Rhetorical highs and leading in the modern age

Quite a grand title, eh? But relevant to the subject that's on my mind most at the moment, which is Israel's Gaza pullout and where it will lead to- and to the more general question of our time, which is, 'do our leaders know what they're doing?', which you can apply to everything from the Europroject to the war in Iraq, to abortion to speed cameras and surveillance.

But turning to Gaza for a moment- here is a really great analysis of the strategy of Ariel Sharon, as well as some vital statements from his recent speeches trying to reassure his people that he knows what he's doing. To me there's a fascinating parallel between Sharon's inarticulacy, lamented by writer Herb Keinon, and Bush's, which many people regret who support the President. I personally was reassured by this from Sharon:

'"Now the Palestinians bear the burden of proof," he told the nation Monday night. "They must fight terror organizations, dismantle its infrastructure and show sincere intentions of peace in order to sit with us at the negotiating table. The world awaits the Palestinian response-a hand offered in peace or continued terrorist fire. To a hand offered in peace, we will respond with an olive branch. But if they choose fire, we will respond with fire, more severe than ever."'

I highlight the last part; I love it bacause it shows that the warrior Sharon has not hung up his holster just yet, but loaded it with a greater readiness to make use of it than previously. That, to me, is what the Gaza pullout is about. The idea that some endorse that it's about creating a judenrein is to me a bit absurd- 8000 Jews in a population of 1.3 million is practically judenrein already. You stand a greater chance of long term Jewish presence in the area by giving it over to a process of gradual civilianisation, to the point where reciprocal arrangements for free movement might allow for a significant Jewish presence on a sustainable long-term basis. A long way off, I realise- but the only choice for Palestinians if they're not to be singed by Sharon's avenging military flame as the consequence for creating a terrorist haven and launch pad (which, incidentally, it already seems to be). Provided Sharon will flay the abusers of his gesture, and flay them hard, I see no problem.

I reccommend you read it all though, and read carefully- there's a tremendous amount of subtlety in Sharon's thinking that is perceived and teased out by Keinon (I'll let him make the presumptions of Sharon's thinking process).

So, given that Sharon is right, as I believe, and believing that Bush is right, though with an unenviable scale of problems to deal with- first and foremost being Isalmofascism- what are we to make of their inarticulacy? Is it that in today's society words have been debased such that real thinkers use them less and find them less useful? Is it that society is too childish to chew on deep reasoning expressed in words, and unable to sustain the concentration to listen for sufficiently long? Is it that the press actually has all the wrong things in mind when it addresses the news, being far more trustworthy with the presentation of simple gossip than with ideas and announcements? I think all of those- which is why we can analyse a politician today in terms of the number of words they like to use- the more, the worse being a general rule. That's why Cindy Sheehan and John Kerry, are, to say the least, a bit suspect- and we should be listening for the still small voice instead. What a pity the Conservatives in Britain ditched their Quiet Man.

And here seems to be the place to lament the failures of the Met. Ok, they got the bombers- thanks to the public- but they've lost the P.R. battle, thanks to their own incompetence and dishonesty and well, downright viciousness, over the Menendez case. Sadly- as Bill Quick comments (more gratitude to Instapundit).

And since I'm not always right, but about this I was quickly on the case, I'll remind you, should you care to follow the link, what I said about it, and how I supported Mark Steyn's sterling response.

Roll up roll up- one of the great attractions behind what Hugh Hewitt calls 'the Information Reformation' is the chance to see the freakishly large hidden undergirth of the revealed news on the world these days. Brought up on the BBC's thin P.C. pickings, I really larded it when I came across the blogosphere and realised what lay beneath. Well, I didn't find out precisely what lay beneath, but just that there was a lot of it.

And this is typified by the Oil-for-Food scam, which, as a certain Miss Rossett points out, is a kind of interwoven sub-plot for the history of our times, enwrapping all manner of unsavouries into the same globalised samosa.

These, it turns out, included Enron. Rossett points out that Enron's involvement doesn't appear to have been illegal- like so many they just seem to have been 'ask no questions' types, useful to the kind of folks more intimately soaked in the juices of Oil-for-Food.

But she also comes up with a meaty little nugget about Saddam's business principles, which links with another issue de nos jours: Israel's legitimacy. Apparently Saddam's men solicited from 'business partners' this kind of assurance:

"We herewith confirm never to have sold directly or indirectly to Israel and further confirm that this policy will remain permanently in force during the entire validity of our contract."

