Making My Peace With Nationalism

Ugh. It is "St George's Day" yet again.

This blog was, once upon a time, created more as a reaction to nationalism than anything else. I know that is hard to imagine as I moan about marriage equality so often now, but yes indeed the posts I actually received the most response on (including being invited to speak at conferences(!), something I turned down as I'd be absolutely useless) were about nationalism. I explained why I'm a unionist, why you shouldn't call me English, and asked why those who bang on about flags never seem to treat them with respect.

In my personal life, when I lived in London, if you had asked anyone my politics they probably would have answered "He's obsessed about Britishness, just don't refer to anything as English" as they hushed you to be quiet lest I hear. My unionism, more all-encompassing than the most right-wing DUP nutter version, has been a central feature of my life.

But I accept I am in the minority. Wherever I look nationalism is no longer just "on the rise" but is here to stay. I mentioned merging two Wiki pages the other day, one about Latter-Day Saints in the UK and one about Latter-Day Saints in England, as they duplicate information. I've mellowed in my old age and wasn't even thinking about my old "Ugh England" agenda, yet was instantly attacked by someone determined I don't go near the Welsh or Scottish entries and telling me all about the evils of English colonialism (something that amused me as someone who probably despises the concept more than they do). Nationalists are everywhere. Alas.

I must simply accept that my distaste for Englishness (and the other forms of nationalism that prevade our world) is to be a solitary pursuit and leave the nationalists to fight over the bones of our islands. I shan't correct others when they call the UK "England".

But don't you dare call me English. I may not be able to convince you of the worthiness of unionism as a political concept, but at least respect who I am. I still treasure the parting gift I got upon leaving the first London job I had. It was a drinks coaster that said "Kentish First, British Second, European Third". My colleagues knew me well.

My Own Personal Brand Of Patriotism

St. George's Day. As any one of my personal acquaintance would know, this is not a day I respect. On many subjects I am a rational person with a healthy scepticism. I like evidence-based science. I find religion fascinating but ultimately false. I enjoy reasoned arguments from others and like to try and keep my beliefs consistent. But on the subject of patriotism, reason leaves me and is instead replaced with the sort of passion others seem to reserve for their deities.

And my form of patriotism is not one rooted in popular culture. It's my own brand mixing royalism, unionism and personal loyalty to strangers. I no longer attempt to argue against English nationalism as I once did. Nor do I argue against republicanism, given I find many arguments in favour of it both logical and compelling. But I also do not expect anyone to ever change my own beliefs on the matter.

I find English nationalism dull and and without romance. It seems unfocussed and, occasionally, loutish. I don't mean to say people who consider themselves "English" are louts, but that often the expression of nationalism that is most often encountered (i.e. through sport) is loutish.

And I find republicanism to often be less expressed in the logic that is so compelling and more about a personal hatred of Her Majesty and her family. The snide comments on Twitter I often see RT'd by @RepublicStaff are indicative of this nastiness and it leaves me cold. Furthermore, republicanism shares English nationalism's unromantic nature.

Perhaps it's my love of fantasy, my interest in British (plus earlier English and Scottish) history or a very human need for a little bit of irrationality in one's life, but I love the monarchy. I love the United Kingdom. I find a great deal of comfort in knowing the Queen is on her throne and she reigns over us. I like the pomp, I like the chivalry and I like the notion of personal loyalty to someone.

In my job I encounter so many unreasonable, impolite and, often, duplicitous people that I find I crave something as simple as being unfailingly loyal to another person without expecting anything in return. It's seems so pure and honourable to keep one's word to another; like something from that better part of our nature that we so often don't get to show.

I am personally loyal to Her Majesty and her heirs, to her United Kingdom and it's territories. I do not accept that patriotism means waving a big flag, celebrating some long dead saint or dying in some politically motivated war. It's not about "shared culture", where you are born or some historic borders. It's about loyalty, honour, decency and fellowship. To me it's about progress, innovation and goodwill.

Whatever happens to this country, whether it remains at it is or becomes an English Republic, I will remain a loyal British subject. Unwavering in my personal loyalty but respectful of other's beliefs.

