Saturday, January 29, 2011

Five Muslims charged for inciting hatred against homosexuals

In prophetic fulfilment of this, we now arrive at this.

And when that Independent article was written, just two Muslims had been charged with stirring up 'hatred' for handing out leaflets outside a mosque suggesting that gay people should be executed. Razwan Javed, 30, and Kabir Ahmed, 27, were accused of handing out a leaflet entitled 'The Death Penalty?', which called for the execution of homosexuals.

Today, the two have become five, with Ahjaz Ali, 41, Umer Javed, 37 and Mehboob Hassain, 44, also now accused of distributing threatening material.

The leaflets were apparently distributed outside mosques in Derby city centre in July 2010, and also reportedly posted through letter boxes in the city.

The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, is allowing this prosecution to proceed.

Perhaps we have reached the long-foreseen moment at which 'Muslim rights' meet 'gay rights' in the battle for supremacy.

His Grace does not have access to the material distributed, but it does appear that the Attorney is right to proceed with this. And before His Grace is accused of being an 'Islamophobe' or (again) of 'being Melanie Phillips', he would say the same if this were Jews, Christians or people of any faith or none distributing such a message.

We are in a nation in which hundreds of young gay (mainly) teenage boys commit suicide every year, struggling with issues of sexuality. Pushing literature through people's letter boxes demanding the judgment of shari'a is, indeed, an intimidating and threatening act.

And it strikes His Grace as more than a little hypocritical that Muslims in Britain have agitated for many years in order to enshrine in law the concept of 'hate speech' against a religion. Whatever these leaflets say, it is a fair bet that if the words 'gay' or 'homosexual' were exchanged for 'Muslim' or 'Islam', these five men would have been among the first to cry 'hate' and demand the full force of the law be applied to the 'Islamophobes'.

That is, if they hadn't taken the law into their own hands first.

As His Grace pointed out a few days ago, all groups have their extremists and moderates.

Including Christians (though that article is a gross Daily Mail hatchet-job without a word of counter-argument or defence).

While we would all prefer the moderate and reasonable to prevail - in good old Church of England via media fashion - what precisely should be the limits on freedom of speech? If this message is not permitted outside the mosque, why permit it within? If the law will not inhibit the fanatics and extremists on one side, what choice does the other side have but to breed its own fanatics and extremists? And what then is inflicted upon society by this iniquitous 'rights' agenda, but more pain and suffering and sorry tales of woe?


Blogger Utar said...

Your Grace -

I too have not seen the nature and substance of the pamphlets distributed. If the pamphlets are calling for the murder of or violence against homosexuals, then yes a charge and prosecution is necessary. If however, the pamphlets are calling for a judicial case for the execution of homosexuals under law that is a fish of a different colour.

While you and I may not like the proposed law or capital punishment per se, discussions about the law should not be subject to arrest, detention or prosecution. One can only imagine capital punishment proponents being arrested, or even arrests of those who propose criminalisation in law for beliefs and actions that enjoy de facto special status like homosexuals and other liberal causes celebre.


29 January 2011 at 12:21  
Anonymous francis said...

'Muslim rights' meet 'gay rights' in the battle for supremacy.

A classic case where the ideal outcome would be for both sides to lose.

29 January 2011 at 12:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

29 January 2011 at 12:28  
Anonymous Voyager said...

In what language were these pamphlets produced ?

It is interesting that they were distributed outside the mosque suggesting the leafleters were not welcome to do so inside the mosque and maybe belong to some group seeking provocation with the legal system.

I expect the CPS to back down as things progress

29 January 2011 at 12:29  
Blogger Gnostic said...

The only winners are the lawyers.

29 January 2011 at 12:32  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace,

Rowan condemns bigotry and the murder of David Kato

"This event also makes it all the more urgent for the British Government to secure the safety of LGBT asylum seekers in the UK.This is a moment to take very serious stock and to address those attitudes of mind which endanger the lives of men and women belonging to sexual minorities.”
Rowan Williams - Archbishop of Canterbury

29 January 2011 at 12:44  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

A clash long overdue, if the 'alternative sexual lifestyle advocates' which shall be my new PC word for this post, wish to keep denigrating and undermining the western world in which they founded their freedoms then they should be shown a glimpse of how things could be.

We all need standards to live by and since the white western world is being purposefully destroyed then Sharia could be the new pink.

I wonder how travelodge will deal with nine year old brides and a goat?

