The latest example of one unelected elite bending the laws of our country to benefit another small but extremely vocal elite was revealed last week.
Although bigamy - i.e being married simultaneously to more than one person - is illegal in the UK, the law only applies if you happen to be non-Muslim.
Muslim men who have grabbed their allotment of four wives under Sharia Law will, apparently, not only be allowed to stay married to them but be able to get the rest of us to pay for them if necessary. That means not just getting a tax allowance for each one but receiving benefits to pay for their accommodation and to feed them should the need arise. Trying to put a positive spin on this obsequious, discriminatory and extremely dangerous act, a Government lackey assured us that everything would be alright because " They will only be allowed to have the wives if the marriage took place in a country where polygamy is legal".
Well, since Islam takes the words and action of the Prophet as the template for its laws, that basically means every country in the Middle East and all of those in Asia, including Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, where Islam holds sway.
As usual, however, the people that we rely on to administer our legal system and ensure its universal fairness haven't looked beyond the ends of their collective nose. More pertinently, they haven't bothered to investigate the age of consent or how and when marriages are contracted under Islamic law.
In this country the age of consent for sex is 16. The legal age for marriage without the consent of a parent or guardian is still 21.
The same is not true under Islam. Taking their lead from Mohamed who, if history is to be believed, was betrothed to his wife when she was 6 - yes, you read it correctly SIX - and married her when she was seven or nine depending on which version you believe, Muslims generally consider females ready for marriage once they have had their first menstrual period. This means that in some countries, such as Iran, the LEGAL age of consent is nine years old. In many others it varies from between 12 to 14.
To be fair, the age of consent in a thoroughly modern country like Holland is 12 , but only when the two people involved are both of the same age. A forty year old having sex with a twelve year old would still be considered a paedophile. However, under Sharia law, there is nothing to stop a 70 year old man having sex with his legally-contracted bride, even if she is only 12 at the time.
By legalising bigamy for Muslim men, we are effectively also condoning legalised paedophilia. I can't see anything to stop some Iranian heading back to the old country, picking himself out a nice child bride and then bringing her, perfectly legally, back to the UK.
As long as he has contracted the marriage legally in Iran and managed to obtain the right papers for her can you imagine any craven police officer or social worker demanding to know her true age? Of course they won't, for fear of being branded racist. Even if they did discover she was under age by English Law, how long would it take for some ambulance chaser to turn up and claim that our Laws breach the newly-weds' human rights?
Imagine as well the opportunities this relaxation of the law opens up for our own home-grown legions of kiddie-fiddlers. Once one of them has worked out how to go about things, I think we can expect a sudden surge in the number of middle age men who suddenly experience a personal epiphany and convert to Islam. The planes to Islamabad, Jakarta and all points east will be packed to the gills with new pilgrims flying off not to pay homage to their newly found Prophet but to bag themselves a couple of nice, fresh child brides.
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Crooks and other types of politician
That Honorable Gentleman, Peter Hain, must be breathing a sigh of relief at the moment. Never can a Cabinet minister have felt so chuffeded to hear that his country is slipping inexorably into recession, that its streets grow more lawless every day and that it is about to hand over what little is left of its sovereignty to the Soviet Republic of Europa.
Hain, we should remember, is the man who not only borrowed close to £200,000 and forgot to report it but was so inept in the spending of this huge sum of money that he managed to finish fifth in a six horse race in which most of the other runners have been also-rans so often that they only get invted to parties to make up the numbers. Now, to most people the humiliation of losing out to the likes of Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn would concentrate the mind wonderfully. It would certainly bring into fairly sharp focus the fact that they had gambled away almost 200 grand on a long-odds loser. Particularly since the money came in the form of loans, now due for repayment, , since the favours - which might have been perceived to be in the gift of the deputy Leader of the Labour party- are obviously no longer on offer.
Hain is most definitely not most people. Correction: Hain is nothing but has never quite come to terms with the fact. Thus he spends his life trying to convince himself that he is something, even when this involves continuous flip-flops of beliefs, affiliations and frienships. All in all, a fairly typical - modrn politician, in fact.
Let us hope that some breathing space between Europe, the end of the world as we know it and death on the streets might present itself and Mr Hain can have his collar felt like any other money launderer and corrupt politician.
Talking of which, why has it taken people so long to catch on to Red Ken Livingstone? The man has acted as if London is his personal fiefdom from the moment he was elected. That he got away with it up until now is almost solely due to the inability of most members of the political lobby to look behind the public, Cheeky Chappy, mask. The man is a conniving, evil and bent little succubus who has had his teeth into the soft tit of London for far too long. With any luck, he and Hain might get to share a cell together some time soon.
Hain, we should remember, is the man who not only borrowed close to £200,000 and forgot to report it but was so inept in the spending of this huge sum of money that he managed to finish fifth in a six horse race in which most of the other runners have been also-rans so often that they only get invted to parties to make up the numbers. Now, to most people the humiliation of losing out to the likes of Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn would concentrate the mind wonderfully. It would certainly bring into fairly sharp focus the fact that they had gambled away almost 200 grand on a long-odds loser. Particularly since the money came in the form of loans, now due for repayment, , since the favours - which might have been perceived to be in the gift of the deputy Leader of the Labour party- are obviously no longer on offer.
Hain is most definitely not most people. Correction: Hain is nothing but has never quite come to terms with the fact. Thus he spends his life trying to convince himself that he is something, even when this involves continuous flip-flops of beliefs, affiliations and frienships. All in all, a fairly typical - modrn politician, in fact.
Let us hope that some breathing space between Europe, the end of the world as we know it and death on the streets might present itself and Mr Hain can have his collar felt like any other money launderer and corrupt politician.
Talking of which, why has it taken people so long to catch on to Red Ken Livingstone? The man has acted as if London is his personal fiefdom from the moment he was elected. That he got away with it up until now is almost solely due to the inability of most members of the political lobby to look behind the public, Cheeky Chappy, mask. The man is a conniving, evil and bent little succubus who has had his teeth into the soft tit of London for far too long. With any luck, he and Hain might get to share a cell together some time soon.
Monday, 14 January 2008
Global Warming - Greenland is what I say to that
Saying that you don't believe in Global warming these days is akin to denying the Holocaust. Actually, the real difference is that Holocaust denial probably attracts less grief than trying to argue that something other than Man was to blame for Global Warming.
Well, I am about to invite a shed load of odium. I don't believe in Global Warming. There I've said it. Although to be more accurate, I don't believe in Global warming as it is being promoted. And I believe even less in the eco-Nazis who have made it their life's work to proselytise on behalf of the new religion of GloWar. It seems to me that there is already far too much money, power and academic credibility riding on the whole topic of GW for it ever again to be the subject of rational debate.
I recently heard one estimate that GW is currently a £2 billion a year industry for various academics, pressure groups and other clingers-on. No wonder the GW promoters get so pissed off with anyone who might raise even the tiniest doubst that their case was unproven. Next year's scholarship or grant might be riding on their ability to keep the theory afloat.
Leaving aside the fact that the Romans were growing grapes as far north as Cumbria when they occupied England in the first century AD, what really makes me doubt GW is the island of Greenland.
When Eric the Red was promoting his latest real estate venture to some, probably sceptical, fellow Norwegians he called the island he had discovered, Greenland to emphasis its suitability for farming. Now, he couldn't have done that unless the island actually was, for the most part, green. When he and his fellow settlers put their roots down in the late 10th Century (984) they lived in two settlements on the west coast on the fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island. The Norse settlements thrived there for the next few centuries, and then disappeared sometime in the 15th century after nearly 500 years of habitation.
What drove them out?
According to data obtained from ice cores, between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of the southern part of the island experienced a mild climate . Trees and herbaceous plants grew in the south of the island and they were able to farmland grow plants similar to those they had been used to in Norway.
By the time that the Danish church sent missionaries to Greenland in the early 18th Century to recover the souls of any Norse settlers suspected of relapsing into Paganism, there no Europeans left, just some late-arriving Innuit who were quite happy frolicing in the icy wastes. The Norwegians had been driven away by the onset of the mini ice age that extended glacial ice to virtually the whole of the island.
Now parts of that same ice field are showing signs of melting and that fact is used as proof of Global Warming caused by Man's use of fossil fuels.
So, my question is this. If the climate of Greenland was balmy enough between the 10th and 15th Centuries for people to thrive there, what caused the sudden change in climate that drove them away?
There were no cars, no internal combustion engines of any kind. Just farm animals and arable crops.
Until anyone can explain this to me by way of their pet theory on mn-made GW, I am afraid I will go on being a Global Warming Denier.
Well, I am about to invite a shed load of odium. I don't believe in Global Warming. There I've said it. Although to be more accurate, I don't believe in Global warming as it is being promoted. And I believe even less in the eco-Nazis who have made it their life's work to proselytise on behalf of the new religion of GloWar. It seems to me that there is already far too much money, power and academic credibility riding on the whole topic of GW for it ever again to be the subject of rational debate.
I recently heard one estimate that GW is currently a £2 billion a year industry for various academics, pressure groups and other clingers-on. No wonder the GW promoters get so pissed off with anyone who might raise even the tiniest doubst that their case was unproven. Next year's scholarship or grant might be riding on their ability to keep the theory afloat.
Leaving aside the fact that the Romans were growing grapes as far north as Cumbria when they occupied England in the first century AD, what really makes me doubt GW is the island of Greenland.
When Eric the Red was promoting his latest real estate venture to some, probably sceptical, fellow Norwegians he called the island he had discovered, Greenland to emphasis its suitability for farming. Now, he couldn't have done that unless the island actually was, for the most part, green. When he and his fellow settlers put their roots down in the late 10th Century (984) they lived in two settlements on the west coast on the fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island. The Norse settlements thrived there for the next few centuries, and then disappeared sometime in the 15th century after nearly 500 years of habitation.
What drove them out?
According to data obtained from ice cores, between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of the southern part of the island experienced a mild climate . Trees and herbaceous plants grew in the south of the island and they were able to farmland grow plants similar to those they had been used to in Norway.
By the time that the Danish church sent missionaries to Greenland in the early 18th Century to recover the souls of any Norse settlers suspected of relapsing into Paganism, there no Europeans left, just some late-arriving Innuit who were quite happy frolicing in the icy wastes. The Norwegians had been driven away by the onset of the mini ice age that extended glacial ice to virtually the whole of the island.
Now parts of that same ice field are showing signs of melting and that fact is used as proof of Global Warming caused by Man's use of fossil fuels.
So, my question is this. If the climate of Greenland was balmy enough between the 10th and 15th Centuries for people to thrive there, what caused the sudden change in climate that drove them away?
There were no cars, no internal combustion engines of any kind. Just farm animals and arable crops.
Until anyone can explain this to me by way of their pet theory on mn-made GW, I am afraid I will go on being a Global Warming Denier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
