There may not always be an England

Q.  When does the British government subsidize a TV channel that carries the rants of anti-gay religious fanatics?

A.  When the TV station is run by Islamist extremists.

OK, that one was a softball.  But it’s worth pointing out a telling contrast in the British government’s stance on people’s right to think unapproved thoughts about homosexuality.

Here is what Mr. Abdullah Hakim Quick, a speaker who has been featured on Britain’s Ramadan TV, has to say about gays:

Read the full post at Hot Air

41 thoughts on “There may not always be an England”

  1. hope you’re well and not going to have to re-hash old posts into messes such as that.

    John Bull has seen far uglier days and hate groups far more extensive and far more powerful than the current crop of louts.

  2. “[T]he [High Court] judges stated:
    · That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality” [my emphasis]

    Isn’t that an interesting and highly revealing turn of phrase. Homosexuals only want same-sex marriage as a signpost on the road to full societal acceptance, which can only come when society fully endorses homosexuality. That is the end goal sought.

    On a more immediate level, neutrality toward homosexuality isn’t acceptable. It must be promoted and encouraged if the child shows any interest or curiosity and the demonstration of ‘positive attitudes’ is required.

    “So, it is clear that if you are Christian and don’t endorse homosexuality, you will be denied participation in government-regulated activities – even if you state, as Eunice Johns did, that you have no animus against gays. But if you are an Islamist organization and your featured speakers advocate death for homosexuals, you can be subsidized by a government agency – that is, by the UK taxpayer.”

    The cognitive dissonance that you point out will continue until the inevitable conflict between the mutually opposed but two sides of the same coin ideologies of Islam and leftist ideology are no longer avoidable.

    This isn’t merely a case of the State disallowing Christian dogma to influence adoptive children, it must be endorsed.

  3. yes indeed, the law prohibits official acts of discrimination…and to hell with Christian dogma if it’s used to usurp the prerogative of the state in civil affairs.

      1. I didn’t find any such affirmative requirement. i saw that there was a requirement to not instill negative attitudes…..

        as per your usual, you fell short of considering that there’s a reasonable middle.

        1. “[T]he [High Court] judges stated:
          · That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality”

          No ‘middle ground’ there fuster, it’s entirely at the discretion of the local authority. They can require that adoptive parents demonstrate a “positive attitude” towards homosexuality.

          That’s promotion and encouragement no matter what you call it.

          Or are you going to offer the old “it depends upon what the meaning of is, is”…

          1. try supplying the quotation in context, GB…… you might learn something … you might even figure out the identity of the legal guardian of the children in question.

            when Christians are dealing with children not their own, they don’t get to treat those children as if they are their own.

            1. You’re the one who’s brought up context fuster, so supply it, rather than insinuate that somehow it changes what is plainly stated.

              You continue to avoid the primary issue fuster, which a clear indication that you cannot address it. I.E. Local authority can require that adoptive parents demonstrate a “positive attitude” towards homosexuality.

              The issue isn’t Christian’s treating adoptive children as their own, but even then you’ll only maintain a valid argument if you support the banning of Muslims from being adoptive parents. Islam being far more inimical toward homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgendered individuals.

              And, by the way, if adoptive parents don’t treat the children they adopt as their own, they’re not good parents. It’s parents inculcating values/opinions of which you disapprove, wherein your objection lies.

                1. Point taken. I overlooked that difference. But the difference is much less than you intimate. Very young children get adopted, the older the child, the more certain that they will remain with foster parents. A good foster parent will be obligated to extend love and the guidance of the personal values/opinions they hold dear, just as much as an adoptive parent.

                  And the pejorative ‘dippy’ confirms your inability to address the points I’ve made.

                  1. the difference Geoffrey, in law, is great.

                    adopted children are not wards of the state, foster children are.

                    the state retains responsibility for foster kids and foster parents, in that capacity, are compensated agents of the state. that is a HUGE difference and THE STATE has a duty to oversee the education of those kids.

                    the decision has no implication for adopted children or “natural” families.

                    and that makes the opticon’s points silly and no more than a repetition of the arguments of the Christianist advocate’s attorneys.

                    our hostess has a larger point about the secularism and political conformity that creeps into all our lives and is further along in Europe, but she jumps the shark whenever she tries to interpret legal decisions. she would do well to get grounded …and advised.

                    1. Yes, the legal difference is great and entirely irrelevant to the deeper issue under discussion. The ‘state’ neither has the responsibility nor the right to interpret its duty to oversee the education of its wards, as a right and obligation to inculcate and encourage children to have a “positive attitude” towards homosexuality.

                      In your condoning, the state granting local authority the legal right to require that foster parents demonstrate a “positive attitude” towards homosexuality…it is you that has ‘jumped the shark’.