29 January 2011 at 12:54  
Blogger Revd John P Richardson said...

Just one detail. You wrote, "We are in a nation in which hundreds of young gay (mainly) teenage boys commit suicide every year, struggling with issues of sexuality."

This is not so much hyperbole as guesswork. This study here says that UK teen suicides (thankfully) declined from 1997-2003. Hopefully that has been maintained.

Taking their figures as a whole, the 'average' annual number of male suicides in the 10-19 age group in that period was 185. There is no evidence presented either way on the causes of these tragic deaths, but it suggests a picture a long way short of that in the quote above.

29 January 2011 at 13:12  
Anonymous Elliot Kane said...

This sounds like incitement to murder, to me, which should always be a criminal offence.

It's one thing to say "I do not agree with you" and quite another to say "I think you should die because I do not agree with you."

Free speech is good; incitement to murder is not.

29 January 2011 at 13:42  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

If this message is not permitted outside the mosque, why permit it within?

Your Grace, a transcript of the first Undercover Mosque documentary is here; one preacher quotes ‘the words of the companion of the Prophet’ on homosexuality: ‘Do you practise homosexuality with men? Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.’

If Lady Warsi feels it necessary to address a by-election meeting in Urdu (from 2:27), how much more likely is it that preaching in mosques will be in foreign languages, and how do we regulate it?

29 January 2011 at 14:01  
Anonymous Philip said...

I agree with this. Of course countering extremism by extremism and extremist responses is not a Christian response. Better to debate and seek restoration of freedoms of speech, religion, conscience and association where they have been lost (e.g. through "equality" and "multiculturalism") so that expression of and living out Christian truth is no longer marginalised nor risks disciplinary action/dismissal/prosecution etc. I liked Elliot Kane’s comment (1342) e.g. "Free speech is good; incitement to murder is not"

29 January 2011 at 14:17  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Anything that genuinely incites to violence or murder should be punishable by the law, whether it concerns homosexuals or any other minority. This should not be confused with so-called 'hate crimes', where the crime is hatred or incitement to hatred. People's emotions or prejudices should not be within the scope of the law (as indeed they truly are not within its reach).

Opinions are not the business of the state, no matter how indefensible they are. But violence and incitement to it are the business of the state.

It should be no part of the state's business if somebody says that homosexuals should be regarded as criminals and subject to capital punishment. That is an ethical and juridical opinion (no matter how much we may disagree with it).

If literature which states that homosexuals should be regarded as criminals and legally punished for their activities is to be proscribed, and if people who promote and distribute such literature are to be arrested, then the Bible should be proscribed, and the Gideons arrested:
Leviticus 20:13 -- "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

For all we may properly protest that the Levitical law does not apply in this age of the new covenant, and that in any case the UK is not ancient Israel, and that nobody (including the Gideons) really thinks we should carry out such sentences, there can be no denying the the Bible says these things.

So if Ahjaz Ali et al are breaking the law by distributing literature calling for certain legal sanctions, then there is no barrier to the proscription of the book of Leviticus.

Once freedom of speech (unless it is actual incitement to illegal acts) is undermined, where will it end?

Cranny tells us that 'he would say the same if this were Jews, Christians or people of any faith or none distributing such a message.'

Put your mouth where your mouth is, Cranny, and call for the Bible to be banned.

29 January 2011 at 14:24  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Slightly off topic but in the general theme, there is an interesting discussion on tolerance starting at 9 mins in here:

29 January 2011 at 14:50  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Then again the decision of a British court will make no difference to Islam because Allahs law is above our laws and at this juncture I think it fair to say even Shaivite Aghori ethics have more moral standing than what British justice has become.

29 January 2011 at 15:02  
Blogger Dr. Love said...

If we are good Darwinists, I mean true humanists, shouldn't we execute homosexuals? Are they not an obstacle to the genetic advancement of our species and the mechanism by which our species orders and advances itself.

This already has been and continues to be painted as just one more reason why religion in modern society should be neutered, lest it become "extreme." Yet religion—and specifically Christianity—is the only mechanism which is prepared to actually value humans as they are—gay, disabled, gendered, aged, imprisoned, enslaved, unborn, etc.

29 January 2011 at 15:37  
Anonymous JayBee said...

We really need to see the content of the leaflet to decide if it amounts to incitement to violence or only hate speech against Gay's and their lifestyle. If it is the former then the accused should be prosecuted but if the latter then it is important that they are acquitted.

If these Muslims were convicted merely for hate speech then that precedent would be turned on Islamification protesters to silence their robust cricism of Islam. The authorities would clothe themselves in even-handed righteousness whilst advancing their PC aim to coerce everyone into silence.

