Oval onomatomania over onomatophobia...

---

I am getting the irresistible urge to repeat certain words; Crusaders, Crusaders CRUSADERS. This is because of recent perceived fear of certain words...maybe. Super Rugby's Crusaders are by far and away - on present form - the best club in the world*. HOWEVER, "The Canterbury Crusaders are to lose their knight and sword logo following a review into the club's branding after the Christchurch mosque attacks in March". Now, apparently, the head of New Zealand Rugby Steve Tew said: "Even prior to 15 March, the Crusaders had signalled their intention to complete a brand review. While the events of 15 March have accelerated and escalated that brand review, we do not want this to be solely a response to that tragic event." Also,

"Any change must not be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to a single event."...OK; trouble is it sounds exactly like a knee-jerk reaction to a single event.

I don't know about you but when I see the logo I do not think of medieval European knights chopping up Muslims, no really, I don't. When the Canterbury kiwis originally chose the 'Crusaders' name it was based on the English nature of the city of Christchurch: [LINK: What's in a name (archived page)] "They believed the name Crusaders not only connected with Christchurch's British heritage but it defined the crusading spirit of Canterbury rugby." They have a theme song too: the "Conquest of Paradise" (Vangelis). My God, the Maori's won't like that will they? Their paradise was afterall conquested. And Canterbury in England means "stronghold of the Kentish men"! No! They'll have to change the city name too I guess, all that stronghold stuff could make people think of fighting and killing.



Now, juxtapose this rugby story with another rugby story: 'Israel Folau launches legal action over rugby sacking' [LINK] "No Australian of any faith should be fired for practising their religion," Folau said. Does anyone think, even for a nano-second, that if he were a Muslim and said the exact same words, i.e. that God's plan for gay people was “HELL…Unless they repent of their sins and turn to God”, he would be sacked...anyone?



* In England the Exeter Chiefs and Saracens will have to watch out...actually, no, Saracens won't, will they? I mean God forbid some may recall it as a term [Wiki] not just for for Muslim or Arab but with
connotations: on a military mission, or sāriq, pl. sariqīn: "thief, marauder, plunderer"!

Oval onomatomania over onomatophobia...

---

I am getting the irresistible urge to repeat certain words; Crusaders, Crusaders CRUSADERS. This is because of recent perceived fear of certain words...maybe. Super Rugby's Crusaders are by far and away - on present form - the best club in the world*. HOWEVER, "The Canterbury Crusaders are to lose their knight and sword logo following a review into the club's branding after the Christchurch mosque attacks in March". Now, apparently, the head of New Zealand Rugby Steve Tew said: "Even prior to 15 March, the Crusaders had signalled their intention to complete a brand review. While the events of 15 March have accelerated and escalated that brand review, we do not want this to be solely a response to that tragic event." Also,

"Any change must not be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to a single event."...OK; trouble is it sounds exactly like a knee-jerk reaction to a single event.

I don't know about you but when I see the logo I do not think of medieval European knights chopping up Muslims, no really, I don't. When the Canterbury kiwis originally chose the 'Crusaders' name it was based on the English nature of the city of Christchurch: [LINK: What's in a name (archived page)] "They believed the name Crusaders not only connected with Christchurch's British heritage but it defined the crusading spirit of Canterbury rugby." They have a theme song too: the "Conquest of Paradise" (Vangelis). My God, the Maori's won't like that will they? Their paradise was afterall conquested. And Canterbury in England means "stronghold of the Kentish men"! No! They'll have to change the city name too I guess, all that stronghold stuff could make people think of fighting and killing.

Now, juxtapose this rugby story with another rugby story: 'Israel Folau launches legal action over rugby sacking' [LINK] "No Australian of any faith should be fired for practising their religion," Folau said. Does anyone think, even for a nano-second, that if he were a Muslim and said the exact same words, i.e. that God's plan for gay people was “HELL…Unless they repent of their sins and turn to God”, he would be sacked...anyone?

* In England the Exeter Chiefs and Saracens will have to watch out...actually, no, Saracens won't, will they? I mean God forbid some may recall it as a term [Wiki] not just for for Muslim or Arab but with connotations: on a military mission, or sāriq, pl. sariqīn: "thief, marauder, plunderer"!

Observing OIC Observatory...

