John Cleese: London Is No Longer English

Christian Theory of Just War and International Law

The "just war" theory was developed over the centuries by Christian philosophers and theologians, chiefly Saint Thomas Aquinas (the doctor angelicus), Saint Augustine, the School of Salamanca.

This doctrine asserts that the use of force should not be completely ruled out since peacefulness, when we are confronted by a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence, is a sin. There are cases when defence of oneself or others may be a necessity.

But, because war is one of the worst evils endured by mankind, the use of force should always be subject to strict conditions, including the following.

War should always be defensive.

There should be a reasonable chance of success. If failure is a certainty, then it is just an unnecessary spilling of blood.

War is only legitimate as the last resort, all peaceful means of achieving the war aims, like dialogue and negotiations, must be exhausted first.

There must be a just cause and purpose. A just cause would include self-defence, protection, prevention of an even greater evil and preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack, but not self-gain, power, revenge, greed or pride. There was no just cause when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 with the purpose of obtaining land, or in the Boer war in which the British immigrants rebelled against the Afrikaans as a feebly disguised attempt to annex South Africa to the British Empire.

Law and order must always be restored, and it is obligatory to go back to normal life after the war.

It is imperative to use proportionate force, namely that the response be commensurate to the evil. Use of more violence than strictly necessary would represent an unjust war. Civilians must be spared. This was not the case in the bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, when thousands of non-combatants were killed.

There are moral limits to action in war. It is not permissible to kill hostages or attack innocents.

Just war must be waged and authorized by a legitimate, properly instituted authority like the state.

Even when legitimate governing authorities declare war, their decision is not a sufficiently just cause to start a war. If the people oppose a war, then the war is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose an authority or government that is waging, or is about to wage, an unjust war.

The just war theory later developed into international law theory, founded by jurists like the Italian Alberico Gentili and the Dutch Hugo Grotius.

This codified a set of rules which still today frames the fundamental principles of war and international law.

It is interesting to note how much our current legal and moral ideas owe to our Christian traditions.

Dog-Walking Protest Outside Canada Mosque

I love this. It's payback time for all the Muslim drivers who have kicked dogs out of their buses or taxis in Europe, Australia, North America.

Islam considers certain animals impure, notably dogs and pigs. This is not a “cultural” thing, it’s a “religious” thing: the Koran says this explicitly and repeatedly.

There have already been many cases of Muslim taxi and bus drivers who have refused to accept even blind passengers with guide dogs, because they consider the animals impure. This makes you wonder: what future will dogs have in a Muslim-majority UK, or Holland, or Germany, or Italy and so on?

Generally speaking, what will be the future of all animals, not just dogs, in a Muslim-majority Europe? Will the conquests (albeit small but still conquests) already made for the animals continue, will they be maintained or will they be eroded?

I very much doubt that we can be optimistic, if we look at how animals are treated in the rest of the world.

Dog-walking protest planned for Toronto mosque

TORONTO - A Facebook event has been launched inviting people to walk their dogs outside an east-end mosque during Islamic prayer sessions.
The call to action was launched to protest a man being arrested while walking his English mastiff at an anti-Israel rally at Queen's Park last Saturday.

The Facebook page encourages people to bring dogs "of all colours and breeds" to the Salahuddin mosque in the city's east end on Sept. 14.

On Saturday, a Jewish man was arrested while his dog near a rally held outside Queens Park by an Islamic group marking Al-Quds Day, a yearly event calling for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Allan Einstoss, a Jew who opposes the Al-Quds doctrine, showed up at the rally with his big-yet-friendly English mastiff, Cupcake. After Einstoss was allegedly told by an Al-Quds demonstrator to keep the dog away, he claims to have been punched in the chest by another. When Einstoss pushed back, he was handcuffed and held by Toronto police.

Cupcake was also reportedly kicked by one of the Al-Quds demonstrators.

Some devout Muslims believe dogs to be unclean and vehemently avoid the animals.

As of midday on Wednesday, five people had signed up for the mosque dog-walk and 253 others had been invited to the event.

One of those who signed up for the event is Brampton resident Walter Sapienza, a 58-year-old owner of two Yorkshire Terriers.

"I thought it was pretty disgusting, the way (Einstoss) was arrested," Sapienza said, adding if Al-Quds demonstrators have a right to call for the destruction of Israel, than others should have the right to walk a dog while they do it.

