Racism vs Abuse

I was called racist yesterday for using the term paddy wagon in Satruday's post - well, actually, ignorant and racist. I was going to leave racism for another day, but.....

Leaving aside for a moment that one can't be ignorant of a perfectly innocuous use of a term offending someone and simultaneously being racist for using it, there must be an intent to be abusive. The term racist is much overused - especially when the offender and offended are of the same race. It may be unwittingly abusive or discriminatory, but certainly not racist, unless one wishes to designate the Irish as a totally different race from Western Europeans - which would be stretching the bounds of credulity beyond reason. There again, the meaning of words do change with time and sometimes so fast that you can't keep up with them, so I'll accept the accusation of ignorance.

If I were using the term paddy wagon in a racist or abusive manner, I would surely have a hatred of Irish people, which I don't. Some of my best friends are Irish (and I'll come back to that last statement in a minute). besides which I've heard Irish friends of my acquaintance using the term without batting an eyelid. That said, black Americans use the word Nigger between themselves with abandon, but woe betide any white person using it.

When does a term become abusive? How many have to take offence for it to be considered abusive - is one sufficient? Researching the term paddy wagon reveals no-one is quite sure how it evolved, but it did evolve in America. It also revealed that some people of Irish descent consider it abusive but many don't. Any term can be considered abusive if the person reading it or hearing it decides to designate it as such, and thus there's a high degree of arbitrariness about defining a term as abusive. As we know, a number of people like to be offended by virtually anything and seem almost to have a vested interest in being offended. It would seem from the foregoing that the only way of defining a term as abusive is the intent of the deliverer. In my use of the term, an association with the Irish wasn't even in my conscious mind, so I reject the accusation of racism on a number of fronts. If you are Irish, are you offended?

Take the word pommie. It can be used generally (and unabusively), but it can also be used abusively. Where do you draw the line? Surely it can only be decided by intent. To designate the word as abusive in every context just because a minority use it abusively is ludicrous - or is it?

Returning to racism, in my lexicon it is the hatred of all members of another race for no other reason than their defining racial characteristics, and thus irrational. Rational hatred, and any resulting abuse, whether caused by a particular behaviour, ideology or bad experience that inductive reasoning has generalised (and induction from a few instances is never recommended), cannot really be called racism - there is a concrete reason for the hatred, be that mistaken or genuine. 

I contend that most people who are labeled racist would generally have no problem with people of a different race who's behaviour, mode of speech or general demeanour is identical to their own. How many times have we heard the words; "I'm not racist - I have a lot of black friends - but.....," followed by what is commonly referred to as a racist remark. It's not the other person's race that is actually the issue, it's more an aspect of their culture. Skin colour or eye shape is immaterial. These people have rationalised their hatred, albeit on a stereotype. Humans, however, are very good at recognising patterns - it's how we interpret and make sense of the world around us - and hence the stereotype.

The trendy left is overly fond of labeling people as racist at the drop of a hat - it's the new black - and it is used to deflect the course of an argument away from the pertinent or uncomfortable facts. Local councils place ethnic minority orphans with foster families of the same ethnicity. I ask whether that is in itself racist - I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I merely ask the question while pointing out that the decision is not colour blind, The usual argument is that the child should not lose contact with its culture - but we are not born with a culture, it's assimilated as we grow up and can change with environment.

The pleasing thing is that the accusation of racism was not leveled at me for my comments on Islam - the reason being that Islam is an ideology and not specific to any race. For recognition of that fact I applaud my accuser.

Yakking Immigration

Some of yesterday's post was whited out by mistake - now corrected.

Apropos of yesterday's post and a question that was posed; "Couldn't one make a case for saying that the very essence of British culture is, and always has been, its multiculturalism. Which means that British Culture is an enemy of the state ..... maybe?"

My answer is that history can teach us valuable lessons and we ignore it at our peril (a lot of mistakes arise from ignoring history - like Afghanistan). One only has to look at the experience of the Native Americans, the Aborigines and the various tribes of what is now South Africa and the devastation that uncontrolled immigration wrought. We now have massive ghettos of white people there who have imposed their own laws, customs and religion, and while South Africa is gradually reclaiming its culture, it does still remain predominantly western.

