There are some topics on which I freely admit I find it difficult to understand the mentality of those responsible. The Canadian seal cull is one of them. If I think about it for long enough, I have to admit, that everything goes orange and I start feeling a bit “menkle” around the edges, and have to go for a walk around.
I felt the same way when I heard a recent story about a rare mutant white deer that had been born amongst a herd of wild red deer in Dumfries and Galloway, and the natural reaction of the Country Landowners association or some such other body that believes the best way to conserve nature is by filling it with buckshot, said that it should be culled. Apparently some German hunter had already offered five grand for the chance to come over and have a pop at it. Sad, sad, bastard.
Anyway, to a fanfare of no publicity whatsoever, the annual seal hunt on ice floes off Canada's eastern seaboard got underway last Monday, amid renewed opposition from animal welfare groups and a looming European ban on seal products. Once again, the event has been largely ignored by the world’s media and of course, Canada is keeping v-e-r-y quiet about it, hoping to continue to be able to be mistaken for a civilized country.
The Canadian government announced a total allowable catch this year of 338,000 harp, hooded and grey seals, out of herds of more than 6.4 million. Now this sounds quite a small proportion, but I would just say two things. If we are talking about percentages, then we should also remember that every seal that is killed is 100% dead. And we should beware the law of unintended consequences.
The Humane Society condemned this year's slightly increased kill quota, up 5,000 from last year, saying that it "flies in the face of the best available science and common sense." They also accused the Canadian government of a "profound lack of judgment" in setting such an "absurdly high quota."
"The last time Canada allowed this many seals to be killed, the harp seal population was reduced by as much as two thirds within a decade," it said, accusing Ottawa of trying to "wipe them out."
Considering that one of the supposed justifications of the cull (apart from the monetary rewards for the sealers, which could easily be addressed by the Canadian government with subsidies for the fishing communities if there was the political will) is that the seals are responsible for the decline in cod stocks.
But the decline of fishing stocks is part of a much bigger problem, a global problem of overfishing, and unsustainable use of the seas, that needs tackling by concerted international action. Plus, the seals also eat predators on the cod. So by killing the seals, the predators on the cod will flourish, with predictable results. No better off. Don’t take my word for it, there are studies by marine biologists on this, full of stats and graphs and shit. I’ve got one printed out on my desk upstairs. It’s about an inch thick and it proves conclusively that killing seals will not restore the cod stocks.
I assume that, if I can find it and read it, the vast resources of the Canadian Government can also do so. And therefore I assume also that they choose to ignore it.
Canada’s Fisheries Minister Gail Shea stated the cull takes into account the advice of scientists "to ensure the seal population is maintained." Apart from the ones clubbed to death, of course.
The minister reiterated Ottawa's commitment to "defend Canada's humane and sustainable seal hunt, and the livelihoods that depend on it."
Meanwhile, on this side of the pond, in April, the European parliament is to vote on a proposed prohibition on seal products that would ban them from being imported, exported or even transported across the 27-member zone. The measure still has to be approved by EU governments before it can be implemented. But, this might be the first ever recorded instance of the EU doing some good for a change.
Last week, Russia banned the hunting of harp seals less than a year old, after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin criticized the "bloody practice" . Just think about that for a moment, Canada, and hang your head in shame. Even Vladimir bloody Putin thinks you are barbarians!
However, sealers and the Canadian fisheries department defend the hunt as sustainable, humane and well-managed and say it provides supplemental income for isolated fishing communities hit by the decline in cod stocks. Here we go again. It’s about as sustainable as putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. And about as bloody.
Again, the Canadians like to think they have cleaned up the cull. So that practices which have occurred in the past, such as the seal pups still being alive when they are being skinned, no longer happen. Allegedly. We have no real way of knowing though. For the whole seal hunt, just sixteen observer permits were issued to activists and media to monitor the hunt.
