Friday, 26 June 2009
But in a way he lives on and will undoubtedly have an afterlife, if only in our minds and music collections.
Thus does art immortalise us, if we are any good at it.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Why can we not have a debate on that?
Sunday, 21 June 2009
are the links that show just what these these foul-mouthed, self-righteous anti-segregationist fanatics are like.
They seem to think it is their right to disrupt any meeting organised and paid for by anyone else if it is not held on their own terms.
They also seem to equate being deprived of the proximity of the opposite sex for a few hours as an intolerable offence against liberty, while they are of the opinion that stopping a meeting held by people they despise is somehow justified.
Free speech is only allowed for people whose views they do not find offensive, and they are too dim to realise that this is not free speech at all, but Fascism and totalitarian censorship.
Anyone who remonstrates with them is called all sorts of foul names and accused of all sorts of things.
In the spirit of compromise, I wonder how they would feel about 3 separate areas of seating at the venue of any future debate on this subject:
1) an area exclusively for men
2) an area exclusively for women
3) an area exclusively for mixed seating
Will this be enough to satisfy the Anti-Segregationist Fanatics?
Saturday, 20 June 2009
While I am delighted to hear that you have read the Koran, Len, you clearly read it with a closed mind. It consists of moral warnings and guidance expressed in legalistic terms, rather like a contract you would be making with God if He were a door-to-door salesman promising eternal life and bliss if you fulfil your part of your contract. The Koran is no more than a restatement of the Ten Commandments in poetic and legalistic form. All the morality that is contained in Judaism and Christianity you will find synthesised in the Koran, with the over-harsh bits in the Old Testament and the vague bits that create doubt and conflict, such as the Trinity, excised.
If I were you, I would choose the religion that is
1) most effective in doing
2) the most good
3) for the most people.
Ask yourself if you really believe in the trinity, or are you really just a
Cultural Christian, who uses Christianity as a badge of identity? You are welcome to tell me what you find disjointed and illogical about the Koran, should you wish to pursue this discussion.
20 June 2009 08:03
Friday, 19 June 2009
Conway Hall Conned Us and the Centre for Social Confusion
We can safely say that since the creation of mankind we have read and heard about disputes indeed even the two sons of Adam fought one another. Disagreements, arguments, rows and differences are a part and parcel of everyday life and one of the ways of understanding each other is to engage in a fruitful dialogue, healthy debates and have constructive discussions and that is one of the primary roles of Global Issues Society (GIS)
GIS is an independent body composed of undergraduates and postgraduate. GIS was launched primarily to facilitate and orchestrate events that would attract people from all walks of life, to come on a platform and air their views that would be scrutinised by the audience. Since its inception GIS has successfully contacted many professionals and academics and has managed to organise many intellectually stimulating debates.
We as an independent organisation have been transparent with all the people we have worked or communicated with from day one, this includes the guests that we invite, the authorities, the owners of the premises that we hire out.
With regards to what happened on the evening of 17th June 2009 between the hours of 6:00pm and 8:30pm. we have analysed the behavior of the Chair of the premises situated at Red Lion Square in London and the Director of CSC Mr Douglas Murray and we find it to be very immature, incompetent, immoral, secretive and lacking common sense.
This landmark site is supposed to house the Ethical society so we ask the Chair Mr Enders what was so ethical in stopping a very much needed debate at a time when the general public is disillusioned by the current political system.
GIS hired out the premises and it did not stipulate in the contract who can sit where, or what the minimum age for entrance into the debate would be. However, we have NOT breached the contract rules of Conway Hall and they are refusing to refund the entire money for the hire of their premises and we are taking up matters with our solicitors.
GIS has experienced holding seminars in religious buildings where sometimes segregation of men and women takes place so in light of this GIS allowed for this provision on the assumption a lot of Muslims would attend the debate who would prefer this type of seating arrangement. We also understood the need that some of the attendees will not want to sit apart from their partners or friends and we catered for this arrangement too. GIS tries its best to break down all the barriers that would prevent people from contributing to any debate.
Where do we start with this unprofessional group of people, since our very first communiqué with Mr Douglas and his administration team headed by Hannah Stuart over one month ago we have had nothing but a nightmare of queries on top of queries. CSC never even had the courtesy of contacting GIS to inform us that they will arrive late. One of the issues of concern was will the chairperson be neutral in this debate. GIS offered CSC to choose their own chair weeks before the scheduled day of the debate. One of the biggest slanders of the day was to accuse the Chair person of assault – just to clarify the position of the Chair person he wanted to remain neutral and impartial to the extent he did not want to be on site until both guest speakers had arrived at the venue.
Arriving Headless (not as Douglas) one hour late on the pretext that this event was all staged, this is a big lie and a total fabrication. Mr Anjem has never attended any of our debates nor does he have anything to do with GIS. When questioned on numerous occasions by the public on why Douglas was late (he refused to entertain the question) he finally said he was late due to traffic.
The exaggeration of the CSC team is unbelievable another flaw in their own press release is the blatant lie that someone called Mr Keeler was present in the audience. GIS has credible reports that Mr Keeler is in prison serving a lengthy sentence.