Which brings us to the Presbyterian Church of America- naturally. Let me say first that six years ago I discussed this church with a hispanic-American Pastor who happened to be in Spain and who had got to know their hierarchy through close association, and he partly condemned them for anti-semitism. So, it was no surprise to read James Lileks:

The Presbyterian Church (USA) -- not the members, but the learned elders -- has announced it will use its stock holdings to target Israel for being mean to the Palestinians.

Interesting in this context how Enron chief chappy Ken Lay, though no Presbyterian, but rather a Baptist like GWB, came out of the US religious heartland. Not that I think that US church as a whole is corrupted, but I think it is sailing close to that wind. I just think it's amazing how widespread is a de facto conspiracy against Israel- either endorsed explicitly or tacitly (and explicit endorsement may be less malign than tacit endorsement, when it comes to it).

But when speaking of corruption, can we pass George Galloway by on the other side? No, even obliquely he needs a mention. 'Can we get him for treason?' is a question every honest Brit should ask, but funnily enough it takes a Jewish American to ask it thoroughly.

(there- I've basically done the Instapundit round, in my own fashion- where, incidentally, I found this a little disquietening)

Meanwhile, as DumbJon ably reported, the BBC have been a little queasy about blogs recently (too much samosa, I'd guess).

I mentioned I went to Cracow at the weekend. Well, I have written about it, but I've put it on my odds and ends of longer writing site, here.

I'm also thinking alot about the Gaza situation, which is moving in lots of respects, but comment will have to wait for another day.

What's BBC headline news- This, about 'a racist man' who just happens to be white; who is headlined a 'thug' (quotemarked); who nicely backs up the BBC's maligned 'backlash-against-Muslims' thesis. (actually we're talking about a pathetic person little more than a boy, without plans, schemes, self-control or a future- as far as I can see.)

What's Not- This interview, via Frum, which details the mindset of an Islamofascist. It produces some fascinating nuggets about the concept of terrorism, the thinking of the jihadis- and the cold-hearted evil of them. Also the cleverness, combined with an utter willingness to ignore whatever logical processes and matters of fact they please. Definitely we need to understand them as they have big plans.

Some might say one's news (a crime committed, a judge sentencing), the other's just someone's expressions of their views- not even precisely current. Yet where's the BBC's Islamofascist page to go alongside all the other social trends they love to chronicle so lavishly? You can have this, or this. You pays your money, you get no choice.

And, btw, what in whoever's name is the news value of this article? (about Laura Bush's appointment of a chef). [post updated to reflect a second reading!]

Update: I'm unsure if the link is working. You get to it via Steynonline, naturally.

Self respect.

It's all we need in the current world, actually, which is why I think Steyn is so right in his analysis of what we need and what we don't (and by the way, I don't mean the kind of self-respect that self-regarding agony aunts preach). Delicious. I am sure multiculti rubbish could survive Islamonazi bombers, but can it survive Steyn? Read on, Macduff.

'Like the Innu, they’re a dysfunctional amalgam of traditional and Western culture, fundamentalist Islam filtered through an old-school European fascist movement. Like the Innu, they’re hooked on welfare and the glorification of self-destruction. Like the Innu, they’re the creations of Western largesse — from the firebrand imams bilking the British welfare state, to the bananaphobic imams of taxpayer-funded Aussie schools, to Osama bin Laden himself, who took his pa’s dough from the US-fuelled Saudi construction boom and sunk it into a hole in the ground in Tora Bora'

Tragic Cookie

I haven't mentioned the death of Robin Cook, I don't think. I didn't find out about it immediately, and when I saw some headline a couple of week back, I thought it must have been referring to some other high profile people whose health is very fragile.

For what it's worth I do think of Cook's death as a tragedy. Not, as sometimes, because you feel that a person still has much to give. I didn't feel that way about him. In fact the opposite was true- i felt he was washed up. I felt that misjudgements and ill-judged actions in all areas of his life had left him drained- a husk of an immensely promising man. No doubt he was still down to earth and what not, as people say- but if Tony Blair didn't attend his funeral out of pique rather than the need to rest his own slightly peaky frame, I could understand why.