29 January 2011 at 16:23  
Anonymous Sage said...

We should all be allowed to incite hatred against anyone. Inciting violence or murder is beyond the pale.

29 January 2011 at 16:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharia law is alive and wel in Britain...

29 January 2011 at 16:50  
Anonymous dodahday said...

The previous government strengthened gay rights. The previous government also allowed in extremist muslims. You'd be forgiven for thinking that they'd done it on purpose, such is the diverse opinions of the two. No, surely not! As a smokescreen for the New World Order and the rise of the Anti-Christ?

29 January 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Your Grace

It appears that the dreaded confrontation maybe about to show whose 'Rights' have supremacy.

No man/woman should be persecuted, beaten or murdered for their beliefs , however we all have obligations under the law to be 'Peaceful'..

The Lord came to SAVE men, not judge them under the Law and have them 'murdered' for wrong beliefs.
He came to CORRECT us, by our accepting His commandment to believe on Him ONLY .
He came to reveal mankind needed to show repentance but He NEVER came or spoke, that sin should be condoned in ANYTHING.
He came NOT to make bad men good but to make dead men ALIVE, by His sacrifice for us and the Holy Spirit indwelling us, IF we accept Him.

The Law was given so that sin may ABOUND and that we place no trust in ourselves to keep from sinning in our own strength.
The Law is of flesh so brings death but Christ brings the Spirit to make us a new creation in Him and therefore we have life in abundance. This is why in Romans, St Paul states WHY any believer MUST NOT try to keep the Law.
We have a BETTER covenant and a BETTER sacrifice In Christ!

The Old Testament is not irrelevant, as Jesus said ;
Matthew 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

To break the Law after trying to keep it meant death but to trust in Christ and live FOR HIM brings Life.

Should I see a homosexual or anybody else being attacked or persecuted for their lifestyle or beliefs, I would most definitely intervene physically to stop this (The Good Samaritan, did he ask who he was or what he had done after finding him in such terrible distress and pain before helping this man?).
All I ask is that I may declare God's Love for all men, even the chief of sinners and for them to repent and consider that God says IT'S WRONG.
I would say the same about any sin that showed itself in me whether it is theft, adultery, fornication etc. ALL SIN IS TO BE CONDEMNED! I only ask to say this, in love to all sinners, including myself.

Muslims or any man/woman have no right to incite hatred (this is different than asking people to repent as ALL are sinners) against others for murder, especially for their beliefs that muslims find offensive ( I deny that Mohammed was a true prophet or that Islam replaces Christ and christianity, does this mean I MUST DIE?).
Islam has no offer of forgiveness and repentance from Allah in the Qu'ran or Hadiths, so all it knows is how to destroy the things it objects to and thereby the individuals who commit it.

Not exactly 'Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin', is it!


29 January 2011 at 17:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Goodness! What a fuss! As my Lord's chaplain, Mr. Slope, exclaimed after matins the other day, "Surely if we have to put up with female circumcision, arranged marriages, halal meat de jour, honour killings and forced marriages, surely we can turn the other cheek with regard to homosexuality.' Indeed. Though I suspect Mr. Slope is rather adept at turning the other cheek and bracing himself...

29 January 2011 at 17:55  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! What a fuss! As my Lord's chaplain, Mr. Slope, exclaimed after matins the other day, "Surely if we have to put up with female circumcision, arranged marriages, halal meat de jour, honour killings and forced marriages, surely we can turn the other cheek with regard to homosexuality.' Indeed. Though I suspect Mr. Slope is rather adept at turning the other cheek and bracing himself...

29 January 2011 at 17:56  
Anonymous Bede said...

I should have added that the 'liberal' establishment is nethertheless strangely tolerant of a very intolerant religion, as it would not be politically correct to be otherwise. But we should not expect consistency from 'liberals'.

29 January 2011 at 18:18  
Blogger MFH said...

a house divided against itself can not stand.
Heaven and eatrh shall pass away but my word shall endure for ever.

God is in control - take heart

29 January 2011 at 18:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does one brace oneself if one turns the other cheek Mrs Proudie? Dr Proudie

29 January 2011 at 18:19  
Anonymous len said...

Freedom of speech to what limits should it be taken?

When one advocates violence against another I should say.

