charge of violent disorder against the student because it was “a symbolic” political gesture.

Got to smile though, because although the Police offered ... a facility allowed for people to bring old pairs of shoes

... they didn’t realise we were going to throw the shoes so hard

Makes you wonder who'll be the first to, accidentally of course, get a stone in their shoe.

....

"Exclusively gay?"

Gay hotels fear antigay law

Hoteliers chasing the pink tourist pound have joined criticism of a law outlawing driscrimination (sic) against homosexuals.

The hotels, which cater for the thriving “exclusively gay” tourism market, say that they should be exempt from the Sexual Orientation Regulations as they will be forced to accept heterosexual guests. Some say that a ban on “gay only” advertising could put them out of business.

John Bellamy, who runs Hamilton Hall, said: “We are a unique venue and we only admit gay and bisexual men. Under this law, we would go out of business. This so-called antidiscrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays.”

Another hotelier, Mark Hurst, co-owner of the exclusively gay Guyz hotel in Blackpool, said that his gay clientele would feel uncomfortable mixing with straight customers.

From the Times. Feb 1st 2007. The Times did not permit comments for that article, but there are a few here.

Three years later, on Easter Saturday 2010, The Guardian and other newspapers tried to whip up a storm around Chris Grayling's remarks concerning what happened quite some time ago at a B&B somewhere in England. (Yes, somehow, it had to be in England - 'this sort of thing' would never happen in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.)

Mrs Rigby notes that the two linked articles generated, at the time of her first blog draft, 1423 and 377 comments respectively, but more about that in a moment.

Lots of bloggers have posted about this too, and Mrs R knows she's a bit late joining the party fray. If you haven't read what other people think it's probably a good idea - because they wrote when this was a 'hot' issue. Look at Iain Dale's blog first and then some others. Here is just a selection. Don't forget to also read the comments - it'll take quite a time but is worth it.
Boateng and Demetriou
LFaT
Constantly Furious
Old Holborn
The Devil
Leg-Iron

We Rigbys talked about this quite a bit over the long weekend - the subject came up again and again, it didn't matter who we were with, and it's because of what one of the Juniors said we ended up sort of deciding that it's quite an appropriate weekend for it to happen really. It's also a 'hot' and emotive topic that some political activists won't let disappear, not in the run up to the election when somebody or other thinks they can gain the upper hand.

Is it all a storm in a teacup? No, on balance it probably isn't, and it may well end up being a defining moment when set alongside other things that hit both the mainstream media and the blogosphere at the same time - including the Greenpeace activist who wrote, about 'dissenters':

We know who you are.
We know where you live.
We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.

Seems a bit like a threat, and hints at what might happen if you don't go along with their way of thinking. And that, you see, is how a lot of people have felt about quite a few of the more recent 'minority' things that have got onto the statute books and led to successful criminal prosecutions – if you don't go along with 'this' way of thinking, and also prove you go along with 'this' way of thinking, then nasty things will happen to you and yours.

Nobody could ever argue that it's acceptable to look at somebody and say you won't employ them because of what they're wearing or the colour of their skin. We're all equal, the law says so.

Nobody could ever argue that it is either acceptable or reasonable, all other things being equal, to turn down a job applicant solely because they have a 'private' life that is different from all the other applicants. We're all equal, the law says so.

Nobody could ever reasonably argue that an individual's genetic make-up, over which they have no control, should ever be used to give one person more rights than another. We're all equal, the law says so.

But all these things actually happen – and making these distinctions is enshrined in British law - because of 'positive discrimination', which allows, encourages, and actively forces discrimination – and the law says we are not all equal.

These laws say that employers must give more rights, and more chances of promotion to a non-white British-born man than a white British-born man. The law says that a man who prefers to wear a dress, for whatever reason, shall have greater employment rights than a man who likes to wear trousers. The law says that girls and/or women must be able to join clubs that were originally, and exclusively, for boys and/or men - but they can keep their own clubs, to protect them in case the boys or men who'd like to join are perverts. The law says that those of African or Asian ancestry can have their own clubs, but white Europeans are not allowed to. The law says that if an individual says that they are not heterosexual, then they have more rights than those who keep quiet about their 'private life', whatever their sexual preference. There are many more instances, too many to mention here, but it must also be noted that the law also says that employers must keep careful records to prove compliance, or risk serious punishment.