---

I could add 'Orwellian' to that title. My comment in the post yesterday prompted this post. Yesterday ended the presentation to the 40th Council of Foreign Ministers the 6th OIC Observatory report on Islamophobia [report:pdf]. You can make up your own mind about Islamophobia (a) here or (b) here (pdf). I tend towards the (b) link and concur with the dozen writers (including Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) who a few years ago - after this incident - declared "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism...". Soeren Kern at Gateway The Gatestone Institute highlights a key point to the OIC report: "The common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC's repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for "the institutionalization of Islamophobia" in Western countries is freedom of speech." It is not an exaggeration to say that when you read the report (if you don't fancy that just read the two pages of conclusions and recommendations, pages 33 and 34; everything after that is annexes anyway) what Soeren says is true and highlights a massive contradiction, from the OIC: "Many distorted facts and ill conceived ideas about Islam... ...include the perception that Islam is linked to terror; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs, that its values and practices are incompatible with modern democratic systems; that it favours repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights and other misperceptions." Errm, can anyone point out how any of that [edited 4pm] is distorting facts or ill-conceiving something? And then their recommendations in the report: their solution to stop people thinking they want to repress freedom of expression is by repressing freedom of expression! FFS.  A suggestion OIC: take one step back and look at the causes of "Islamophobia".

Observing OIC Observatory...

---

I could add 'Orwellian' to that title. My comment in the post yesterday prompted this post. Yesterday ended the presentation to the 40th Council of Foreign Ministers the 6th OIC Observatory report on Islamophobia [report:pdf]. You can make up your own mind about Islamophobia (a) here or (b) here (pdf). I tend towards the (b) link and concur with the dozen writers (including Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) who a few years ago - after this incident - declared "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism...". Soeren Kern at Gateway The Gatestone Institute highlights a key point to the OIC report: "The common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC's repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for "the institutionalization of Islamophobia" in Western countries is freedom of speech." It is not an exaggeration to say that when you read the report (if you don't fancy that just read the two pages of conclusions and recommendations, pages 33 and 34; everything after that is annexes anyway) what Soeren says is true and highlights a massive contradiction, from the OIC: "Many distorted facts and ill conceived ideas about Islam... ...include the perception that Islam is linked to terror; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs, that its values and practices are incompatible with modern democratic systems; that it favours repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights and other misperceptions." Errm, can anyone point out how any of that [edited 4pm] is distorting facts or ill-conceiving something? And then their recommendations in the report: their solution to stop people thinking they want to repress freedom of expression is by repressing freedom of expression! FFS.  A suggestion OIC: take one step back and look at the causes of "Islamophobia".

One objicient's outstanding oration...

---

Pat Condell saying everything that I wanted to say HERE; I may have got the point across but he does it so well.

One objicient's outstanding oration...

---

Pat Condell saying everything that I wanted to say HERE; I may have got the point across but he does it so well.

Objurgating obscurantism II...

---

I have been very angry this week, I could have done people harm with probably very little provocation. I like to think I am extremely tolerant, maybe a secret person. I have read many articles, watched myriad reports, listened to many weak and cowardly politicians and heard once again the same excuses still being used.



The debate hasn't been had, is still not being had and isn't being allowed to be had. David, Boris, John et al were right about one thing: British foreign policy is not the problem; if it were how could they explain the atrocities all over the world, in about 25 countries on 4 continents only in the last month! (including sect on sect attacks).



However, our leaders and politicians are wrong about something else: I have a surprise for you, Islam IS the problem. By denying this or adding ifs and buts and caveats and excuses nothing will ever change. Islam needs reform. An ex near-neighbour of mine Ali Miraj writes that the atrocious and heinous event in Woolwich is "only the latest act of barbarism: Muslims, we must take on this cancer in our midst". He suggests there are two key issues: the first was influenced by his experience of radical Muslim groups as long ago as 1993: first, "the historic failure to clamp down on those inciting hatred"; secondly "the ineptitude and utter failure of self-proclaimed Muslim leaders to tackle these extremists head-on with intellectual argument." However, this 2nd point will not work when, as Raewald says, [edit] Islam provides/provided [young jihadists] "with what they imagined was justification for their barbarism remains the real problem; with no recognised spiritual hierarchy to definitively interpret the Koran otherwise, Islam will always provide the enemies of our peoples with an excuse for violence against us" (my emphasis). In many Muslim countries radical and extreme interpretations of the Koran would not be allowed, the Imams would be punished and imprisoned...or worse; probably because of this many have gravitated to the welcoming arms of liberal Europe and especially Britain, Londistan, a rich and fertile hunting ground to spread their bile and poison.



