Disabled Indonesians Required to Wear Traffic Signs

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20090526-144074.html



How very sensible.

Unlike what Cameron is proposing, ie trying to make things easier for the disabled and their parents.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/5838718/David-Cameron-calls-to-end-bureaucratic-pain-for-families-of-disabled-children.html

Doesn't he know that this is only encouraging them?

First, someone thought a few disabled parking spaces here and there would be kind and considerate. Now, our supermarkets car parks have empty disabled spaces that the able bodied dare not use for fear of being fined.

Do we really want an increase in people claiming disabled privileges? Is it in the national interest to encourage the parasitical behaviour of the less productive at the expense of the more productive?

Cameron does, because he thinks they are electorally significant and increasing in number. No doubt they are a suitable audience to demonstrate his "Conservative compassion"?

These people are quite organised too, trawling the Internet for comments unflattering to the disabled and sending them hate mail. I have received quite a few in my time and expect to receive more.

Well, let me tell you this: the Indonesians will get richer and the British poorer, if we carry on like that.

When we get poor enough to be Indonesians, I suppose we will finally junk the insanity of privileging the disabled. They should be tolerated and treated compassionately, certainly, but not privileged and given a sense of entitlement.

There was a ridiculous discussion on Radio 4 last week at 9am on a weekday last week, consisting entirely of women discussing ante-natal screening. One of them, disabled and arrogant beyond belief, was objecting to this practice because it meant that fewer people like her would be born, because it was discriminatory.

Strangely, no one pointed out that most sane people don't want to be disabled or want a disabled child. If I were disabled, I wouldn't be wearing it as a badge of honour and lording it over everyone.

Even more strangely, she was treated with a kind of exaggerated deference that frankly made me feel quite nauseous, confirming to me that we are now suffering from a terminal form of national dementia.

How to get a legal definition of "racism"

Racism is now a term of abuse used against anyone who gives offence, whether intentionally or unintentionally, about other races or when someone treats different races differently and misjudges the situation. The "institutional racism" of the police, a phrase coined by Lord McPherson, is the grandiloquent and politically explosive term used to describe mere police incompetence and lazy thinking.

Traditionally, racism only meant the actual belief that some races are superior or inferior to others.

It is quite clear that nobody, not even members of the government or its opposite, knows what it really means.

Even the BNP does not know its own mind about whether it is a racist political party or not. Quite a few of their supporters are confused about whether they are or not (for some deny that they are racist and have friends who are non-white) and do not know whether to deny their racism or embrace it. Are they merely xenophobic (ie fearful of foreigners of any hue and nation, which is still allowed) or actually racist, whatever that means?

Does excluding someone from your party on grounds of race mean that you think they are inferior and that you are superior? Or is that just invoking the principle of free association?

Does disliking the physical and cultural characteristics of another race (who is perceived to be doing better or worse than you because of their alleged racial or cultural characteristics) mean you are racist? Or does racism actually require you to believe in your/their superiority/inferiority?

Does believing that another race is superior to yours (and praising that race) racism?

The law is undecided. On the one hand it criminalises discrimination on grounds of race, on the other it allows the BNP and NF (who wish to repatriate non-whites) to exist.

Much could be accomplished by the BNP if they started an action in defamation the next time a national publication that is worth suing describes a member of the BNP as racist. A case for libel is made out when a litigant proves to the satisfaction of a jury that, as a result of words published or broadcast, he has been brought into hatred, ridicule and contempt in the minds of right-thinking members of society.

This could run and run, folks!

Will the BNP do us all a public service and get us a legal definition of racism? Will they, hell!

Obviously, they would be helping themselves if they lifted their colour bar and removed any mention of their intention to repatriate non-whites from their constitution.

No doubt they will be saying they want to repatriate white Eastern Europeans too and will claim they are merely xenophobic - a state of mind that has yet to be labelled "thoughtcrime" in 21st century Britain.

(In case anybody has not yet noticed, it is of course already "thoughtcrime" to discriminate on grounds of sex, age, disability and sexual orientation.)


What are they for, I keep asking, if they will not even fund the litigation of members of their own party (and race) who are oppressed by Political Correctness - the ones who get unfairly or constructively dismissed from their jobs or expelled from their unions after going public about their BNP membership, the most recent of which is Mark Walker, a teacher?

Answers on a postcard, please.