St. George means nothing to me, but if he so moves you to acts of passion then far be it from me to try and dissuade you. But I'm more moved by things such as this excellent Youtube video I posted about yesterday:



If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

How To Lose A Referendum Part 1

David Cameron and the British Government have been playing silly-buggers with our Union and it's pissing me off. We all knew, after the election victory of the SNP last year, that a referendum on Scottish independence was inevitable in the next few years. And if you're a grumpy old unionist like me, then you've known it was on the cards ever since Labour's poorly thought out devolution (I favour a clearer, federal structure). Given this, I think it's a little thoughtless for the British Government to turn around and tell the Scottish Government when and how they can hold this referendum.

In a statement to MPs, Mr Moore said the government's "clear view" was that the power to hold a referendum was "reserved" to Westminster under devolution laws passed in 1998 and that the Scottish government could not authorise a referendum on its own.

Do they have any idea on how that comes across? It might be the legal situation left thanks to Labour's rubbish future planning, but that sounds like just the sort of soundbite that plays straight into slippery Salmond's hands. We need to show the Scottish people why they should vote to stay in the Union not give them good reasons to resent interference from Westminster!

And lest you think this is a Coalition foul up, Labour appear to adopt the same sort of attitude. Here's what you do, accept the Scottish Government's date, make sure the question asked is clear and fair and then fight like mad to show all the benefits of being together rather than living on this island apart from each other. Is it really that hard?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Where Do We Go From Here?

I doubt it needs to be said but... being a liberal, Folkestonian, unionist electoral reformer has not been a very pleasant or comfortable experience these last two days. But now the feelings of sadness, depression and disgust have calmed to a mere numbness, it's time to see where we go from here. (Note I may not actually suggest where we go from here and may just get distracted by ranting....)

Shepway

What I'd hoped wouldn't happen has happened. The Liberal Democrats have been wiped off the council , and the only opposition to the triumphant Tory administration are two People First councillors (to 44 Tories). I won't doubt the commitment of those two councillors to represent their constituents well but that majority gives the Tories the ability to ignore campaigns against projects they support.  Residents are now the people responsible for scrutinising the workings of Shepway district council.

We must not shy away from those responsibilities. From the small (such as my other halves quick call to the council to get some illegal "No Parking" cones removed from our streets yesterday) to the big (Fisherman's Wharf ring a bell? Public meeting attendance a must). We must hold them to account.

The Shepway Liberal Democrats are reeling right now, and many will sympathise with our own dear Sam's words on Newsnight last night I'm sure, but we must take heart that there was no "Labour breakthrough". We can, and must, come back fighting. I know the former councillors have a truly deep love for Shepway and whatever happens to the party, they won't just stop caring.

Nationally

It was awful. There's no sugar coating our performance at the local English elections, the Scottish Parliament elections and at the Welsh Assembly. It was dire. I believe a "collapse" or a "disaster" might be overplaying it somewhat, we still got 17% of the vote at the local elections and got 1056 councillors elected. It was, however, a wake up call. The Tories didn't get punished for the Coalition because they didn't do anything that their supporters wouldn't expect of them! It's not because they've used Lib Dems as human shields. It's not because the Coalition policies are generally popular.

We as Lib Dems suffered such a dismal fallout because we haven't listened to voters, OUR voters, since the 2010 election. You don't get to air a video like this:



And then expect your supporters to swallow a love-in with the Tories, a reversal on tuition fees and etc. etc. I know, it's tough to say this, but things have got to change.

I'm not advocating a sulky withdrawal from the Coalition. I'm advocating what I've been advocating since last year... grown up politics! We must call a spade a spade, and be brutally honest with our coalition partners. It might already be too late. Nick Clegg may not be the man for the job (but I do hope he is!). Tough decisions lie ahead.

When the media try their "OMG coalition split" stupidity we must call them out on it, not pretend the divisions are minor and gloss over them. The divisions are real, and it's time we said so. We are DIVIDED and working together. It's not a contradiction. Next time the Tories ask us to vote for something our supporters do not want don't say "Sure okay we'll vote for it but cross our fingers whilst we do". We do not vote for it. We get bigger concessions. We fight for every drop of Tory blood. Excuses like "it's in the national interest" "we didn't win the election so we can't do everything we want" and the old "look at all the other pretty things we got" lines DO NOT WORK ON THE PUBLIC. They are not stupid. They feel betrayed. And quite honestly following an election ad like the one above, can you blame them?? In lots of cases our supporters did not switch sides, they just didn't bother turning up. Disaffected and miserable. We need to speak to them, apologise for getting carried away and sort ourselves out. Now. I truly wish our ministers would stop spinning and start listening.