You see, a lot of things that have happened have presumed that being part of a minority group is detrimental to employment – in terms of getting a job and various 'rights' afterwards. This was sometimes the case, but that sort of discrimination is, thankfully, very rare now.

All these 'rights' have spilled over into everyday issues, where an individual can actually be arrested for having the wrong sort of private conversation within earshot of an eavesdropper who takes offence on behalf of an individual, or group of individuals, who are nowhere to be seen. That 'sort of thing' reminded one of the Rigbys of Venetian letterboxes, and fear of denunciation followed by arrest and imprisonment.

So, why did one of the more thoughtful Junior Rigbys think Easter was an appropriate time for this matter to be aired? It was not because Easter celebrates the defining moment of Christianity, it was because Easter remembers how a man was put to death for being the leader of a group of people who were going against the establishment of the time.

Today some people look at 'that sort of thing' in bemusement, can't imagine it happening 'these days'. It's 'cool' to be anti-establishment, it's called freedom of expression, freedom of association, and so on and so on. Putting people in prison for doing something as normal-in-Britain as kissing their boy/girl friend out of doors would be mean. Executing people for not doing what the government, or the church, says would be old-fashioned, barbaric, and so on, and so on.

In 2010 A.D. – that's Anno Domini, 2010 years after Christ – Britain, parts of Europe, the Americas and Antipodes are busy dismantling the old religious social rules and values. These rules and values are being replaced with complex rules chosen by the state, and some believe these rules are more onerous, more difficult to abide by, than any code of conduct as basic as the Ten Commandments - and are subject to harsh punishments, often following trial by media.

It seems strange to talk about religion, because we're frequently told it's old hat, it's passée, but until very recently (in historic terms) religion provided the framework for the moral and social code of almost all countries and societies. Most adults in the west can recognise these Commandments, which are remarkably similar in Judaism, Christianity and Islam – because all these faiths acknowledge the words of Moses.

At their most basic level this moral, ethical and social, code is taken from the following - To have only one God, not worship idols or take the name of God in vain (blaspheme) and actively remember the holy days, honour/obey parents/seniors, not kill (except in battle or for punishment), not be adulterous, not steal, not tell lies to or about others, not covet another's spouse or property.

Of course, over the centuries, extra fripperies that suited the rulers of the time were added to those basic rules, which made things quite tough for some people and kept them firmly in their place.

In 2010 there are some countries that have not changed their moral codes and laws to bring them 'up to date' - not a bit, and some of them even retain the same ancient punishments. In these faith-based countries you fall foul of the law at your peril. Wrinkled Weasel has a picture in his blog sidebar that might act as a reminder of what some 'establishments' will do to those that break their strict moral code.

In the meantime, in Britain, there have been employment tribunals ruling that a person whose lifestyle revolves around environmental issues shall have his 'belief' given the same standing as an established religion. There has been a ruling that a young man, who claimed to be a Jedi, should be allowed to wear a hooded top that covered his face – in a place where headgear was prohibited for security reasons. He was even offered an official apology. There have been challenges regarding the carrying of weapons – for religious reasons - and so on, and so on.

All this means that Britain, and the west as a whole, seems to be getting a bit confused about what should be right and what should be wrong. Some adults even think it's reasonable, and fair, to expect an eleven year old to be able to help choose new teaching staff, and for sixteen year olds to be able to vote - but not be allowed to either leave full time education or do adult things such as joining the Army without parental consent, nor be sold alcohol until they reach the ripe old age of 25.

