More Intolerance

Apparently under Sharia "Law" (quoted because in no way can this be described as a system of justice) the penalty for denying Islam is death.

Thats right just because this guy didnt sign up to their particular fairy tale (and in fact went for a different fairy tale) they wanted him dead. Of course the Afghan government mindful of the international community's concerns have managed to free him on the basis of mental incapacity. I suppose its better to be declared mad than strung up for your beliefs.

The real mad nutters of course are the fuckwits you chant "Death to Christians" and other intolerant crap. One more tale from the "What happens when you let religion fuck up your brain" dept......

Just a Cartoon ?

I've been holding off writing a few words about the controversy surrounding the now infamous cartoons published at first in the Danish press, and now in other parts of Europe, but the articale above has finally inspired me to put someting down.

First of all make no bones about it, below is a link to the cartoons in question. I do this so that a) you can see for yourself what the fuss is about, and b) I beleive in free expression and that such images shouldnt be banned for their own sake.

WARNING Moslems may find these offensive

and this is the thing... Feel free to be offended... but remember that that fact that you can be offended is a reminder of the fact that you live in a country that has free expression.

If Islam wants to come across as a more tolerant religion (I say more because it is de facto intolerant in part due to its discrimination against homosexuals) then it should react better than it has to criticism and satire. Its no use bleating that these cartoons reinforce a stereotype and that only a minority of fanaticals when you get thousands of people in the streets shouting for Jihad, holding banners theatening terrorism and death, and violence and murder. The shit is in your house, clean it up.

Storm in a hot coffee cup

The strange thing about this case where the the city of LA is suing the makers of GTA:San Andreas is that it kind of shows how some Americans are totally fucked up about sex.

Here is a game that involves the player going around stealing cars, shooting civilians and police officers, drug running, pimping, arson, burglary, gang violence and other wholesome activities. In the UK this game has (quite rightly) got an 18+ rating. It is not a game for kids.

In the US apparently its OK for 17 year olds. Only when a bit of sex is added (or actually found within) does it warrant an 18 rating. Thats right folks, shooting prostitutes is OK for 17 year olds, but having sex with one is for 18s.

This country has its hang-ups as well, at least they allow adults the freedom to watch adult material in the US (including broadcasting). Over here in the UK our "regulator" OffCom appear to be stuck in the 19th century....

Intolerant Hatred

Stuff like this just makes me want to go grrrrr.....

Im usually fairly open-minded about Christians expressing their views but sometimes I see stuff that makes me plain mad...

Sadly, Tesco, Asda and WHSmith are still selling at Christmas the DVD which portrays Jesus Christ as a foul mouthed woman-beater who declares himself to be 'a bit gay'.

Well done these shops... Stand up to the intolerant nutters....Protect free speech

Download our leaflet about why it is an "Intolerant hate show"

Fine, you are entitled to yor opinion, but you are not entitled to call for the DVD to be banned...So it denigrates your faith...Good... Intolerant fuckwits like you should be denigrated...

Worst of all

The Christian Institute is a registered charity

Thats right, the narrow minded intolerant bastards get tax breaks.... Out of my pocket....

Roll on the separation of church and state...

Semblance of Reason

This story just illustrates that (at least in the highest court in the land) there is some island of reason and humanity within the sea misguided knee-jerk prats who run our country.

The issue at hand is whether we can prosecute people using evidence that may have been obtained by foreign powers under torture. The government wanted to (national security at any price, fuck human rights), the high court agreed (?*!*?). The law lords have just said no. Thank fuck for that.

Any reasonable person would say, not can you use such evidence, but can you trust it at all. If the Syrians, or Iranians or Chinese or some other security service whose human rights record is suspect, say that a person is a terrorist, how can we trust them. After all a name shouted out by some poor bastard with his goolies wired up to the mains is not "intelligence".

The argument put forward of course is that the harm done by the torture is preferable to the potential loss of life due to a terrorist act. I have a couple of points to make about this. The first is, why stop at torturing the buggers overseas, If torture is acceptable for national security purposes why not DIY. The second of course is that we have a principle we uphold, and which we are trying to protect. One that all humans have the right to be presumed innocent, and the right not to be tortured (including the stress torture that the US govt thinks is OK). Id rather take my chances of getting blown up (and rather a small chance at that) and sleep in my bed at night with a clean conscience.....

Official gagging act

This is another example of how our government is ignoring another principle
on which all free countries are based...This time its the freedom of the press.

The newspapers got hold a a memo allegedly relating to a discussion between Blair and Bush in which the latter is said to have been planning military action against the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera.

Now the government is threatening to prosecute the editors if they publish the document. It is using the official secrets act to gag the press.

The person responsible for leaking this document has been charged under the same act with "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations".

Now what is "damaging" about this document, at least to national security which is what the OSA is designed to protect. I cannot see anything, though our relations with our US allies might be ruffled.

No, what is going on here, the damage is to Blair's already ruined credibility, and to Bush's as well. Far from protecting national security, the OSA is being used to suppress information which is embarrassing for the government.

Train to 1984 keeps a rollin

So now we are going to have security screening at railways to prevent further terrorist attacks.....

Does our government have any sense whatsoever, or do they just react like someone playing whack-a-mole to the latest tabloid headlines.


So this is going to prevent attrocities like the one that happened on the 7th of July in London. Yeah the super regular attacks that happen like once every 5 years or so.....

Well Mr Blair, you've put security at the railway station... So I'll blow myself up on a London bus, just as many people there... Are we going to have security searches of everyone entering a bus ?

Or how about the security queue itself.. Perfect.. lots of people milling about.. should make a nice splattery carnage...

There are 1 million or so people travelling into-out of London every day..Imagine the queues if each of them had to pass even the most basic of security checks.... All to try and catch the half dozen or so terrorists that might turn up once every 1000 days or so...

Every time we pass laws turning us more into a police state the terrorists have a good laugh.... Thanks Big Tony..