Of course, Canadians are not the only guilty party. Harp seals are hunted commercially off the coasts of Greenland, Norway, the United States, Namibia, Britain, Finland and Sweden. But Canada is home to the world's largest annual commercial seal hunt.
The seals are hunted mainly for their pelts, but also for meat and for their fat, which is used in beauty products. In some countries, 12 to 15 week old pups were also prized for their fur. According to the Canadian Fisheries and Oceans department, the “value” of the Canadian seal hunt in 2008 was 7 million Canadian dollars. The average price per pelt received by sealers is approximately $52.
So it all comes down to money in the end. Just $52 in Canadian mickey mouse money is the price of the life of a seal. But that is only if they can sell the end products. If we all stand together and refuse to buy anything derived from seals, in fact, anything from the tainted land of Canada, then that demolishes the other plank of the argument, and leaves Canada with nowhere to go.
I have often said the law in general is too lax on people who harm animals. If I had my way, I freely admit, in a perfect world, I would press for “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” in terms of legal remedies.
So the researchers who inflict needless pain in worthless “experiments” on laboratory animals just to make sure their research grant gets renewed would find themselves in a cage for a while, with their heads shaved. Yobboes who like to torture cats would find themselves tied up in a plastic bag and thrown into the canal, or off a car park roof. Fur traders would be skinned alive. People who abandoned dogs would be shoved out of the backs of cars, preferably on a busy motorway.
And these check-shirted buffoons would have their skulls cracked and lie in a pool of their own blood on some Godforsaken ice floe.
Ah well, a man can dream. As it is, we will just have to continue to boycott their blood-spattered products and to refuse to go to their country on holiday.
Saturday 28 March 2009
Ferals in Peril
I’ve posted a lot about homeless people in the past, but we shouldn’t forget that there are a lot of homeless animals out there as well.
Basia Zamorska is a stylist, who, in her day job, rubs shoulders with the rich and famous, at photo-shoots and on movie sets. But by night she changes into bag lady clothes and prowls the unforgiving and sometimes dangerous streets of New York City, tending to various colonies of feral cats, feeding them and using the approved and tried and tested method of trap-neuter-return. This is generally acknowledged by cat charities to be a good method of managing feral cat colonies.
She’s also managed, against all the odds, to find homes for some of the feral cats she’s come across, and got them adopted. So far so good.
Now, however, one of the colonies she supports with her tireless efforts is under threat. The neighbourhood is being gentrified, and as a result, the owner of the site has come under pressure from some of the residents to stop Basia from feeding the ferals, on the grounds that the food she puts down “encourages rats”.
Now you would have to be one pretty brave (or desperate) rat to venture into the midst of a colony of feral cats and try and steal the food out of their mouths. It would make the charge of the Light Brigade look like a stroll in the park. Plus, these dumbasses don’t realise that, as this is a waterfront area, there are going to be rats there anyway, and without cats to keep them in check, there’ll be a damn sight more!
If I was feeling uncharitable today, I would be tempted to say that these people should be forced to spend a few nights on the street themselves, especially in a bitter New York winter. Then they might realise the valuable work that is being done here.
But for now I will confine myself to a few words from Gandhi:
I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.
If you want to show your support for Basia Zamorska’s work, you can sign a petition online to do so here:
http://savedumbo.com/
Basia Zamorska is a stylist, who, in her day job, rubs shoulders with the rich and famous, at photo-shoots and on movie sets. But by night she changes into bag lady clothes and prowls the unforgiving and sometimes dangerous streets of New York City, tending to various colonies of feral cats, feeding them and using the approved and tried and tested method of trap-neuter-return. This is generally acknowledged by cat charities to be a good method of managing feral cat colonies.
She’s also managed, against all the odds, to find homes for some of the feral cats she’s come across, and got them adopted. So far so good.
Now, however, one of the colonies she supports with her tireless efforts is under threat. The neighbourhood is being gentrified, and as a result, the owner of the site has come under pressure from some of the residents to stop Basia from feeding the ferals, on the grounds that the food she puts down “encourages rats”.