The crazy episode mentioned in the article is about a Canadian citizen, Allan Eintoss, walking his dog Cupcake in a public park in Toronto. The man was physically assaulted and his dog was kicked, but the police, instead of arresting the Muslim assailants, arrested him because the presence of the dog (a licensed, well-behaved, leashed care dog) had "insulted" the Muslims who were holding an annual anti-Israel rally nearby.

The annual hate-the-Jews day called Al-Quds Day, by the way, invented by the late Iranian dictator Ayatollah Khomeini, at which one protester showed up with the flag of the banned terrorist group Hezbollah - a picture of a fist grasping a machine gun - is a permitted display of anti-Israel demonization and pro-Iran propaganda.

Politics and Islam in Dhimmi Europe

Jihad Watch has published my article Politics and Islam in Dhimmi Europe:

Is Italy going to follow Britain in its path to advanced multiculturalism?

That is what part of the political leadership is trying to do, from Italy's President
Giorgio Napolitano, who said that "it is insane that Italian-born children of immigrants are not citizens" to the leader of the left-wing party Partito Democratico (PD), Pierluigi Bersani, who declared that one of his first moves, if voted into government at the next general election of 2013, will be to grant the right of citizenship to second-generation immigrants.

Some of Bersani's other priorities, as he announced addressing the organizers of Bologna's national 2012 Gay Pride, will be a law to give legal status to homosexual civil unions, a law against homophobia and transphobia, and another to speed up divorce cases. In sum, a real recipe to boost the family and with it the reproductive capacity of native Italians, who at the current birth rate will be reduced from today's 60 million to 37 million in 2050 and 15 million in 2100, when sharia will be definitely easier to implement.

Many comments to the post of this news item, predictably, highlight how the Italian people have very different priorities from Bersani's, like the economic crisis, unemployment, rising taxes and diminishing public services.

The country's current debate about whether to give Italian citizenship to the so-called "new Italians" is important for the problem of Islamization, because about one third of Italy's immigrants are Muslim.

Although Italy is not one of the European countries with the largest Muslim populations, the number of Muslims in Italy, like in the rest of Western Europe, has steadily increased: they were 600,000 in the year 2000, over 1,300,000 in 2009 (35 million in Europe), over 1.5 million (about 2.7% of the population) today, and they are expected to get to 2.8 million by 2030.

France, with 4.7 million Muslims in 2009, remains the continent's most Islamic country, but nevertheless in Italy a new Islamic place of worship is established on average every 4 days. And there are now jihadists with Italian citizenship.

The critics of Bersani's proposals point out that immigrants' children born in Italy, or even immigrants born abroad after 10 years' residence, can already apply for citizenship, the only requisite being that they live permanently in Italy to prevent exploitative behaviour of the welfare system on their part. So what's the need for a new law?

The PD also aims to abolish the crime of illegal immigration, which the party says has been practically made meaningless by the verdicts of the European Court, but still exists as an "abomination" in the Italian legal system.

The blog Qelsi writes: "They [left-wing parties] don't care about Italy and Italians: what matters is gaining power and everything is acceptable to get to Palazzo Chigi, even the Islamization of the cradle of Christianity and the humiliation of the ideals and aspirations of real Italians. Bersani talks about his proposed 'reform', which is in fact our de-Christianization."

The PD and other parties of the left have been accused of being after the immigrants' votes which, in a divided country as Italy is now, may have a big influence. After all, the socialist Hollande in neighboring France was put in office by the Muslim vote, which made the crucial difference. The numerical analysis of the various groups' votes showed that, without Muslims in France, Sarkozy would have won the election.

And the UK has led by example in a big way in this. As unintentionally whistle-blowing speech writer for the Labour Party Andrew Neather was later to reveal in a London Evening Standard newspaper's 2009 article paradoxically in favour of unrestricted immigration:

"What's missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from. It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of [Labour] ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration." [Emphasis added]

He then explains how the "major shift from the policy of previous governments" regarding immigration came after "I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls", which was largely based on drafts of a report by a Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank.

The final published version of the report supported immigration only because of the benefits it brings to Britain in terms of labour market; but previous, unpublished versions contained other reasons, he writes:

"Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.

"... Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean…

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. [Emphasis added]

In short, it was an experiment in demographic engineering for political and electoral purposes. Muslims tend to vote for the left partly to get the welfare state money, and partly because socialists suffer from a guilt complex associated with European past colonialism, in their view a moral debt for which native Europeans are supposed to pay back the Third World immigrants beneficiaries.

The chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank Sir Andrew Green said just after the Labour policies revelations: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, Member of Parliament Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, added: "It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

A glaring example of ethnic-oriented electioneering is the maverick ex-Labour politician George Galloway, founder of the Respect party and of the Viva Palestina convoys, who won a by-election campaign in Bradford West, northern England, unashamedly pandering to Muslims.

