Sunday, April 30, 2006

The Protestant Queen and the Catholic Queen's Counsel

It appears to be protocol that the Protestant Queen wears black in the presence of the Pope. At least this is the interpretation of the Court of St James after a 500 year stand-off. Is this is an issue of gender, status, or faith? Interestingly, not all women are required to wear black. The Catholic Queen Sophia of Spain is permitted to wear white in his presence (as a co-religionist or one of equal status?), yet the Protestant (and heretic) Queen is not.
If, however, one is simply a Catholic QC, one is apparently raised to the status Catholic royalty. Why should Her Majesty, Head of State, Protestant by law, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, adhere to Papal protocol, when the mere Catholic wife of her First Minister refuses to do so? Is Her Majesty the better Catholic?

Monday, April 24, 2006

Hamas adopts Nazi salute

In 1933, Hitler was elected to office. He vowed to eradicate the Jews and eventually used the instruments of the State to conduct an orchestrated policy of genocide against the Jews of Europe. In 2006, extremist pockets within Palestine voted in a Hamas government. The most popular book read by members of Hamas is "Mein Kampf". The leadership of Hamas has - like their Nazi forebears - sworn to exterminate the Jews.

Hamas has been very clear about its support for terrorism. From its charter calling for the global murder of Jews to the recent pronouncements of Hamas' elected leaders, there has been no change in its worldview. In fact, Hamas' recent appointment of an arch terrorist leader to head a special new PA military force shows quite clearly Hamas' intentions.

Despite this, various sections of the UK media have been trying to accomodate their hatred of Israel with a soft line towards the neo-Nazi organisation known as Hamas. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has indicated that Hamas does not have to tone down its antisemitic rhetoric, as long as it maintains a dialogue. That's alright then...

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Catholic Austria demands Papal subsidiarity

Austria, which presently holds the EU presidency, is demanding the implementation of the Vatican's concept of 'subsidiarity' as the antidote to its 'centralistic and authoritarian tendencies'. Subsidiarity supposedly ensures that power is not concentrated in Brussels. Martin Howe QC (in Europe and the Constitution after Maastricht, p44) made the astute observation that ‘subsidiarity’ is a word of Papal origin (Papal Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, 1931; see also The Times, 23 July 1991), and involves the inevitability that a centralised power-base determines what freedoms and competences it thinks appropriate to devolve to the lower levels of the hierarchy. Powers apportioned to the centre cannot be touched; Brussels owns them forever; they are acquis communautaire, and therefore sacrosanct. In the EU, movement is only one way: towards the centre, which is why words like ‘irreversible’ and ‘fusion’ are so frequently employed. There is no room for reform, just the maintenance of a centralised power behind a carefully constructed façade. Austria is demanding the antithesis of what the EU is about. 'Subsidiarity' and 'ever closer union' are apparently mutually exclusive...

Friday, April 14, 2006

Brussels comes to Mohammed

In an unashamed capitulation to growing unrest among Europe's Muslims after the publication of a few cartoons depicting Mohammed, the EU's politically-correct bureaucrats have decided to abolish all phrases which link Islam with terrorism. There can be no hint whatever that Islam or the Qur'an justifies such acts of violence.

It is reported that the 'Non-emotive Lexicon for Discussing Radicalisation' (only the EU could come up with that!) will instead encourage such phrases as 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'. The problem is, it is not an abuse. Killing 'innocent' people may be frowned upon, but Muslims are simply not united on who is guilty and who innocent; indeed, many consider all who live in the Western world to be guilty by virtue of being led by 'the Great Satan' the United States of America, Zacarias Moussaoui simply being one.

Those who die for their belief are inspired by the Qur'an to do so, and they are following Mohammed's example. Make no mistake about it: Mohammed was a terrorist. The Qur'an is full of paradoxes and conflicting teachings, so it is perfectly possible to justify destroying those you think should die. Consider:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, (which is Islam that abolishes all other religions ) of the people of the Book, (meaning the Jews and the Christians ) until they pay the Jizya (the tax imposed upon them) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. (with humiliation and submission to the government of Islam.)" Sura 9:29.