But... we must stay strong as a party. We do not agree with each other on our future direction. We need to listen to each other and learn. We need to really work together and fight to recover our lost support (and more!) if we have any hope of securing a more liberal future for this country. We cannot split and I urge all members to stay and fight for the party they want. I've faltered these last few months, but I'm no longer going anywhere.

We have a duty to keep up the struggle, to protect our country from the excesses of the conservative and illiberal forces that too often get their hands on the reins of power. We must not let the Tories target minorities in this country like they have done in the past. We must not let Labour take away our rights "for our own good". We have to survive as a party to ensure someone is able to scream for justice and fight for freedom.

We must not continue on blind to the message the public have clearly sent to us. But we MUST continue on.

Electoral reform

Heart. Broken. I don't think that quite covers it but the AV loss, expected though it was, was a bitter blow. The gloating from the No to AV side didn't help and the spinning from the Yes to AV side almost made me violent.

Clegg-hate was obviously a factor, but I think it is naive to blame everything on our leader. We need to learn from this referendum and really study what lay behind the No vote. Was it just to punish us? Or was it that the system wasn't liked? Or worse... do the British just not want electoral reform? These are the questions that lay before us. The answers will tell us what we do next, but they may not be what we want to hear. The public has spoken, and it's time to try and listen (although with any referendum it's next to impossible to really hear what's being said). I've been listening to colleagues who truly believe the system was just too complicated. That might confound election geeks and students of politics but I think this actually goes a long way to explaining the no vote. I think we may have lost the argument on my beloved STV already. Additional Members might be our best bet. :(

In the meantime, we must focus on achievable goals. House of Lords reform. That's what we need to get, and we need to do it properly.

The State Of The Union

Whilst I was lying battered and bruised on the floor following the election results somebody came up and stabbed me through the heart. The SNP's stunning victory in Scotland (managing to achieve a majority in a PR-lite system is no mean feat) puts the existence of our Union into question. A real question. That people will vote on. Seeing the stupidity on both sides of the AV debate (from the campaigns themselves I mean), and the downright misrepresentations they perpetuated I have grave concerns about the conduct of a referendum on such an emotive subject as Scottish independence. Whilst the polls don't suggest Scottish people back such a singularly final move, I worry greatly for what might happen if the debate is not kept above board (by both sides!).

I believe in democracy. I must support the concept of a referendum on the subject. But, with a bearded dragon as my witness (the house is empty right now and I don't believe in sky fairies), I will fight to try to keep this union together. I will not let the country of my birth, the country I love, disappear easily.

Our islands ,and their many varied people, must not be split apart based solely on where you happen to live. Instead we must fight the forces of nationalism by addressing the remaining, genuine grievances of all in a new federal structure. Devolution was a typical British compromise. We must move beyond it to something more stable (please oh bearded dragon let it be federalism not independence).

Other views;

Crawling from the Wreckage
What went wrong
How to implement full Lords reform, now that the referendum is lost. 
When Nick and the LibDems balloon was well and truly burst


If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Between The EDL And The Religious Fundies: East End Gay Pride

In my most recent post I made clear my dislike, abhorrence even, of the English Defense League. As any long term reader will know one of my little "ticks" is my deep, near irrational, hatred for nationalism. Even just having the word "English" in the title is likely to put me off. There's little in their views or beliefs that I can find even remotely of interest.

And as most of you will know, I'm no fan of the religious especially those of a fundamentalist bent. If you base your beliefs on the irrational mutterings of just the one book then I'm afraid we're unlikely to get on. Especially if your beliefs include homophobia and other prejudices. It's just not my thing.

So you can imagine my moral confusion over the latest controversy: East End Gay Pride. It seemed simple enough. In February some stickers appeared declaring East London a "gay free zone". Some thought they were put there by Muslims, others by the EDL to show Muslims in a bad light. In any case it soon emerged a group was gathering to organise a pride event, supposedly to show that the LGBT community were here, queer and everyone better get used to it.

This group was, from the off, seen by many local LGBT groups as an EDL front, based mainly on Facebook postings. Many LGBT groups in the area, especially the more left wing ones, were aghast (mainly quite rightly really) that the EDL should be involved and were upset that a pride event might upset "community relations" (a concept that, to be honest, fills me with such a rage that I can barely begin to to express it in writing).

And eventually, in the last few days, things have descended to the point where the pro and anti camps have been arguing incessantly.

Today brought revelations from gay group Imaan that the principal organiser Raymond Berry had links to the EDL. Damning stuff, and he's quickly been removed from the official site for the April the 2nd event.

