No one was killed, no one was injured. Do not excite yourselves.
From Adrian Hilton in the Spectator: Revd Dr Alan Clifford’s ‘homophobic’ comments referred to the CPS
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 contains the offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Anyone using threatening words or behaviour, or anyone displaying, publishing or distributing any written material which is threatening, is liable for prosecution. Former Conservative Home Secretary Lord Waddington won an amendment to an earlier version of the law, which established that no one might be prosecuted for stating their belief that homosexuality is sinful or wrong. It read: ‘For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.’
But that protection will be illusory for as long as homophobia is defined and understood by the police as ‘any incident which is perceived to be homophobic by the victim or any other person’. Against that background, all mission-orientated Christians will need to temper their proselytism – especially on Gay Pride marches.
Dr Clifford tells me that Huguenot Calvinists are not easily intimidated, and that his faith in God is sustaining him: ‘I am not in deep shock: I enjoy perfect peace,’ he said. Others, of course, may not be so robust and may indeed prefer to pay a £90 fine. Much may depend on the tone and manner of the interrogating police officer.
From Damien Gayle in the Daily Mail via Tim Worstall: Armed police turn up at family home with a battering ram to seize their children after they defy Germany’s ban on home schooling
A team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed the home of Dirk and Petra Wunderlich because they refused to send their children to state schools. The youngsters were taken to unknown locations after officials allegedly ominously promised the parents that they would not be seeing them again ‘any time soon’.
The only legal grounds for the removal of the children, aged from seven to 14, were the family’s insistence on home schooling their children, with no other allegations of abuse or neglect.
‘Why is it so important to you to force people into your state schools? The echo of this act rings from a darker time in German history” said the pro-homeschooling johnnie.
Not just the echo, mate – the ban on homeschooling is itself a Nazi law from 1938. So they are actually getting more liberal – 20 social workers, police and special agents armed with a battering ram does represent an improvement….. on the Gestapo.
Having the state effectively kidnap children is hardly a ‘minor’ act of repression.
An *essential* part of home schooling needs to be teaching the children what to do and say if they find themselves face to face with representatives of the state and emotionally preparing them for total resistance if they are taken away.
Frankly escape-and-evasion needs to be on the syllabus and the creation of underground networks ready to receive, assist and house children on the run after escaping from ‘care’.
Think I am joking? I am not.
Homeschooling was outlawed by Hitler, and the law has never been repealed. Now, far be it for me to suggest that just because Hitler thought something was a good idea automatically should make it regarded a bad idea but…. actually no, that is what I’m suggesting…..
If Germany truly is a modern, freedom loving nation that has cast off the shadow of Nazism, then it should have no truck with Nazi era laws.
Once the PRINCIPLES of freedom of speech and freedom of association (which must logically include the freedom to not associate) were thrown away, this sort of thing was just a matter of time.
It did not happen all that once – even a few years ago there were shows, even on the BBC, that would now get people thrown into prison (for racism, sexism, homophobia……), now the people of this country have to live in with the fear that a single misunderstood word could lead to a knock-on-the-door and trip down to the police station.
“It could never happen here” – accept it already has.
And Americans do not smile.
The “hate speech is not free speech” movement is strong in almost every university. As is a thousand other collectivist doctrines.
And what is taught to be by the education system (by schools and colleges) does NOT magically vanish when people enter the world.
The “practical” people who let the collectivists take over the education system (perhaps inevitable once the principle of collectivist finance is accepted – via such things as government backed student loans) may well have doomed the United States.
“It does not matter – once they are out in the real world, they will forget all this nonsense”.
These words might as well be written on the gravestone of the West.
Look on the bright side… That’s four kids who will hate the State with a vengeance for the rest of their lives.
Some have no sense of proportion.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx04z4Unq6k
Things are improving though.
Gradually.
50 decades ago you could get burned at the stake for refusing to agree with the state.
That’s not such a long time.
My dad has lived through 18% of the last 500 years and he still rides his bicycle around a suburb of Manchester.
The biggest threat to our future, freedom and prosperity is from pinko tight end receivers who dominate the public sector and the meeja, ignore them and their lackey politicians.
Ah, nacht und nebel. Great days, great days….
Some things are indeed better than they were in 1513.
And statism was certainly on the rise – for example in 1512 doctor licensing was imposed in London, the importation of hats from overseas was forbidden (protectionism), and “benefit of clergy” (which actually covered many non priests) was removed from many serious crimes – and for those of Hollywood view of Church Courts, Royal Courts were actually much worse (there were good reasons why people were desperate to get into the Church Court system rather than the state court system).
Also war was declared in 1512 – although that did lead to a great English victory against the Scots (where the Earl of Surrey destroyed the Scots at Flodden in 1513 – without even bothering to get out of his chair).
However, some things are worse.
For example – the money was sound then, modern currency is a credit bubble joke.
And the state had no Welfare State commitments.
The present ones will lead to bankruptcy and breakdown.
Inescapable bankruptcy and breakdown.
As for when statism was at its low point in this land.
Either 1870 (for those places that adopted an Education Board after the Act of this year). Or 1874 (for those places that did not). 1874 being the low point for national taxation.
But why go back so far – or 500 years.
Why not 50 years?
In most (NOT all) ways – Britain was a much freer place (in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of association and so on) in 1963 than it is now.
And the United Kingdom was an independent nation – not a province of the European Union.