The order to kill Christians and Jews is in that verse. And Muslims are also encouraged to kill pagans:

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5

Forgiving and merciful? Tell that to Abdul Rahman - the Afghan ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity and faced execution for doing so. The EU is intent on spreading a lie - that 'Islam' means 'peace'. It does not. It means 'submission' - absolute, total, and unequivocal. Anything less makes you an 'idolater', and therefore 'guilty'. Boris Johnson MP has called Islam 'the most viciously sectarian of all religions' - so why is Brussels intent on stopping people from saying so?

Monday, April 10, 2006

Germany forging ahead with EU constitution - under a different name!

The Reichstag has an interesting history where European politics is concerned. It was the late comedian Peter Cook who once said: 'when Germany says it is going into Europe, it means something different'. Well, according to, Germany wants a swift resurrection of the Constitution for Europe, and has suggested that a mere change of name (to 'Basic treaty for Europe') would be sufficient to achieve it.

'What's in a name?' Shakespeare asked. 'That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' Indeed, and that which we call a constitution by any other name would still amount to the foundation of a single state - a country called Europe.

In the event of a possible rejection of the Constitution, there was a denial of the existence of a ‘Plan B’. Progress since, however, not only establishes the existence of Plan B, but confirms that Plan B is, in reality, simply Plan A by stealth. The Commission is continuing with many projects mentioned in the Constitution, such as the development of a European public prosecutor, a European External Action Service (diplomatic service), a European space policy, a European Defence Agency and Rapid Reaction Force (armed forces), a European Fundamental Rights Agency (or the ‘Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia’), a European police force, and a European asylum and immigration policy. This is how the EU has always operated. It extends its jurisdiction into a new area of competence and then, years later, almost imperceptibly, authorises a power-grab, citing the authority of a retrospective treaty provision.

It is only a matter of time before the people realise that they are being duped, and rise up to challenge their political masters. France said 'Non' to this Constitution; the Netherlands said 'Nee'. The arrogant assertion that ‘no’ really means 'yes', or that your 'no' indicates that you really don’t know what you’re talking about and meant to say yes all along, flies in the face of every principle of democracy.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Gibraltarians to lose EU vote?

Gibraltar has been a UK possession since 1704, and is the cause of an ongoing bitter dispute with Spain. It took decades for Gibralterians to sort out the mechanism by which they could vote in Euro elections. Some asserted it was to be via Spain, others via the UK, and still others asserted autonomy. Now, some inhabitants of The Rock may lose their EU votes altogether following an opinion of the European Court of Justice’s legal expert Antonio Tizzano.

The Gibraltar Chronicle has been covering this issue for a couple of years, but Tizzano's recent opinion has clarified things. Basically, non UK, and thus non-EU, citizens from controlled territories or former British Empire Commonwealth colonies should not have a say in Euro elections. Although Gibraltar is UK territory, the vast majority of its 28,000 residents are British citizens, entitled to the rights of all EU citizens. It is only those Gibralterians from the British Commonwealth (mainly Pakistan, India or Bangladesh) who are in danger of being disenranchised.

The Rock cast its first votes in Euro elections in 2004, and these were included in the South West Euro-region. Tizzano's opinion is that immigrants from Commonwealth countries are not EU citizens by virtue of birth or naturalisation, and should not therefore have any influence in elections to the European Parliament.

According to EUpolitix, Labour's MEP for South-West England and Gibraltar, Glyn Ford, attacked Tizzano's opinion as unacceptably discriminatory. He said, “If this outrageous opinion from the Advocate-General was to become a court ruling we would have the absurd situation of Commonwealth citizens unable to vote or stand for election as their counterparts on mainland UK could.”

The implications for Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, etc, etc, living in the United Kingdom, are considerable. If the recommendation becomes law, the French and Germans resident in the UK would have more rights than members of the British Comonwealth.