                      Laws are too important to leave their creation and evaluation to lawyers and judges. Opticon is doing just fine in her legal analysis. If laws are too complex for an intelligent, well educated person to evaluate them, then they have been made purposely so and corruption of the public good is always the end goal of such laws. “Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so, when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819

                      BTW, it was I who misspoke, confusing adoptive parents with foster parents, not the opticon. In addition, she never claimed that the decision had implications for adopted children or “natural” families.

                      So that cannot be used to label her views “silly and no more than a repetition of the arguments of the Christianist advocate’s attorneys.”

  4. Just a few points,i don’t know why the word England keeps being used and not the U.K. ,and then using the Union Jack to accompany it.

    Ramadan TV is broadcast during the fasting month of Ramadan.

    The NHS paid for public health advice.From dealing with those exempt,like the elderly,diabetic and pregnant women,but also the effects of fasting for a month

    They do the same with Christmas-when we all get drunk and Bombfire night when we all set fire to eachother.You can criticize this as anannystate.

    Apparently during this time huge numbers of muslims watch these specific programs which include cooking show’s.

    Saudi Arabia has put a fatwa on it and other muslims countries have
    got angry about some the issues.
    This is because they used actor’s to portray the story of Ramadan and because they have shown Saudi women by a car,in support of women driving.
    If there was homophobic rants then there are systems in place,like this,

    It is a bit of a stretch to link this to adoption but it has allowed
    the anti British rhetoric so common on this site.

    It has nothing to do with Americans and please don’t lecture us on terrorism.
    This will lead me to bring up the IRA and your ‘terrorist hater’the charming Peter King a politician who funded this terrorist group and still believes that is fine because they didn’t kill American’s.

    1. Welcome, mags. I’m not sure what you mean by “keeps being used,” but the word England was used in the title here because of the song “There will always be an England.”

      As for your other points, they don’t refute any of mine. But feel free to make more points as you are moved to.

      1. I wrote it on hot air and just copy and paste to here,the Union Jack was used and some of the comments written there were ridiculous assumptions.

        Ofcom is investigating the issues could you not wait until then.It’s investigating the funding.
        You are implying that this is a State muslim channel. NHS paying for advertising is different to government endorsement,if that turns out to be wrong then we will see what they recommend.

        I agree the NHS does use tax payers money and it is fair game to face criticism,but from the British taxpayer not Americans.

        I live in Liverpool work in a big city centre hospital and have family all around the country.
        The way ‘the muslim’s’ here are portrayed on right wing American sites do not reflect reality here.Before you start we not brain dead or stupid.

        We do condemn hate speech,this could await Ramadan tv,

        Read the comments made on hot air and note nobody addressed the issue of IRA funding and Peter King who Americans have voted for and still supports even though his hate speech includes

        “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry

        , “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

        Of comparisons between the terrorism of the I.R.A. and that of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, Mr. King said: “I understand why people who are misinformed might see a parallel. The fact is, the I.R.A. never attacked the United States. And my loyalty is to the United States.”

        He said he does not regret his past pro-I.R.A. statements. The Irish group, he said, was “a legitimate force”,

        1. Haven’t you heard? It’s an interconnected world. When anyone, anywhere behaves in a manner worthy of criticism, they shouldn’t be surprised to receive it. We still have this thing called “free speech”. “He who dares not offend, cannot be honest.” — Thomas Paine

          Laws against “hate speech” necessarily outlaw giving offense. And hate speech is not the same thing as “incitement to violence” though incitement to violence necessarily is hateful.

          The apologia for the behavior of Muslims in the UK in the UK mainstream press and by the government is quite well known here on the other side of “the pond”.

          The UK police avoiding patrolling in more than a few Muslim areas of the UK’s cities is also well known.

          And, 1 in 3 British Muslim students back killing for Islam and 40% want Sharia law

          Looks like assimilation isn’t going quite as well as might be hoped, eh?

          Wouldn’t accuse you of being “brain dead or stupid” just willfully obtuse.

          You linked to an article that protested against Muslim extremist hate speech being censured. And Ofcom gave Press TV an out: move editorial control to London and the ‘hate speech’ can continue. Now that Tehran realizes that Ofcom is ‘serious’, ceding editorial ‘control’ to a proxy will be easily arranged. None of this challenges the pattern of appeasement that the UK is displaying to its militant Muslim population.

          I know of no one who supports IRA bombing. Nor anyone who condones it. We have our nutjobs like everyone else, so I’m sure some do but that is not the position of the great majority of Americans.

          The IRA are terrorists, plain and simple.

          1. . “He who dares not offend, cannot be honest.”

            So you agree that Ramadan TV should make anti gay rant’s,that’s freedom of speech as well ?
            I have seen those charming Westboro Baptist Church protests on soldiers funeral’s ,so obviously they represent half Christian American’s.
            The other half live in Utah,where they all dress in the most un flattering outfits teamed with the most ridiculous hair styles.

