Loyalty or Honesty?

Which is the greater trait? Loyalty or honesty?

It doesn't take most people too long to realise you can be loyal without being honest. Yet history is rife with examples of people who were loyal when, honestly, they knew better. The most sensational example of this is, of course, the Nazi's, but the concept hits a little closer to home than that.


Loyalty will always be valued over honesty by those in a position of authority (be it political, religious, secular businesses or social groups) simply because no one wants to be told they're wrong. We instinctively and inherently resent honest notions that force us to justify ourselves. And so, our natural sense of values are topsy-turvy. Someone that's loyal is seen as more valuable, more of a team player, more of an asset. While someone that's honest is difficult, a trouble-maker.

Reality, of course, is just the opposite. The seemingly loyal devotee isn't at all loyal. They're dishonest. While the honest devotee is loyal to principle before position.

If you find yourself in a position where you are challenged to be either loyal or honest, choose the tougher road less travelled and be honest...

Democracy - We Get What We Deserve

One thing I'll say for democracy - people get what they deserve. Those of us who remember the "time for a change" mantra of '97 know the shallowness of thought that won the country over. Blair's government has proceeded to ban anything unfashionable, remove our rights, and generally boss us around for our own good - and Britain deserved it. Britain chose it.

We even have the opposition we deserve. If we were a principled people, we would have a principled opposition. But principles don't pay in politics - the electorate neither understands nor desires them. The Conservative party knows better than to put a principled conservative in the leadership role. They've tried that - and the electorate burned them for it. So we have the vacuous Cameron - a showman like Blair - only with fewer principles.

The Palestinians elected Hamas. That's the thing about democracy. This may sound like a bitter injustice to the many good hearted Palestinians who want none of this madness, but they fail to form a critical mass. They will endure what their compatriots have chosen.

Heartless? No, I want something better for people. Pragmatic? Yes, I think the best option for government is to allow the people to choose. The down-side is that the people will get what they choose.

Abolition of Slavery

It's 200 years today since the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. While I appreciate the monumental change for good in the legal abolition of slave trafficking from Africa to the New World, I'm a little more ambivalent about this anniversary - and I'm especially sceptical of the fad for ceremonial apologies. Here's why:

Firstly, I have no doubt there are more slaves in Britain today than ever before. Sex slaves are being brought in from eastern Europe in their droves. Children are being flown in from Africa to live with cousins and aunties as unpaid household help [read - domestic slaves]. Uprooted from everything they know, they will fail at school, fall in with the wrong crowd, and eventually run-away, likely into prostitution (as I saw happen in a family I know).

Second, my ancestors were Scottish - some of whom were mercilessly driven off their land tenure. People were cleared to seize land for the wealthy elite. Yes, that's white people being treated as more worthless than chattel.

Thirdly, it's a lot easier to make theatrical apologies for crimes of another generation than to put your own house in order. Our society still consigns people to miserable hopelessness by fostering dependence on welfare and a host of other morally corrupt policies.

Fourth, many of those clambering for an apology can trace their ancestry back to slaves. But it is almost certain that their ancestry also includes the slave masters. Callused as I may sound - apologise to yourself! We did not chose our ancestors, and it's just too damned convenient to chose to identify with the victim rather than the oppressor. The genes from both sides define every cell in your body.

And finally, the vast majority of white British families never kept slaves. They were more likely to lose their jobs to them. My ancestors and yours had enough to think about putting food on the table before their own children.

So apologise if you want. It'll do more harm than good - because it is not honest.

Uncomfortable Affiliations

A few weeks ago I joined a loose association of bloggers called blogpower. There are some good thinkers and writers in the group, and we link to each other's sites. The group has helped me find some great sites, and brought some welcome traffic this way.

Some of the crowd are concerned to varying degrees by the inclusion of Central News because it is written by a BNP supporter. He has at times contributed comments on this site. And from memory, I think I've commented on his. I've also posted on issues relating to the BNP - not supporting a BNP position, but opposing restrictions on free speech.

