Monday, January 04, 2010

Diversity Destroys Freedom

This excellent piece was written by my good friend Unrepentant British Nationalist:

It is my sincere belief that as British society becomes more racially and religiously disparate, and thus less cohesive, freedom of speech and expression will be gradually diminished. In fact, this has already occurred over the last four decades. The following passages are from the BBC and demonstrate how, incrementally, our freedom of speech and liberty has been eroded:

The 1965 Race Relations Act was a limited piece of legislation pushed through by a Labour government in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives.

It made it unlawful to refuse access to anyone on racial grounds to public places such as hotels, restaurants, pubs, cinemas or public transport.

Refusing to rent accommodation to people because of their race was also no longer allowed and stirring up racial hatred -'incitement' - became a criminal offence.

Superficially, this may seem reasonable. However, it violates the right of, for example, a publican to determine whom he wishes to admit into his premises. Ultimately he is running a business, and if he chooses to forego the custom of certain people because of his prejudice, then that's his decision to make.

Furthermore this legislation would have criminalised an old lady who runs a boarding house, but didn't want to let rooms to foreigners. She may well have not felt safe having people whose culture is completely alien to her living in her home. But this law meant she would have been compelled to accept such boarders or close her business.

Finally, 'incitement to racial hatred' became a crime. This rather nebulous term was used as a cosh to silence the British people from objecting too strongly to mass-immigration - after Enoch Powell made his 'Rivers of Blood' speech 'Jeremy Thorpe, the Liberal leader, felt there might be a prima facie case against Powell for incitement; and Ted Leadbitter, a Labour MP, said he would refer the speech to the Director of Public Prosecutions.' (1)

The Act was amended in 1968, outlawing 'discrimination in areas such as employment and providing goods and services' (2), and this was again strengthened by the Race Relations Act 1976 , which 'made both direct and indirect discrimination an offence and gave those affected by discrimination redress through employment tribunals and the courts.' (3)

There have been many more amendments and additions to race relations legislation, and one can read about the history of it here. Those who champion equality, however, should be disgusted to learn that Harriet Harman's 'Equality Bill' will actually permit employers to discriminate based upon gender and skin colour:

The Bill will make it legal for employers to choose a black or female candidate above a white man, as long as they have the same qualifications.

It is designed to thrust more women and minority applicants into senior posts.

Harman's equality law 'will hurt white male jobseekers'; 03rd December 2009

This is not just social engineering, it is plain hypocrisy. It reminds me of Animal Farm: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' Ultimately white men are to officially become second class citizens in their ancestral lands.

Whilst Harman's Equality Bill seeks to empower ethnic minorities and disadvantage white males, the process of transforming society does not stop with 'racial equality'. After two trials, Nick Griffin was eventually cleared of 'inciting racial hatred' at Leeds Crown Court. However this was the response of The Muslim Council of Britain, who were agitating for laws criminalising those who denounce Islam:

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) commended the BBC investigation.

Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: "The BNP have long been exploiting a loophole in our current legislation which outlaws incitement to racial hatred but does not forbid incitement to religious hatred.

"This documentary provides additional evidence of the immense harm this is doing to community relations in our country."

BNP leader repeats Islam attack; BBC; Friday, 16 July 2004

In Ireland it appears that their agitation has paid dividends, as the following report demonstrates:

Secular campaigners in the Irish Republic defied a strict new blasphemy law which came into force today by publishing a series of anti-religious quotations online and promising to fight the legislation in court.

The new law, which was passed in July, means that blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 (£22,000).

It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.

Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws; The Guardian; Friday 1 January 2010

If the Irish government is doing this to demonstrate their commitment to 'equality' and 'diversity', then why not simply repeal the blasphemy law? That would augment freedom of speech and expression, which is surely a good thing? I am a Christian and I can tolerate criticism of my faith, as can most Christians if you look at our reactions over the years to The Life of Brian, Jerry Springer The Opera and a publicly funded exhibition 'encouraging people to deface the Bible in the name of art' (4) in Scotland, the results of which can be seen below.

Ask yourself, would Muslims tolerate the Koran being defaced in a similar manner? Would MPs not be totally outraged at such provocation, were it directed towards Islam instead of Christianity? One only has to recall the response by Muslims to Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and the Danish Cartoons to understand just what sort of a reaction such an act would elicit. Regarding the Danish Cartoons, it would appear that the fatwah imposed upon the cartoonist has not been forgotten:

Danish police have shot and wounded a man at the home of Kurt Westergaard, whose cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad sparked an international row.

Mr Westergaard scrambled into a panic room at his home in Aarhus after a man wielding an axe and a knife broke in.

This is just another incident which exposes this alien religion's intolerance to criticism. The fact that Mr Westergaard saw it necessary to have a panic room fitted in his home speaks volumes about the nature of the threats he has received. Remember his 'crime' is merely having the audacity to draw cartoons mocking the 'Prophet' Mohammed! But he is quite right to be frightened, and should remember the fate of Theo Van Gogh:

Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film about Islamic culture, has been stabbed and shot dead in Amsterdam, Dutch police say.

Police arrested a man in a nearby park after an exchange of gunfire. The man, aged 26, had joint Dutch and Moroccan nationality, they said.


The film Submission told the story of a Muslim woman forced into an arranged marriage who is abused by her husband and raped by her uncle. It triggered an outcry from Dutch Muslims.