There are no instances of immigration that I can think of where cultural ghettos were not the immediate (and in mist cases, permanent) result, although I bet someone will prove me wrong with the exception that proves the rule. Just as a note, the countries with the highest Muslim populations in Europe are France, Germany and the UK, in that order. France and the UK's population is predominantly the result of colonialism; Germany's was as a result of a much more sinister relationship with Islam during the Nazi era, combined with rampant labour immigration in the 90s. Both France and Germany are having undeniable and massive problems with their Muslim communities.

I have more to say on this issue - to do with the label 'racist', when in the majority of cases (admittedly not all) the label would more accurately be termed 'culturalist', but I'll leave that for another day. However, while talking about racism, I was told the term paddywaggon (which I used yesterday) is a racist term, yet there's a tour firm in Ireland called Paddywaggon Tours. So much for Irish people being offended by the term - I hate it when people get offended on behalf of people who aren't offended at all.

Went yakking again yesterday and did the Bathampton to Bath section of the River Avon. Some photos:

We called in at Saltford Marina on the way home:

Migrants & Sharia

It strikes me that a suitable way to deal with the migrants at Calais is the use honeypot lorries that are easy to get into; once they fill, get them across to the UK and decant the migrants into paddy wagons for immediate deportation back to their countries of origin.

Since they are coming across half of Europe to get to the UK, any genuine refugees are contravening the law that says they must seek asylum in the first EU country they arrive in, which is invariably a Mediterranean one. This suggests those ending up in Calais are not genuine refugees but economic migrants. Given they are almost 100% Muslim it's also strange that no Muslim country on their journey is considered an adequate refuge (which doesn't say much for Muslim countries).

Allowing immigration by swathes of Muslims will store up problems for the future. Islam can be a very dangerous political doctrine (it's not just a religion; if it were it wouldn't be so dangerous), as it governs every aspect of the life of the believer. It was born out of war and strife (Islam has been fighting the infidel for most of its existence) and we already have radicals calling for sharia law in parts of the UK where Muslims are dominant, and indeed already goes on 'under the counter'. In Germany it's even worse and a shadow sharia justice system operates. The innocuous sounding Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has actually issued fatwas condoning marital rape (fatwa 2982), justifying FGM (fatwa 1639), death for apostasy and forbidding obtaining citizenship of a non-Muslim country.

There is no escaping the fact that sharia is antithetical to the western concept of justice;

• Its firmly - and fatally - anchored in dogmatic, 7th century jurisprudence,
• Its standards of evidence fall well below those prevalent in western jurisprudence - the value of evidence is weighted according to who you are - male/female, Muslim/non-Muslim. It's predicated on the unshakable assumption that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and equality before the law is nonexistent.
• It disallows freedom of conscience (and indeed freedom of expression) and proscribes homosexuality, 
• It has no concept of fundamental human rights as we understand them, and 
• The punishments are barbaric. 

Additionally, due to the lack of focus on evidence, justice under sharia is easily subverted and used for settling scores - we have seen many cases of this in Islamic paradises. Imagine if we still had 7th century laws and were not allowed to change them because they were allegedly mandated by God. Trial by ordeal would be a good one to watch at the Old Bailey.

Attempts have been made by 'moderate' Muslims (a misnomer, if we equate moderation with liberalisation) to modernise sharia in Muslim countries, but all, with the sole exception of Turkey, have failed - although even Turkey seems to be peddling backwards now and the conservatives are in the ascendancy.

When your laws are based on a 7th century book supposedly being the immutable word of God and you are a fervent believer (and most Muslims are devout, if nothing else), then attempts at making sharia more acceptable in the 21st century are bound to fail in the long term, as change would be de facto blasphemy - Islam is not, after all, democratic. While many Muslims (depending on their country of residence) are willing to say Sharia is open to interpretation in the modern era, there are always radical imams in the wings who say not and act as elastic bands to draw the faithful back to a literal interpretation by merely pointing to the relevant words of the Koran and questioning the believer's devoutness (with all the dire consequences that entails).

In a 2008 poll, 40% of UK Muslims were in favour of sharia in the UK. I would be willing to place a bet that this percentage has probably increased in the intervening 7 years, as has the percentage of Muslims. There's no denying that British and American foreign policy has in all probability contributed to this. However, as we know from 20th century experience in Europe, a small number of fanatics can find the means to control the more moderate, silent majority.