The Muslim vote in many parts of Europe is already changing the political landscape and creating a new one in its own image.

I'll conclude with an item that may potentially make you laugh or cry. The devout and practicing Muslim Demba Traoré, from Mali, has become in December 2011 the leader of the Italian far-left Radical Party, not new to maverick choices, like that of having the porn star Ilona Staller (Cicciolina) among its candidates elected to Parliament in 1987, coming second in number of votes only to the then party leader Marco Pannella.

The absurdity of having as its new leader - voted almost unanimously - a follower of the theocratic religion par excellence can be seen when one knows that the Radical Party is and has always been ferociously anti-clerical (but evidently only if the clerics are Christian).

The historical head of the party Pannella said it's important that "the Radical Party, non violent, transnational and cross-party, has elected as its secretary a faithful and practicing Muslim - in Rome, in the heart of Christianity, there is a party secretary who is a firm Muslim believer."

Classical Liberal Human Rights Are Not Today Socialist Human Rights

The principle of human rights is derived from the political doctrine of classical liberalism (not to be confused with "liberalism" in the modern American sense of left-wing political orientation).

Consistently with the liberal theory's emphasis on the individual's need to be protected from state interference and power, the concept of human rights has an originally negative connotation (permitting or obliging inaction), as the right not to be killed or physically attacked (right to life), not to be unduly restricted by the state (right to liberty), or not to be hindered in one's legitimate ambitions (right to pursuit of happiness). These are also called liberty rights, i.e. not entailing obligations on other parties, but rather only freedom or permission for the right-holder.

The human rights principle that has been used in recent times has the same name but little else in common with the liberal, original one.

It has a positive connotation (permitting or obliging action): right to a job, a house, a minimum income, free health care, free education, social security, financial support during unemployment, sickness or retirement, welfare, and many more: the list is endless. These are also called claim rights, i.e. entailing responsibilities, duties or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder.

The state in this perspective has become a provider, like a parent, it is a "paternalistic" state. Far from trying to limit its reach and power to control, people who advocate these ideas cause the state to expand its authority, become bigger and more influential on people's lives. The state becomes more and more like, well, a socialist state.

Karl Marx's formula for communism, his final goal after the intermediate, transitional socialism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, was: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

This formula, especially in its latter part, is no other than the new re-definition of "positive" human rights by socialists.

Every need gives rise to a new human right.

The governed then expect everything from the state. But as rights are the other side of duties, and freedom is the other face of the coin of responsibility, inversely to delegate responsibility is to abdicate power and renounce some freedom. The more people expect from the state, the less control they have over their own lives.

So, what happened to "human rights" is what happens to a concept when used in a different theoretical context.

"Time" and "space" have very different meanings in Newton's classical physics than in Einstein's relativity theory.

Time and space are absolute in the former, relative in the latter. In addition, time becomes the fourth dimension of space in the theory of relativity.

Each theory redefines its concepts. So, modern-day socialists, who have virtually all ideological and doctrinal power in the Western world since the end of the Second World War, have redefined the liberal concept of human rights and transformed it into something antithetical to it.

Time and space are absolute in classical mechanics but relative in modern mechanics.

Human rights in classical liberalism are a protection from state power, but in contemporary socialist view they are a way to make that power never-ending. These two concepts, under the deceitful guise of the same name, couldn't be more in opposition to each other.

Consenting Adults, Homosexuality, Incest, Polygamy, Bestiality: Defining Acceptable Sexuality

I don't normally watch The Jeremy Kyle Show, a sort of TV programme on the British underclass and its troubles, although it can be interesting at times.

Last night I watched it. There was a homosexual couple of two men, said to love each other very much. One had been adopted as a child, so he didn't know who his family were. The couple discovered that they were in fact half brothers. This revelation caused them much grief and an emotional state which was repeatedly described as "devastation".

Now I am genuinely asking this question.

What is the moral difference between incest and homosexuality? Not many years ago homosexuality was considered reproachable, now it isn't but incest is, in a few years' time, if current visible trends continue, incest will no longer be.

Let's start from the beginning. Initially, there was a prevailing position condemning homosexuality both morally and criminally.

This was, I believe, wrong, and so started believing many people.

The idea that homosexual orientation and behaviour were not per se unethical began to prevail, leading to a liberal attitude towards them.

So far, so good. What happened next was not so good, though.