And taxation (especially taxation of ordinary people – there was no VAT) was vastly lower 50 years ago than it is now.
Why is that 1963 seems like an impossible dream – at least in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of association (but other things also).
Certainly the “rebels” (very comfortable “rebels” – such as the “That Was The Week That Was” crowd on the BBC) who made their living teaching that Britain (especially England) was no good, and that everything should be changed…..
Well, at best, they seem very stupid now.
Certainly the physical structure of my home town was messed up by the “improvements” of 1960s and 1970s (although “Old Kettering and its Defenders” did not lose as much as they thought they did – there were Council plans to turn the place into concrete nightmare, by kicking up such a stink against stage one of the plans, the resistance prevented the other stages).
And to judge by old literature I have found – I think I prefer Wicksteed Park as it was then.
“But Paul – no internet”.
Yes – I would have time for go for walks (as I did when I was young) rather than being chained to this thing.
Perhaps I would even learn to ride a bike.
This does rather illustrate that despite collectivists’ protestations to the contrary, tyranny is a feature of their ideology, not a bug.
Jake Haye.
Agreed.
The state is nothing more than organized crime with a socially accepted cloak of respectability. It’s only because so many people see them as “legitimate” that they can do these things with impunity. We cannot resist them directly and I don’t have any power except in one area: to withhold consent and teach others to do the same. I won’t fight the police, but I refuse to respect them. It’s all I can do.
Just a thought here. I think it’s time we stop referring to the “Nazis”, for there was no actual Nazi Party and start using the more correct, anglicized “National Socialists”. I know it’s more syllables and all but still.
On a semi-related and admittedly off-topic note, I would be interested to see a discussion from the members of this site of the left/right divide and how it relates to “Naziism” and modern day politics. I have tried doing some reading around on this but it seems that the whole discussion is hugely tainted by “left wing” wishy-washy thinking. The National Socialists were “right wing” but modern-day conservatism is also “right wing”. It seems to have become a catch-all phrase for “Things we don’t like”. If you ask these people why the National Socialists are not considered left wing, they trot out a list of reasons why they should be considered right wing which would, if duly considered, place modern socialists as decidedly right wing. As an example of wishy-washy thinking, consider this line from Wikipedia: “Also the Nazis’ official position as being syncretic (neither left, right, or centre) involved Hitler officially attacking left-wing and right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. Therefore Nazism is not left-wing.” By that logic, the National Socialists were neither right-wing nor centrists either.
Sorry, didn’t mean to digress so much.
I should add that I’m aware of the shortcomings of the left/right scale and the existence of the Nolan chart. I’m just seeking some clarity and consistency.
Richard – about the only argument I can find for the (radically anti tradition) National Socialists being called “right wing” is where they sat in the German Parliament.
By the same token Frederic Bastiat is “left wing” because he sat on the left hand side of the French National Assembly.
Bastiat sat there because he said “this is supposed to be side of radical reform – and I am in favour of radical reform”.
So there he sat – amongst all the socialists who wanted to eat him.
By the same argument the National Socialists were in favour of “radical reform” – for example the enslavement of Slavs.
Such as every aristocratic family in Germany? All of whom had intermarried with Slavs at some time or another.
The basic National Socialist doctrine – that “blood” (race) is what mattered.
Not loyality to a King, not religious belief, not even language – but “race”.
An ancient doctrine that went all the way back to the……
Well to the 19th century – not long before Hitler was born.
No wonder the ancient (really ancient) Royal families of Austria and Bavaria despised the National Socialists. Indeed risked their lives to oppose them.
I wonder if the Metropolitan Police will take this allegation as seriously as the Norfolk Police took the other one.
Alleged incident of voting fraud for Labour in Hampstead. Labour majority 42. There appears to be an admission.
What would the Nazies have done to Britain, if they had successfully invaded? Forced all redheads back over Hadrians wall, and all blondheads exported back to Scandinavia?
Nick (nice-guy) it is off topic – but it is interesting.
One of the odd things about the National Socialists is that they were a racist movement – with no clear theory of “race”.
A racialist movement without a clear theory of race……
For example, “Slavs” were racially inferior – even if physically identical to “Germans”, because of the LANGAUGE they spoke.
I have a suspicion that a trained biologist would not be wildly impressed by Mr Hitler’s movement.
Paul: It is almost a form of Lamarckism, that a living thing can pass on physical characteristics acquired during its life, e.g. Chop the tail off a 100 generations of mice to breed tail-less mice (which turns out not to be the case). Stop speaking German and thinking ‘Germanic’ thoughts and you become inferior.
Lysenko was similarly deluded, albeit striving to survive against Stalin’s strong selective pressure, as well as to generate some himself.
The only indulgence one might give this theory is that the mechanism of inheritance was, at all material times, opaque.
Mr Ed.
A good account.
A racist movement, without a clear theory of race, might be a good policy to maximise support! Individuals could suppose they were, or might be, included in the definition of a master race. Here in Australia, Pauline Hansen’s ‘One Nation’ attractwed a lot of support, until they actually got down to policies. They still had some supporters, and are still around, but it is nothing like their heyday.
Norfolk Police started investigating the Christian gentleman, but two dorks from the same force were called to a car accident and failed to find the driver of a crashed car who was found 5 hours later in a ditch nearby.
Of course, the priority would not be investigating the Christian, perish the thought that political correctness and incompetence characterise this bureaucracy.