A survey of US mosques found 81% of those mosques surveyed moderately or strongly supported violent jihad in favour of the imposition of sharia. To quote from the report:

"Violence-positive materials were found in a very large majority (81%) of the 100 mosques surveyed.  Violence-positive materials were more likely to be found in mosques whose communal prayer practices, imams, and adult male worshipers exhibited greater indicia of Sharia-adherent behaviors than were their less Sharia-adherent counterparts.  Moreover, the mosques that contained violence-positive materials were many times more likely than mosques that did not contain violence-positive materials to engage in several behaviors that promoted violence and violent jihad."

The problem with the militants calling for sharia in the West is that they use the West's cherished freedom of speech argument to rant against the West, yet Islam itself does has no truck with freedom of speech and suppresses it whenever in a position of power. Classic jujitsu ; "Use the enemy's weakness as your strength." The only possible countermeasure is to withdraw the right to freedom of speech from those whose professed faith would deny freedom of speech to others. The militants could hardly say they were not Muslim, as that itself would be blasphemy and punishable by death. Checkmate!

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is nothing more than an attempt to disarm critics of Islamic states' human rights records. It pays lip service to the UDHR, but crucially, only insofar as it is compatible with sharia, of which most western readers are ignorant. It's nothing more than blatant weasel words.

What I've said may seem like a thin end of the wedge or slippery slope argument, but it's estimated there are currently in excess of 60m displaced Muslims looking for a home, and Britain is portrayed, whether correctly or not, as a land flowing with milk, honey and state handouts, which is why migrants travel across Europe to reach here.

We also have a habit, through human rights legislation, of giving refuge to militant imams who are under a threat of death in their homeland for promoting insurrection against secularised governments.

These migrants are coming from the fervently devout and semi-literate Muslim countries where the overwhelming majority favour a literal interpretation of the Koran. The goal of most Muslims around the world is a world Caliphate of Islam; where they may differ is the means by which that is to be achieved - through the democratic overwhelming of the ballot box (once again using the jujitsu principle), or by the more gruesome means favoured by ISIS and their barbaric ilk.

The only saving grace is that when militant Muslims are not busy fighting the West, they invariably tend to turn on each other for a variety of reasons. However, that can't be relied on to save us from totalitarianism by stealth.

Radical Islam is a strange term to use - so-called Muslim radicals are actually staunch conservatives with not one ounce of radicalism in their blood. Radical Islam must be, by definition, non-traditional or reformed Islam, which is a long way off, if ever, and ironically can only ever materialise within the West through the auspices of those Muslims who have been born into and grown up in a western culture - if the Islamists don't get to them first. It's unrealistic to expect a Muslim reformation to be supported by those Muslims who cling to eastern culture and wear eastern clothing in the streets of Britain. If we wan to keep Britain's British culture, regardless of racial or ethnic mix, then multiculturalism has to be an enemy of the state.

Here is an interesting article from The Gurniad by a British Muslim about moderate Muslims.

Top Gear Gas, You're Going to Die

What do Americans ask for when calling at a petrol station and requiring LPG? Gas gas?

Jeremy Clarkson and Co. have signed up for Amazon Prime. Based on the paucity of the films Amazon Prime hosts, I don't think I'll be watching them - will stick with Netflix thanks.

I don't want to worry you, but you're going to die of something. It may be cancer, it may be a heart attack, it may be a stroke, it could be dementia, it could be one of a myriad things. Go see your doctor before it's too late! Either that, or just don't give a damn and save the tax payer some dosh.

Progress Report, Wedding Video & Waitrose

Progress from yesterday! I feel a swift trip to B and Q (can't use ampersand in Blogger) coming up to use my over 60s card for a bathroom and kitchen.

Roof trusses ordered, larch cladding ordered, roof tiles to be ordered tomorrow. On target for mid-September completion.

I've finished editing Hay's sister's wedding. If you're willing to suffer 25 minutes of someone else's humanist wedding, then this is for you. If you're bored by this kind of thing, move on the end credits - and make sure you go beyond where it says; "THE END". Hay is the blonde in the flowered dress toting a camera and one of the people giving a reading.