Now you would have to be one pretty brave (or desperate) rat to venture into the midst of a colony of feral cats and try and steal the food out of their mouths. It would make the charge of the Light Brigade look like a stroll in the park. Plus, these dumbasses don’t realise that, as this is a waterfront area, there are going to be rats there anyway, and without cats to keep them in check, there’ll be a damn sight more!
If I was feeling uncharitable today, I would be tempted to say that these people should be forced to spend a few nights on the street themselves, especially in a bitter New York winter. Then they might realise the valuable work that is being done here.
But for now I will confine myself to a few words from Gandhi:
I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.
If you want to show your support for Basia Zamorska’s work, you can sign a petition online to do so here:
http://savedumbo.com/
Shop Thy Neighbour
Meanwhile, the relentless march towards a total surveillance society continues. Two news stories in particular caught my eye in the last few days, and concatenating them together, you can see once again the machinery of government “spin” and misinformation being employed to make us all just a little bit more paranoid as we go about our daily round.
Apparently, MI5 and the security services generally are going to be asking if they can search people’s Facebook friends, on the offchance that one of them might be Osama Bin Laden. And in addition, the government is recruiting 60,000 “ordinary people” in the form of security guards, council officials and even shop assistants to be part of its new “front line” in the fight against an assumed increased threat of terrorism.
Now, leaving aside that any terrorists dumb enough to advertise the fact openly on Facebook, using their real names and listing “bombmaking” amongst their hobbies and interests, probably deserve to be arrested anyway, it is actually the second of those two stories that disturbs me more.
What we are recruiting here, is an army of neo-Stasis. Government informers, paid snitches, ready to denounce their neighbours for anti-social behaviour. Does this sound familiar? It certainly would do to Josef Stalin and Erich Hoenegger. Hitler would probably raise a distant eyebrow of recognition, whatever circle of Hell he currently resides in.
So once again, Britain, the country that I love, is being stolen away from me, inch by inch and yard by yard, by a sinister army of grey apparatchiks whose motto is “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. Well. I am sorry, but that is bollocks. I have nothing to hide, but I fear for what we are becoming, and it is not pretty.
“Oh,” but you say, “it’s worth it if it prevents one atrocity”. Will it though? Everyone with a brain cell knows that real terrorists – if they are forced to communicate over the internet – use encrypted peer to peer networks. If GCHQ hasn’t worked that one out yet, they should give up and open a whelk stall. And at the end of the day, God forbid, if there was another attempt at something like 7/7 in the UK, that, unfortunately, is the price we pay for living in a free democracy instead of a society that is just one large prison camp, where some of us are prisoners and some of us are guards, which seems to be the government’s preferred option right now.
So, I’ll take my chances thanks. Let me die in my footsteps, I will not go down in the ground, as a certain Robert Zimmerman once memorably said.
If the government wants to re-invent the Stasi, it should be asking itself where Stalin is now. And what happened to the Berlin Wall. Those who live by the snoop, die by the snoop.
Apparently, MI5 and the security services generally are going to be asking if they can search people’s Facebook friends, on the offchance that one of them might be Osama Bin Laden. And in addition, the government is recruiting 60,000 “ordinary people” in the form of security guards, council officials and even shop assistants to be part of its new “front line” in the fight against an assumed increased threat of terrorism.
Now, leaving aside that any terrorists dumb enough to advertise the fact openly on Facebook, using their real names and listing “bombmaking” amongst their hobbies and interests, probably deserve to be arrested anyway, it is actually the second of those two stories that disturbs me more.
What we are recruiting here, is an army of neo-Stasis. Government informers, paid snitches, ready to denounce their neighbours for anti-social behaviour. Does this sound familiar? It certainly would do to Josef Stalin and Erich Hoenegger. Hitler would probably raise a distant eyebrow of recognition, whatever circle of Hell he currently resides in.