Currently there is hot debate on what to do about the blogpower situation. Some want to ask him to leave, some have suggested disbanding blogpower. Other's have already withdrawn their blogs from the group eschewing any association.

To be clear, this is not an issue of free speech, it's a question of who and what bloggers want to be associated with and linked to.

If blogpower asks him to leave, then exactly what is the criteria for being part of this exclusive circle? Where is the master list of acceptable opinions that we must adhere to? Or where is the list of blasphemous views that will see a blogger cast out? Who is this new authority to decide? Is the majority view to decide what is acceptable? - That would really be disconcerting!

This all sits uneasily in the blogosphere. Simply by being on the Internet you are by definition connected to the rest of it! I see this as a place where we can speak and disagree freely. If you disagree with Central News or the BNP, then say so! Blogging is an ideal medium for this!

If it's the BNP's support for capital punishment that offends you, then make your argument. If you disagree with their immigration policies, then state your case. (It's their restrictive immigration based on race that I object to - far too prescriptive. Like all left wingers, too interested in curtailing freedom. I think of the BNP as 'far-Left'.) If you just think they are a pack of racist bastards, you can say that too, but don't expect me to keep coming back to your blog. I'm looking for something a little more thoughtful. (Of course, if you say it in a funny or clever way, then that could work too.)

Now, if a blogger wants to withdraw from the association, of course they are free to do so. If those working to maintain and host the group can no longer do it, then that is their choice. But I thank them for their work and I hope they keep it up.

Empty Excuses

Thinking about Labour MP Ruth Kelly and her dyslexic child attending a private school, I'm struck by the emptiness of her arguement.

Ruth Kelly's defence is that the needs of her child are most important in this decision (doesn't every parent care?), and that the school authorities recommended the move (...and so what if they didn't?). I don't think she needs to defend the choice at all, only abandon her hypocritical Labour government job.

Dyslexia is somewhat on a high right now. As Ellee rightly pointed out, there are some notable dyslexic achievers - Branson, Churchill, Einstein. But over the last few generations, I expect there have been many more who did not find such success. Countless intelligent and talented (or not especially intelligent, but precious none the less) children have suffered misery at schools that could neither help nor understand.

I went to school with one young rebel who was a complete horror to our teachers. Today, I expect he would have Attention Deficit Disorder, or some such labelled condition - perhaps even dyslexia.

Either we happen to live in the time that all learning-imparing afflictions have finally been categorised and understood (which would be an extraordinary coincidence) or there are some more thick kids out there who will one day look back on a cruel system that failed, but never diagnosed them.

My point is twofold. First, without the contemporary status of dyslexia, Ruth Kelly may never have found the support of the local school educators to remove her child from the state school. Does she still believe that parents should be able to choose the best school for their child even if there is no Latin word for whatever is holding the child back?

Second, each child is an individual and some may have no diagnosable condition, yet would greatly improve their results from a private school. They may have the same measure of increase toward fulfilling their unique potential that a dyslexic child by gains with expert attention. Does not every parent have the right to pursue the best for his or her child?

Labour's hate campaign against private and church school education is deeply hypocritical. The moment the presure is on, their leaders run to the private sector.

And for what it's worth, the church was educating children long before the governments gave it any thought.

Lib Dem Says Loose and Quit

Liberal Democrat MP, Sandra Gidley in a caricature of her over-prescriptive, hater-of-excellence, all-must-be-mediocre, far-left self has called for an end to school sports days. She says schools fail to consider the feelings of children with little sporting ability... school sports days publicly humiliate children who finish last.

What a wonderful example of a socialist solution. Some fail, so no one can be allowed to succeed! All must be prevented from excellence so that no one's feelings will be hurt.

Apparently Gidley's feeble efforts on the school sports track left her so bitter that quitting was not enough. All must quit.

A right-of-centre solution focuses on individual freedom. I would insist on the right of children to refrain from public sports just as others choose to compete. I would also encourage participatory games that are more fun for the less competitive.