Another point of interest is that usually CSC advertises everything on their website in relation to any events CSC will be participating in. Our question is why was the event that GIS organised not posted on the CSC website? Was their original intention never to come? If that was the case they should have been honest from the onset.
If the media and the general public would like access to the lengthy emails that were sent between GIS and CSC then they can contact us on our email address and we would be happy to forward everything to you.
We finally conclude that our team of committed workers is not perturbed by what has happened and we are in the process of organising another event in July and the topic of discussion will be Monotheism versus Polytheism. We invite everyone to come to this debate including Mr Anjem and Mr Douglas.
Vote: Should the Sharia for UK debate have been stopped?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/19/religion-islam-muhajiroun-choudary Douglas Murray gives his account of the proceedings in The Guardian
Contemplating the memento mori on my desk, it strikes me that the Chinese government is making a mistake.
Thinking of death from time to time as I do, if only to prepare myself better for this inevitability, it strikes me that there is a certain dignity to being shot rather than being merely put down, if anyone reading this remembers Dead Man Walking.
I will refrain from posting links to either a beheading or a hanging, but I think giving the condemned man the option of choosing adds interest and drama to the proceedings.
Readers are invited to say which they prefer and why.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
This is what I posted at Harry's Place at
I wonder who the extremists really are.
I was there and would have preferred the debate to have gone ahead
rather than having it stopped on the spurious grounds of infringing the rule of non-segregation.
If only someone had the presence of mind to ask those who were against and for segregation to raise their hands as well as those who didn’t care, and resolved the matter by a democratic vote, even if it meant that the segregationists would have had the day, since they were in the majority.
Not being an extremist trying to make a point, I was actually happy
where I was.
Having been myself accused of all sorts by subsequent commentators, I posted another comment:
It was a trumped-up reason to stop the meeting, and an opportunity was missed to have these Muslims explain to us how and why their version of Sharia is so perfect and beautiful, and for Douglas Murray and anyone else to challenge this.
If they were hiring and paying for the hall, it behoves those
who wished to attend what was after all a free meeting to abide by their rules.
To do otherwise would have been an abuse of hospitality.
If invited to someone’s house and asked to remove my shoes before crossing the threshold, I would do so without hesitation and with good grace, even if it were my custom to sleep in my boots in my own home.
It is after all only good manners.
Vote: Should the Sharia for UK debate have been stopped?
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
a) He thought I was not taking no for an answer, which I guess is always annoying.
b) He must have been irritated that I thought that perhaps he did not understand what it was.
Having established that he did know what it was but still did not want it, I asked the reason why.
The answer was that Muslims want to integrate and did not want to ask for weird and wonderful things such as direct democracy, even if it is in accordance with Koranic principles, ie 3:159.
Annoyingly, because he was being rather cross with me, I forgot to ask him this:
Were direct democracy generally accepted by the majority, would Muslims like him embrace it?
Silly me, but he got me a bit flustered when he was being so snippy.
Perhaps I can get the answer from him one of these days, when he has gotten over his irritation with me.
I thought it was a very good sign of Muslims wishing to integrate, however, even if it does not suit my particular agenda, which is of course to popularise and universalise the appeal of direct democracy.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
The BNP are complaining about other races preying on white women, who are internationally infamous for their promiscuity. This is supported by sitcoms such as Accidentally On Purpose starring Jenna Elfman to glamorise the life of a woman who gets pregnant after a one-night stand with a younger man who doesn't have a job, based on the book by Mary Pols, who herself did the same thing.
If you were a sex predator wouldn't you prey on the easier pickings of white schoolgirls whose single mums don't care where their daughters to go, what they wear, who they go with and what time they come back?
The only way to stop this sort of thing is to:
1) enforce the law that makes it a criminal offence to have under aged sex
2) legally compel doctors to tell parents of daughters who come to them for the pill if they are under 16
3) legally compel family planning clinics to report under aged girls asking for contraceptives to the police on the grounds that giving them contraceptives is aiding and abetting under aged sex
4) tax us all less so most wives are not compelled to work and so be able to keep an eye on their daughters' comings and goings to see that they don't take up with unsuitable men, have under aged sex and unwanted pregnancies
5) abolish child benefit for all or withhold child benefit from unmarried parents
6) legalise brothels
Does this sound simple and commonsensical to you?
In that case, the LibLabCon are bound to ignore it, aren't they?
Perhaps, if the BNP were really trying to be constructive, they would propose these measures in their next manifesto.
If they did they might even get the Muslim vote.
Oh dear. I feel I am about to be castigated for being uncompassionate again, but I fear I must comment on Susan Boyle's antics.
She epitomises everything that is wrong about this country.
A loser, a sore loser, deluded, self-pitying and ungrateful. (Second prize and a recording contract was not good enough for her, it seems.)
There is a perfectly good reason why ugly people get sidelined even if they have talent: because there are already plenty of attractive people with talent who make the most of themselves.
So she had "learning difficulties" - whatever that means these days.
Being a sore loser cannot be wholly attributed to this.
The Guardian is now suggesting that BGT organisers are to blame for not protecting her more. What? From being a sore loser and going public about it?
She was a Roman Catholic too and it would appear that her religion did not help her much.
I wonder if she would have behaved differently if she had been a Muslim.