New Testament Christianity is a'religion' which points out the pitfalls of leading a sinful life but has a solution to this : a Spiritual re-birth.This is the whole point of preaching the Gospel( the Good News,that God loves you and wants to save you!)Not the bad news that God hates you and is sending you to Hell!
Islam has no solution but to repress this fallen nature by whatever means possible......mostly harsh.

I heartily condemn violence as it is unacceptable in a Civilized Society.

I too would intervene if I saw a homosexual being attacked or threatened.

29 January 2011 at 18:56  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "We are in a nation in which hundreds of young gay (mainly) teenage boys commit suicide every year, struggling with issues of sexuality."

I was a teenager who very nearly did that back in 1982. I actually got to the point of sitting on a window ledge of a tower block at my university.

In truth, it wasn't a lack of courage or a sudden sense of optimism that stopped me but the realisation that it would probably kill my mother too if I let go.

Why did we want to do it? Well, in my case I had a CofE upbringing and a mono-cultured middle-class background and parents who simply wouldn't understand.

I looked around, aged 18, and realised that society in general didn't want the likes of me around. I realised that I was never going to get married and have children like 'normal' people.

I then looked forward and realised that I would be under significant peer group pressure to have girlfriends, and family pressure to get married to a 'nice girl' and produce the much anticipated grandchildren.

I couldn't imagine living past the age of 30 and thought what's the point in even trying to get that far? Looking back, I'm extremely glad I didn't let go. Things have changed significantly in the last 30 years.

These issues are not really personal issues but society issues. We're products of society and we have to live in a society that either accept, rejects, or is indifferent to us.

I'm 'sorted' in the gay argot now, which means I'm comfortable with who and what I am. I'll tell you what though, I look around on the internet today and the place seems full of filth and bile and hate about us from Christians. A subset, admittedly.

We've moved forward a great deal and the environment is much better for teenagers now but it's still a negative place for people who lack confidence and are finding their place in the world.

29 January 2011 at 19:13  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

The limits of free speech, in the days when we were free, was very simple. Incitement to violence was an offence; anything else was not.

The men have not been charged with incitement to violence, so clearly they did not do anything more than express their opinions. Their real crime was to say something attacking homosexuality (and don't we all hate the sheer dishonesty of our public debate these days? the weaseling and lying that goes on!).

The "offence" was committed six months ago. I think we can imagine the discussions that have taken place since, to decide what to do.

I wonder if the Moslems will riot?

One other note: anyone who thinks "inciting hate" should be criminal might consider just how much left-wing invective is calm, tolerant, and considered. Much of it is vile. No lefty feels any hesitation in using the most vicious language, in my experience. Some lefty blogs consist solely of character assassination of those with whom the blogger disagrees. The whole point of "racist" "sexist" "homophobe" is to demonise people as mentally ill for holding different views.

I suspect the best thing the coalition could do for free speech would be to extend the "incitement to hate" laws to cover class hate, etc. If the lefties thought that they would be subject to these laws, they would be the first to protest.

29 January 2011 at 19:47  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Thank you for sharing your moving story DanJO and I'm glad you have found peace. 'Christians' who hate are not true Christians.

29 January 2011 at 20:34  
Blogger Owl said...


I am glad you stayed with us.

29 January 2011 at 20:41  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Roger Pearse, two wrongs do not make a right.

We do not need any more rubbish laws, we need far less, or at least the ones we have administered with a degree of fairness and impartiality.

We do not, because The ESTABLISHMENT does not want them to be administered in any such way, otherwise they would do so.

Party Politics has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever. A fact that is surely becoming ever more obvious.
"Perhaps we have reached the long-foreseen moment at which 'Muslim rights' meet 'gay rights' in the battle for supremacy."

Long awaited indeed.

Now if you, your Grace, could see this coming, I could see this coming, indeed every person with a gram of common sense remaining could clearly see this coming, then why do you suppose the people running the country could not?

Answer, They could, and very much did, and said so in several RIIA reports going back as far as 1986. Which is 15 years before 9/11, and 11 years before we had a New Labour government inflicted on us.

So, if the establishment new this was going to happen, then why did they allow so many Muslims into the country, also give us laws that make no logical sense, and so could only ever lead to confusion and violence?

Answer; (because I give answers to questions, I do not just ask them.)

The establishment knew, (it was not speculating) we would have this problem, as well as many others, because it was the establishment themselves that planned to give us, the silly laws, mass immigration, New Labour, wars in the middle-east, and 9/11, many years before even 1986.

Please understand your own establishment positively hates YOU. It hates and distrusts you every bit as much as you should hate and distrust it, and intends to utterly DESTROY your society and replace it with something quite different.