So once again, Britain, the country that I love, is being stolen away from me, inch by inch and yard by yard, by a sinister army of grey apparatchiks whose motto is “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. Well. I am sorry, but that is bollocks. I have nothing to hide, but I fear for what we are becoming, and it is not pretty.
“Oh,” but you say, “it’s worth it if it prevents one atrocity”. Will it though? Everyone with a brain cell knows that real terrorists – if they are forced to communicate over the internet – use encrypted peer to peer networks. If GCHQ hasn’t worked that one out yet, they should give up and open a whelk stall. And at the end of the day, God forbid, if there was another attempt at something like 7/7 in the UK, that, unfortunately, is the price we pay for living in a free democracy instead of a society that is just one large prison camp, where some of us are prisoners and some of us are guards, which seems to be the government’s preferred option right now.
So, I’ll take my chances thanks. Let me die in my footsteps, I will not go down in the ground, as a certain Robert Zimmerman once memorably said.
If the government wants to re-invent the Stasi, it should be asking itself where Stalin is now. And what happened to the Berlin Wall. Those who live by the snoop, die by the snoop.
Housey Housey
When I was young (yes, I was once young) we used to go on seaside holidays to Withernsea or Kilnsea, in a succession of bleak rented caravans. Or to Butlin’s at Skegness, in good years. The highlight of these holidays, for my parents, was always playing bingo. Personally, I never saw the appeal, but then, as I say, I was young. I guess now, looking back on it, that it was the cheap visceral thrill of unexpectedly supplementing the drudgery of your daily economic grind with some unearned, untaxed income, in a setting outside of the four walls of your own home.
So I can, to a certain extent, understand the antics of Tony McNulty and Jacquie Smith in claiming thousands of pounds in second home allowances, in circumstances that someone less charitable than myself might have described as “questionable”.
The sheer brass face with which these allegations have been “rebutted”, and the fact that it was felt acceptable to claim these allowances in the first place, though, speaks volumes on the contempt with which politicians currently view the electorate who put them there. They obviously think we are blind, or stupid, or both.
The justification for this behaviour is apparently that “they broke no rules”. If this is indeed true, then the rules need changing. It’s as simple as that. There is no way on God’s green earth that we should be paying for MPs’ second homes anyway. I have long argued that there should be a residence qualification for an MP before they can stand for a certain constituency. If you want to be the MP for Lower Snodbury, you should move there, buy or rent a house there, and live there for at least a couple of years before you are allowed to have a go. That way, we would only get people who were either committed to that area or indeed, actually from that area, standing. And the money saved from the payment of second home allowances to already well-off MPs could be put into something socially useful such as feeding, clothing and housing the homeless.
So I can, to a certain extent, understand the antics of Tony McNulty and Jacquie Smith in claiming thousands of pounds in second home allowances, in circumstances that someone less charitable than myself might have described as “questionable”.
The sheer brass face with which these allegations have been “rebutted”, and the fact that it was felt acceptable to claim these allowances in the first place, though, speaks volumes on the contempt with which politicians currently view the electorate who put them there. They obviously think we are blind, or stupid, or both.
The justification for this behaviour is apparently that “they broke no rules”. If this is indeed true, then the rules need changing. It’s as simple as that. There is no way on God’s green earth that we should be paying for MPs’ second homes anyway. I have long argued that there should be a residence qualification for an MP before they can stand for a certain constituency. If you want to be the MP for Lower Snodbury, you should move there, buy or rent a house there, and live there for at least a couple of years before you are allowed to have a go. That way, we would only get people who were either committed to that area or indeed, actually from that area, standing. And the money saved from the payment of second home allowances to already well-off MPs could be put into something socially useful such as feeding, clothing and housing the homeless.
Wednesday 11 March 2009
Sharon Shoesmith
Has taken my advice and is going to take Haringey council to a tribunal.
Watch this space. Meanwhile of course there have been other instances of child abuse reported in similar circumstances. And there will continue to be.