Did you spot President Clinton, who kindly dropped in for the pub lunch on the Wednesday.

Received an offer from Waitrose yesterday - free champagne when I spend £100 or more. Can't remember the last time I spent £100 on a weekly shop; our usual is just under £70 at Lidl, which would give me £30 for a decent bottle of bubbly anyway! Mind you, it must be quite easy to spend £100 at Waitrose - just some Eaitrose Essential lilies and a bit of Waitrose Essential caviar.

The Cabin

Progress is being made at a fast pace with the cabin - Colin and Barry have been beavering away for 2 days now.

Colin and Barry love us as customers as we make no demands and tell them to make whatever decisions they deem fit. The same happened with the house and we had no complaints whatsoever. They, after all, are the experts.

It will be insulated to within an inch of its life, so all we now need concern ourselves with is whether we install the wood burner from the caravan (which we saved), or use some form of electric heating. The power is coming from the house, so the profit we're making from the feed-in tariff will take care of the electricity bills.

Gazebos & Tents

Bought a small gazebo on eBay last year, but never got to put it up as it was bought too late in the year. I contributed it to the wedding to add as a portico to the wedding ceremony gazebo. On putting it together I realised why it was so cheap - some of poles wouldn't go together without a rather large application of brute force. I suspect it was a an Amazon return, as the seller was an Amazon driver.

Anyway, I got it together for the wedding, but there was no way the uprights could ever be taken apart again. Fortuitously, Colin our builder, needs a gazebo as a building shelter for the cabin build, which started yesterday, so it's now residing at the top of the field and it doesn't matter if it's destroyed in the process.

Not sure when we'll be able to take the Big Top tent down - weather has precluded it so far and most of the available personnel are going away this week. Getting very worried about the grass. The heavy rain on Sunday has rendered the ground very soft and tent pegs are popping all over the place - it nearly collapsed of its own accord yesterday in the winds.

There's a more than a 50% chance that Hay and I will get married next year, but there's no way I'm raising tents myself and doing all the clearing up afterwards. We're considering low-cost alternatives that involve leaving it all to others to do the hard work. Hiring a local pub with room for a marquee and a pig roast is high on the list of options. There is a number of likely venues hereabouts.

A Good Time Was Had by All

Despite the rain and gales Friday and Sunday, Saturday turned out perfect for the wedding, if somewhat chilly in the evening. Hayley was official photographer and I was official video expert.

The video expert spent yesterday trying to figure out why DVD after DVD had no sound, before discovering late in the afternoon that the DVD player's sound cable was unplugged on the TV.

The following photos were taken by me, not the official photographer (who is infinitely better than me at this kind of stuff).

The Garden Party

Bride and Groom

Official photographer with Bride and Groom

Official photographer with Best Man

Official photo of the Official Photographer

Aftermath

Tented Brummie Koran

I hear that what is possibly the earliest fragment of the Koran, written by someone who could have personally known Mohammed, has been found in Birmingham. Could this be conclusive proof that Mohammed was actually a Brummie?

Took delivery of the composting loo for the cabin yesterday. It's huge and it comes with a mounting step!

Needs just an electrical connection for the heater element and a vent to the outside.

Got the Pyramid Stage sorted with side curtains yesterday evening just in time for today's rain. Thinking of using the white wedding ceremony tent as a Hits of the Blitz Stage for the oldies in the evening. Hay is the official photographer and I'm the official video crew.

The Registry Office wedding ceremony was on Wednesday but the humanist ceremony is tomorrow afternoon, along with a party in the evening. Just hope the weather forecast is accurate.

Irony

Saw a post on Facebook yesterday advertising a petition on behalf of an organisation called Christians Against Anti-Semitism, which I thought a tad ironic - they invented it, for heaven's sake. Doubly ironic when their holy man was himself Jew! Triply ironic when they gather in their millions on Sundays worshiping three Gods, one of which was a Jew, in direct contravention of the 1st Commandment contained within a Jewish book.

There again, religion wouldn't be religion without paradoxes. The paradoxes are incontrovertible proof that religion comes from the muddled mind of fallible man and not an omniscient being.