Which is a rather worrying cross between 1984, Brave New World, Time Machine, and of course, not forgetting, Animal Farm.

This issue can be summed up in just 3 simple words.


Which is the neatest trick in the
British and now World Establishments very large bag of them.

30 January 2011 at 01:27  
Anonymous len said...

This may seem a little off thread but I feel an explanation of the Christian position regarding sin and sinners is needed.
Christians are often accused of being 'judgemental'and bigots and perhaps some are.
But self -righteousness has no place with the genuine Christian!.
The righteousness of the 'genuine'Christian( there are fakes)is an imparted righteousness a Christ righteousness.
How is this obtained?
Jesus Christ is our righteousness (1Corinthians 1:30). We do not and cannot attain a right relationship with God in our own righteousness because our self-righteousness is as filthy rags. True Christians are united Spiritually with Christ(.A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you. And I will put my Spirit within you.' -Ezekiel 36: 26, 27). We are ALL guilty sinners in the need of a perfect righteousness (Rom. 3:23; Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:20-23).
Every Christian left to his own devices is a SINNER that is why we cannot condemn only convict people of their position and their need for a saviour, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ only condemned the self- righteous Pharisees (The Religious Community) not the sinners themselves, but Jesus didn`t condone sin He offered Himself as a Mediator between sinners(all of us) and God.

This is not to say that Christians always get it right and if I have given anyone the impression of self-righteousness I apologise.

30 January 2011 at 08:12  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Atlas shrugged: "Please understand your own establishment positively hates YOU. It hates and distrusts you every bit as much as you should hate and distrust it, and intends to utterly DESTROY your society and replace it with something quite different"

Who are these Establishment people please?

Obviously, our laws and policies are mostly created by the Executive in our Legislature and refined and voted for by the rest of the Legislature.

No doubt there are special interests at work from time to time but the Legislature is mostly made up of ordinary people who have to live here too, isn't it?

Even having a few million in the bank doesn't divorce one that much from society. Russian oligarchs weren't in Labour's cabinet and they're not in the Coaliton's either.

I expect the very rich look in disdain at the hoi polloi but are they actually in the Establishment?

30 January 2011 at 08:26  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Thank you Owl and AncientBriton. I hope that didn't come across as a grab for sympathy. I just wanted to show that many of us are just normal people with feelings, only with a different sexual orientation, and that we are not Other seeking to take society for our own in a secret and sinister agenda.

Having read comments on another Christian blog recently describing us as pink supremacists, sodomites, perverts, rainbow jackboot wearers, marxists (?), and the like and telling us that we will burn in hell, I sometimes wonder how many Christians have actually met a gay person.

Of course, when I say "met" I mean "realise they have met". We sit next to people on trains and in restaurants, we work along side people in businesses, and we serve people in shops and hotels and banks. We're not Other at all.

30 January 2011 at 08:41  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Good news! I have another Christian poster this morning on the Telegraph asking about events in my childhood, Freud fashion, so he can help explain why I'm gay and lead me to the light ... via reparative therapy. All with 'love', of course.

Does reparative therapy these days involving passing electrical current through my genitals while I view pictures of naked men? I don't really mind the naked men section but I'm not that keen on electrodes near my bits to be honest. Or am I thinking of aversion therapy here?

For something that essentially does no harm and usually follows much the same pattern of heterosexuality: relationships, love, commitment, and so on, it's odd that it's seen as such a problem by some Christians for non-Christian gay people.

30 January 2011 at 09:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

are mostly created by the Executive in our Legislature

Not so. Most laws - especially EU Regulations - never see Parliament.

You should look up Secondary Legislation - or as Germany described it in 1934 Ermaechtigungsgesetz - the Bill is passed blank through The Commons and Lords leaving the Minister to fill in the blanks using Orders in [Privy] Council to enact legislation

So much British Law never gets debated, discussed, but emerges as a Diktat or Ukase from the Government Machine

30 January 2011 at 10:42  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I am glad you pulled through for your mothers sake and your own DanJO but I believe in discussing the establishment in globalist terms, you ignore Lord Mandelsons yachtgate scandal.

You avoid Thatchers patriotic Falklands war for the oil field even though she privatised BP into the hands of the Rothchild dynasty and the huge profits BP makes could pay off our national debt but instead our country gets raped and pillaged proping up bankrupt banks.

There will always be one law for us and another for the zionist/bolshevic mafia, hence Cameron tories and Millibands Labour sums up our so called democratic same differnce choice, its not just Egypt that needs to throw off its puppet government.