Over the Easter weekend various Rigbys decided that the situation has, almost, reached a tipping point because we are beginning to see the signs of unrest, especially when one vociferous group – with rights enshrined in law – comes up against another quieter group – also with rights enshrined in law - and where some apparent supporters of the former refuse to even attempt to try to negotiate a centre ground, whilst calling the other group rude names and threatening prosecution and persecution. They want to be seen as winning, and right, and others want to jump on the bandwagon and use it for political gain, to prove the others are the bad guys.

At some point the the myriad of laws need to be clarified, and perhaps some groups, and some individuals, might end up being effectively ruled 'not special enough' to continue to be more equal and benefit from positive discrimination - but it will take a test case, or test cases, before this can happen, because our laws no longer encourage, or allow, things to settle to a natural equilibrium.

Whether this will happen to a formal religion, to a 'minority' group, or an individual remains to be seen, but some of the wider Rigby 'clan' think this will happen soon - and they decided this because of the outpouring of public feeling, via the internet, over the issue raised by the politicised sting on Chris Grayling. A remarkable number of people supported the right to say, “No, not here, not in my home,” Some felt that this view was reinforced by others who had, over three years ago, acknowledged that they would be embarrassed to be around heterosexuals at bedtime.

Ultimately, surely, this means that if a B&B or hotel can be exclusively gay or lesbian, if a café or restaurant can be exclusively vegan, if an hotel can refuse to admit guests along with their dogs or children, if a butcher can be exclusively halal or kosher, then the opposite must also be possible, and should be equally legally permissible. If all of the former establishments can advertise their services without censure, then the opposite must also be allowed.

Sexuality, whether hetero or homo, is rarely a lifestyle choice, rarely going against the mainstream and rarely just to be anti-establishment. Something so intensely personal and private should never be used as either a political tool or a weapon.

Give and take, compromise and tolerance, are all two way streets - especially in matters intensely personal and relating to sexuality. People are comfortable with some things, not with others; can talk openly about some things, not others, and that's the way it's always been.

Before you blast Mrs Rigby and her wider family as being unreasonable, some of our dearest friends have only very recently plucked up the courage (their words) to fasten their relationship (their words) with a civil ceremony. This couple has never stayed overnight at Rigby Towers, not because they have never been invited but because they have declined, for the same reason given by the owners of Guyz Hotel - it is because they feel uncomfortable being around heterosexuals at bedtime, and that is also why we Rigbys have never stayed at our friends place either, it simply wouldn't be fair.

Give and take, compromise and tolerance.

Anything else is dictatorial and undemocratic, actively removes rights from one sector of the community and causes disharmony.

....

Easter according to St John

John 20:1 (NRSV)
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Mag'dalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.
2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb.
4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in.
6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there,
7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.

8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;
9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
10 Then the disciples returned to their homes.

11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb;
12 and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet.
13 They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him."

14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away."
16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbou'ni!" (which means Teacher).
17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

18 Mary Mag'dalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

....

Not a good Friday?

The day after Mr Brown

praised Catholicism for often being the "conscience of the nation"

it is reported that

Britain’s most senior Catholic admits ‘evil’ clergy abuse has led to ‘great public humiliation’ of [the] Church

and

the cover-up of “evil” paedophilia by senior clergy “brings shame on us all”

Phew.

Cranmer perhaps explains the timing of the church's announcement, by suggesting that

Christians endure what Josephus referred to as ‘that most wretched of deaths’ on Good Friday because of the sure and certain hope of the Resurrection: it sustains them through the despair.

So, maybe, the Catholic Church is trying to do the right thing by letting this announcement be published on Good Friday, the most holiest of days.

On the other hand, Mrs Rigby doesn't think Mr Brown's words are more than a cynical attempt to garner votes from a section of the population, and a cynical attempt to link with what he knows has been bad news for the Catholic faith. Mr Brown was, perhaps even hinting they are the epitome of evil Britishness - he tends to do things like that, and says things that can be taken in more than one way.

Mr Brown is, as are his wife and children, a member of the Calvinist Presbyterian Church of Scotland. He worships at St Bryce Kirk in Kirkaldy, where his father, Rev John Brown, was a Minister.