Cook was losing no opportunity to turn the knife on Blair, and had a rationale behind that of contempt for the PM, especially in his judgement over Iraq. I don't think the little man's judgement, acid though it was, was any longer focussed or balanced effectively- and despite his looks he loved acting as a poster boy for the anti-war left. Altogether Cook's deep resentment of Blair- very little of it fair- would suggest that the last person he would want to envisage at his funeral would be the nemesis of his political ambitions. An interesting contrast to Lady Thatcher's presence at Ted Heath's funeral- while in that case I imagine there'd have been consultation about Heath's wishes in that regard, as we all know the history there. Maybe the 'great sulk' of our Edward was finally over- but Cook's has never been adequately recognised or understood. Perhaps Blair does understand it. Perhaps he even a little respects it.

ps. I've just realised that McCririck's comments included the Thatcher parallel. (Nice Scotsman article here.) All that differs is our interpretation of the facts.

Note-

Just to say I am away for a few days and will probably not have time to post much. I'm exploring Krakow .

You know, I'd be so sad if Italy quit the Euro. One couldn't blame them. It's hardly a dynamic club to be a part of- as the BBC reports with the revealing defence that 'the performance was slightly better than feared'.

Reach exceeding grasp with the BBC. Unparalleled in its cultural reach to find out what's happening somewhere completely obscure (I think the AP is too biased even to count, and Reuters' bread and butter is found in obscure reporting- yet the BBC lavish correspondents all over the world despite being just another national broadcaster), and capable of tallying these things into a story, the BBC has little clue why things happen, relying on a very tired stock of ideas and the words of utterly unreliable governments who by moral equivalence have to be worked up into possessing some kind of authoritativeness.

Hence, an allegedly cancerous man's bus suicide bombing in China is explained via a tired old template that you sense is well known to the Chinese authorities:

'The motive for Monday's attack is unclear, but it follows criticism by medical professionals that the costs of healthcare have risen beyond the means of many people living in rural areas.'

So rather than chalk this one up to the global jihad, as this poster would have it, we are supposed to think this is a protest at globalisation and the loss of Chinese socialist security.

According to the Jawa's reasoning:

'What many people in the West are unaware of, is that China is fighting a low-level Islamist insurgency in its Western provinces. Fujian Province, however is not in Western China but in Southeastern China. Not generally a hot bed for Islamist sentiments.'

Well, all I can say is their awareness would not have grown from the BBC's reporting of the incident. But really- a suicide bombing to protest at lack of cancer treatment? Well, maybe in China... I don't know.

However, one commenter at the Jawa thought very differently:

'Fujain province is 30% Muslim and they had huge riots there about 6 months ago as the Muslims want Sharia law.
This is certainly Islamist 72-virgin job.
Shame on Islam and Muslims who support Islamic government (which is about 80% of Muslims).
Criticism of Islam should be decriminalized.'

As I mentioned, I don't know the full truth of this, but Reuters carries the same story with the same apparently state-sponsored explanation, and a little more detail. Remembering the way that eyewitnesses proved unreliable in London, and remembering that eyewitness in police states can be a touch influenced by official expectations, we can't give too much credence to the lucky lady who got off the bus early. Neither Reuters or the BBC stress the haste with which the Chinese Government's explanation has covered all the interpretations of the story.

Meanwhile, as this story reports:

'Both the Russian and Chinese governments are confronted by mounting Islamist radicalism and separatist movements on their soil that are believed to be fueled and financed by al-Qaeda. The US-led military operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda were therefore perceived in Moscow and Beijing as being in their interests. '

Could it be that this bombing is one more shot across the bows of the Chinese Government?

And this source may shed some light on the issue:

'The conflicting movements of Uighur separatism, abetted by Islamist organizations abroad, and Chinese internal and economic interests, suggest that further and serious conflict may be expected.
The dearth of research into radical Islam in Asia is in itself a cause for concern. One reason for this may be that states affected by separatism such as the Philippines, Thailand, and China prefer not to admit to a problem. This may be cultural. The Asian concept of saving face may be an element of the difficulty. It may, however, be a fear of losing overseas investment if there is an emphasis on factors that suggest future instability.'

China certainly has an Islamist problem. How far it extends is an interesting question- but Fujian is one of the historic stopping off points for Islam in China and undoubtedly part of the sphere of Islam's historic ambition.

***

This as Mauritania goes the way of all Islam infested backwaters, and the BBC finds someone to blame it all on the US and Israel: 'Most Mauritanians believe that the US has double standards when it comes to dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... The Americans have failed the Mauritanian regime... a large Israeli-built hospital in Nouakchott is boycotted by most Mauritanians on principle... there is a feeling that US President George Bush is leading a crusade against Islam.'