And now, this morning, the incredible news that Lord Laming, on his comeback tour, has suggested the heads of children's services at all local authorities should undergo compulsory re-training, including spending time with a deprived family.
They would be better off having training on how to survive being crucified in the press and hung out to dry by politicians anxious to protect their own substantial arses.
I note that yesterday, with her tribunal even as yet unheard, the Sun described Sharon Shoesmith as the "Baby P Bungler" on its front page. Whatever you might think of Miss S and the rights and wrongs of the case, everyone should be entitled to a fair hearing at an industrial tribunal without the Sun sticking its oar in.
Note to Ed Balls, it's the disease, not the symptoms.
Watch this space. Meanwhile of course there have been other instances of child abuse reported in similar circumstances. And there will continue to be.
And now, this morning, the incredible news that Lord Laming, on his comeback tour, has suggested the heads of children's services at all local authorities should undergo compulsory re-training, including spending time with a deprived family.
They would be better off having training on how to survive being crucified in the press and hung out to dry by politicians anxious to protect their own substantial arses.
I note that yesterday, with her tribunal even as yet unheard, the Sun described Sharon Shoesmith as the "Baby P Bungler" on its front page. Whatever you might think of Miss S and the rights and wrongs of the case, everyone should be entitled to a fair hearing at an industrial tribunal without the Sun sticking its oar in.
Note to Ed Balls, it's the disease, not the symptoms.
Don't rain on my parade
The demonstrations by a small but vociferous gaggle of protestors during a "homecoming" march of the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton on Saturday has led to a predictable outbreak of Muslim bashing in the media, with the Daily Mail and the Telegraph leading the charge, and commentators on their articles online suggesting everything from charging them with treason to deporting them, or both.
What these people don't get is that free speech is free speech for everyone. Even people who you might consider to be well beyond the lunatic fringe, people like Omar Bakri who are one stop beyond Barking and quite a long way off the bus route.
Free speech is what makes us the good guys. You may not like what these people claim, or say, and personally, I think that many of them put the "mentalist" into "fundamentalist" but as long as they do not break the law, they have a right to protest.
Whether they were protesting in the right place, at the right time, against the right people, is another matter. Personally I think it is possible to respect and admire the professionalism of our armed forces, who are doing a fairly difficult job since our politicians turned them into professional targets in two distant and nasty battlefields that were never, and never should have been, of our choosing.
I do so despite being an implacable opponent of the Iraq war (the wrong war against the wrong enemy, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons) and despite being ambivalent about the engagement in Afghanistan. I think our friends in Al Mujiharoun or whatever it's called were shooting at the wrong target. If their banners had accused Bush and Blair of being terrorists and baby-killers, it might have been nearer the mark.
As it is, all these dismal fanatics have done is add a few hundred new recruits to the BNP's ranks, fuelled the mad xenophobic rantings of The Sun with its gung-ho BNP-lite campaign of "Help for Heroes" and hasten the day when we have white v. Muslim civil war on our streets. They may well view the latter as "progress" in their own warped way, a self-fulfilling prophecy, part of a philosophy similar to the cowards who gun down unarmed pizza delivery men in Northern Ireland.
People like Melanie Philips in the Daily Mail have been quick to condemn the protestors, whereas previously she was arguing in favour of Geert Wilders being allowed to enter the UK and show his anti-Muslim film, in the name of that very same "free speech". We must draw the inevitable conclusion that she believes in free speech, but only when it is on a topic she agrees with. The media of course has done its predictable thing of seeking out the most extreme Muslim loopy fruits it can find and asking them to refuse to condemn the protest. It's a bit like interviewing Jack the Ripper for a piece on prostitution. You sort of know what you are going to get.
I am glad at any rate that moderate Muslim leaders came out against the demonstration, even though they were largely ignored for doing so and even though in some cases, their mandate to speak for all British Muslims is in any case, at best, questionable, especially since a whole younger generation has been radicalised and alienated by the war in Iraq.
