Category Archives: Political Correctness

‘I’ve fought racism all my life’: Desperate plea of St Andrews student who defiled Israeli flag

Posted on by

I only have two words for this guy. Hoist, and petard.

From The Daily Mail: 

By Chris Slack

Last updated at 1:20 PM on 24th August 2011

 
Paul Donnachie was found to have acted in a racially aggravated manner when he defiled an Israeli flag in a supposed political protestPaul Donnachie was found to have acted in a racially aggravated manner when he defiled an Israeli flag in a supposed political protest

A judge has ruled that a St Andrews University student who defiled an Israeli flag in a supposed political protest was acting in a racially aggravated manner.

Paul Donnachie, 19, put his hands down his trousers and touched the flag belonging to Jewish exchange student Chanan Reitblat in what he claimed was a ‘political statement’.

Donnachie’s co-accused Samuel Colchester, 20, was found not proven by Sheriff Charles Macnair following a two-day trial at Cupar Sheriff Court.

Donnachie, who will lose his place at St Andrews with immediate effect, said he was ‘devastated’ by the decision.

He said he would appeal the conviction and added: ‘I’m depressed. I have fought racism all my life.’ Continue Reading →

Silencing dissent

Posted on by

Here is a part of the article. For the rest please click through to:

The Jerusalem Post (blogs)

 

 

Sunday Aug 21, 2011

Silencing dissent

The public discussion in Northern Europe that followed the Utøya-massacre in Norway has been characterized by attempts to silence the political opposition.  The popular opinion among the political left in Northern Europe is that Anders Behring Breivik’s monstrosities are a result of toxic and contagious hate speech which led him to murder 77 people.

The past month has witnessed a birth of a new age which is suggestive of a Kafkaesque spirit in Nordic political discourse. The accusers are pointing fingers at people whose names appear in Breivik’s manifesto and in other dubious forums, mainly online. The accused can only fight the accusations by claiming that they cannot control when and where their names appear.

One of the first victims of the new zeitgeist was Jussi Halla-aho a Finnish MP for the The Finns, and whose name appears in Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto. This led the party secretary of the Social Democratic Party, Mikael Jungner, to demand that Halla-aho resign from his post as the chairman of the parliament’s administration committee.

The chairman of the Left Alliance and the current culture minister of Finland, Paavo Arhinmäki accused many of his fellow MP’s of quietly tolerating hate speech. He added that in the case of the massacre in Norway, “silence is a sign of approval”.

In the light of these comments, it is interesting to note that Arhimäki has been at the forefront of bringing football hooliganism to Finland which is arguably one of the most violent and hateful sub-cultures in Europe.  Arhinmäki was also one of the organizers of Smash Asem and was arrested during a violent demonstration.  The sole purpose of the demonstration was to wreak havoc in Helsinki.

Whether sports or politics, minister Arhinmäki has been one of the protagonists of organized hate speech.

UK riots: The end of the liberals’ great moral delusion

Posted on by

The Telegraph: 

The Left has gone into overdrive in its attempts to rewrite the history of the riots, but the public knows the truth.

A hooded youth walks past a burning vehicle in Hackney.

A hooded youth walks past a burning vehicle in Hackney Photo: GETTY

9:00PM BST 20 Aug 2011

 There is no national debate about the epidemic of riots and looting that spread through our cities like a bush fire. Out there in the real world, where people go about the normal business of life, there is no sign of the heated argument that the media is so determined to air. In fact, I cannot remember a time when there has been such crushing unanimity on a matter of public importance: the answers to the questions of why this happened, what went wrong when it began to happen and what needs to follow in its aftermath are considered so blindingly self-evident as to be beyond rational disagreement.

At the margins of this consensus, there are some distant noises off. They are the desperate cries of those who fear that they have lost the argument of a lifetime and who want to persuade the great mass of the population that what it saw before its own eyes, hour by hour, night after night on the television news channels was something else altogether.

The Left-liberal camp is in overdrive in its campaign to rewrite history (or, in its own vocabulary, to alter consciousness): you did not see thousands of jubilant thugs rampaging through the streets, destroying livelihoods and property for the sheer exultant joy of it. What you saw were society’s victims responding to any or all of the following: bankers’ bonuses, MPs cheating on their expenses, unemployment, government spending cuts, poverty, social inequality, etc, etc. Their crimes were simply part of the same package of callous selfishness displayed by (as one particularly bizarre equation had it) tabloid phone hackers.

What is not ludicrous and insulting to common sense in these propositions is contradictory in its own terms. There are indeed views of the human condition which hold that all species of wickedness are connected, because they are all rooted in the fact that man is a fallen creature. But somehow I doubt that the ardent liberal secularists who were piping up last week were believers in original sin or the machinations of the Devil.

The moral equivalence that they wanted to establish between looters and arsonists on the one hand, and the perpetrators of any other kind of bad behaviour you can think of on the other, was rooted in ideological, not theological, orthodoxy. The rioting gangs could not simply be what they seemed – what they so obviously were – because that would be a devastating victory for the judgment of popular opinion over the fantasies of liberalism. Continue Reading →

‘Some People might be coming, some of whom may be British (but that isn’t the main point) and some of whom, may wish to interfere with the creation of an independent USA, but not all, and we have no right to interfere with these possibly British people until we see what they do, and examine each one on an individual basis’

Posted on by

The above preposterous headline would be the Canadian, legally allowed version of what Paul Revere would have been allowed to say, if he were alive today and attempting to warn anyone about anything.

Please read the document here linked, about a Canadian broadcast standards decision on some TV show where a guy talks about Islam. For the record, I could give this bureaucracy what they wanted in terms of facts etc. Where they mention Arafat, there is lots of video of his speech right after the Oslo accords were agreed to, where he explains quite clearly to his own people that he was bullshitting the Jews and Americans for the upper hand. It is in the excellent movie ‘Farewell Israel‘ which really is a must see for anyone who hasn’t seen it. But all the evidence the CBSC needed is in it.

In any case,

1. this board should not exist

2. Governments have no right to ‘regulate the airwaves or license them’. Bandwidth is unlimited and there simply is no excuse for government to treat Hz. like it was crown land.

3. The opinions of people are always subject to debate but should not be subject to government censorship because that censorship is always and will always be selectively enforced. While they may shut-up a few people who speak facts about Islam, they will never stop Muslims from preaching the central dogma of the faith, which is one of hatred and conquest in any case.

So the repercussions of this decision I have no idea. But I felt it was worth noting that some government regulatory body like this exists, and that they spend an inordinate amount of time and therefore public money discussing and regulating opinion on TV.

‘Witch-finders already have their sights on me’: David Starkey hits back after causing race storm with Newsnight outburst

Posted on by

From The Daily Mail

  • Writer describes reaction to his Newsnight riot comments as ‘hysterical’

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 1:48 AM on 20th August 2011

Historian David Starkey has defended his controversial outburst on Newsnight which sparked a racism storm following the riots – by protesting that the subject of race has become unmentionable.

The writer and broadcaster was condemned for commenting on Newsnight that ‘whites have become black’, while appearing to blame the disorder on black ‘gangsta’ culture.

Hitting back at his detractors, he said the reaction to his remarks had been hysterical.

David Starkey sparked anger as he suggested that black 'gangster' culture had become the normDavid Starkey sparked anger as he suggested that black ‘gangster’ culture had become the norm

‘We will not continue, I think, to tolerate being lied to and cheated in the matter of race,’ he wrote in the Daily Telegraph. ‘Instead of ‘not in front of the children’, we want honesty.’

The historian’s original comments prompted hundreds of complaints, with the BBC saying viewers felt his contribution to the programme was ‘inappropriate and racially offensive’.

But Starkey told the newspaper: ‘I thought my appearance on Newsnight was supposed to be part of a wide-ranging discussion about the state of the nation.

 

‘Central to any such discussion, it seems to me, are the successes and failures of integration in Britain in the past 50 years. And it was these that I was trying to address.’

Admitting that his friends agreed his greatest error was mentioning former politician Enoch Powell, whose 1968 Rivers of Blood speech attacked immigration, he added that a legacy of the reaction to Powell had been ‘an enforced silence on the matter of race’.

He wrote: ‘The subject has become unmentionable, by whites at any rate. And any breach has been punished by ostracism and worse.

Response: The BBC fought back against complaints from viewers that Dr Starkey's views were not challenged strongly enoughResponse: The BBC fought back against complaints from viewers that Dr Starkey’s views were not challenged strongly enough

‘As the hysterical reaction to my remarks shows, the witch-finders already have their sights on me.’ Continue Reading →

Left-Wing Media Bias in Norway

Posted on by

An excellent and important article taken verbatim from Gates of Vienna:

 
This is the first in a series of three essays by our Norwegian correspondent The Observer. In these articles he will examine Norwegian media bias, the AUF, and their support for certain terrorist groups. He will also discuss the Muslim community in Norway and their undemocratic nature.

Oslo aftermath

Left-Wing Media Bias in Norway
by The Observer

I’ve decided to write this essay in order to try and shed some light on the media response in the wake of the terrorist attack in Oslo. I will compare this response to that following similar terrorist attacks carried out by radical Muslims, and will try to highlight the disparity in the way the media are reporting these incidents. Many individuals in the conservative community in Norway have claimed that they have been treated unfairly by the media in the aftermath of these attacks, and unfortunately they have a valid point.

I will also look at the way certain political parties and organisations in Norway, including AUF, view organisations that engage in terrorist activities. In addition I will be taking a closer look at the Muslim community in Norway, and give some examples that raise serious doubts about the MSM claim that this community strives to embrace Western values. I will provide examples that show that certain members of this community pose a serious threat to Norwegian society.