But this all leads me to the wonder: even if this event is totally organised by the EDL, something I don't believe and suspect some of the organisation is being done properly, it is clearly labelled as pride event, it's clearly labelled as being "non-political" (whether that's possible at an LGBT pride event is up for debate) and political signs are explicitly banned. So what is the issue?

The EDL obviously think, quite rightly too, that a gay pride event in the East End is one way to show up the homophobia of a great number (if not all) of Muslims in the area and no obvious political protest need be added to it. And instead of Muslims in the area, and their LGBT supporters, showing clearly this isn't the case by EMBRACING the event they are desperately trying to ensure it gets cancelled so as to avoid highlighting any controversy. They claim pride is meant to be about community cohesion and building links between groups. Where is this in the history books?

Pride is meant to be confrontational, in your face and argument worthy. It's meant to be about highlighting and combating homophobia. What possible reason could the local community have for not wanting this event, if handled correctly and not demonstrating Islamophobic tendencies in either discriminating against those involved or racist/insulting signs, other than homophobia? Absolutely, with the EDL involved, extreme caution must be used and concerns raised. But if the answers are "this is an LGBT pride event to show solidarity against the recent anti-gay stickers", then what's the problem??

So I have to say, with a little regret as I completely see where the local community and LGBT groups are coming from, "No to an EDL rally, YES to East End Gay Pride". I hope the LGBT community shows itself in force and makes sure this is a demonstration of hope over hate rather than just hate against another minority.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Secular Defence League

The English Defence League describes itself thus:

"We, the English Defence League, are a grass roots social movement who represent every walk of life, every race, every creed and every colour; from the working class to middle England. Our unity and diversity is our strength.

We have members that represent our culturally rich, “patriotic” and nation-loving populace. People who can see the threat of “Islamism” for what it is: a vile and virulent ideology based on 7th century barbarity, intolerance, hatred, subjugation and war."About page

Protest The Pope says this on it's front page:

"If you believe, as we do, that the Pope should not come to the UK without hearing from the millions of people who reject his harsh, intolerant views and the practices and policies of the Vatican State please get involved."

So the question must be: what's the difference? The English Defence League dislikes Islam. Protest the Pope dislikes the Pope and the Catholicism he represents. Yet, and I speak very generally here, whilst the EDL are (probably quite rightly) seen as a nationalistic, racist, prejudiced right wing grouping, the Protest the Pope movement is seen, by many liberals and lefties, as a valid movement of legitimate protest against a backward ideology.

You might think that displays my own prejudices. But it doesn't. Unlike many lefties and liberals, I'm not very keen on either Islam or Catholicism (or most any sort of organised religion). I like to be consistent. I'm even consistent on the fact that I see all three sides in the EDL argument (the Muslims, the EDL and the anti-fascists) as pretty much in the wrong and wish they'd all shut up. I'm an individualist. If someone wants to build a mosque and it's approved by the planning department let it be, or argue against it. But don't intimidate people just because of their religion. On the other hand those who wish to defend against such protests should do so without violence and in a legal manner.

So was my post on the Pope's visit really consistent? How can I oppose the protests of the EDL against Islamic institutions, yet support protests against the central institution of Catholicism (the Pope himself!)?

Perhaps I was wrong. Either I was wrong on the grounds that such a protest movement would be more ethical than the EDL's. Or, more likely, I was wrong that the cost wasn't a factor. Perhaps it is one. A mosque might not get public money. It's a private venture. Really private ventures should be private matters. The Pope's visit, however, is not a private matter, but he will be conducting private Catholic business whilst we pay for him to do so. That is, probably what irks me.

And that's consistent with my dislike of the Government banning those with "controversial" views. There's no problem to me with them visiting this country. We're not paying for their visit. But for the Pope we are.

So I take back my last post. It is about the money. The money is the most important factor. And thus I bring balance back to my beliefs. *phew*

What do you think? Is there a discernible difference between protesting the Pope because of his beliefs and the EDL marches protesting against Islam? Are the EDL actually on to something? Am I completely wrong? Feel free to discuss.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Flags, Flags, Flags

Late last year I wrote "For The Flag", at which I bemoaned the upcoming World Cup as I knew it mean seeing two things I hate: 1) disrespectful display of flags and 2) St George's crosses everywhere. (Declaration of interest... I'm human first, British second, Kentish on the outside and sometimes, when it suits, European. English does not feature)

I was not wrong. I have returned to my home town since that post (a move that I must say is possibly the best decision ever made) and here, in deepest, darkest Kent, English patriotism is strong.