In one scene the film showed an actress in see-through garments with Koranic script written on her body, which also bore whip marks.

The Netherlands is home to nearly one million Muslims or 5.5% of the population.

One of the film maker's colleagues at the film production company said Van Gogh had received death threats "but he never took them quite seriously".

Gunman kills Dutch film director; BBC; Tuesday, 2 November, 2004

The manner in which he was murdered was truly horrific:

In the course of being shot repeatedly, Van Gogh beseeched his killer, "Don't do it. Don't do it. Have mercy. Have mercy!" Then the killer stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another, nearly decapitating van Gogh. (5)

Again this demonstrates the type of fanaticsim typical amongst the adherents of Islam. Across Europe there have been Islamic attacks in London, Glasgow and Madrid. In Paris there are frequently large-scale riots that are attributed to 'marginalised' Muslim youths, the same was true in the North of England in 2001, and additionally there are the two incidents highlighted above. It is my belief that as Muslims intimidate those who speak out against their religion with violence and rioting, our treacherous and feeble ruling elites will seek to pacify them by introducing more rigorous legislation preventing 'religious intolerance'. Additionally, governments will justify ever greater intrusion into our lives in order to socially engineer a 'tolerant' and 'egalitarian' society. The article below is a shocking example of government interference with education:

Top schools risk being branded inadequate by Government inspectors for failing to promote race relations, gender equality and human rights, it has been disclosed.

They could be plunged into "special measures" by Ofsted under new rules that place equality on a par with exam results and child safety for the first time.

In official guidance, inspectors are told to be aware of “gender imbalances” in upper-ability sets and ensure after-school sport is not dominated by pupils belonging to one ethnic group.

Some local councils are also warning schools to make sure staff and volunteers reflect the ethnic make-up of local communities and feature people with disabilities to provide good role models for pupils.

Race rules could brand top schools failures; The Telegraph; 31 Dec 2009

Hat tip: Dowlish

I believe that Britain will be a very scary place in a few decades' time. I see two likely future scenarios, and I am not sure which I fear most. The first is a balkanised Britain - the result of failed immigration and multiculturalist policies imposed on us by the ruling elite - a collection of mutually antagonistic communities, with the propensity for ethnic conflict on a huge scale (think peace walls and paramilitaries). The second is an authoritarian society, one that in a desperate bid to make multiculturalism work has taken control of all aspects of society - think political correctness distilled, and coupled with the latest surveillance technology. Both are dystopian nightmares, but I sincerely believe both are plausible. Our last chance is The British National Party - the only party seriously opposed to Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism).


1. Like The Roman, The Life of Enoch Powell; Simon Heffer; Pg 457


3. Ibid.

4. Gallery’s invitation to deface the Bible brings obscene response; The Times; July 23, 2009


11 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Maybe someone could point me in the right direction. Why do people write in the Bible? Looking at that picture I noticed another poster on a Boer forum does it alot where he takes a pen to the Bible to show the other posters what he is talking about.

I find it a bit odd.

Anonymous said...

Is there a difference between writing in the Bible, and writing in any other book?

FishEagle said...

VI, depends how much you respect the book.

Viking said...

depends, Anon.

A lot of Christians view it as disrespectful or sacreligious, others underline passages etc and don't have a problem with it.
In the above case, it was specifically an "art" project (publicly funded) to have people deliberately deface and mock a religious icon.
As the author comments, the "artist" would not do this to a Koran, and therefore undermines any claim that this is a valid form of artistic expression.

Anonymous said...

@FE. Sorry, completely disagree with you. My finest books are filled with comments that I have inserted.

Somebody that takes the time to study the bible in such depth, clearly has a passion for the subject. I couldn't be bothered when there are better books to read, with a better story to tell.

FishEagle said...

VI, I don't think we are in disagreement. Maybe I should have added to my comment, "depends how much you respect the book AND what you are writing in it." And that goes for any book.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, so it is subjective.

Anonymous said...

If anything's more boring than the Bible it has to be the Koran.

A Muslim friend who had just returned from his first hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) was very exuberant about his religion and how it frees women instead of enslaving them. He lent me a clean, unmarked copy of the Koran on condition I never put the book on the floor which is disrespectful to Allah.

Now I must tell you that the first hundred pages of the Koran are repititious chants which were probably written that way to brain deaden the reader's senses for what follows. And there it was: husbands are allowed to beat their wives.

When I told my friend about this permission from Allah to knock the bejabbers out of his missus, he freaked. "If I tell Fatima this she will throw me and the Koran out of the house."

He'd never read the Koran.

Anonymous said...

"If anything's more boring than the Bible it has to be the Koran."

Jeeze! What the hell next out of this website? Bring Doberman back - I have visited this website since he started it. This is just over the top! No wonder G-D has forgotten about Africa.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 3.48. You are talking out of your arse. I have been a part of this blog almost since inception (2008), and I have personally posted worse material. No belief system or ideology is sacred here, that is what makes the blog vibrant.

If you think the bible is a great read, packed full of "edge of the seat, thrilling stuff", or the koran for that matter, good for you.

But if it is just your sensibilities that we have offended, well then we are doing our job; and nothing that you can't sort out with a little prayer.

Viking said...

Anon 3:48
comments are not representative of the site as a whole. There are a wide range of contributors, too, and an even wider range of readers. You are going to get offended sometime and this is far from the worst I've heard.