Homosexuality, in the common usage, refers to two things: the inclination or orientation of sexual attraction for people of the same sex and the behaviour that acts on that inclination.

There has been a leap from decriminalising homosexuality and considering it as a legitimate and acceptable behaviour to assuming that same-sex sexuality is not a problem, in any sense of the word: and this is a big leap.

The new concept that established itself in public opinion about sex was that everything was morally acceptable among consenting adults.

But is this simple formula really standing even a superficial scrutiny?

For instance, what about incest? If the people "committing" it (and the very fact that we can still use this verb which we couldn't use in reference to homosexuality shows the double standard) are consenting adults, what then? Is it considered OK?

An obvious objection to putting the two on the same level could concern the biological problem of the increased genetical handicaps of the offspring from two close blood relatives. This, though, is easily surmountable by assuming that a) the incestuous couple is homosexual (as in our TV show case), or b) the incestuous couple is infertile for several reasons (the woman is past menopause, or the individual(s) involved are sterile through natural or induced causes).

In that case there is nothing to object to incest, if we accept that all sex between consenting adults is right. And if we do object to incest but not homosexuality, why then? There is here a glaring contradiction, which shows how confused and inconsistent our ideas about sexual morality are.

In fact, incest will in all likelihood become acceptable probably quite soon:

Most European countries have laws against incest between lineal ancestors/descendants, and between full siblings. However, in most countries these laws are no longer enforced if the incest takes place between consenting adults.

... UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has questioned the rationale behind laws prohibiting incest, at least as they apply to sex between adults.[Emphahsis added]

In Argentina and Brazil, similarly, incest between individuals above the age of consent is permitted.

In Italy, a new law implicitly recognizes incest by recognizing children of incestuous relationships.

Once upon a time, there was a witch hunt mentality against homosexuals, now there is a witch hunt attitude against so-called "homophobes", i.e. people who disagree with the current orthodoxy and received wisdom on homosexuality. Nothing has changed ethically in this 360-degree reversal in public opinion, except the victims.

The question is: if homosexuality is accepted not simply in the sense of society's and state's non-interference with somebody's personal choices but also in the sense of suspending any judgement, moral, psychological, psychiatric and medical, about homosexuality and its consequences, that means much more than liberalism and tolerance. That means dangerous limitation to freedoms of thought and speech, fundamental human rights.

If we then move to same-sex marriage, moreover, this is no longer just a personal choice: it's a choice that concerns all society, because marriage is a social institution, as well a Christian sacrament, and is central to society, so what happens to it concerns us all and will have consequences for us all, not just homosexuals.

This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one: is anyone capable of offering rational (I underline "rational") reasons why homosexual marriage should be allowed and not marriage of an incestuous couple, marriage of a threesome, or marriage between a man or woman and his/her pet or any other animal, or indeed any other form of marriage, if desired by the relevant parties?

If anybody has such reasons founded on rationality and logic, I'd be interested to hear them.

Can Mass Immigration and Multiculturalism End?

It's so true that, as philosopher Hegel said, the consciousness of a historical age comes at the end of it. Contemporaries usually think in terms of explanations, theories and the concepts defined by them derived from a previous epoch, which are inadequate to understand the new, developing realities.

This is related to an observation which could bring some hope.

Blogger Julia Gorin quotes James George Jatras, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and foreign policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, as saying:

In some ways, we [Bukovsky, Jatras, and their friends] were the heart of the Administration’s anti-communist line and the “fathers” of the National Endowment for Democracy. (As opposed to the prevailing view that communism was forever and we needed permanent detente with the Soviet regime. Looking back from today, it’s hard to believe how ingrained that view was). [Emphasis added]

Similarly, today Europeans think that mass immigration from the Third World and multiculturalism are here to stay for good.

Journalist and author Christopher Caldwell writes in his book Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Can Europe Be the Same with Different People in It? (Amazon US) (Amazon UK):

It is often noted with shock how long it took for European natives to realize that immigrants had settled in Europe to stay. Europeans went on thinking that immigrants would simply “go home” until at least the 1970s, when France first established programs to pay immigrants to repatriate themselves, and in some cases well into the 1980s. Today, however, Europeans often make the opposite mistake. They exaggerate how well established immigrants are in Europe. In high-immigration countries like Spain and Italy, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are first generation, and even in the oldest immigration countries, the immigrant population is much less rooted than it appears. In 2000, 60 percent of Germany's vast foreign population had arrived after 1985. Plenty of immigrants are full members of the society of their new homeland, with full claims on it. Just as many are not. [Emphasis added]