Mrs Rigby thinks Mr Brown should remain true to his religious persuasion, even in public life, to do otherwise suggests a lack of confidence in his belief.

....

Pope Benedict XVI speaks out against Harman's "equality" law.

This doesn't really need much of a comment :-

Pope Benedict XVI claimed that legislation introduced by Labour to end discrimination “actually violates natural law” because it stopped worshippers remaining true to their beliefs.

Rather than making society more equal, the Government’s new rules limited religious freedom, he said.

His strongly worded intervention in British politics comes after leaders of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England clashed with Labour over its Equality Bill, which they fear will make them admit homosexuals to the priesthood or face prosecution for discriminating against them.

In an address delivered yesterday [1st February] to 35 Catholic bishops from England and Wales, the Pope attacked Labour’s equality proposals. He said: “Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet ... the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

 The article continues :-

It is also believed the law, intended to outlaw discrimination against any group in the “provision of services” from health care to shopping, would restrict the right of a church school to employ a head teacher who shared their faith, and would open the job up to members of any religion or atheists.

From this little paragraph it would appear that this is yet more woolly-worded legislation. It would appear that Harriet wants Christians to be able to be head teachers in Islamic schools, Jewish schools and so on - and vice versa.

That'll go down well.

It will be interesting to see reports of the very first test case.

Mr Tatchell, who seems to have been fairly quiet lately, has become something of a seer and speaks on behalf of the British population :-

Benedict is likely to make highly partisan political criticisms during his visit. Most British people will not welcome a meddlesome pontiff who opposes our equality laws.”

Sorry Mr Tatchell, many people would think your comments rather presumptive - the "British people" can speak for themselves. You're likely to be quite surprised by the popularity of the Pope's proposed visit.

a rambling inconsequential fool

This is a lazy sort of post, taken mostly from comments following a Mail article. One that seemed to ring true was this :-

Peter Hain is a rambling inconsequential fool.

Why would anybody feel the need to refer to Peter Hain in any way, shape or form? Does he actually do anything useful, has he ever done anything useful?

Anyhow, Hain is reported as being appalled at the 'inflammatory language' used by David Davies (the Welsh one, MP for Monmouth) who apparently said

there do seem to be some people in some communities who don't respect women's rights at all and who - if I may say, without necessarily saying that this is the case on this occasion - who have imported into this country barbaric and medieval views about women.'

David Davies felt the need to say this when referring to a particularly nasty rape case, in which 13/14 year old Balal Kahn* repeatedly raped a 20 year old woman in front of his friends - who presumably thought it was an okay thing to do otherwise they'd have stopped him.

This lovely young chap has been sentenced to 3 years 'because of his age and because he said "sorry" '. David Davies would like the sentence reviewed and was explaining his opinion on Radio 5 Live.

The Mail says critics described the remarks as 'dangerous'.

It must have been quite difficult to find people willing to openly criticise David Davies, because only Hain and one other individual are mentioned by name :- 

Professor Heaven Crawley, of the Centre for Migration Policy Research at Swansea University, Mr Davies showed 'a crass misunderstanding of gender relations and why rape happens', adding that there were 'plenty of barbaric and backward' attitudes among men in all sorts of communities, including white British.

Professor Crawley** has studied things like this, she teaches them too, but her words don't go down well with readers of the Mail who say :-

How on earth can these few words be "dangerous"

Dangerous - maybe because the people being criticized could get cross and take to the streets?

Another comment asks :-

Can someone, anyone out there please explain to me why it is "deeply offensive" to tell the truth. Surely the whole point here is that, this character is a blot on the human race, and no one should be standing up for him regardless of race or religion

Good point! "Truth" appears to be relative to an individual's physical appearance, personal background and theology. There was a time when justice was blindfolded and punishment was meted out solely in relation to the crime committed. These days there seem to be many, many excuses for wrongdoing, and that's what's making some people quite angry.

Another comment reaffirms this view :-

This proves that if your opinion does not fit in with the so called "acceptable" rules, laid down by the political elite, you must never,ever,express them.
There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, by certain sections of the population of this country, and they seem to be able to say whatever they like, no matter how inflammatory.