Sadly this patriotism is not of the deep, respectful and reserved kind. No British stiff upper lip allowed. This is the loud American patriotism that believes displaying the flag at every available opportunity is the only way to be patriotic. Sadly the American respect of their flag has not transferred across at the same time.

When did people start thinking that they could be proud of the flag and deface it with letters and graphics at the same time? It irks me greatly. I know, I know. People are free to treat their property however they like, and to pledge allegiance to whatever "country" they so wish. But as I said in For The Flag, that doesn't mean I can't moan about it.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Scotland Needs Champions. Don't We All?

Nationalism is such a regressive, backward political philosophy. There's nothing wrong with thinking people within a "nation" should have rights to govern themselves. There's nothing wrong with believing in nurturing and maintaining "national" traditions. These are worthy ideals. But nationalism often, if not always, brings those philosophies and mixes them up with a sense of "us against them", of a "fight" with some external other.

You need look no further than the Scottish National Party to see high ideals and low brow prejudices sitting side by side. The SNP espouses progressive economic and social policies alongside it's calls for independence. These calls draw not upon sensible economics nor upon a desire to free themselves from some despotic British dictatorship (our Prime Minister, after all, is currently a Scot!). No, they draw upon a deep racist spirit held within the hearts of quite a few SNP voters against their "ancient foes", the English.

You might laugh at that, but it is undeniably true. Speak to a few Scottish people and eventually you will find a couple whose hatred for the English is so strong it is quite disturbing.

Any party whose base is thus constructed is not one any sane, reasonable person should support.

It's no different down south. The English nationalists again attempt to wrap themselves up with the usual reasonable policies. But underneath you find their true feelings.

There is a dark soul at the centre of nationalist movements, one that speaks to humanity's primal instincts to hide from change, to fight "the other" and to defend their territory for no other reason than because it's their territory.

We surely must aspire to more than this, to solving our problems, to moving forward and changing. Our world is messed up, lives wasted slaving for corporate masters, true freedom remains ever elusive. We cannot face these issues without forgetting old rivalries, working together and overcoming our irrational minds.

Vote not for people who speak to the past, but to those who speak to the future.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Extremist Nationalist Organisations Linked To BNP: No Surprise There!

The Herald is reporting Scottish Defence League members having BNP connections despite the BNP banning such things.

As I've reported before, nationalist organisations having links to racist parties are ten a penny. Just look at the English Democrats and their England First Party friends, reported during the European Elections earlier this year.

Nationalism and racism don't need to go together, even an old fashioned Unionist like myself can admit that, it's just sad that they usually seem to. Well sad for the nationalists... ammunition for those of us who believe in a united, progressive future.

Fight the fascists, the racists and the nationalists who seek to destroy our tolerant country and create a white version of the Taliban, hellbent on creating a fixed, inflexible culture. Down with religious fundamentalists. Down with racist scum. Down with all who wish to impose their way of life on others.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

For The Flag

This country is full of, so-called, "patriots". Most of them don't even appear not know which country they are in (i.e. the United Kingdom NOT England) but regardless of that I'm flabbergasted at the disrespect these people show to even their own flags.

There's a pub near me, thankfully closing down soon, called the Royal George. Outside they fly, quelle and surprise, the St George's flag. Now I'm putting aside my unionism for this post so no insults from me here. But these flags are shabby, dirty and ill cared for. I have to ask: why bother? What is the point of making a big show of having flags, things which most countries have laws protecting how they are displayed, and then not caring for them. It's hardly patriotic, but based on my travels around London and Kent the flags there are actually far better than some. I've been past some pubs that actually have HOLES in their flags.

The same was true for the Greenwich Police Station who, until recently, was flying a dirty, holed Union flag. This is a Government body, and they can't even fly a decent looking flag. If there was some deeply interesting history behind the flag, perhaps they can be forgiven, but I doubt that was the case.

I know, we don't have a tradition of respecting our flags like America does nor do we have any rules or regulations governing civilian use of flags. In fact the Union flag isn't even, officially, the flag of the country (it is officially a flag of the monarch). But still... if one is to claim to be patriotic (which I think flying a flag is a statement of) why don't people care for them more?

Let's look at two examples from yesterdays "English" "Defence" League protest.