And perhaps more important for parents, teach children to enjoy participating in a variety of activities with different levels of proficiency. Win with grace, loose with dignity. Respect your opponents, give your best, develop character.

Coming last on sports day is not a humiliation. Sulking all the way to Parliament is.

Traffic Signs and Thinking Minds

Sometimes you wonder whether a story is a spoof. Apparently, it's real - seven European cities are felling their traffic signs and signals, and asking drivers to be thoughtful and considerate!

Bravo! It may be a function of our highly regulated culture that I am initially slightly nervous at the prospect of removing the road signs. My first reaction is wonder if we can make it without someone telling us how to handle each junction. But pretty quickly the 'less is more' instinct kicks in. Best government is small. Best legislation is minimal and simple.

The linked article is littered with unhelpful terms like 'anarchy' and 'utopia'. Of course, this is neither. It is a realisation that the more busybody regulation lumped on people, the less they think. Someone finally had the courage to ask - what if we allow intelligent people to engage their own brains? What if the driver is actually best placed to make his own decisions?

My favourite quotes from the article are: "The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate." That's right! Rules replace thinking.

..And: "The glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the driver like a child and it also foments resentment. He may stop in front of the crosswalk, but that only makes him feel justified in preventing pedestrians from crossing the street on every other occasion. Every traffic light baits him with the promise of making it over the crossing while the light is still yellow."

This does not mean there are no road rules at all. And a legal framework is still necessary to judge situations when things go wrong. It's just a huge shift in balance... coming at the same problem from an entirely different angle. And apparently it's working - from the article, "the number of accidents has declined dramatically."

Traffic-light controlled intersections are governed by computers. Anyone who has sat at a red-light on an otherwise deserted intersection knows the unique blend of humiliation and fury of trying to reason with the machine-in-charge.

This is why round-abouts work so well... though an entire mystery to our American cousins. They give a guiding direction to the traffic flow rather than interrupting and controlling it. The rules are simple and elegant - go clockwise... give way to those already on the round-about - that's about it! It scales beautifully from the lonely white circle painted in a village centre to the huge garden-planted island in a city rush-hour.

Most shoking of all about this story is that someone in the European Union is actually thinking about trusting people rather than bossing them around.

Islam and Islamism

In response to the Queen's speech, British MP Paul Goodman spoke thoughtfully in Parliament about the government and nation's approach to terrorism and security. (Hat tip to Melanie Phillips. The speech is not short, but worth reading.)

Interestingly, he makes the distinction between Islam - a great religion ...as various, as complex, as multi-faceted and as capable of supporting a great civilisation as Christianity.

... and Islamism - an ideology forged largely in the past 100 years...

• First, it separates the inhabitants of the dar-al-Islam-the house of Islam-and the dar-al-Harb-the house of war-and, according to Islamist ideology, those two houses are necessarily in conflict.
• Secondly, it proclaims to Muslims that their political loyalty lies not with the country that they live in, but with the umma-that is, the worldwide community of Muslims.
• Thirdly, it aims to bring the dar-al-Islam under sharia law.

I do not agree with this analysis. It seems to me that the Islamic religion is oppressive, aggressive and regressive. The 'moderate/radical' distinction is that so-called 'moderates' are influenced by the western style pick-and-choose belief system. They pay more attention to the nice parts of their religion, and wish-away the slay-the-infidel-wherever-you-find-em bits.

Those very committed to every tenet of Islam will of necessity oppose freedom and peace. Islamism is Islam's response to 'corrupting' and particularly, western influences. 'Moderate Islam' from a western point of view is really just 'back-sliding Islam' from the committed.

I think it's fair to say that Islam is not going to 'go away' anytime soon - though frankly, I'd rather it would. (I don't consider it a 'great religion' or even helpful in the world.) The next best is that it be watered-down, westernised and marginalised.