For how long must the appeasement continue? Just as the serious and chronic and widespread Muslim grooming scandals were ignored because of the fear of accusations of racism and/or they didn't like the messenger so too the revelations of hate-preaching in some Mosques was turned on it's head so that the messenger became investigated. Judges, police, CPS, politicians sort it out, stop the pandering and appeasement! Why can one man get arrested immediately for a few online comments whereas Muslim hate-preachers get away with constant and regular death threats and inciting hatred on a daily basis. And Muslims, no ifs, no buts, expose the haters, expose the extremists, open the Mosques, heal thyselves. 

Objurgating obscurantism II...

---

I have been very angry this week, I could have done people harm with probably very little provocation. I like to think I am extremely tolerant, maybe a secret person. I have read many articles, watched myriad reports, listened to many weak and cowardly politicians and heard once again the same excuses still being used.

The debate hasn't been had, is still not being had and isn't being allowed to be had. David, Boris, John et al were right about one thing: British foreign policy is not the problem; if it were how could they explain the atrocities all over the world, in about 25 countries on 4 continents only in the last month! (including sect on sect attacks).

However, our leaders and politicians are wrong about something else: I have a surprise for you, Islam IS the problem. By denying this or adding ifs and buts and caveats and excuses nothing will ever change. Islam needs reform. An ex near-neighbour of mine Ali Miraj writes that the atrocious and heinous event in Woolwich is "only the latest act of barbarism: Muslims, we must take on this cancer in our midst". He suggests there are two key issues: the first was influenced by his experience of radical Muslim groups as long ago as 1993: first, "the historic failure to clamp down on those inciting hatred"; secondly "the ineptitude and utter failure of self-proclaimed Muslim leaders to tackle these extremists head-on with intellectual argument." However, this 2nd point will not work when, as Raewald says, [edit] Islam provides/provided [young jihadists] "with what they imagined was justification for their barbarism remains the real problem; with no recognised spiritual hierarchy to definitively interpret the Koran otherwise, Islam will always provide the enemies of our peoples with an excuse for violence against us" (my emphasis). In many Muslim countries radical and extreme interpretations of the Koran would not be allowed, the Imams would be punished and imprisoned...or worse; probably because of this many have gravitated to the welcoming arms of liberal Europe and especially Britain, Londistan, a rich and fertile hunting ground to spread their bile and poison.

For how long must the appeasement continue? Just as the serious and chronic and widespread Muslim grooming scandals were ignored because of the fear of accusations of racism and/or they didn't like the messenger so too the revelations of hate-preaching in some Mosques was turned on it's head so that the messenger became investigated. Judges, police, CPS, politicians sort it out, stop the pandering and appeasement! Why can one man get arrested immediately for a few online comments whereas Muslim hate-preachers get away with constant and regular death threats and inciting hatred on a daily basis. And Muslims, no ifs, no buts, expose the haters, expose the extremists, open the Mosques, heal thyselves. 

Ongoing overcrowding II...

---

...of a green and pleasant land [Owsblog 2006].  "Every country must have firm control over immigration
and Britain is no exception." Labour election manifesto 1997. From Ongoing overcrowding..."We know that in their 1st term - from 1997 - immigration tripled; in their 2nd term it quadrupled (from the 1997 figure) [Migration Watch - pdf]. This seemed bad enough and then we found out it was entirely intentional and had a 'subsidiary political purpose' and was not just the result of a booming economy and perceived skills shortage.

Now, we learn of ANOTHER round of secret immigration intentions: "The secret immigration policy they tried to hide". "Behind closed doors, EU negotiations will trigger a new wave of cheap labour into Britain." Who and when will the public be informed? These are new, irreversible commitments."

The Coalition have done almost nothing to change any of this and now we see where our politicians lead us: 13 per cent of residents of England and Wales were born outside the UK and just over half arrived in the last 10 years, [ONS Link]. An important stat: now 4.8% of the UK are Muslim, more than all other religions (excepting Christian and 'no religion') put together; not too high you may say but I remind you of Edward Cline's 'Jihad by the Numbers' [FSM] which seems a pretty accurate index when you read through the countries:"At 2% and 3% they [Muslims] begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs."