Firstly we have a bizarrely featured Union flag. Let us first ignore the strange juxtaposition of "English" and "Union flag" and instead focus on how they are holding that flag. Surely, if these folks are so passionate about their country, they would be treating the flag a little less like a "Happy Birthday" banner flying off a motorway bridge?

Then we have these rather delightful fellows holding DEFACED St George's flags. These people need to learn about flag poles. But then again this might involve some sort of education which they are clearly lacking.

Despite my rather irrational, and rabid, dislike for the St. George's flag, I'm not looking forward to the World Cup. Around that time people will drape St George's flags out their windows onto dirty walls, hang them from their cars and generally cause me to grow increasingly angry at their obviously FAUX patriotism.

I know, this is very petty stuff. But this a blog and a blog's main raison d'etre is the petty stuff not fit to print! Honestly folks... if you are going to do something, at least do it properly!!

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Attacking Scottish Nationalists For Once

As someone who lives in London, I spend a lot of time (or at least I used to!) attacking English nationalists, who seem to get quite annoyed that I single them out over the Scottish. Well that's just geography for you, not a political statement of support for the SNP. So it gives me great pleasure to link to an article about one the SNP's shady illiberal views... they have a few...

The SNP and its pro-religionist homophobic agenda


This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Anti-Fascist Violence

It is quite obvious to me, as someone who happens to be white, that there is a very deep undertone of racism in this country. You go anywhere in the country and meet with white people, when there is nobody of a different race about, and there's a high chance somebody will start a conversation about how "things have gone too far" or "send the immigrants home". You only need to read the Sun or the Daily Mail to know this is something the media loves to tap in to.

So when the English Defence League does one of it's never-ending protests, it might be helpful if the supposedly rational, decent folk who oppose them DON'T BECOME VIOLENT! What the BBC's news story fails to reflect is that the violence came from the anti-fascist side. I hate fascists, racists and nationalists. I believe that those who support such creeds are unpatriotic (they need to read up on who we fought against in WWII) and indecent.

But I also hate violence and what I really hate is muppets causing violence against these bastards. Given that we live in a country with lots of "hidden" racism, the way to win those people round is not by attacking these sorts of organisations physically but by winning the arguments. The Nazi's weren't defeated by Communist's attacking them in the streets before 1933, it only made them stronger in the eyes of many who feared the Communists. We must stand strong against racism, but do it sensibly, peacefully and decently. If we don't then the nationalist scum win out!

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Some People Love The Mayor Of Doncaster

But I don't know why.

I've said before I have concerns over the values the English Democrats attach themselves to (such as the racist policies of the England First Party as per my post here).

Now my least favourite Mayor, Peter Davies (see my concerns about him here and here) of the English Democrats has come out with perhaps the most startlingly awful statement of the month.

"The one thing to be said about the Taliban is that they do have an ordered society of some sort and that they don't have hundreds of cases of children under threat of abuse from violent parents, as we have in Doncaster."

What on Earth is he talking about? The Taliban are INFAMOUS for their child abuse. Check out their abuse of boys (who they train to DIE). Oh and their wonderful ordered society:

In October 2001 Oxfam International reported that:

* Over 750,000 Afghans (including children) are disabled due to mines and high incidence of polio
* Clean water is available to less than 15 percent of the population
* The immunization rate among children is as low as 10 percent
* There is a high incidence of mental health problems, particularly among women Source

We do have social problems in this country, but suggesting that the Taliban would make a better job of things is an insult to decency, humanity and all that is good. Our troops are out there fighting these guys and he's back here suggesting they aren't all that bad. It's a bit like someone suggesting during the Second World War that "at least the Nazi's would make the trains run on time". Perhaps he might try to find examples of decent nations who have a better way of doing things, perhaps in Europe for instance? Oh sorry, no he'd rather suggest we all turn into fundamentalist Muslims than suggest something good might be found on our own Continent.

And worse he is no better than any other politician with his spinning. See this article from the Daily Mail in which it is claimed his anti-political correctness drive (which sounds just as pointless as any diversity drive would be) identified an "ethnic minorities welfare rights service " that could be culled. Actually that service was scrapped three years ago, as revealed by the Private Eye, well before Mr Davies came along and began his bizarre populist and reactionary stint as Mayor.

I just hope I'm wrong about the English nationalists liking this guy, because if I'm not then they really are screwed.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

I'd Prefer Stonewall Over A Gay Council Of Britain

An elected council to represent gay interests is suggested by the well meaning Stephen over at Pink News. I agree with him on how the media seem to use activists and undemocratic polls to define debates without consultation of the majority of people. But splitting this country into self defining groups of people based on sexuality, religion or race is just one of the things I, as a unionist, feel undermines the very existence of our country, and basic equal rights, before we even consider how on Earth one would select the electorate of such a group.

It's a nice idea but unworkable and an antithesis to community cohesion. When are we going to start being human first before we are what we wish to define ourselves as? We are all human and it is in all our interests that we all work towards a world where we treat each other as equals. We are in the 21st century, and it's time we got over our tribal nature.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

40 Years And None The Wiser

It is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots today. Sadly I bet more than 50% of young gay people in this country couldn't even tell you what actually happened there.

I can pinpoint the day I finally gave up on the idea of a gay community. It was the day that civil partnerships began. There were no protests. Barely a glimmer of dissent. It was all wedding bells and romance as the British GLBT community not only gave up on a dream of "equality" but also on liberation for all. The "community" quietly shuffled into a forced apartheid and one it would be very difficult to get out.

I admit my opinions are often highly influenced by the oft controversial Peter Tatchell, but I think it's more he manages to put them down in writing and have them make sense in a way I simply am unable to. Such as in this article to coincide with the Stonewall anniversary. I don't subscribe to all his ideas but true marriage freedom for all (whether you marry for love, or are just elderly spinster marrying to gain the same rights to property and protection) is one I am behind 100%. It's time the Government and society stopped deciding who can and can't have the special rights of marriage and allow each person the freedom to make decisions themselves.

That's why I've stopped believing in "gay rights" and instead now believe only in human rights for all. It's why I see the fight for gay marriage as not an end in itself but a step forward towards the liberation of all. I know, Americans are going "I told you so, it's a slippery slope! They'll allow minors to marry next, then men and dogs!!" Well sorry, but I still believe in the concept of "consent" too. Dogs can't give consent and children can't legally give consent either. So it's no slippery slope. It's something called "freedom". Freedom means allowing people to do things YOU DESPISE! Freedom does not come without pain.

I know that the world I desire, for instance, can never come into being with true freedom. A world where men and women are truly equal, where sexual orientation is no more exciting than whether you like marmite or not, where religion is a personal thing and where nationalism has given way to humanism. But thanks to human evolution these goals can not exist in a world of freedom. And I am prepared for that. Are you prepared to give up your world view to allow everyone to be truly free? I doubt it, I really do.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

English Democrat Mayor U Turn

Amazing how quickly politicians go from radicalism to keeping the status quo. The English Democrat Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies, has gone back on his plan to cut funding for pride. Whilst I don't applaud the decision to fund pride (I believe all suck frivolous things should be beyond the scope of Government, including any "national" parade), I do laugh at how quickly this one turned. Next we'll have the new BNP Euro MEPs voting for equal rights measures.

This, I think, disproves the idea that Mr Davies is not homophobic. I originally felt he was, based on the wording of his statement to stop the funding. If the cut had been because he believed in a reduced Government role in such community events and value for money for the tax payer, then he would not have gone back on it. Instead when he found that such events would benefit local businesses (if not all taxpayers) then he decided to continue the funding and forget his obvious dislike for the GLBT community in the name of more money for local business. Disgusting. Not only do taxpayers have to fund events they might not agree with (such as a St George's Day parade!) they now get to subsidise local businesses they might now wish to support!!

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from

his wishlist

You Know I Deplore Violence Of All Descriptions...

...but I did enjoy this video.



I know, I'm a bad person. I actually feel bad for Nick Griffin at some points, but then I think... nah he's a bastard.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The English Democrats: Reasonable Nationalists?

The English Democrats say on their FAQs:

Politically our policies are neither left nor right. We have a commitment to a mixed economy, but also require protection for the vulnerable and would advocate developing public ownership policies for key strategic industries. We are implacably opposed to globalisation, economies based on "cheap labour" and the offshoring of English jobs.

That is certainly laudable. They also state:

"English & Proud" - that's what English Democrats are - why should it be implied that you are a "Bigot" or a "Racist" simply because you are proud of your Country - we English Democrats are simply pro English.

Here, here I say. Being patriotic for one's country (even if I don't agree on the semantics here) should never be considered racist. But then, why are they allowing the England First Party to hang out at their conferences?