Human Rights and Drugs in Prison

Our embarrassing government is handing over our money in settlement for alleged breeches of 'human rights'. Prisoners denied illegal drugs while in prison had to tough out cold turkey.

So what are rights? This is a fundamental question and the Government of this country is getting it all wrong. A 'right' must be free. If a right costs something, then does it become someone else's obligation to pay? That would be an infringement on others' rights! This is why there is a right to freedom of speech, not a right to a microphone, air-time and an attentive audience.

The Americans understood this. They have a right to 'the pursuit of happiness'. Not a 'right to happiness'. If you want it, pursue it for yourself! The rest of us have no obligation to make you happy.

In Britain we hear so much about human rights to education or health care. This really makes no sense as a principled position. How much education is a right? Primary, secondary, university? If there is right to health care, does that mean any treatment possible must be made available? If these things are human rights, then people become victims of human rights abuses whenever they get less education or health care than someone else.

The only realistic way to provide this equality is to prevent the most resourceful from getting the excellence in education and health care that they might otherwise obtain. This perverted idea of human rights breeds envy, mediocrity and victim-hood.

The right must be to pursue education, to pursue health care. If I work hard to achieve something for my family, that hurts no one else. I am not preventing anyone else from providing abundantly for their own. But the twisted ideals of human rights bring ever increasing taxes to level-down achievement so that even those who do little or nothing to look after their own can have what the rest of us must work for.

These were convicted prisoners wanting illegal drugs. The moral vacuum in which they can successfully fleece the rest of us for compensation is beyond belief.

The Home Office said it "reluctantly" decided to settle out of court to "minimise costs to the taxpayer". They won't even fight. Utterly useless.

Nick Griffin, the BNP and Islam

The court has cleared Nick Griffin of 'hate crimes'. The leader of the British National Party had said that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith". This was a test of new religious hate laws criminalising speech that is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred. I'm pleased he was cleared as I believe we need the right to criticise religions. My observation is that criticising Islam is likely to stir up hatred. That in itself is a criticism of Islam.

If we lose the right to criticise religions, how long before we are not allowed to criticise political parties? What is the difference? They are both made up of groups of people with common beliefs that they take personally. Some people care passionately about their politics and are easily offended. How long before they require equal protection from offence?

Widespread offence only happens when the criticism might be true. If I say that the Ladies' Crochet Circle is wicked and vicious, no one would take it seriously. When Griffin says Islam is wicked and vicious, the authorities worry it may be more believable.

Government minister Lord Falconer, has said there should be "consequences" from saying Islam is "wicked and evil". Why? It is the expression of an opinion. It infringes no one else's rights. Neither does it incite others to illegal acts. If the opinion is misinformed, let us put the counter argument.

So is the statement correct? Is Islam a wicked and vicious faith? This is too general a statement to be either true or false. Islam is not one thing, it means something different to each adherent, and different things again to the rest of us. To describe Islam as 'wicked and vicious' is as ridiculous as asserting that Islam is a 'religion of peace'. It certainly isn't a religion of peace to all Muslims.

I think slightly more specific statements such as "Islam is conspicuously over-represented among the wicked and vicious", or "Loads of Muslims want to kill each other and the infidel" are more verifiable.

The Trouble With Performance Targets

Good people work hard and care about what they do. They also understand what they do and why it is important. When some authority comes crashing down from above with performance targets, it invariably cocks things up.

1. Targets measure the wrong thing. In the old Soviet days there was a directive to produce so-many shoes. So the manufacturers produced that many shoes. They may have been hideously uncomfortable and all of them brown, but the targets were met.

2. Targets prioritise the management of the task above the task. In Britain the New Labour government introduced targets to cut hospital waiting lists. So the hospitals treated all the easy cases first - this reduced the waiting lists, but it increased the waiting time for anything non-routine! Think about it... the length of the waiting list doesn't matter a bit! It's how long you have to wait that counts.

So now our beloved leaders have introduced targets to cut waiting times. And now the quick treatments are prioritised to lower the average waiting time. The result - patents needing slower treatments need to wait even longer!