I am purposely crass in many comments at times in order to rail against the etablishments bullshit but get along with most folk in truth.

30 January 2011 at 11:18  
Anonymous Flossie said...

This is all wrong. There is no room for hatred of our brothers and sisters in any Christian heart. What we cannot do, however, is redefine the nature of sinful behaviour. This applies to each and every one of us. We recognise that we all fall short, but to bestow approval on activity which is clearly condemned in scripture is a gross betrayal, not only of the One who died for us, but of the individuals concerned. For Christians, this is a salvation issue.

30 January 2011 at 11:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don’t expect this to become normal practice. This is just a token gesture by the government to appear to be ‘fair’. Appeasing the ‘religion of peace’ will continue with gusto.

30 January 2011 at 14:32  
Anonymous Rob from Kansas said...

Multiculturalism is not compatible with liberty.

Instead of restricting immigration to peoples from similar (or, at least, non-hostile cultures), we open the doors to people from antagonistic cultures and then start passing laws (and there are never enough) attempting to prohibit (unsuccessfully) the thoughts and acts that make the immigrants' home countries so awful.

In this case, it would have made much more sense to severely restrict immigration from Muslim countries. If violent homophobia weren't a big problem then there'd be no need for more laws restricting the liberties of citizens.

In the US, we have Freedom of Speech codified in the Constitution but, more and more, government manages to restrict it anyway.

Someone wrote once that political correctness is the bastard-child of fascism.

30 January 2011 at 16:50  
Blogger USMaleSF said...

I'm with Rob from Kansas. And the subject of incitement, unless it's incitement to direct violence, it ought not be illegal. Once you start regulating robust speech, you're done.
Thank God for the 1st Amendment.

30 January 2011 at 19:30  
Anonymous non mouse said...

I say that one of our greatest problems results from letting the enemy define our terms. They determine our vocabulary, and they're not improving it - but we go along with being "modern" or "educated" or "sophisticated" or whatever pose they think suits us.

So what the vicious define as "hate" is now the denotation. Never mind me and my rice pudding - or the similar take in one Speccie cartoon, this week. Never mind that some of us are incapable of "hate" crimes -- or that we'd suffer from shell-shock if we were forced to try them.

In these terms then, who are the 'haters' - those who refuse, out of distaste, to adopt the culture of barbarian invaders? Or are 'haters' the barbarians who invade and force their cultures on indigenes wolle nolle?

And I will, perforce, spare you the etymology and history of "right".... :)

My claim, most surely, is that we will retain control of our identity, our spirit, if we take back the language we utter. [[[L. spiritus = breath; OE. sawol, sawle = soul, life, spirit; sawlian = to expire]]

They subvert English knowingly and with malicious intent - you only have to read the deconstructionists to see that.

And I remember too, that while they've got us wasting our breath on the polarities they set up for the game they make us play - be sure they're whittling away at our rights to own our homes, or run small businesses....

30 January 2011 at 20:03  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

non mouse said 30 January 2011 20:03

Bravo..EXACTLY! I hate nobody either but it will be inferred I do by my beliefs.

The day will come when a christian bookshop will not be able to sell christian literature as it is full of 'hate' towards other people.

It will be stated that Christian literature contains claims that IT is unique based on Christ's claims (Which the Lord most definitely did and was believed by apostles, early church and all believers who trust in Him) and leads to others who deny this as feeling threatened or not valued as 'equal' by this.

The day will surely come when people will be TOLD what they may stock in their business or trade as.

Imagine the literature sold was based on christian values and belief regarding the individual and family life.

The enforcers of the authorities then come and say ' where's the literature for others of a different sexual persuasion, why is it not stocked on your shelf's and where are the sex toys and porn videos to help them discover their full 'sexual potential and pleasure. You are a bookshop, aren't you . They will miss the whole point (Or Do/Will they?) of WHAT YOU want to sell and WHY'.

Not much different from what the christian B&B couples wanted to sell, is it?

Maybe the above mentioned is not so very far away?


30 January 2011 at 21:01  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Yes, KOHCs; thank you. Further still, I fear for the survival of books themselves (and libraries, and museums). When did serfs and villeins ever need things like that?

The wonder is that, at the last few go-arounds, some of our own did manage to preserve the culture and the language...

30 January 2011 at 22:29  
Anonymous Oswin said...

non mouse @ 20:03

Your first paragraph says it all; I wish I'd thought to say that! :o)

31 January 2011 at 03:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older