It's hard to argue with any of this. All too often anybody who disagrees with either the "establishment view" or the opinion of vociferous pressure groups is called rude names - and is prevented from seeking redress because the powers-that-be say they can't, because they don't belong to a group that is classed as being the underdog. It would seem that there are groups of people who have been effectively disenfranchised because they are 'ordinary'.

It's seems a pity that the Conservative Party is reluctant to open the debate because they disown Davies' comments saying they

'do not reflect the views of the party in any way'.

Talk about giving votes away!

It really is time that the high-ups in all political groups started listening to the opinions of those they are supposed to represent - all the people they are supposed to represent, not just those who are able to belong to pressure groups due to race, ethnicity or creed.

.............

*
Balal Kahn will, by the way, be 17ish at the end of any sentence. Perhaps that small fact is enough to realise why David Davies would prefer a longer sentence.

.............
**
Oh, and here's a bit more about Professor Heaven Crawley from Swansea :-

PhD, Oxford University (1999), MA Gender and Development, Institute of Development Studies (1994), BA (Hons) (First Class), University of Sussex (1992) 


"I teach a Level 3 undergraduate module on 'Geographies of forced migration and asylum' (GEG343). I also co-ordinate the MSc in Migration and International Development, which is taught in collaboration with the Centre for Development Studies. In addition I contribute to the following modules:
GEG105 Global Shifts: Towards a New World Order
GEG250 Geographical Research Methods
GEG332 Dissertation Support
GEG252 New York fieldcourse
SSRM11 Contemporary Research in Human Geography 


I am a member of the Migration, Boundaries and Identities Research Group , Director of the Centre for Migration Policy Research and Postgraduate Admissions Tutor for the Geography Department"

The new religion.

Mrs Rigby was interested to read in the Telegraph that :-

Chinese snowstorms kill 40 and leave thousands homeless

Up to 40 people have been killed and thousands more left homeless after unusually early winter blizzards hit north-central China.

which

caused nearly 10,000 buildings to collapse and destroyed almost 500,000 acres of winter crops

It's an historical event, because

The snowfall is the heaviest in the northern and central provinces of Hebei, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Shandong and Henan in living memory.
Hebei's provincial capital, Shijiazhuang, has received nearly two feet of snow in three days, the heaviest fall in the city since 1955.

Without being too sarcastic, and trying frantically to link to the story she intended to write about, Mrs R wonders if the people of China should have taken care to switch to the new religion of the green god. They might have been saved from the snow, because the AGW prophets of the green tell us it's getting warmer and so they wouldn't have allowed snow to happen.

You see Mrs Rigby remembers reading about Tim Nicholson who, according to the BBC, said :

... his beliefs had contributed to his dismissal and in March a judge ruled he could use employment equality laws to claim it was unfair

The firm that had dismissed him disagreed, hence their appeal in October against the earlier ruling in March because they felt his views were political.

Mr Nicholson's appeal against his dismissal was upheld by the Tribunal in London because, his solicitor said :

"Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations."

The company, Grainger plc, on the other hand thinks that

"This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.

"Grainger absolutely maintains, as it has done from the very outset of these proceedings, that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence, which also required other structural changes to be made within the company.

"Grainger rejects outright any suggestion that there was any other motivation relating to Mr Nicholson's beliefs or otherwise."

Mrs R had a rummage around the internet. The 'Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003' are here and apply to employers and employees, but the rules apply outside employment too. According to Human Rights legislation, as outlined on CivilRightsMovement website :

... religious discrimination is unlawful.

That means we are free to choose our own religion, and should be able to express ourselves because :

The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights with regards to religion and beliefs

but it would seem that :

... the right to freedom of thought including religion and beliefs that are covered in the act only pertains to public bodies (my bold)

That bit, Mrs R thinks, is quite important, but left a loophole that lawyers later closed, because :

In Britain the Race Relations Act 1976 was amended in 2000 to include the clause that discrimination in employment due to religious beliefs is unlawful.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 provided extra protection to those with or without religions beliefs in everyday life. (my bold)

So ... and please understand that this is a very tortuous train of thought that gets there in the end ...