I don't suppose this will be the last instance of this sort of thing. There may be other, nastier confrontations ahead. The army isn't going to stop holding homecoming parades because they are in turn under pressure from the government and the MOD to behave as if there is nothing to be ashamed of, and something to be proud of. There is, in a sense, something to be proud of, but it's not the glib assertions of the politicians.
I really do hope though that if this crowd of rentamob would-be mujihadeen shows up at another event, that the crowd takes its cue from the behaviour of the troops of the Royal Anglian Regiment last weekend, and roundly and comprehensively ignores them.
And I also hope that the police will demonstrate that there is not - as some commentators claim - one law for them and one for us by arresting and charging any protestors whose banners they consider constitute incitement. There are perfectly workable, servicable laws on this topic. and they should be employed where necessary, and like all laws, without fear or favour.
What these people don't get is that free speech is free speech for everyone. Even people who you might consider to be well beyond the lunatic fringe, people like Omar Bakri who are one stop beyond Barking and quite a long way off the bus route.
Free speech is what makes us the good guys. You may not like what these people claim, or say, and personally, I think that many of them put the "mentalist" into "fundamentalist" but as long as they do not break the law, they have a right to protest.
Whether they were protesting in the right place, at the right time, against the right people, is another matter. Personally I think it is possible to respect and admire the professionalism of our armed forces, who are doing a fairly difficult job since our politicians turned them into professional targets in two distant and nasty battlefields that were never, and never should have been, of our choosing.
I do so despite being an implacable opponent of the Iraq war (the wrong war against the wrong enemy, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons) and despite being ambivalent about the engagement in Afghanistan. I think our friends in Al Mujiharoun or whatever it's called were shooting at the wrong target. If their banners had accused Bush and Blair of being terrorists and baby-killers, it might have been nearer the mark.
As it is, all these dismal fanatics have done is add a few hundred new recruits to the BNP's ranks, fuelled the mad xenophobic rantings of The Sun with its gung-ho BNP-lite campaign of "Help for Heroes" and hasten the day when we have white v. Muslim civil war on our streets. They may well view the latter as "progress" in their own warped way, a self-fulfilling prophecy, part of a philosophy similar to the cowards who gun down unarmed pizza delivery men in Northern Ireland.
People like Melanie Philips in the Daily Mail have been quick to condemn the protestors, whereas previously she was arguing in favour of Geert Wilders being allowed to enter the UK and show his anti-Muslim film, in the name of that very same "free speech". We must draw the inevitable conclusion that she believes in free speech, but only when it is on a topic she agrees with. The media of course has done its predictable thing of seeking out the most extreme Muslim loopy fruits it can find and asking them to refuse to condemn the protest. It's a bit like interviewing Jack the Ripper for a piece on prostitution. You sort of know what you are going to get.
I am glad at any rate that moderate Muslim leaders came out against the demonstration, even though they were largely ignored for doing so and even though in some cases, their mandate to speak for all British Muslims is in any case, at best, questionable, especially since a whole younger generation has been radicalised and alienated by the war in Iraq.
I don't suppose this will be the last instance of this sort of thing. There may be other, nastier confrontations ahead. The army isn't going to stop holding homecoming parades because they are in turn under pressure from the government and the MOD to behave as if there is nothing to be ashamed of, and something to be proud of. There is, in a sense, something to be proud of, but it's not the glib assertions of the politicians.
I really do hope though that if this crowd of rentamob would-be mujihadeen shows up at another event, that the crowd takes its cue from the behaviour of the troops of the Royal Anglian Regiment last weekend, and roundly and comprehensively ignores them.
And I also hope that the police will demonstrate that there is not - as some commentators claim - one law for them and one for us by arresting and charging any protestors whose banners they consider constitute incitement. There are perfectly workable, servicable laws on this topic. and they should be employed where necessary, and like all laws, without fear or favour.