But it's ok- all is well with the world- like so many 'leading journalists' he's Londonistan-based.

Blair sees back of comical Bakri? Or not maybe.

It could have been the first fruits of Blair's tough line on treason- but it could also be one of the last. It's good to get rid of Bakri, even if his al mujahagoon rabble had already wound up, having served a purpose. He says he's coming back, but five weeks either means his mother thinks he needs feeding up, or that he's giving himself time to assess the situation and whether uncle T.B. calms down at all.

The treason issue, added to this recent Sunday Times expose, seems to have turned up the heat on old Mohammed. But is it enough? No, it seems to me.

As I may have hinted above, Bakri is a joker, a man who can hardly articulate the English language and who gives his exhortations while picking on some else's chicken and chips- having arrived at his rabble-rousing two hours late. If he was a genius perhaps I might see that as charisma at work, but I'm sure he's not that. On the other hand he could certainly be a lot more careful about his appearance, actions and language than he has been- so his goonishness is surely partly an act. If he has contacts with the Al Qaeda leadership then it's only a sign that bin Laden, as so many intellectuals from upwardly mobile classes do, knows how to use a rabble for his own ends, and Bakri's an idiot useful enough for that.

I saw an effete (I mean really effete) Telegraph journalist opining on Sky recently that the July bombers must be rather dim wits. He wasn't specifically referring to the failed bombers, but to such bombers in general. People like Bakri and followers certainly reinforce that stereotype, but it's one dimensional and deliberately so. Bakri and friends may get out of control, but they reinforce the respectability of the Iqbal Sacranies of this world- and it's people from Sacranie's class who are the heavyweights who really inspire the kind of people deep enough and organised enough to perpetrate terrorist acts. I don't think Blair's bureaucratic gnashings will really nip those buds- even if they give that appearance.

And speaking of Blair's bureaucratic gnashings, it was interesting to read Charlie Falconer adjusting the spin after the public mind had been turned by it, saying that 'it is "extraordinarily unlikely" treason charges will be used against outspoken Islamic radicals.' I guess he doesn't want Bakri to think Uncle T.B. is all that angry with him.

It was also interesting to read, regarding the prospects for a more French style inquisitorial court system to deal with the folly of the CPS, er, sorry, the terrorist threat, that 'The Home Office says any idea of moving towards a French-style inquisitorial, rather than adversarial court system, is "very long term" and not being actively considered.'

Fascinating that it's on the long term agenda at all- along with all the other capitulations to the Euroculture, no doubt. Slipping in such nuggets amidst an issue of absorbing potency is the political version of laying cards on the table- for whom is an interesting question.

Bring out the old words.

Blair seems to have decided that he needs to take some old-fashioned words out of the New labout spin locker to inject some stiffness into the upper. I didn't even imagine that Blair and co. had bothered to keep the word 'treason'- but here it is restored for new spinning duty, dutifully disseminated by our national boredcaster.

It's absolutely amazing, too, to think that we only abolished the death penalty in 1998- even though I used to remind people regularly who thought we didn't have it all, querulous pedant that I was. It was the inactivity of the penalty for over half a century that made it seem like a joke term; like describing a volcano as a volcano when it's been inactive for a thousand years. But now, Blair presents, in archetypal Blair fashion, the all-new, defanged, nuLabour charge of treason. I'd like to think that Galloway might be first up, though as with everything else Blair's government has managed to take all the fun out of it before deployment. Dumb Jon has some wise words on the Blair's other spinnouncements.

Update: I should have pointed out that the death penalty for treason had been inactive for over fifty years when it was abolished- the death penalty for murder had been enacted as recently as 1965. Timeline here.

French logistics: paying ransoms and funding bombings, assuming the money isn't spent on Iraq's wide range of consumer goods and leisure activites. Maybe the BBC could remember that the next time they trumpet the 'worst atrocity yet'. Time to address the root causes.

Suggestion(s)

Might it not be true that there might be different types of racist/religiously motivated murder in the UK? I only ask because there seems to be a complacent media blanket extended over the issue such that unless race is mentioned in the attack, we can't describe it as racist (the same doesn't apply to religion, since peeing against the Mosque wall would probably be sufficient- or even near an air vent, I suppose, if you are in the pee C US military). Apropos this matter, I have a suggestion. Could it not be true that murders committed by racial minorities rarely use racial language because they are killing a member of group not well defined by saying 'whitey' just before the blow is struck?