"From 5% on they [Muslims] exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal ("clean" by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves - along with threats for failure to comply (United States)."



"At this point, they [Muslims] will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, or Islamic law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world."



Then it starts to get a bit nasty and it's worth noting David's comment here: that Muslim behaviour is not just dependent on their proportion of the population but on the character of the local population: "For instance, in a strongly anti-Muslim nation such as China, Muslims will have to be much larger then two percent before they start to misbehave or go on Jihad."



"...In a free and tolerant society, trouble starts at a much lower level."




Update: sorry for multiple Owsblog back-links (not trying to boost hits like Guido et al!) but another point to note is the health aspect: a 'small proportion of the non-UK born bear the greatest burden of infectious disease reported in the UK.' In 2010, 73% of TB cases reported in the UK were immigrants - of those with country of birth information available (84% of that total are from only two regions: 57% South Asia [almost entirely India, Pakistan and Bangladesh] and 27% from sub Saharan Africa [mainly Zimbabwe and Nigeria]). The same goes for almost 60% of newly diagnosed cases of HIV, and 80% of hepatitis B infected UK blood donors (this data from the HPA PowerPoint; link at bottom of page HERE).

Ongoing overcrowding II...

---

...of a green and pleasant land [Owsblog 2006].  "Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception." Labour election manifesto 1997. From Ongoing overcrowding..."We know that in their 1st term - from 1997 - immigration tripled; in their 2nd term it quadrupled (from the 1997 figure) [Migration Watch - pdf]. This seemed bad enough and then we found out it was entirely intentional and had a 'subsidiary political purpose' and was not just the result of a booming economy and perceived skills shortage. Now, we learn of ANOTHER round of secret immigration intentions: "The secret immigration policy they tried to hide". "Behind closed doors, EU negotiations will trigger a new wave of cheap labour into Britain." Who and when will the public be informed? These are new, irreversible commitments."

The Coalition have done almost nothing to change any of this and now we see where our politicians lead us: 13 per cent of residents of England and Wales were born outside the UK and just over half arrived in the last 10 years, [ONS Link]. An important stat: now 4.8% of the UK are Muslim, more than all other religions (excepting Christian and 'no religion') put together; not too high you may say but I remind you of Edward Cline's 'Jihad by the Numbers' [FSM] which seems a pretty accurate index when you read through the countries:"At 2% and 3% they [Muslims] begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs."

"From 5% on they [Muslims] exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal ("clean" by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves - along with threats for failure to comply (United States)."

"At this point, they [Muslims] will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, or Islamic law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world."

Then it starts to get a bit nasty and it's worth noting David's comment here: that Muslim behaviour is not just dependent on their proportion of the population but on the character of the local population: "For instance, in a strongly anti-Muslim nation such as China, Muslims will have to be much larger then two percent before they start to misbehave or go on Jihad."

"...In a free and tolerant society, trouble starts at a much lower level."

Update: sorry for multiple Owsblog back-links (not trying to boost hits like Guido et al!) but another point to note is the health aspect: a 'small proportion of the non-UK born bear the greatest burden of infectious disease reported in the UK.' In 2010, 73% of TB cases reported in the UK were immigrants - of those with country of birth information available (84% of that total are from only two regions: 57% South Asia [almost entirely India, Pakistan and Bangladesh] and 27% from sub Saharan Africa [mainly Zimbabwe and Nigeria]). The same goes for almost 60% of newly diagnosed cases of HIV, and 80% of hepatitis B infected UK blood donors (this data from the HPA PowerPoint; link at bottom of page HERE).

Ouch!...

---

Respect where respect is due? No, but this is far worse for Ed than for Dave: click on image for more info from PoliticalBetting.com about the "most sensational victory in British by-election history. Ever." (says the winner George Galloway). In the 2010 General Election the 'big three' got over 88% of the vote; this time round it was 38%. Can all that be down to tactical voting and dodgy postal voting? Probably yes.



 

Ouch!...

---

Respect where respect is due? No, but this is far worse for Ed than for Dave: click on image for more info from PoliticalBetting.com about the "most sensational victory in British by-election history. Ever." (says the winner George Galloway). In the 2010 General Election the 'big three' got over 88% of the vote; this time round it was 38%. Can all that be down to tactical voting and dodgy postal voting? Probably yes.