Sunday 1 March 2009
Ashamed to be British
I really was ashamed and disgusted to be British once again, when I heard the news that the Home Office had subsequently succeeded in deporting Assia Souhalia and her husband Athmane, who have been in the UK since 2002. (See previous post)
Their 2 year old daughter Nouha was born in Brighton in 2006 and had lived here all her life. The family had made a life here and has many links in the local community.
Assia Souhalia fled Algeria in fear for her life in 2002 after her family had suffered years of violence. Two of her brothers, Rachid and Brahim, both policemen, were murdered in two separate and premeditated shootings in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Neither brother was involved in political action. Upon hearing of the death of Assia’s eldest brother Rachid, their mother, Cherifa, suffered a heart attack and died. Since then Assia’s family have repeatedly received death threats and in 1994 Assia’s brother, Brahim, was murdered. Two of Assia’s remaining brothers and sisters both fled Algiers.
Well done, Home Office, I mean really well done. A two year old child, for God's sake, snatched from her bed at 6.30AM and driven to a detention centre, probably with armed guards. Cells, bars, deportations, kangaroo-court decisions with lack of due process and no respect for the individual human experience. Deported to a place where she is quite likely to see one or both parents gunned down, sooner or later.
This is the sort of thing we went to war over, in 1939, to stop it happening to the Jews. This is the sort of thing we used to deride the so-called "Communist" regimes of the Eastern Bloc for. This is the sort of thing Saddam Hussein's goon squads used to do, to those who dared defy the leader's whim. And now we're doing it. Here in Britain. In the year of our Lord 2009.
Well, that's official. We're no longer the good guys. And until the Souhalia family is granted a pardon and invited to return, until those responsible for this travesty of justice are set to work in a quarry breaking stones until they see the error of their ways and repent, we never will be the good guys again. A two-year old child.
I hope the bastard at the Home Office who took the decision has sleepless nights for the rest of his or her miserable days on earth, but I doubt it. Like those at Nuremburg, he or she was probably "only obeying orders. "
Thank you, the Government, for taking away my nationality. Thanks to you, the Union Jack is not worth jack shit. Thanks to you, the Trooping of the Colour, Remembrance Day, Brass Bands, Warm Beer, Steam Trains, The Common Law, Cathedrals, Morris Dancing, Village Cricket and Spinsters cycling to Matins are all about as appealing as the Hitler Youth. Thanks to you, even the very country lanes, the dry stone walls, the mills, the hills, and the valleys dotted with distant sheep all across our green and pleasant land, are now tainted, because they have been touched by you, touched by this.
And from now on, I think I'll just pretend to be Dutch, if anyone asks. Till the hurt and the shame goes away. If ever.
Their 2 year old daughter Nouha was born in Brighton in 2006 and had lived here all her life. The family had made a life here and has many links in the local community.
Assia Souhalia fled Algeria in fear for her life in 2002 after her family had suffered years of violence. Two of her brothers, Rachid and Brahim, both policemen, were murdered in two separate and premeditated shootings in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Neither brother was involved in political action. Upon hearing of the death of Assia’s eldest brother Rachid, their mother, Cherifa, suffered a heart attack and died. Since then Assia’s family have repeatedly received death threats and in 1994 Assia’s brother, Brahim, was murdered. Two of Assia’s remaining brothers and sisters both fled Algiers.
Well done, Home Office, I mean really well done. A two year old child, for God's sake, snatched from her bed at 6.30AM and driven to a detention centre, probably with armed guards. Cells, bars, deportations, kangaroo-court decisions with lack of due process and no respect for the individual human experience. Deported to a place where she is quite likely to see one or both parents gunned down, sooner or later.
This is the sort of thing we went to war over, in 1939, to stop it happening to the Jews. This is the sort of thing we used to deride the so-called "Communist" regimes of the Eastern Bloc for. This is the sort of thing Saddam Hussein's goon squads used to do, to those who dared defy the leader's whim. And now we're doing it. Here in Britain. In the year of our Lord 2009.