Besides, if your crime is motivated by hatred of the host society, which is white in nature, is that not as racially motivated as an attack on a minority which is linked to the habitual actions or character of that minority?

It seems to me that admitting the use of the 'N' word or the 'P' word or equivalent as a necessary and sufficient condition for the full media treatment will rather fall short in the real world. As linkalicious Laban points out- it does

I believe I'm looking for a more nuanced approach.

DumbJon thinks we shouldn't prioritise racially motivated murders. I think that would be a better approach, but it won't wash really, as the journos have a point that a story which links to a wider phenomenon is more newsworthy than a random event- and one point is about all they can handle. Of course, though, random events aren't really random- even a nutter killing indiscriminately says a lot about the society which has let him reach such a nadir. If the BBC want to talk about moral laxness every time there's a senseless murder involving a sexual dimension; or the folly of drugs relaxation every time there's murder that involves cannabis, then fine- but I think they should report the news without relying on the subtexts which happen to match the colour of their own poster collection of social issues. So I'm agreeing with DJ the idealist here.

And I'm agreeing with this. When you hear that ''Muslim association calls Gerald Howarth's remarks 'naïve' and 'arrogant'' you know instinctively they must be good. And they are. He's the shadow Defence Secretary in the UK by the way. It must be said that people who sympathise with our enemies should be encouraged to leave, and people who threaten action against us should be made to leave. Don't know where that leaves Galloway, though he and al Qaeda agree on much, but I'd personally ensure that his passport details were somehow lost from the system, making his re-entry difficult. Maybe the Islamic world could babysit for a while?

A nose for casualties. A BBC journalist has been counting:

'the latest Haditha attack ranks among the biggest US losses.
Last December, 14 US troops and four civilian contractors died in a suicide bombing targeting a military base in Mosul.
Only air crashes, with or without hostile fire, have resulted in higher US death tolls, including 16 in the November 2003 loss of a Chinook helicopter near Falluja and 31 in a helicopter crash in January 2005 near the Jordanian border'

One Way Traffic

When looking at this article from the point of view of bias analysis I don't know where to start- but that's because there's a de facto conspiracy involved in it.

For a start the Police's frontman for the story is the deliciously token 'Met Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur', who obligingly offered the kind of personal comment we very rarely get from our technocrat constabulary these days, that 'he had never seen so much anger among young Muslims. '

So, it's the police as community race relations officers again.

But taking a step back, the very term 'religious hate crimes' is an immensely and distastefully Orwellian one, which the BBC choose to lede with. It's just one of those pieces of routinely intimidatory language that now shapes public discourse.

They then claim authoritatively that 'There were 269 religious hate crimes in the three weeks after 7 July, compared with 40 in the same period of 2004.'

Why is this wrong? Because, as they then admit, most were 'verbal abuse and minor assaults'.
It's barely possible to register such 'crimes', let alone verify them. I remember minding my own business one day some years ago, drinking a can of coke. A stranger on a bike cycled slowly past, and very casually, spat directly at me and at my can, scoring what to me was a humiliating bullseye by hitting squarely the opening from two or three feet away. Needless to say I did not report this incident- but was it a hate crime? Heaven knows, to be honest. Or, if the above case seems freakish, I know many elderly people who have been verbally abused and had property damaged just for being old and ageing- these have included my own Grandmother.

But what no one seems to question in this reporting is whether there has actually been the dramatic rise in so-called ' religious hatred crimes' or whether the sensitivity of muslims is somehow so heightened in the wake of the bombings that every possible thing, which previously often went unremarked, is now being reported.

Needless to say the policeman plays ball (and why wouldn't he, being from an ethnic minority and a muslim himself):

'Communities were particularly frustrated by the increased use of stop-and-search and the new "shoot-to-kill to protect" policy of dealing with suicide bombers, he said.'

Cue then the BBC to start editorialising: 'The alarming figures emerged as Home Office minister Hazel Blears held the first in a series of meetings on Tuesday with Muslim community groups across the country. '

Naturally, no-one, especially the BBC, is asking a further, even more sensitive question: whether there is any concerted effort among muslims to push their grievances to the fore as a way of putting politicians in this country on the defensive, as clearly Hazel Blears is seen to be in this article. Undoubtedly there are enough radicals out there, and their sympathisers, to keep many a police complaints officer busy with false testimonies. As the muslims always tell us that there is more than one way to fight jihad I can't help wondering, myself.