Mrs Rigby thinks that last sentence is also very important, and should be looked at very carefully.

You see, Mrs Rigby thinks that, if the legal ruling means that Tim Nicholson and AGW-believers can say they hold a 'philosophical or religious belief' in relation to their employment then this has to be supported by all other aspects of Human Rights Legislation, so this ruling suggests that government and other 'public bodies' must also accept and acknowledge that a counter argument against AGW could amount to being without a 'philosophical or religious belief' in the same way as the 'there is a God' and the 'there is no God' believers have their rights respected and supported by law.

The law says that 'philosophical or religious belief' of ordinary people are protected in 'everyday life'.

Mrs Rigby thinks this means that government, public bodies, and other people are not allowed to presume that everybody in the country subscribes to any single one, group, or set of religious or philosophical beliefs. She thinks the government has to allow, and has to encourage a diversity of belief and philosophical ideas, as do all public bodies.

Following on from that, Mrs R thinks that government and other public bodies are not allowed to promote one 'philosophical or religious belief' over another - and they are not allowed to punish or disclaim or attempt to discredit those who do not place one, or another, 'philosophical or religious belief' in a position of greater esteem to or above another. It should also mean that people can choose, whether at work or in their homes, not to believe anything at all, if they don't want to, and nobody should be allowed to put pressure on them to change their minds.

Phew!

Mrs Rigby thinks the law also means that the government and other 'public bodies' cannot force people to subscribe to a particular religious or philosophical belief - if they could do that they could force us all to be Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Scientologists. Couldn't they?

They wouldn't ever do that, nobody would allow them to get away with it. Would they?

So Mrs Rigby would like to know ...

Why are government, and other public bodies, allowed to spend a lot of public money trying to force us all to believe in Climate Change and Anthropomorphic Global Warming - when there has been a legal judgement that that this is a 'philosophical or religious belief'?

... Still with me?

And why are those people who do believe in the 'religion or philosophical belief' of Climate Change or AGW allowed to call people who don't believe in this 'religion or philosophical belief' horrible names?

How would it work out if, say, somebody who regularly attended a church criticized a person who regularly attended a synagogue for being 'in denial', or said 'we still have a way to go in informing' them about Christianity? Mrs Rigby thinks that somebody would probably be told off, and very quickly too - quite rightly, because nobody has the right to force their 'religion or philosophical belief' onto another. The law says that too.

We are free to believe whatever we choose, that's what the law says, and it says nobody can be forced to follow a religion or philosophical belief. No individual, no employer and no public body is allowed to force their religious or philosophical belief on another, and try to force them to abide by that religion or philosophical belief. The law says we may all practise our religions and beliefs freely, by exercising personal choice - that's what 'freedom to choose' means.

So, because Tim Nicholson has been told that his views on AGW and climate change amount to a 'religion or philosophical belief', and he must be allowed the freedom to practice those beliefs, the same freedom must now apply to those who don't believe in AGW.

Ah, but it seems not!

Thanks to Iain Dale Mrs Rigby read The Times article announcing that :

Global warming is not our fault, say most voters in Times poll

It goes on to say that :

Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.

According to Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office :

growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial.

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said

We know that we still have a way to go in informing people about climate change

So much for freedom of 'religion or philosophical belief'. We have both a government minister and an important person with their own department at the Met Office both being paid to promote what a Judge has said is a 'philosophical or religious belief'.

It would seem, at the moment, that only the believers are allowed to have an opinion, and the 59% of the population who do not subscribe to the new 'religion or philosophical belief' and are 'uninformed' or 'in denial' must be converted, at all costs, otherwise the planet will burn up.

Mrs R wonders how long it will take before another Judge comes along and changes the ruling, otherwise Britain will no longer be a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-faith country, it will be a country with only one 'philosophical or religious belief' - with the state ensuring we all bow low to the green deity of Climate Change and Anthropomorphic Global Warming.