All along, the targets are there to get the government re-elected, not improve health care. In the health service, targets pervert clinical priorities. Good practitioners don't need targets. Government does.

3. Targets make the right thing damned inconvenient. Yesterday we heard the report that a Welsh police force had reached its targets on tackling violent crime. Good news? Only if you're a violent criminal. In response, the police have stopped collecting intelligence in the field because it would lead to a higher target the following year. So the target becomes an incentive to do a worse job.

Big Brother is Watching

National and local government seem to be winning the argument that they are watching us for our own good. You can hardly step outside your front door in Britain without being photographed. Congestion charging in London means every car's movements are logged.

Michael Reeves in Swansea was fined £200 because "a green recycling bag was found outside his ground floor flat ... containing both paper and bottles and cans." This is what our magistrates and courts are doing?!?!?

Mr Reeves received his first warning notice from the council when he put his bin out a day early as he was going on holiday. What the f#%*? Why are councils spending our money to spy on what day we put our bin out?

A one-off silly local council prosecution? Well, not really. Exeter City Council spent £6,000 procecuting Donna Challicea for putting ordinary rubbish in with the recycling. The court action failed as they were not able to prove beyond doubt that she put it in there.

So how are councils responding? They're installing electronic bugs to monitor bins on the sly. As one MP said, "This is nothing more than a spy in the bin and I don't think even the old Soviet Union made such an intrusion into people's personal lives."

All very trivial, you may argue. Well, how long before the bug is inside your house?

My prediction - soon after the bug is installed in your car.

Untouchable Dalits Had Enough

This is the religious equivalent of sticking two fingers up at the establishment. The lowest Hindu caste, Dalits (or untouchables) are telling their Hindu masters to screw themselves. No doubt throwing off generations of family history, they are converting en masse to Buddhism and Christianity.

I'm sure this means something different to each individual involved. But I'd imagine they all agree that if you're in something that's wrecking your life, then get out!

To me, Christianity is liberty.
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

(KJV - Galatians and II Corinthians)

Links:
Dalit Christians
National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights

French, Genocide and Fatwa

I was considering the new French bill to criminalise denial of the Armenian genocide when I came across this succinct post on a forum by (unknown to me) Tara Rene of Tokyo:

Nothing more than a "secular" version of FATWA. France has long lost its prestige as the beacon of liberty. This will degrade that position even further. Let's face it this is not even truly about what happened to Armenians 90 years ago and rectifying its history. French PMs -as ignorant as their Turkish counterparts but more arrogant with a superiority complex- acted like radical imams issuing fatwas: an expression of looming French racism and neo-fascism, and of giving in to powerful lobbies.

Meanwhile, Turkish politicians are considering a law that would make it a crime to deny that French killings in Algeria in 1945 were genocide. George Orwell called it thoughtcrime.

This is all part of a row over Turkey's entry to the EU. I say disband the bloody thing.

National ID Cards

There are two reasons I oppose a national system of ID cards in Britain.

1. The government has no right. Even if you are naive enough to think the government can be trusted with a database of your personal health, spending and movements, do you trust the next government? Once governments seize power in an area, they don't often give it back.

2. The government has no competence. They've just announced the scheme is to cost an eye-watering £5.4 billion. Show me one government project of this scale completed for less than double it's budget. And worse, show me one I.T. project even a tenth this size that the government has successfully implemented.

It will be years late, astronomically over-budget, mercilessly hacked and hopelessly inaccurate.

Could ID cards help fight fraud? Perhaps slightly, by centralising the critical system. But ID cards themselves will be counterfeited, and the central system will be hacked. Remember, most security breaches are on the inside. Your neighbour may have authorised access to your details.

Could ID cards help fight terrorism? No.

Could ID cards help fight illegal immigration? No. They won't have ID cards when they arrive, and whether they get a fake or go underground, there will be little difference from the current situation.

