November 25, 2010

In the UK, a 15-year-old girl is arrested for burning the Koran — and posting a video of her conduct/speech on Facebook.

This is happening in the U.K.!
It is thought the girl, who lives in the Sandwell Council area, was allegedly filmed setting the booklet alight while other pupils watched.
Booklet?
It is understood that the group who published that version of the Koran have since been to the school to talk to pupils.
Were Korans distributed by public school officials? Under what circumstances? If you want a book to be treated with respect, don't hand it out free to teenagers. Maybe the school officials should be arrested.
Bob Badham, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council cabinet member for education, said he had visited the school and believed the atmosphere was generally good among pupils. He added that he did not believe there was a "deeper problem" in the area.
Is contempt for religious indoctrination a "deeper problem" that government should concern itself with? I think the deeper problem is that government officials in the U.K. seem to have lost touch with basic principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

65 comments:

shoutingthomas said...

If you want to understand what's happening in the UK, best to start with Melanie Phillips:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Danegeld

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I think the deeper problem is that government officials in the U.K. seem to have lost touch with basic principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion."

Huh?

There is no freedom of speech in the UK, nor is there freedom of religion.

That's why the United States fought the Revolutionary War against the forces of Great Britain ... to create a haven for free speech and religion.

The British may claim to believe in free speech, and only recently adopted European Convention's alleging some limited freedoms, but your speech is not protected in the UK.

The UK is an Islamist kingdom now.

Forget about them. They're lost.

Forever.

rhhardin said...

I don't think that's a speech act.

I think speech acts are Searle, who is himself pretty lame as a philosopher, an Austin taking a wrong turn and expanding it to cover everything.

Speech acts are speech that performs an action, not vice versa.

The Crack Emcee said...

What does anyone expect? We are a free people. This idea we're going to collectively kow-tow to anyone's religion is lunacy.

It's not going to happen.

paul a'barge said...

It's England.

They're not free over there.

They have no Freedom of Speech, no Constitutional Rights, no Constitution. And they're rapidly selling their culture to the Muslims they let immigrate there.

edutcher said...

Disagree with NewHam on freedom of speech in Albion (Speaker's Corner, etc.), but that was before PC.

I don't doubt there are a lot of families with ancestry going back to Alfred the Great or Boudicca who still treasure the sceptered isle, the blessed plot, this England, and some daughter acted on it.

And the craven, Chamberlainesque Lefties who are so afraid of Moslem violence toss a kid in the clink for making a statement.

Gordon, Wolseley, and Havelock must be spinning.

Fen said...

Not yet.

I track by how many no-go zones each euro-state has. France is gone. But England can still be saved.

I wonder what Charles Martel would think of all this.

Maguro said...

Yeah, apparently this isn't the first time this has happened:

In September this year, six men between the ages of 23 and 45 were arrested by police in Gateshead, Tyneside after footage of them burning the Muslim holy book while wearing tea towels around their heads was posted on YouTube.

At one point in the video, a laughing man is seen kicking what appears to be a Koran while his friends shout: ‘This is for the boys in Afghanistan. September 11, international burn a Koran day, for all the people of 9/11.'

Tracked down by the Daily Mail, the men, calling themselves ‘English nationalists’ but refusing to be identified, claimed they acted out of ‘frustration’ that there was ‘one law for Muslims’ and another law for white English people
.

Fascinating how rigorously Islamic blasphemy laws are being enforced in the UK, considering that about 5% of the population is Muslim. I wonder how long before people start to figure that you can't beat them you might as well join them and start converting en masse. Certainly seems well within the realm of possibility.

lucid said...

Islam is a religion that is commonly practiced in a form that condemns to death those who convert from Islam to another faith; that calls for death by fire, stoning, or being thrown off a cliff for homosexuals; that condemns blasphemers to death; that routinely persecutes Christians and teaches Antisemitism to children.

Expressing resistance to that religion is to strike a blow for human dignity and individual freedom.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Look a little closer, Ann.

Your own employer - the University of Wisconsin - long ago abandoned the concept of free speech. And illegally so.

http://www.uwsa.edu/bor/policies/rpd/rpd14-6.htm

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has documented evidence of illegal speech codes imposed on students by professors and administrators at the University of Wisconsin.

