Bel is thinking

Interesting story in the Sunday Telegraph:

Taxpayers are funding a £350,000 globetrotting tour that is intended to improve the “image of British Muslims” around the world. The Foreign Office has dispatched parties of up to eight Muslims as far afield as Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan, so they can “share their experiences” with locals. The groups have been staying in exclusive hotels and even flown business class on some legs, with all accommodation and travel expenses met from the public purse.

To what end, I ask. The Foreign Office claims that this is necessary to give a positive image of islam in Britain.

Leaving aside the issue of whether this is something that should concern the Government at all, I make the following points.

• why is it necessary for British muslims to show a positive image to muslims of other nations? If there is any group of people who should be shown a positive image of British muslims, surely it is those of us who live in this country, who suffered from the 7 July bomb attacks, and who continue everyday to put up with threats, bullying and every other manifestation of the negative face of islam.

• why is the Government going out of its way to look for trouble? Has it not occurred to the Government that, by paying for these people to go abroad and preach the ‘good news’ of British islamic bliss, this may encourage some people in those countries to come here and partake in said bliss? Do we not have enough problems with radical islam in Britain without going out to tempt some more mad mullahs to come join the party?

Madness. Why not just take out a full page ad in Asharq al Awsat, invite all and sundry to the UK, and be done with it? For one thing, it will be a hell of a lot cheaper.

The Government has been doing a lot of thinking about our embryology laws.

I have since learned to worry whenever this Government talks about ‘reform’, and that is no exception in this case. Our whizzkid ministers have decided, in their wisdom, to extend fertility treatment to single women and lesbians. Fertility clinics would no longer be required to consider a child’s need for a father before deciding to give treatment.

What is wrong with this Government? Are they hell-bent on taking apart every stitch that holds together the now tattered fabric of society? At a time when social researchers are citing the lack of a father figure as one of the main reasons that young boys turn to crime, our Government is busily intending to enact law to entrench that position. Research just published by the Conservative Party social justice policy review group has shown that children thrive best when their parents are married. That is an uncomfortable statement for many, but no less valid for that.

The deranged ideology that would have us believe that all lifestyle choices are equally valid would be laughable were it not so dangerous. By preaching this doctrine, the Government is doing much harm to the most vulnerable in society, the very people they profess to want to help. Weakening the foundations of society will ensure that many more are trapped in poverty, crime and deprivation without the means to extricate themselves. They will in turn become supplicants for the largesse of the paternalistic State, which would have taken on itself the role of the missing parent. Perhaps that is what the Government ultimately wants.

Remember the Bishop who was mugged? Apparently no such thing happened. Turns out he bumped into something while drunk.

He claims not to remember a thing, though. Smart move.

Maybe my faith in the nation’s criminals is now restored. No-one would really mug a bishop, right?

Interesting article over on The Last Ditch comparing tax collection to an organised crime protection racket. In particular, I like this statement:

We hear a lot from government about crime but although they like to compare themselves to businesses, talking cheerily of “services” and “customers,” they resemble organised crime much more than they resemble your friendly local capitalists.

To my mind, the underlying point is the sense of entitlement the Government feels towards our own money. As they feel entitled to our money, they think nothing of implementing the most aggressive tax administration regime in order to prise it out of our hands. It is for the same reason that they do not feel any need to take our views into account when they spend the money.

Check out the article, it’s worth reading.

The Bishop of Southwark was mugged near his house a few days ago, and had several personal items stolen.

I wonder if he was in full garb when the attack occurred, or if there were any identifiable signs that he was a man of the cloth.

I would like to believe that that would have made a difference as to whether or not he was mugged, but something tells me that it probably wouldn’t. Our criminals are now so hardened that not even a bishop in full regalia may be safe from them.

Whatever he was wearing, it’s still a sad state of affairs.

Norman Kember is calling for ‘all possible clemency’ to be extended to the murderous thugs who kidnapped him and his group of Christian workers in Iraq last year.

Leave to one side the fact that he has demonstrated more concern for this bunch of animals than for the brave SAS men and other officers who rescued him from their clutches. He failed to thank his rescuers, only doing so after a wave of criticism.

Is the man mad? So he wants these kidnappers out on the street to capture and kill someone else? Does he forget that one of his party, Tom Fox, was brutally murdered by these men? Norman Kember is a Christian, and if there is one thing he should know, it is this: forgiveness does not necessarily mean absolution for the consequences of one’s actions. Yes, he can forgive them ‘unconditionally’, as he claims, but that does not mean that the law should not act to punish them for their deeds. The purpose of a criminal sentence is two-fold, punishment and rehabilitation. One could also argue that in a case like this, there is also a compelling need to keep these men away from civilised society, to the extent that that still exists in Iraq.

Does Norman Kember think that the mere fact of his forgiveness is sufficient to turn these men into law-abiding members of society? He is a fool if he thinks that.

Norman Kember went to Iraq on a misguided mission, ostensibly out of concern for the Iraqi people. If he really cares about them, he should do his utmost to protect them from these men.

I don’t know what to make of the news that the Government has refused to estimate the number of migrants who might come from Romania and Bulgaria when those two countries join the European Union on 1 January. So the immigration Minister, Liam Byrne, declared yesterday.

I suppose in one sense, we should be thankful that they are being somewhat honest about the fact that they have no clue. Remember last time? They had confidently predicted that only 13,000 migrants would arrive from the former Soviet countries following the enlargement of the EU on 1 May 2004. Perhaps they were the only people shocked when the total figure exceeded 500,000. I don’t think anyone else was surprised.

So yes, they are being realistic this time, but this still gives cause for worry. For one thing, the fact that no one knows how many people are coming means that no one knows what impact they would have on the public services. True, John Reid has been talking about imposing restrictions on certain types of workers, but these are going to be impossible to enforce, and he knows it.

This is grossly irresponsible, but no longer surprising. This is a Government that has shown itself to have no workable immigration policy. It cannot even keep hold of foreign criminals when they are locked up in its jails. This is also a Government that learns nothing. One would think that they would have come up with a coherent policy to deal with some of the issues that arose after the last EU enlargement. Clearly not. For whatever it’s worth, they no longer seem to be pretending they have the answers.

More from our worthy bishops. This is quickly becoming a regular feature on this blog.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has some harsh words for ‘aggressive secularists’ who want to undermine the central message of Christmas by leaving out Jesus Christ.

Nothing wrong with being a ‘aggressive secularist’ as long as you understand two things: one, this is a Christian country, and Christianity is the basis for most of our values. Two, it is impossible to force a secular agenda on a society. True, one may, for example, enact laws banning all forms of religious expression, and all that, but that does not change the culture and tradition underpinning that society. The simple fact is that we are governed by values, however they may be dressed. As far as that goes, a secular society is impossible.

None of which means there is no place for the ‘aggressive secularist’. There is, and there must be. This is after all a democratic country. By all means, indulge yourself in your sweet secularism, but don’t interfere with our ancient landmarks.

Now that the Archbishop of Canterbury has finally started speaking up for Christian values, it is going to be impossible to silence him. His Grace is in the papers today, criticising universities that suppress Christian unions because of their views about homosexuality.

And he is right; excluding Christian unions, as some student union bodies have done, is an unacceptable attack on their fundamental rights. What about freedom of thought, conscience and religion? Do these rights and freedoms apply only to members of other religions? As the Archbishop puts it, student unions which act in this way are afraid of open debate. Driving underground views which one regards as unpalatable has never worked. The fact that some people may be offended by certain views does not mean that those views should never be heard. If student union activists cannot embrace this principle now, I fear for the future of this country.

So Scotland Yard officers investigating the death of Alexander Litvinenko swagger into Moscow expecting the Russian authorities to step back and let them interrogate whomever they liked. Imagine their shock when they were put firmly in their place. Any questioning would be done by the Russians, but permission may be granted for the Scotland Yard guys to listen in. And as for arresting anyone, they could forget that. According to the Russian prosecutor:

“Scotland Yard can’t arrest Russian citizens. If they have to be investigated, we can do that in Russia according to a convention. We can open an inquiry… and put them on trial in Russia.”

Well, that’s told them. Wonder when they’ll be back in London.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, you do not just turn up in a sovereign State, particularly one like Russia, and expect to interrogate its citizens without restrictions. Forget all the noises from politicians about Russia promising its full co-operation; there was no way on earth that London police would have been given free rein in Moscow. Anyone could have seen that.

As to the possibiity of arresting an extraditing a suspect, that is almost impossible. Apart from anything else, there is no extradition mechanism in place, and as it turns out, no co-operation from the Russian authorities.

Apparently, the Kremlin are being unhelpful because they are upset that Downing Street did not block Litvinenko’s death bed statement in which he named Putin as Poisoner-General. It may have escaped their notice, but we (still) have freedom of speech in this country. Maybe they could send some of their police officers to come interview the journalists who publicised the statement.