England First has as their first part of their brief/manifesto (sic) the following:

1. Stop all further immigration and start a programme of voluntary repatriation of non-European immigrants back to their lands of ancestral origin

Erm... that's racist (or racialist depending on how one likes to use these words). That's really racist. "Ancestral origin"? There's being against multiculturalism and then there's being against people because of their "origin". They are rather different things both in reality and in moral terms.

But not only does the England First Party offer it's support to the English Democrat candidates in some elections (something the EDs are powerless to stop), it also is allowed to speak at ED conferences. They even get photo ops with the parties European election candidates!! See here for pictures!

I hope the EDs have issued a firm denunciation of the close relations with the EFP, otherwise their claims to be tolerant English patriots who are neither of the left or right spectrum's of politics are really very hollow indeed.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

English Democrats: BNP Lite

You know I don't agree with taxpayers money being used on frivolous things (such as gay pride parades) so you might think that when the newly elected Mayor of Doncaster said he was withdrawing funding from gay pride I would be quite pleased. Sadly his entire manner and the policies of his nationalist party, the English Democrats, suggest that this was not a decision brought about because of economical shrewdness but from a prejudiced position. And a good decision made for bad reasons is not something we should applaud as such bad reasoning can have ramifications in the future that are not so acceptable.

Peter Davies, of the English Democrats, said: "My policy on gays and lesbians is very simple.

"I don't think councils should be spending money on them parading through town advertising their sexuality."

Nice way of putting it there. Why did he not say "My policy on community events in Doncaster is that they are for the organisers and supporters to fund, whilst my administration has a duty to ensure taxpayers money is only spent on things that are practical and beneficial for all the residents of Doncaster"? Because he is not formulating a sound policy but scoring political points with his core constituency of backward, regressive idiots.

I look forward to him NOT paying for the almost inevitable St. Georges Day parade next year. Because otherwise this decision will be nothing but a case of homophobia rather than sound governance.

Here's a hint for English "Democrats". Next time don't have a policy on "gays and lesbians". Why the heck would you need one unless you were either biased towards or against them? Personally I think political parties should start treating the GLBT community as ordinary citizens and get over all this stupid posturing.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

March For England Seems To Not Understand Respecting Our Troops

When our troops came under verbal attack from some radical anti-war protesters in Luton recently, they maintained their professionalism and dignity in the face of the insults and taunts of the protesters. Some who had come to the parade to pay tribute to the troops were, somewhat understandably, undignified in their response but the police managed to maintain some form of order. That day served as a reminder of the professionalism of our armed forces and police, and our protection of the rights of free speech for all (something we need to see more of admittedly!) no matter how repugnant that speech is.

Alas, some organisation named "March For England" organised a peaceful protest that got out of hand over the weekend in Luton, with slogans such as "No Sharia Law in the UK" and "Respect our Troops". Whilst I very much agree with the sentiments, I somewhat think the organisers missed out on one major thing: this sort of protest is bound to draw in the wrong elements and in so doing bring dishonour upon the troops whom they claim to be defending.

And some of the protesters this time certainly sound like lovely representatives for the cause of respecting our troops:

"Groups of young men in balaclavas and England shirts chanted outside the city centre and one balacava-clad protester held a Rottweiler on a chain, while others clashed with police in riot gear. One Asian man was hit across the face with a banner and left with a bloody nose."

Mmm... English nationalism at it's best. These people should be roundly condemned for allowing this sort of a mess to be carried out in the name of respecting our troops! It is a hideous insult to their courage and reserve.

Our British soldiers deserve a better tribute than this rabble of "English" people.

If we are to stand up for the rights of our decent citizens and our honourable troops then we must do so peacefully, decently and with integrity. If we are to defend our way of life from sharia law, and religious stupidity, we must do so through the proper channels (the law, our Government and the way our society works). We must integrate our communities and not allow differences which sow terror and violence among our population.

Riots, racist attacks and disorder serve only to bring our country into disrepute, and stoke tensions in areas that need few reasons for outbreaks of violence. We must engage with our minority communities and bring them into our society and not show them reasons to avoid integration such as has been done here.

How can we imagine that by showing our way of life to be full of hate and violence we are going to encourage the young minority community member to engage with mainstream society? I'm not a Christian but surely reaching out with love (not tolerance, we don't wish to tolerate people, we need to embrace them as our neighbours!) is far better than doing so with hate.

We might achieve a little more.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist