The obsession on colour is making for increased racism, resentment, and discrimination. Now, however, it’s just okay and even “good” to discriminate against whites, Jews, and Asians.
|
|||||
|
A reluctance to acknowledge the specific religious motivations behind certain acts of terror makes it more difficult to develop the social initiatives, political strategies and security arrangements that we need to contain their possible spread in the future. Empty platitudes over the peacefulness of religious ideologies do not achieve much when it comes to maximising public security and community safety. There should be strong pushback against those who wish to restrict the boundaries of much-needed discussions on radicalisation, extremism and terrorism. We need to be able to identify and comment on unusual behavioural patterns and religiously inspired ideological motivations. There is simply no room for thought-policing or political correctness in the realm of counter-extremism. September 11th, 2020 | 37 comments - (Comments are closed)
 But it would be even better not to have to still see articles like this in the Times: Ian Birrell writes,
He goes on to describe how the police in some areas are effectively giving up on enforcing the prohibition of other drugs as well. It will not be a surprise to you that I think the outcome is good, but I feel more than a twinge of disquiet about the law effectively being changed by the will of the police. Selective enforcement can as easily be a tool of the oppressor as of the liberator. To see what I mean, amuse yourselves by making a quick list of those who are and are not subject to the Covid-19 restrictions in your area. Related posts: September 10th, 2020 | 31 comments - (Comments are closed)
ITV News reports,
September 8th, 2020 | 68 comments - (Comments are closed)
That was a line from a Guardian op-ed written entirely by a robot. The machine was instructed to focus on why humans have nothing to fear from AI. I do not find this reassuring. September 8th, 2020 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
The biggest UK news overnight was this: That BBC report dates from last night when the man who had already randomly murdered Jacob Billington was still at large. It reads:
I expect they were the non-hateful sort of stabbings. The BBC article continues,
So while a man who had already killed one person and murderously attacked several other men and women was still on the streets looking for more victims, the police felt the need to issue a statement about his motives, about which they could not possibly know. They did not feel the need to tell the public what he looked like, which they did know, being in possession of multiple statements from the surviving victims and other witnesses, plus CCTV footage. To be fair, anyone familiar with modern policing could deduce what the absence of a police description actually meant. * A related post from six years ago: Politically correct evasiveness fails on its own terms. September 7th, 2020 | 84 comments - (Comments are closed)
Not interacting with people outside of our immediate circle is disastrous for the social fabric of society. As the demands of Black Lives Matter protesters or transgender activists show, it increasingly seems as if some people are speaking a different language to everyone else. Words like oppression, privilege, racism, experience and identity may still be familiar, but they now mean entirely different things to different people. Phrases like ‘cis-gendered’, ‘cultural appropriation’, ‘genderfluid’ and ‘intersectional’ trip off the tongues of some, but are utterly meaningless to others. ‘Silence is violence’ is either common sense or ridiculous. Stating that there are two genders is either blindingly obvious or offensively transphobic. The existence of this language-within-a-language exposes fundamentally different ways of making sense of the world. The less we talk to each other, the more these differences crystalise. September 6th, 2020 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
Lest anyone look at the previous post and think that it is only the Yank media that thrills to the sound of breaking glass, here is our very own Evening Standard giving over its pages to Gail Bradbrook, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion: “Roof spikes and the noble art of window smashing— protesting for Extinction Rebellion”. She writes,
Away with all that pettifoggery about persuading the public. That XR want it done should be enough to make it law. Edit: Further demonstrating that persuasion is not their thing, Extinction Rebellion protesters block newspaper printing presses. Darren Grimes said it well:
September 5th, 2020 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
That was said by Vicky Osterweil, author of In Defense of Looting. Ms Osterweil was given such a fawning interview by Natalie Escobar of the American state radio station npr (note the cool lowercase initials) that it became an embarrassment, and the record of it is now prefaced by the words:
September 5th, 2020 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
No need to bother, Co-op. As of today you are henceforth banned from advertising in The Spectator, in perpetuity. We will not have companies like yours use their financial might to try to influence our editorial content, which is entirely a matter for the editor. – Andrew Neil, in response to Co-op indicating they would refuse to advertise in The Spectator due to the publication’s “transphobia” September 4th, 2020 | 50 comments - (Comments are closed)
The Soweto riots were the beginning of the end for Apartheid in South Africa. This is how they began:
Forty-six years later, in Inner Mongolia, sorry, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China (not to be confused with the neighbouring sovereign state of Mongolia), children of another subjugated land are protesting against a decree that forces their schools to use the oppressor’s language as the medium of instruction:
I called this China’s Soweto. But don’t expect any equivalent to UN Security Council Resolution 392. Other links concerning this story: September 3rd, 2020 | 17 comments - (Comments are closed)
“Western governments may have strong words for the Russian president, but we’ve been here before. Every time a Russian opposition figure is assassinated, from journalist Anna Politkovskaya to MI6 informer Alexander Litvinenko to politician Boris Nemtsov, there is a chorus of international outrage and demands for action to rein in Putin. Yet little is done, as world leaders don’t want to jeopardise their business dealings with Russia – or face more hostile acts by the Kremlin – and Putin emerges emboldened. A few months after the Salisbury attack, for instance, Russia hosted the World Cup, and opposition activist Petr Verzilov was poisoned after running onto the pitch during the final wearing a police uniform.” I suppose you could say that Mr Putin has almost “normalised” the idea that when dealing with political opponents or any sort of perceived threat, the approach favoured is to kill them, lie about it, smirk a bit, and go back to undermining whatever particular nearby country or cause happens to be in play. And then hold a soccer tournament. Rinse, repeat. September 3rd, 2020 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
Commentary
Economics
Politics
Specialist
Tech |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||