FIRE: "It is shocking that the UW Board of Regents and many of its member universities still have policies containing language that was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court in Wisconsin nearly twenty years ago. Although a successful lawsuit against the UW System invalidated the policy prohibiting 'discriminatory comments' including 'jokes,' the same prohibitions are in place today. Obviously, the UW System and all of its institutions must immediately purge this language from all of their policies."

The University of Wisconsin is a force of evil in the United States, seeking to illegally silence the God-given free speech rights of adults who attend. Rights our grandfathers died for.

Fire: "The Regents policy on Racist and Other Discriminatory Conduct, and the numerous institutional policies implementing it, display a shocking disregard for both the letter and spirit of the legally binding court decision in UWM Post.

How can you, Ann, in good conscience, continue to help provide a profit motive for such an institution as this?

Don't you believe in free speech? Or do you only believe in free speech as long as it doesn't cost you your six-figure taxpayer-funded salary and 7-figure pension pension?

Shame, Ann.

Shame.

Maguro said...

Yes, there is a deeper problem and this isn't even the first time it's happened:

In September this year, six men between the ages of 23 and 45 were arrested by police in Gateshead, Tyneside after footage of them burning the Muslim holy book while wearing tea towels around their heads was posted on YouTube.

At one point in the video, a laughing man is seen kicking what appears to be a Koran while his friends shout: ‘This is for the boys in Afghanistan. September 11, international burn a Koran day, for all the people of 9/11.'

Tracked down by the Daily Mail, the men, calling themselves ‘English nationalists’ but refusing to be identified, claimed they acted out of ‘frustration’ that there was ‘one law for Muslims’ and another law for white English people
.

It's fascinating how rigorously Islamic blasphemy laws are being enforced in the UK, considering that about 5% of the population is Muslim. What a strange situation.

I wonder how long it will be before people start to figure that if you can't beat them, you might as well join them and start converting to Islam en masse. Certainly seems well within the realm of possibility.

Fen said...

Easy Tiger. I don't think she's there yet.

And thank goodness for FIRE. Just dropping their name kept my university's PCBS Goons at bay.

ndspinelli said...

WWSD. What would Sully Do?

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't think that's a speech act."

It's conduct as speech, but I see the confusion and will change it.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Easy Tiger. I don't think she's there yet."

I'm just sayin'.

Islamists will use the existence of free speech codes such as Ann's and UW's as their foot in the door.

They'll say that speech codes have a long history in the United States from some of the nation's largest and most influential institutions, and they'll be right.

They'll use the UW Speech Code as the blueprint working document for community-wide codes they will impose on Americans.

The UW is evil. God gave man the right of free speech and UW has seen fit to take away these rights.

This evil institution and everyone who supports it must be stopped.

It's easy to claim that you support free speech. It's a lot harder to actually, you know, live up to that principle in your personal life.

Ann Althouse said...

I should quit my job because the University adopts a rule I disagree with? It's not my job to enforce the rule. Your approach would enable the University to oust people by adopting offensive rules. There would be fewer people on the inside of an institution who might do something to change the rule. It's like saying a member of Congress should resign if a law is passed that he thinks violates rights. That makes no sense.

Anthony said...

"If you want a book to be treated with respect, don't hand it out free to teenagers."

When I was in high school free pocket-sized bibles were handed out in the parking lot of my public school by members of local churches/Christian organizations. It was difficult at 15 to say no to people pressuring me to take a free bible (even though I had my own bible already), but I never burned it. Though it did sit on the floor of the backseat of my older brother's car for a few years.

In my first semester of law school I was given a free pocket US Constitution. I use it religiously.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I should quit my job because the University adopts a rule I disagree with?"

No, you should quit because the UW is a force of evil and you support that mission by creating profits for them.

You're a fucking law professor for Christ's sake, and the University you generate profits for illegally maintains a speech code in defiance of a court order.

I mean, what the hell do you stand for?

How far do they have to go before they've crossed your line?

Do you even have a line?

bgates said...

Hey, it's a young person who's not afraid of looking lame! I wonder what Mark Ames thinks of her.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"There would be fewer people on the inside of an institution who might do something to change the rule."

You could change the rule by organizing a mass demonstration of everyone (professors and students) inside the University who oppose restrictions on free speech.

You could do a sit in and take over the Admin building until they agree to change the code. I know I've read of other places where people have performed such demonstrations.

You could also refuse to accept new paying customers until the Administration creates a speech code that codifies previous court orders and adheres to the United States Constitution.

You could do lots of things short of quitting.

But you haven't.

Look ... I'm just saying that before you spend a lot of time berating a country that has already been taken over by Islamists (i.e. victims) ... perhaps you should do something bold to protect your own country from the same fate.

How many professors at your University could you - for example - organize to refuse to accept new students until the speech code is eliminated?

How many?

Ann Althouse said...

@Ham We have an organization of professors on the inside who work on these things. It's called CAFAR.

tim maguire said...

It's not exactly new that Britain (ironically) is the weak link in the Anglosphere chain. The country with the weakest dedication to English civilizing principles.

Fen said...

Althouse: I should quit my job because the University adopts a rule I disagree with?

No. And you're right about needing people on the inside to champion free speech.

Maybe sometime in the future you could throw the gauntlet down re the speech codes. Maybe an article in your local paper. Or something.

Or at least keep it on your radar.

BJM said...

The Brits had a run of almost a thousand years since the last invasion that changed their culture. Perhaps they will again assimilate the invaders. I don't count them out just yet.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Irish become the last Celts standing.

The Brits downfall has been coming since the Labour Party, The Fabians and the Social Democrats merged with union support in the early 1900's.

Labour seized the opportunity of the post-war economic crisis in 1945 to establish the modern welfare state, create the NHS, nationalize the energy industry (coal),expanding the government sector to the largest employer. Which resulted in unionized career bureaucrats assuming control of governance. Even when Labour is out of power, the unions remain in control. It could only end badly.

Since the Dems have been temporarily thwarted from following the Labour Party's path, our canary in the mine is the Oklahoma Sharia Amendment.

If we allow our rule of law to be subsumed by religious law on any level, then the Republic will die the death of a thousand cuts.

Gees this is beginning to sound like a Frank Herbert plot, but the UK's predicament is not fiction, nor is the danger we face in following in their footsteps.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"We have an organization of professors on the inside who work on these things. It's called CAFAR."

Where's the website?

CAFAR has a website, right? Where I can download the position papers? Where do you publicly humiliate by name the Board of Regents who illegally maintain this speech code which was struck down by a court of law?

Is CAFAR's membership list public? Or do you have to hide to avoid retaliation from your peers?

What demonstrations has CAFAR organized?

CAFAR appears to support the presence of a speech code, but wants to quibble about its contents. Do I have that right?

How do I donate to CAFAR?

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Here's a book you might be interested in. It helps people organize within their community.

somefeller said...

How do I donate to CAFAR?

Something tells me CAFAR would be better off without your donation or support, and probably wants to keep it that way.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Something tells me CAFAR would be better off without your donation or support, and probably wants to keep it that way."

Something tells me CAFAR is a nice group of old professors unwilling to actually do anything to protect free speech except have symposiums about it and fret.

Maguro said...

What's fascinating is how energetically the UK enforces Islamic blasphemy law, considering that only about 5% of the population is Muslim. A very strange situation.

I wonder if the native Brits will start converting to Islam in significant numbers any time soon. The powers that be are sending a very clear message that Muslims are a privileged caste in the UK. Why not get yourself a piece of the action?

Alex said...

I'd also like to know more about this CAFAR.

Alex said...

Something tells me CAFAR is a nice group of old professors unwilling to actually do anything to protect free speech except have symposiums about it and fret.

You know the Professor doesn't want to be fired. I mean do YOU speak up at work against your libtard boss?

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"You know the Professor doesn't want to be fired."

Yes, exactly. She's willing to trade free speech and the rule of law if protesting against it would threaten her state-sponsored sinecure.

To me, that's just unconscionable.

These are the basic God-given rights we're talking about here. This is not a "we demand chocolate pudding in the cafeteria" type of complaint.

Free. Fucking. Speech.

#1 Amendment. First thing mentioned.

All else good flows from it. It is the font.

It is the last line that can be crossed. It is why America exists.

And it is being dismantled by the University of Wisconsin.

Alex said...

New Ham - since when do any of us speak up at work against our libtard bosses?

Oligonicella said...

"Something tells me CAFAR is a nice group of old professors unwilling to actually do anything to protect free speech except have symposiums about it and fret."

Something tells me you pulled that out yer ass. Google CAFAR UW and get info. One damned search. You're lazy.

Even easier to anonymously log on and bitch on a blog, ain't it?

somefeller said...

Even easier to anonymously log on and bitch on a blog, ain't it?

Be nice. For Ham, doing this much is a challenge. Such is his sad lot.

Hagar said...

It is a little odd that Muslims (2.7%) should be so favored in Britain, since they are quite outnumbered by other non-Christian religions, primarily Hindu, Buddhist, Sikhs, Jews, etc.

Wv: euroglib

Cedarford said...

I wrote about this a couple of months back. There is a violence veto on free speech that society embraces, even the USA.
That is - free speech associated with the risk of causing violence is far more regulated and constrained than provocative free speech that people believe will be "tolerated".

THus the 15 year old in the UK would be OK burning the Union Jack or Bible or desacrating a cross because people would "tolerate that". But burning a Holy Qu'ran is beyond the pale because its followers are so committed and so sincere they could not handle the "hurt, grave offense" without resorting to terrorism or raging violence. So society best protect others by quashing young Melanie Phillips.

We did the same thing with "nigger" - making it a firing offense to say it unless it was part of normal repartee involving blacks or in black music - because of intimidation over "causing black violence". And Zionists were able for years to stifle criticism of Israel inside the USA as forbidden because supposedly anti-Semetic and therefore a precursor to "tragic violence".

The whole adulation of "free speech" is society saying one thing and doing another. If Muslims weren't threatening cutting off the heads of media people or bombing their offices, of course more "Prophet Cartoons" would run..rather than mealy-mouthed journalists avoiding it and self-congratulating themselves on their "admirable sensitivity".

If belittled Christian fundies killed a few of their critics, we may have laws and employer practices treating belittling the noble Fundies "The Vast Majority of Which Are Good and Peaceful" as an offense worthy of everyone trotting out and condemning it and people yanked from jobs for giving "Fundie offense".

Same with flag-burning. The Courts and law would treat it far differently if mobs killed flag-burners then raged onto the campuses they came out of - setting buildings on fire and setting off bombs. Then burning the US flag would be a serious matter "everyone" would condemn in the strongest of terms.

It's also the reason that gay activists went after white Mormons for helping kill gay marriage in California but you never heard a peep from the precious dears about any planned marches into the Barrios or black neighborhoods to "make those people pay".

The "violence veto" is so obvious it cannot but be a factor in how any activist group makes themselves untouchable from criticism..or at least be thought about by people thoroughly repulsed by the toleration and legal enablement of creeps like the Phelps Church.
Its a terrible thing to admit to, but US society would recognize the fastest way to end the Phelps would be to shoot up a Phelps motorcade with a couple full clips from an AR-15, killing or wounding several of them - then waiting for the media and law to condemn not just the shooters, but also the Phelps people for "provoking the violence and riot" . And afterwards, the "safest thing" would be for all their protest permits to be cancelled and they can all stay in Kansas. And their court appeals to do protest would become infinitely harder as craven courts could then plausibly cite "proven public safety concerns".

Conserve Liberty said...

What would be the public reaction if the book and words "King James Version" were substituted wherever Koran was pictured or written?

Cedarford said...

paul a'barge - "paul a'barge said...
It's England.

They're not free over there.

They have no Freedom of Speech, no Constitutional Rights, no Constitution."

THe Brits have their own body of law, their own fundamental building blocks of law that are accorded Constitutional status..and their version of free speech rights.

Those who worship our Constitution as some sort of mystical, sacred parchment that explains everything good in America forget it is more about the people and culture you have to work with than any Jesus-blessed piece of paper.

Other countries are well aware of the blind veneration some Americans apply to their founding operating manual (actually the 2nd, as the first operation scheme written by the Holy Founders Themselves was a complete abortion). But they have rejected it as not working for their sort of people and culture.

Had the Haitians adopted our sacred parchment 200 years ago, they would be little better off today than the Liberians were for taking it almost word-for-word 140 years ago.

As for free speech, Europe and Canada took back many rights of speech after WWII at the behest of well-meaning socialists and Jews who argued, successfully, that some speech was beyond the pale and ended up costing many lives in WWII. Laws against free speech involving Nazis became the cornerstone of later suppression of Free Speech against racism, ethnic slurs, and "Islamophobia".

The commentator Ezra Levant wryly noted he was sort of being hoisted on his own petard - as laws crafted in Canada he was being persecuted for had originally come in at the insistance of Jewish activists, Bronsky, and the Canadian Jewish Congress to "suppress speech that targeted Jews".

All the Muslims did was cleverly recognize that it was easy to substitute "Islamic" for "Jew" and gain an immunity amulet from criticism - over Muslim actions in Europe and Canada.

Maguro said...

All the Muslims did was cleverly recognize that it was easy to substitute "Islamic" for "Jew" and gain an immunity amulet from criticism - over Muslim actions in Europe and Canada.

That may be true of Canada, but the UK law against inciting religious hatred that the 15-year old was charged under was passed in 2006 with Muslim sensitivities specifically in mind.

phx said...

That's fine and I agree. The same principles apply to the Bible and other religious texts as I see it.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastafarian said...

New Ham said, referring to Althouse: "It's easy to claim that you support free speech. It's a lot harder to actually, you know, live up to that principle in your personal life."

Yeah, I suppose Althouse could do something supportive of free speech. Maybe she could create one of the most heavily trafficked blogs on the internet; and then write posts like this one, about topics like this one.

Which she did.

Which is much more important and influential than some self-defeating tantrum you'd have her throw at the U-dub administration. Or some half-ass "sit-in" she might participate in.

Sit-in?

What are you, New Ham? Some sort of goddamned hippie?

What have you done in your life, New Ham, that's more effective and supportive of free speech than what Althouse has done? Let he who is without sin, yada yada yada.

Pastafarian said...

I mean, for fuck's sake, you're criticizing her in the comments of her blog, for her lack of support for free speech. And she allows the comment to stand.

Do you not see the irony there?

PETER V. BELLA said...

The UK has lost touch with itself. It has allowed codified PC to go way beyond any sense or sensibility.

FloridaSteve said...

Great Britain is lost. Has been for some time now. Shame really. It was a nice place.

LordSomber said...

They have no Freedom of Speech, no Constitutional Rights, no Constitution. And they're rapidly selling their culture to the Muslims they let immigrate there.

Plus, didn't some recent EU provision basically override the Magna Carta?

bagoh20 said...

I hear you Ham. Letting people post on your blog (blog advertising blog advertising) is not exactly a heroic stand for free speech.

Ham's point is good, and the real challenge to those who merely talk the talk. Rights don't exist until someone sacrifices for them. Before that, they are just convenient pleasantries taken away from others outside your window, unseen beyond your quickly closed drapes.

William said...

I have been hoping that American culture is more seductive than a medieval behavioral guide. America has certainly undermined the professed code of conduct of the Catholics, the Mafia, and the Puritans. Even the Mormons with their home grown religion have altered their views to fit in with the majority. If Muslims feel that they are living in a hostile society,they wil embrace their religion with greater fervor. Look at Poland and Ireland. The Catholic faith waxed under oppression and waned after liberation. It is paradoxical, but the quickest way to wither the Koran, is to treat it with tolerance. Don't let the chador wearer feel heroic. No sane woman wants to wear a chador on a hot day, and no hot woman wants to wear a chador on a cold day...Have faith in the allure of our ways and the silliness of theirs.

stevenehrbar said...

The European countries have never been in touch with the basic principles of free speech or freedom of religion the way the US understands those concepts. American law and American liberty are built on fundamentally different basic principles than those of the rest of the free world, even if the results look somewhat similar.

It's the most important reason why US judges and lawyers should be denounced every single time they try to import foreign law; foreign law is fundamentally incompatible with the freedoms of the United States.

(Our principles indeed have their root in English law and culture, but America adopted the more liberal ideas of the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution, while Britain swung back; the American Revolution marked when the two became too incompatible to share a polity, and they've diverged ever-further-apart since. Continental law never had even that much commonality with American, and the British have been influenced ever more by the Continent as a result of their mere proximity.)

Fred4Pres said...

Anarchy in the UK. Someone needs to call bullshit on this PC crap. Where is Johnny Rotten when you need him?

Oh yeah, here he is.

Penn & Tell. Nope. They have families.

I do not think Korans should be burned. But I also think we can burn them if we wish to do so. Because it is just a book. And while I do not burn bibles, I do occasionally throw biblical tracts given to me door to door in the trash. So we have to depend on 15 year girls to defend freedom of speech (however offensive).

Fernandinande said...

Your own employer - the University of Wisconsin - long ago abandoned the concept of free speech.

They also condemn racism while proudly practicing it:
http://www.uwsa.edu/edi/design/

Academics can fool each other pretty easily.

England is hosed, and it's good to recognize the above - speech restrictions and racism - as part of the social engineering that enabled the process there.

Fernandinande said...

And... "The Koran is the most sacred thing to over a billion Muslims worldwide."

Translation: "Islam is incompatible with civilization".

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Google CAFAR UW and get info."

I did.

CAFAR haven't even created a website to inform people they exist and accept donations.. They've written no position papers. They attempt to gather nobody to their cause.

On the other hand, you CAN donate through PayPal directly to Ann Althouse personally and she keeps the cash to spend it on $9/pint ice cream.

That she has time for. CAFAR's website? Not so much.

So I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding where the priorities are.

Or maybe I'm not.

downtownlad said...

Um - The UK does not have free speech. They don't have a Constitution. And last time I checked, the official religion was the Church of England.

I studied in England and I once wrote a letter to British Telecom complaining about an innacurate bill and calling them a bunch of fucking imbeciles and that I wanted the bill corrected. I then got a letter back saying that I could be arrested on the obscenity act of 1965 - or something to that effect.

So why the hell can't this happen in England?

MadisonMan said...

I love the syntax of news in the UK: It is understood that... instead of just saying what happened. Maybe false news is all just a big misunderstanding.

Fen said...

there's a growing perception that ... is another of my favs.

Its a big "what follows is propaganda" stamp.

orbicularioculi said...

There is NO Freedom of Speech in the UK, unless of course you are critizing Israel.

Unless the British People begin standing up for their rights, they will be relegated to Dhimmi status as Sharia Law takes hold and crushes them like the coils of a python.

Epiphyte said...

Someone may have already pointed this out, but another fellow was recently arrested in the UK for defaming allah within earshot of the police - though beyond range of any actual muslims, apparently:

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/crime/Anti-Allah-outburst-earns-EDL-supporter-163-200-fine/article-2945233-detail/article.html

I notice that the Instapundit NRO link just above yours references another author named Cranmer who suggests that it may be time for an "I'm Sparticus" moment when it comes to islamic blasphemy laws - kinda like the "everybody draw Mohammad day" that our kind hostess found so distasteful.

kimbrulait said...

Has it occurred to anyone that what this girl did could be considered a hate crime?

LoveFreedomTruth.Com said...

The malign influence of the left with its multiculturalism and political correctness weakens our cultural glue. It does so at the very time we need it to stick to Muslim migrants:

http://lovefreedomtruth.com/2010/11/islamists-and-the-left/

Multiculturalism will make it very hard for the experiment of mass Muslim immigration into the West to work out well.

ConservativeBrit said...

"It's England.

They're not free over there.

They have no Freedom of Speech, no Constitutional Rights, no Constitution. And they're rapidly selling their culture to the Muslims they let immigrate there."

This statement really caught my imagination. I enjoy finding out how foriegners percieve my nation.

The UK (not the same thing as 'England', but then you know that) has freedom of speech. We also have protected rights. We don't have a 'constitution' as you would recognise it in the states, but then we've never needed one.

England is almost 1000 years old. Scotland, Wales and Ireland are similarly well established nations. The UK is now over 300 years old. I would argue that it is, politically, one of the most stable countries on the planet. We've never had serious oppression, we don't have revolutions, we rarely see violent demonstrations on our streets. We've had one major civil war and the net result was that the status quo was protected. At the outbreak of WWII the UK was one of only 5 democratic nations left in Europe, and the only major nation in the free world to immediately respond to Hitler and defend democracy.

We don't have a need to write a document telling us how to live our lives because it's something we have built right into our culture.

Looking at the history of the British Isles we've had plenty of 'invaders' and we've always integrated them into our culture and adapted our culture to fit. Now that our Empire has fallen we are, by and large, happy to integrate natives of coutries that were part of that Empire. Our culture will change, there will be hiccups as this happens but we will remain stable as we always have done and we will emerge stronger for it.

white rabbit said...

I am not of Conservative opinion but Conservative Brit's comment was a breath of fresh air after some of the spittle flecked rants above it. How many of you people have ever been to the UK (not the same thing as 'England'?)

I read Melanie Phillips - to laugh at a mind in full car crash mode.