ID cards help very little with the alleged reasons the government uses to promote the idea. But the information will give the government much greater control over the law-abiding citizens. The greatest impact of a national ID card will be the surrender of liberty and privacy for citizens.

But if you still want one, you can make your own here.

More Reasons Rules Suck

Following the earlier post, Why I Hate Rules...

4. Rules replace thinking. I worked for a company that did not allow us to receive gifts. This was to avoid bribery. We had delegates visit from Finland and my first act was to insult them by refusing their gift. Oh, how I wish I had thought rather than supinely following a rule.

By definition, rules make exceptions unacceptable. Exceptions to the rule need to be authorised. Therefore, handling any anything other than the mundane becomes a pain in the arse. Rules work best for unthinking dead-beats doing boring things.

5. Rules promote dolts. Any organisation with an unholy excitement for rules will feel threatened by the maverick, the original thinker, the innovator. Those with flare get sidelined because they cannot thrive when hampered by insidious regulation.

On the other hand, those boring plodders who thrive on mediocracy enjoy the safeness of always doing the right thing at the right time in the right way. Keep your head down, follow the rules, and you'll do well, my son.

In a highly regulated environment, a lack of imagination is an asset.

6. Rules imply that the rule-maker knows better than you. Now sometimes, that is quite right. If I'm touring a nuclear power plant and someone has posted the rule - don't stick your hand between the rods... ok.

But often rules are made by busy-bodies who imagine that their infallible little opinions are above question by the unwashed masses. This is especially galling with rules about what you can and can't say.

I hold the unfashionable view that those in authority are there to serve, not to lord over the rest of us. They have a responsibility to ensure our freedom, not to manage how we use it.

Why I Hate Rules

1. Rules are for twonks. I'm not just making this up, the Bible says so... kind of: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless... - I Timothy 1:9

It seems to me that most rules get made because some bozo screwed up. "No coffee in the reception area!" Guess how that rule came about. So now we all have to live at a standard that the gorilla from the 3rd floor can manage without trashing the furniture.

In the UK I can't carry a knife. Why? Because some knuckle-draggers can't resist stabbing people. So the law treats us all like maniacs who can't be trusted with sharp objects.

Now, I know we need laws. And I'm blurring the distinction between a law and a rule. Major laws, like those against murder and violent attacks are fine. But the problem with the incessant rule-making of our condescending rulers is that they consistently miss the mark because they aim at easy targets. It's easier to stop me carrying a pocket knife than to stop the utter scum who gets his kicks from slashing anyone who looks at him. Enforce the laws he is already breaking! But politicians prefer to make more laws. How could that improve the lowest depths of human nature?

The government now wants us all to carry ID cards. They tell us it'll help counter terrorism and fraud. No it won't. First the IT system will fail, then the project budget will explode, then the terrorists will attack anyway (only they'll have nice shiny ID cards when they do), and the fraudsters will counterfeit the cards. Yet more rules made because of scum, that will not make them one bit less scummy.

2. Rules are for other people. Rule makers are notorious for ignoring the rules. I feel this point is so obvious it doesn't even need documentation. Rules are used by those in authority to wield power over the masses. Government ministers set the state school curriculum, then send their kids to private schools.

Did you ever see the film, "The Cider House Rules"? Michael Caine's character runs a remote orphanage with complete contempt for the rules made by people who rarely visit and have no concept of what it takes to run the place.

3. Rules don't inspire me. Rules can never bring out the best in people because they treat people like they are stupid. If you treat people as stupid, that's what you get.

Greatness requires breaking rules. Who do you really respect in human history? Think about it...
Gandhi? - You don't protest like that!
Martin Luther King? - You can't say that!
The Apollo Program personnel? - You can't go there!
They broke rules of convention, received wisdom, and even the law.

What about great fictional characters - think of books or films. How exciting would they be if the hero played it by the book. That tells me that we aspire to be above the rules. We instinctively know that being a goody-two-shoes, dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't' is boring and only a shadow of all we can be.

