Saturday, January 14, 2006

Sun, sand and sodomy

Many people, including the ever-entertaining Rottie, have commented on this little piece of joy.
The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, is being investigated by police for saying that homosexuality was "harmful".

In an interview with BBC Radio 4's PM Programme on 3 January, Sir Iqbal also criticised same-sex civil partnerships.

Now that I've stopped laughing, let's... Oh no, sorry, I haven't stopped laughing yet. Give me a few minutes, will you?

The especial irony, of course, is that Sir Iqbal has delighted in using similar legislation to instigate investigations into those critical of Islam, notably one Robert Kilroy-Silk.
In the Sunday Express piece, the former Labour MP referred to Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors".

I see little enough that's inaccurate in that statement, really. Unfortunately, Master Sacranie was a little more incensed.
The MCB secretary general Iqbal Sacranie said in a letter to BBC One controller Lorraine Heggessey that Mr Kilroy-Silk had failed to distinguish between the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks and 200 million "ordinary Arab peoples".

Really? Is he including Saudi Arabia, Iran and other assorted Arab nutcase states in that? I mean, Muslim countries generally aren't too hot on women's rights (along with the homosexuality issue, this is another head-popping moment for lefties).

Anyway, we now find Sir Iqbal hoisted by his own petard in the most amusing way.
In the interview Sir Iqbal said he was guided by the teachings of the Muslim faith, adding that other religions such as Christianity and Judaism held the same stance.

Well, yes, possibly. So, if I were a Christian and said that Islam was not the true religion, would Sir Iqbal have a problem with this? If I called him a heretic, would he have a problem with that? If I said that Muslims were all dirty, disease-ridden pusbags, would he have a problem with that? One imagines that he would.

Still, as Rottie says, the real test will be to ask him whether he is happy to let homosexuals live and let live, or whether they should be dealt with in the approved Muslim manner.

Meanwhile, I'm still rolling around in uncontrollable mirth, especially when that rancid little shit Tatchell says things like
"It is tragic for one minority to attack another minority."

Does Tatchell think that all minorities have the same aims? I'm willing to bet, for instance, that the BNP do not have the same aims as the CRE.

Tatch, my son, the Koran does not like bum-boys; it advocates their death. Just because you are also a minority, it doesn't mean that the MCB is going to automatically endorse sodomy. In fact, they definitely won't. You fuckwit.

On a serious note, in all these cases one should be asking, "what the fuck?" Aren't we supposed to honour free speech? I mean, we all know that people don't—how many times have you said something and a person has, in all seriousness, said, "you've crossed the line there"—but surely the law should reflect the principle?

The trouble is—and I was discussing this with the bint last night—that we live in a "liberal" society. What that means is that as long as you think that everything is acceptable, then OK. As soon as you express a disliking for anything other than... well... groups who dislike other groups, then you are in trouble.

An example for you. Say to a liberal lefty that you think that immigration is out of control and we should not let any more people into the country, and you will get shouted down. Say, however, that you hate the BNP, and they will applaud you. You are allowed to hate those who hate, just no one and nothing else.

One is not even allowed to say that, although you are willing to tolerate gays, the idea of two men together makes you feel sick. This is not inclusive enough. It is very Big Brother, not because these people want to control what you say, but because they wish to control what you think. You will learn to love the idea of gays, just as Winston learns to love BB.

This is, of course, not tolerance. It is an attempt to impose uniformity of thought, an orthodoxy of mental acceptability. And it fucking stinks.

On another note, where's bookdrunk when you need him, eh? This is right up his street...

UPDATE: He's here. Typically good post: go read...

2 comments:

Longrider said...

Great minds must think alike - I've just finished a piece on this myself...

Dr John Crippen said...

OK DK

I agree with you about the arbitrary nature of line drawing. As the lawyers say though, it may be hard to draw the line, but it is not hard to know on which side of the line a case falls.

Have a look at the discussion on the use of the workd "cunt" on http://venialsinner.blogspot.com and in particular on an American site he mentions.

This is a word I had never come across until I accidentally came into the Devils Kitchen looking for a coppor bottomed frying pan, and instead kept seeing "cunt" "cunt" "cunt". Its obviously an important word. I must look it up in the dictionary.

John

Moonbat still loony

It's always delightful to dip into George Moonbat's nutty articles ... We cannot rely on market forces and corporate goodwill to de...