The terrorist attacks in Norway are unique in several ways:

  • They are unique because they were carried out by an ethnic Norwegian male with right-wing views, and not a radical Muslim, which has been the case in almost every major terrorist attack in the last few decades.
  • They were also unique because many of the victims at Utøya who were massacred by the crazed gunman were members of an organisation which has on several occasions expressed sympathy, to varying degrees, for terrorist organisations abroad, particularly the PLO and Hamas.
  • The terrorist’s attacks are unique because of the unrestrained media response following the attacks. In the past, whenever radical Islamists have been behind such attacks, the media have attempted to shield Muslims and have discouraged people from blaming Islam. In fact, the MSM have never hinted that the Muslim community in Norway; or elsewhere for that matter ever have had any culpability in any Muslim terrorist attacks. The Media have gone out of their way to persuade the public that such comparisons are unfair and baseless. Later in this essay I will give examples that prove this.

In this incident, however, where the perpetrator is a non-Muslim with extremist right-wing views, the entire conservative community in Norway have been implicated by certain political commentators and the MSM. Conservative, anti-Islam blogs and individuals that have expressed critical views of Islam have been vilified and indirectly accused of ‘emotionally’ contributing to the attacks. The media’s main argument is that these groups have somehow inspired Anders Behring Breivik to resort to violence by means of fervent rhetoric against the Muslim community and the political establishment.

Anders Behring Breivik

Just a few days after the attacks, Norwegian political commentator, Petter Nome wrote an open letter for the Spanish newspaper El Mundo in which he placed a significant part of the blame for the terrorist attacks on the Progress Party (FrP), whose only crime is that they have been highly critical of the Norwegian asylum and immigration policies, and voiced their concerns about the rapid growth of Islam in Norway (verbatim quote):

To You who Nourished the Killer

By Petter Nome, Oslo

The Norwegian Progressive Party is the second largest party in Norway, holding 41 out of 169 seats in the Parliament. Their leader, Ms Siv Jensen, claims she was shocked when Mr. Breivik turned out to be one of their former members. She certainly was, and her tears were falling. But did she ever carry one single brick to the bridge most of us are trying to build between people and cultures? She never did. Did she ever try to make electoral catches with her talk about “Islamisation” and “national” and “Christian” values? She did, almost every day.

Ms. Jensen is not a supporter of violence. Neither are most of her colleagues in populist and right wing parties in Europe. But they should not be left with their shock and swollen faces. They carry profound responsibility for actively creating a climate where hate and violence appear as options for their most impatient followers.

In this letter Petter Nome claims that the rhetoric used by the Progress Party, and in particular by its leader Siv Jensen, has somehow created an atmosphere in which Anders Behring Breivik felt justified in committing these atrocities. Mr Nome arrived at these conclusions only days after Breivik carried out the attacks, and without ever having met Breivik in person. Mr Nome justifies his accusations with the fact that Siv Jensen has used the terms ‘Islamisation’, ‘national’ and ‘Christian values’ in speeches and in interviews.

It’s not unreasonable to argue that most people would have a hard time understanding Mr Nome’s train of thought in this case. How can anyone construe the use of such terms as justification to go out and kill 77 innocent people?

Of course, Nome and his cohorts know deep down that the Progress Party has no blame in this tragedy. The massive blitz against the conservative community carried out by the Left is nothing but a massive smear campaign aimed at discrediting political parties and commentators on the right that have opposing views. It is designed to intimidate others from voicing similar opinions in the future. If Nome had been sincere in his criticism of the Progress Party, he would have had expressed similar criticism of the Muslim community in Norway whenever Islamic radicals carry out terrorist attacks. But whenever Islamic terrorists massacre innocent people, Mr Nome and his allies choose to remain silent, and the only statements they make are meant to deflect any suspicion away from the Muslim community.

In his eagerness to ‘crucify’ the Progress Party, Mr Nome also seems to have forgotten that Breivik didn’t target Muslims, but rather the Labour Party and its youth wing, the AUF. Mr Nome also seems to have forgotten that the Progress Party didn’t use the aforementioned terms to describe members of the AUF or the Labour Party, but they used them to describe the increasing power of radical Muslims, and the unwillingness among certain Muslims to integrate into Norwegian society.

When the news of Mr Nome’s infamous letter finally reached the Norwegian media, it was heavily criticised by several political commentators for its viciousness, and even the Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Store, criticised it in harsh words, labelling it a cheap attempt to score political points in the wake of the terrorist attack. Mr. Gahr Store also went on record saying that the only one who could be held accountable for the massacre was Breivik himself.

But Mr Nome wasn’t the only one viciously attacking the Progress Party. Several others joined him in the verbal Progress Party bashing. Professor of Medicine Per Fugelli wrote an equally vile opinion piece in Dagbladet on August 5, 2011: