► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Melanie Phillips’

The irrational obsession

by Mojambo ( 60 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, UK at May 24th, 2012 - 8:00 am

Melanie Phillips gives us the inside of the irrational hatred that so much of the British ruling classes have for Israel and the inevitable violent outbreaks caused by it.

by Melanie Phillips

On and on it goes, this deranged vendetta against Israel and the Jews that we are not allowed to call by its proper name, on and on with obsessional intensity into ever-more alarming and astonishing bigotry and violence that is even now passing virtually without comment in wider British society.

On Monday night Richard Millett, an Israel supporter who tirelessly records and thus brings to light the venomous anti-Israel bigotry coursing through campuses and elsewhere, was assaulted and racially abused at a meeting of the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

The pretext for this assault was that he refused to stop filming — even though this was a public meeting, and according to him there were others present who were also filming. You can view his footage here.

Last year, another Israel supporter was attacked at SOAS when his cheek was bitten by an anti-Israel demonstrator – an incident which was also filmed. At the subsequent trial, however, the individual being prosecuted was acquitted.

This latest outrage at SOAS occurred a few days after a jaw-dropping edition of HardTalk on BBC TV, in which Sarah Montague interviewed an apparently rabid Israel-hater, Jewish-American Norman Finkelstein.

Giving a platform to this noxious individual was bad enough. But to introduce him, Montague stated the following:

‘American Presidents have long been criticized for being too in thrall to the Jewish lobby. The American Jews influence US foreign policy and that explains Washington’s unwavering support for Israel.’

Now it is possible that she was not asserting this as fact but merely representing the views of such critics in order to introduce the discussion. But she went on to say:

‘So what happens if American Jews fall out of love with Israel? That’s what the Jewish American academic Norman Finkelstein claims is happening … Could he be right? And if he is, what does that mean for Middle East policy?’

[…..]

In other words, the BBC is now peddling the ancient racial libel that the Jews exercise a unique control over the levers of power. And that is unvarnished Judeophobia. On the BBC. Paid for by the British public. The BBC won’t report the Muslim element of paedophile gangs in northern towns, but they will libel the Jewish people by stating a notorious bigoted trope as fact.

The terrifying thing is that the BBC really does seem to believe American Jews control the Presidency. That’s why they treat as a legitimate contributor to public debate an individual whose record is summed up by CAMERA thus:

‘Finkelstein has called for solidarity with Hezbollah, mocked Israel as a “lunatic state,” “an insane state,” and “a Satanic state” bent on war. He labels Jewish leaders involved in Holocaust restitution “gangsters” and “crooks,” terms Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel “the resident clown of the Holocaust circus.” He calls Israelis “Satanic, narcissistic people” and claims Israel committed a “slaughter, a massacre” in Gaza and “wants war, war and war.”’

With the BBC giving airtime to the kind of anti-Jewish venom that was once confined to neo-Nazis and their ilk, the demons of irrationality about the Jews are once again terrifyingly brainwashing the credulous. And just as in the 1930s, it is the high-minded and the highly educated who are leading Britain into this darkness — under the camouflage of hating the Jewish homeland.

In March, a bunch of luvvies including Emma Thompson, Richard Wilson and Alexei Sayle called for a boycott of Israel’s Habima theatre which has been performing Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (oh the irony of it!) in Hebrew at the Globe in London. This was on account of what they described as Israel’s ‘policies of exclusion’ against the Palestinians and its ‘human rights violations and the illegal colonisation of occupied land’.

Dear oh dear — does one laugh or cry at such mindless parroting of demonstrable untruths? Quite apart from the fact that Habima is totally apolitical and a call for such a cultural boycott is, as the author Howard Jacobson put it, Kafkaesque, have these high-minded souls called for a boycott of Lebanon where Palestinians are excluded from citizenship? Have they called for a boycott of Syria where countless thousands have been slaughtered? Have they called for a boycott of Iran for threatening a second genocide of the Jews and jailing, torturing, stoning and hanging its own dissidents, women and gays?

[……]

No, of course not. The only country they want to boycott is the one country in the whole of the Middle East that is a true democracy, that affords human rights to all its citizens, that allows freedom of worship to all religions, that treats women as equals and safeguards the welfare and liberties of gay people – and treats in its own hospitals, alongside its own citizens, Palestinians from these ‘excluded’ territories including those who are trying to murder as many Israeli citizens as possible.

This irrational obsession is madness. It is terrifying. And no-one in the wider community  is saying anything about it.

Read the rest – Into the darkness

Melanie Phillips keen insight into the Republican primaries

by Mojambo ( 66 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, The Political Right at January 10th, 2012 - 11:30 am

There is a reason why Saturday’s debate was dominated by an inordinate about of  “culture questions”  by the biased panelists. They know that those sort of red meat issues are  a turn off to the electorate and right on cue the candidates start talking abut constitutional amendments for this and that social issue i.e gay marriage, school prayer, abortion, etc.

by Melanie Phillips

What is the one question the successful Republican candidate for the US Presidency has to answer?

It is whether this person will beat Barack Obama.

What is the one thing that, squinting at the US political scene from a long way away, I have learned from the Iowa caucus?

It is that, unless a large light-bulb goes on somewhere in the Republican cerebellum pretty damn quick, President Obama will win a second term.

The Republicans are split between culture warriors, Cameroon crawlers and crazies. The culture warriors are deemed to be way too scary and will put off the only folk who matter, the floating voters. The crazies are, well, crazy. The received wisdom is that the only candidate who can win against Obama must be a Cameroon Crawler because he inhabits the safe and very unscary centre ground.

Well, in the UK that was the theory behind David Cameron’s march to the left and look where it got him: he failed to win a general election he could not lose against an incumbent Prime Minister who had brought the country to ruin. Why? Because people could see he was a temporiser, a flip-flopper, an opportunist devoid of principle and vision and interested solely in winning for winning’s sake. In other words, you wouldn’t choose to go into the jungle with him.

Would Americans go into the jungle with Romney? I don’t think so. Nor, it would seem, do all those Iowans who voted for Rick Santorum who, as if from nowhere, came within a hair’s breadth of snatching Iowa from under Romney’s nose. ‘Anyone but Romney’ does not exactly correspond to the big mo that a winner needs to propel him into the White House.

Ah, but Iowa is Iowa, say the savants; and Santorum, who is very extreme (i.e. he is unbendingly moral and tells the truth about the world), will terrify voters out of their wits in New Hampshire and other similarly sensible places where the middle ground means – well, you know, going with the flow of cultural change.

Well, maybe. For sure, we are living in one mighty confused society here in the west. But once those negative campaigns against Romney get going, I guess Mitt ain’t gonna look quite such a safe bet. After all, if you are a floater then by definition you don’t have a terribly strong animus against Obama.

[……]

That’s the problem with the centre ground – you tend to get run over if you stand there. But the real issue is that it is not actually the centre ground at all: it’s Mount Unprincipled. Obama v Romney would be Bill Ayers v. a blancmange. And Romney will be as able to mount a savage counter-attack as would a dead sheep (to mix my metaphors by borrowing a particularly pungent one from Britain’s own internecine conservative wars in the Thatcher years, a war from which the Conservative party has never recovered).

To repeat: in this contest, there is no perfect or ideal candidate. These are extraordinary times — it’s a terrifying jungle out there, and we’re being sucked into the very heart of darkness — and extraordinary times require an extraordinary and larger than life character. The question is not whether candidate X presses all the right buttons – it’s whether the one button he does press is so big and crucial that voters need to set aside all his ‘baggage’ because the other guys have no button at all.

Republicans! Are you leaders or lemmings? Is there really no-one in the whole damn country who has what it takes to lead the free world away from disaster – and persuade the American public to follow ?

Read the rest – Into the jungle with…. a blancmange?

 

 

No protests over the coming judicial murder of Pastor Nadarkhani

by Mojambo ( 92 Comments › )
Filed under Christianity, Iran, Islam, Islamic Supremacism at October 4th, 2011 - 11:30 am

Miss Phillips has one thing wrong – the protests coming from the White House and Foggy Bottom (Hillary Clinton  has been particularly disappointing as Secretary of State leading me to think she would have been marginally better as president then Obama)  have been tepid and fairly muted. The true barbarity of the Iranian regime is manifest to all but the most parochial  of Islamofascist apologists. Now the Mullahs are claiming that Pastor Nadarkhani is a rapist! Too bad all those folks getting worked up over  the “siege of Gaza” cannot say one word over the coming judicial murder of Pastor Youcef  Nadarkhani. As a commenter wrote “A Christian martyr dies for his/her  beliefs, a Muslim martyr kills other people  for his”.

by Melanie Phillips

The brutal regime in Iran continues to inflict appalling levels of barbarity upon its own citizens.

A Christian pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani, aged 35 and the father of two children, has been sentenced to death for apostasy, a crime for which he was jailed two years ago. But this savage punishment is far worse even than it seems. For Nadarkhani is deemed to have committed apostasy merely because he has Islamic ancestry. Whether he was ever actually a practising Muslim was not even established. The Washington Post reported:

‘The 11th branch of Iran’s Gilan Provincial Court has determined that Nadarkhani has Islamic ancestry and therefore must recant his faith in Jesus Christ. Iran’s supreme court had previously ruled that the trial court must determine if Youcef had been a Muslim before converting to Christianity.

[…]

Now the Iranian authorities have claimed he is to be executed not for apostasy at all but for a slew of other crimes. As CNN reports:

‘Gholomali Rezvani, the deputy governor of Gilan province, where Nadarkhani was tried and convicted, accused Western media of twisting the real story, referring to him as a “rapist.” A previous report from the news agency claimed he had committed several violent crimes, including repeated rape and extortion. “His crime is not, as some claim, converting others to Christianity,” Rezvani told Fars. “He is guilty of security-related crimes.”

[…]

‘… “No one is executed in Iran for their choice of religion,” [Rezvani] added. “He is a Zionist and has committed security-related crimes.”

It is obvious that, faced with mounting outrage around the world – there have been protests from the White House, for example  — the Iranian regime has resorted to trumping up spurious accusations against a man they are persecuting on account of his Christian faith. By seeking to deny the verdict of apostasy that was handed down two years ago, they are trying to conceal above all that Pastor Nadarkhani has been imprisoned for two years and is sentenced to hang because of an Islamic religious precept.

In other words, this barbarism is yet another religious crime being perpetrated by the regime against an Iranian citizen for no reason other than he has transgressed the laws of Islam enforced by a fanatical regime of religious zealots.

[…]

Read the rest: Where are the protests over Pastor Nadarkhani?

Stifling debate by hijacking the language

by Mojambo ( 76 Comments › )
Filed under Christianity, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, UK at September 27th, 2011 - 8:30 am

Melanie Phillips laments the incredible political correctness of public discourse speech in the United Kingdom. Now the BBC wants to do away with the terms B.C. and A.D.  She refers to the language police as “the defining madness of our time”.  Sadly there are parallels here in the United States.

by Melanie Phillips

One of the most sinister aspects of political correctness is the way in which its edicts purport to be in the interests of minority groups.

This is despite the fact that, very often, they are not promulgated at the behest of minorities at all, but by members of the majority who want to destroy their own culture and who use minorities to camouflage their true intentions.

The latest manifestation stars once again that all-time world champion of political correctness, the BBC. Apparently, it has decided that the terms AD and BC (Anno Domini, or the Year of Our Lord, and Before Christ) must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

Actually, this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high.

Nevertheless, the terms CE and BCE are now increasingly finding their way onto news bulletins and on programmes such as University Challenge or Melvyn Bragg’s Radio Four show In Our Time.

The reason given on the website is that, since the BBC is committed to impartiality, it is important not to alienate or offend non-Christians.

Well, I am a Jew, so I am presumably a member of this group that must not be alienated.

It so happens, however, that along with many other Jewish people I sometimes use CE and BCE since the terms BC and AD are not appropriate to me.

But the idea that any of us would be offended by anyone else using BC and AD would be totally ridiculous.

How could we possibly take offence, since these are the commonly used and understood expressions when referring to the calendar?

Moreover, I most certainly would not expect society in general to use these Common Era terms rather than BC and AD.

Indeed, I would go much further and react with undiluted scorn and disapproval to any attempt to do so.  

That is because I feel passionately that a society should be allowed to express its own culture – and this attack on BC and AD, fatuous as it may seem on the surface, is yet another attack on British culture and the Christian underpinnings which provide it with its history, identity and fundamental values.

[…]

The fact remains, however, that whatever terms are used the British calendar is calibrated from the birth of Jesus.

As Ann Widdecombe remarked, whatever next – abolishing the calendar itself on the grounds that it too therefore offends non-Christians?

The reasoning behind this linguistic legerdemain is entirely spurious. There is no evidence whatever that any non-Christian group is offended by BC and AD, nor that they would like it to be replaced.  

Even if they did, it cannot ever be right for minorities to seek to replace fundamental majority cultural expressions or values with their own.

To do so has nothing whatever to do with impartiality – indeed, quite the reverse. For what about the need not to offend or alienate Christians?

To ask the question is to realise how far we have travelled down this invidious road. For Christians in Britain are now routinely offended and alienated – indeed, positively harassed, and with their religious rights denied – and all in the Orwellian cause of promoting ‘diversity’.

In the latest example, police have threatened a Christian cafe owner with arrest – for displaying passages from the Bible on a TV screen which are said to incite hatred against homosexuals.

Why stop at a TV screen, one might ask. For in such a climate, it is hardly frivolous to wonder how long it will be before the Bible itself is banned.

At the weekend, a campaign was launched by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, to press for greater legal protection for Christians against such attacks.

The pressure on Christians, however, is merely part of a far wider onslaught on Western culture through the hijacking or censorship of language.

Thus Christmas has been renamed in various places ‘Winterval’.

Last week, it was reported that Southwark council has renamed its Guy Fawkes fireworks display ‘The Colour Thief: A Winter Extravaganza Celebrating the Change of the Seasons’.

This ludicrous gesture is presumably aimed at being more ‘inclusive’ of Catholics upset by references to the 17th-century Popish gunpowder plot.

[…]

Meanwhile Anne O’Connor, an ‘early years consultant’, advises that ‘white paper’, especially in schools, provokes racism since it does not reflect the range of hues of the human race.

Maybe Ms O’Connor needs especially strong spectacles. Has anyone ever seen a human being with skin as white as paper?

And finally, teachers are told they should be ready to lie, if necessary, when asked by pupils what their favourite colour is and, in the interests of good race relations, answer ‘black’ or ‘brown’.

Can you believe this? What on earth has our society come to when grown individuals in receipt of public money descend to such mind-blowing imbecility?

Calling children as young as two ‘racist’ is simply grotesque. Helping them ‘unlearn’ negative associations with dark colours is to try to brainwash them in ways reminiscent of Soviet Stalinism.

[…]

The answer is surely that political correctness means you can’t criticise anyone who does wrong if they belong to a group of people who are considered marginalised or oppressed.

This is effectively to give such groups a free pass for any bad behaviour. And anyone who dares criticise is accused of ‘demonising’ such groups.

This means, of course, that those who criticise such bad behaviour are themselves demonised.

Indeed, they can be positively victimised and even threatened with their lives by vicious campaigns on Twitter or the internet – all on the grounds that they have ‘demonised’ some ‘victim’ group or other. If this wasn’t so terrifying, it would be hilarious.

The result of this hijacking of the language is that debate becomes impossible because words like rights, tolerance, liberal, justice, truth and many more have come to mean the precise opposite of what they really do mean.

The result of this inversion of right and wrong is that morality itself has been reversed or negated. Politically correct language is thus a way of shifting the very centre of moral and political gravity.

So what was once considered far-Left has become the centre-ground; and those who stand on the real centre-ground are now dismissed as extreme.

The attack on BC and AD is merely the latest salvo in the war of the words, part of the defining madness of our time.

Read the rest: Our language is being hijacked by the Left to muzzle rational debate