What about Jesus? He healed on the Sabbath, ate with the publicans and sinners. He broke enough rules to get himself executed. He also summed up hundreds of Old Testament laws in two commandments - Love God and love your neighbour. That's what I'm talking about. He knew that if you want to inspire people, you've got to trust them to figure something out for themselves.

The hundreds of laws in the Old Testament kept a check on society, but they were not enough. People are not improved by the imposing of restrictions from outside. Something has to spark on the inside. When people love God and love their neighbour, they don't need petty rule-makers, they need freedom.

Religion of Peace

The Iranian president is more damning of Islam than Pope Benedict XVI. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said to NBC: "People in important positions should be careful about what they say. What he said may give an excuse to another group to start a war."

In other words, if Muslims take offence at your words, they may kill you. The Iranian president knows that Islam is spread by force. Violence and threats of violence are standard fare. Or as the offending quote from the 14th Century put it: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

But Ahmadinejad is wrong when he says: "I think that he [the Pope] actually takes back his statement and there is no problem." Actually, when you check the Pope's words, he did not apologise for anything he said. He was sorry for the reaction! Ahmadinejad and other's have an interest in portraying the Pope as having backed down. But the Pope didn't retract a single word.

Meanwhile the Muslims continue to strengthen their foothold in Britain. The Home Secretary (who is a senior government minister with cabinet responsibilities covering policing and immigration) John Reid is now unwelcome in parts of London.

While addressing a Muslim audience, he was berated: "How dare you come to a Muslim area...?" Well, I'll tell you what it takes for the Home Secretary to visit a Muslim area of east London... The meeting location was kept secret for security reasons, and the audience was hand-picked by government officials. Even that didn't stop the open threats of: "John Reid you will pay!" as protesters were bundled out. (Quite a contrast to another story emerging today that Winston Churchill's phone number was listed in the public phone book while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

So who will be the next government minister to tell us again that Islam is a religion of peace?

Muslim Anger Not Appeased

The Pope said in his apology, "I hope this serves to appease hearts..." Since then, effigies of the Pope have been burned by protesters in Basra. A nun was shot four times in Mogadishu, Somalia where she worked in a children's charity. At least seven churches have been attacked in Palestine. There's also been some fun in Indonesian and Iranian cities calling for death or international trial of the Pope and overthrow of western civilization...

Appease hearts?... Well that didn't work. Got any more ideas?

According to the Telegraph, the Mujahideen Shura Council said: "We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya.

We shall break the cross and spill the wine ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen."

Now there have been some conciliatory voices from the Muslim world also. That's nice, but the question is, who are the people listening to? Why do so many vent so much anger on so many streets? It's about time western leaders woke up the fact that the nut-cases are not the isolated few in Islam.

Meanwhile the Archbishop of Canterbury spectacularly fails to understand the futility of appeasement. In a fanatical determination to bury his head in the sand he completely misses the point, with "There are elements in Islam that can be used to justify violence, just as there are in Christianity and Judaism."

Blackmailed Pope Apologises

The Pope issued an apology the other day which was read by a spokesman. (Well, public figures don't really apologise - they express regret for any misunderstanding...) But that wasn't enough for the Muslim Brotherhood who demanded an apology in person. They got it.

He's now said "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries..." I love the evasiveness of these political apologies. Still he's right, it's the violent reactions that need apologising for!

Now in fairness to the Pope, I think he really was misunderstood. He is opposed to violence, but the quote from his offending speech highlighted Muslim violence. In the academic setting of his old German university, he might have thought the quote appropriate. He won't think that again.

Also, "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought." Fair enough. But a few others seem to think the words struck a chord. Especially the bit about "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

But perhaps most telling, the Pope said, "I hope this serves to appease hearts..."

Fat chance, Your Holiness. When in history has it proven a good idea to appease your aggressors? If the Pope wants to get this crowd off his back he's going to have to convert to Islam, like the two Fox journalists who converted at gun-point.

The other alternative is that someone might just have to stand up to this crap.