Well, that's official. We're no longer the good guys. And until the Souhalia family is granted a pardon and invited to return, until those responsible for this travesty of justice are set to work in a quarry breaking stones until they see the error of their ways and repent, we never will be the good guys again. A two-year old child.
I hope the bastard at the Home Office who took the decision has sleepless nights for the rest of his or her miserable days on earth, but I doubt it. Like those at Nuremburg, he or she was probably "only obeying orders. "
Thank you, the Government, for taking away my nationality. Thanks to you, the Union Jack is not worth jack shit. Thanks to you, the Trooping of the Colour, Remembrance Day, Brass Bands, Warm Beer, Steam Trains, The Common Law, Cathedrals, Morris Dancing, Village Cricket and Spinsters cycling to Matins are all about as appealing as the Hitler Youth. Thanks to you, even the very country lanes, the dry stone walls, the mills, the hills, and the valleys dotted with distant sheep all across our green and pleasant land, are now tainted, because they have been touched by you, touched by this.
And from now on, I think I'll just pretend to be Dutch, if anyone asks. Till the hurt and the shame goes away. If ever.
The Court of Public Opinion
I couldn't help but laugh when I heard Harriet Harman blethering on about "The Court of Public Opinion" on the midday news. It was either that, or weeping in frustration.
The context was that she was asked what the Government could do, legally, to stop former banking supremo Sir Fred (the Shred) Goodwin from getting his £700M pension, if it was legally in the contract. She replied to the effect that "a court of law is one thing, but there is also the court of public opinion, and that is where the government is operating".
What?!!? Is she seriously suggesting that public opinion comes above the rule of law? That whatever the Daily Mail, the Sun and the News of the Screws and all the other hate-filled tabloids decide is the agenda, comes above the legal rights and responsibilities of the citizen.
Sir Fred Goodwin may well not deserve his fat pension. The government were stupid to sign up to a deal which gave it to him in the first place. At the time they were running round like headless chickens bringing in a raft of panic measures to stop the banking system from collapse. Either that, or they didn't know just how bad things were going to get, so they thought the contrast wouldn't be such a problem. Or both. Either way, it's their fault, which is presumably why Harpie Harperson was trying to curry favour with "the Court of Public Opinion".
I tell you this, though. It's a chilling insight into the way the Government views due process. God help us all if we do ever end up with "the court of public opinion". There will be a civil war against the Muslims, burnt out pedaloes will litter the streets and there will be an asylum seeker hanging from every lamp-post. That's where you go with the court of public opinion, Harriet, you mad bitch. Kristallnacht, anyone?
The context was that she was asked what the Government could do, legally, to stop former banking supremo Sir Fred (the Shred) Goodwin from getting his £700M pension, if it was legally in the contract. She replied to the effect that "a court of law is one thing, but there is also the court of public opinion, and that is where the government is operating".
What?!!? Is she seriously suggesting that public opinion comes above the rule of law? That whatever the Daily Mail, the Sun and the News of the Screws and all the other hate-filled tabloids decide is the agenda, comes above the legal rights and responsibilities of the citizen.
Sir Fred Goodwin may well not deserve his fat pension. The government were stupid to sign up to a deal which gave it to him in the first place. At the time they were running round like headless chickens bringing in a raft of panic measures to stop the banking system from collapse. Either that, or they didn't know just how bad things were going to get, so they thought the contrast wouldn't be such a problem. Or both. Either way, it's their fault, which is presumably why Harpie Harperson was trying to curry favour with "the Court of Public Opinion".
I tell you this, though. It's a chilling insight into the way the Government views due process. God help us all if we do ever end up with "the court of public opinion". There will be a civil war against the Muslims, burnt out pedaloes will litter the streets and there will be an asylum seeker hanging from every lamp-post. That's where you go with the court of public opinion, Harriet, you mad bitch. Kristallnacht, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)