RottyPup has more.

I fail to see what's good about David Davis's latest spiel about multiculturalism not working- apart from the sentiment itself.

After all, Mr Davis says 'Let us be clear. Non-Muslims have obligations to their Muslim fellow citizens - to strive for equal opportunities for all, to accept the mainstream version of Islam as a part of society'

But what's clear about this? Why do I have to accept mainstream Islam as part of society? None of Christianity's recommendations or prohibitions are accepted today in society, so why should Islam's have a special place? And does he mean that the police in Bedfordshire have the right idea and this is moderate Islam? (via DumbJon)

And if so, he's not going to change anything whatsoever if, in some freak non-representative accident such as Islamists blowing up the Labour Party whilst in conference, he gets the opportunity.

Behold the sickening Galloway: going further (if you'll pardon the pun in the light of the quotes) than I've ever heard him go before. He's a traitor- but of course we knew that. It's just as bad as watching comical Ali aired for tens of minutes on the BBC. Not for the faint hearted. (from Harry's Place).

In case you have problems with the video, let me give some quotes:

'The idea that Muslims have some kind of sickness in their bodies' (of Tony Blair's view of Muslims).

'Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners- Baghdad and Jerusalem'

'The foreigners are doing to your daughters what they will'

Laban Tall has a great post about the Anthony Walker murder. He compares the coverage of the Walker murder to that of several white boys murdered out of racial animosity. He also gives the stats for interracial murders, which are interesting.

Laban's tacked-on conclusion may be my only quibble with his post. He says ' I'd just like to say that I've no objection to the amount of air that the Anthony Walker case is getting. I'd just like to see all all murders getting that kind of coverage'

I hope that he meant 'all such racially motivated murders'. I'd be all in favour of that. After all, the argument for media prioritising of such murders as Walker's is that racial murders are part of a larger story, not isolated spasms of emotional conflagration as many murders are. However, what's needed is an even-handed presentation of this apparently awful racial tension in the UK (actually it isn't, but the repercussions in politically correct lifestyle restriction are pretty awful, as are the consequences for such integral roles of the state as controlling immigration).

That would mean people getting sick of hearing about white people killed by ethnic minorities in Britain, even more than vice versa- and the most sick of all at hearing it would be the ethnic minorities themselves. Many decent people would be sick of having to analyse their role in all of this, just as we lily livered whites are when berated by BBC-led guilt-edged coverage.

The stumbling block to all of this is the possibility of quite widespread revenge attacks (which doesn't seem so much of a problem when those radicalised are the minority- though I guess radicalisation is hardly the flavour of the month). These might come because the Law is rarely seen to be effective- there is no catharsis in seeing the guilty punished, so the liberal elite are somewhat justified in damping the stories of white trauma down on the narrow pragmatic ground that there would indeed be a backlash. There would because their Royal Liberalnesses are so ineffective and the law has no teeth.

Pub Philosopher agrees about the ultimate sanction of the state.

But rather than give the law teeth we have to join the multi-culti merry-go-round of white guilt. It won't do.

nb. see my earlier post if you have doubts about my feeling about Anthony Walker's death.

OTOH- this is just a BBC Islamist inspired fantasy, as DumbJon points out, and using phrases like '"People are going to fight back."' reminds me of nothing more than the much descried BNP rhetoric which some would like to be actionable- and some do find actionable. 'Phone the police- help the Jihad' might be a nice slogan; or anyway phone your local special pleading centre.

Meanwhile, I couldn't believe how ridiculous the human rights angle from this article was. 'Ethnic' men, apparently, are to be searched more often by police than those who don't seem 'ethnic'. That makes absolute sense, but I just can barely believe how stupid the racial crusader brigade, in criticising this, think we are. Their rationale is that '"If you search people of a particular race or description while letting others through, it doesn't take long for a terrorist group to learn ways of placing their lethal cargo with those who don't meet the profile."'

Yes, but, it's surely a lot riskier for them to approach people not of their 'tribe' with a view to making them human incendiarists. There are many gullible white people who are susceptible to the old Islamofascist-anti-colonial-Islam-means-peace canard- but how can you be sure the worm won't turn? Or, if you mean to plant the bombs on some carrier- how risky is that for the bomber makers point of view? Very.

This stupendous lack of imagination from the so-called human rights lobby is not accidental- they have so much contempt for the ordinary ethnic majority in this country they feel they have to keep it simple and emotionally appealing.