            I have been reading that in the US there is a crime called ‘legitimate rape’,because American women have a superpower to repel sperm invasion.
            The apologists for this by Americans are well known on our side of the pond.

            Haven’t you heard? It’s an interconnected world. When anyone, anywhere behaves in a manner worthy of criticism, they shouldn’t be surprised to receive it. We still have this thing called “free speech”.

            As for giving in to ‘the muslim’s’,we invaded two muslim countries ,with NATO we have bombed the crap out of another,threatening to do the same with two other countries.
            We are supporting the U.S bombing of Pakistan ,Yemen and Somalia,these action’s are not going down very well in muslim communities
            There are militant muslim extremists here and anti terrorist laws have been strengthened.
            Are you aware how many operation’s have been thwarted?

            We probably disagree about what to do about it. We have had thirty years of IRA terrorism and on reflection there were a lot of mistakes made,we have to learn from this.
            If are interested or confused with that statement then i would be happy to discuss it.

            I know of no one who supports militant Islam. Nor anyone who condones it. We have our nutjobs like everyone else, so I’m sure some do but that is not the position of the great majority of British

        2. mags, the NHS agency bought advertising time on Ramadan TV, which features speakers who advocate death for homosexuals.

          Yet the British High Court ruled that state agencies can require people to express a positive view of homosexuality.

          These are simply facts. No nation can handle government being this big, not even the UK. Being inconsistent on principle, and treating people unequally before the law, is exactly what big, intrusive government always ends up doing.

          If Ramadan TV loses its broadcasting license, that will be yet another instance of big-governmentism. I disagree profoundly with what is said on Ramadan TV, but I disagree as well with the state being able to shut down the media outlet. Media broadcasting should be independent of government as to content. If someone’s going to shut down Ramadan TV, it should be the privately owned and operated channel-bundler(s) (e.g., the cable TV providers, in the US, who could choose to bundle Ramadan TV for the viewers, or not).

          The fact that you and I are not on the same page regarding what government should do, and what freedom of thought actually means, is the best evidence there is that Britain has changed.

          1. I am deeply concerned that you seem overly obsessed and troubled by selected events in the U.K.
            As this has nothing to do with you i would suggest that in your need to judge our society you venture out of your narrow mind set.

            OFCOM is independent,there are laws of broadcasting and viewers have a right to redress.If you are so enraged and insulted by Ramadan TV homophobic views i suggest you complain to OFCOM.
            It is you repeating it over and over that gives it oxygen,we tend to ignore tossers.

            Look trying to link these two events doesn’t make much sense love.

            I was going to explain the High Court ruling on the Jones’s but others already did that last year .You have just rehashed a tainted article pushing an agenda.
            But for what it’s worth,

            The couple want to foster children, but a condition of being a foster parent is that one not discriminate against homosexuals by e.g. telling children that a gay lifestyle is morally wrong. That’s exactly what these prospective parents wanted to do.

            I think that if people believe homosexuality is morally wrong, and believe children should be taught that, then it is their right to lobby parliament, etc to get the law changed (and the rules re foster parents).

            But the view, not that the law or the rules re fostering themselves be changed, but that certain individuals should be exempt on religious grounds, strikes me as unjustified.

            This couple were denied the right to foster not on the grounds that they are Christians but on the grounds that they hold bigoted views likely to harm children in their care. Plenty of Christians aren’t bigoted in this way. So there’s no objection to them fostering. It’s not the Christianity that’s the obstacle. It’s the bigotry (which happens to be religiously motivated)

            ‘The fact that you and I are not on the same page regarding what government should do, and what freedom of thought actually means, is the best evidence there is that Britain has changed.’

            I am not confident that you have any idea what the British people believe what government should do,and what freedom of thought means but don’t let that stop you making sweeping generalizations.

            If you want to base your opinion on reality let me know,i might be able to help.

            1. Why don’t I just reply that you should venture out of your narrow mindset, mags? How about if I tell you that you have no hope of basing your opinion on reality? Suppose I tell you that you have no idea what you’re talking about and can’t form intelligent ideas anyway?

              Would that be better? Would doing that improve communication here? If not, then perhaps you can understand that your mode of communication isn’t improving things either.

              The only thing evident from your continued statements of the same opinions is that you still hold them and still think I’m wrong. You’re free to do so. You, however, are still dismissing the question of whether government should be leaping in to exercise an official function every time someone has an opinion — on homosexuality or any other matter.

              I do understand your position. It’s the eternal position of the person who thinks an official authority needs to adjudicate everything.

              But there is no circumstance that can mitigate either of the basic facts in this case. Big government will always lead to exactly such facts: inconsistency and unequal treatment of the people. The best remedy is to keep government small (e.g., if there were no NHS, or if NHS didn’t advertise on TV, or if city councils couldn’t prohibit foster parenting based on a homosexuality litmus test, none of this would have happened). Merely having more officious bodies, like OFCOM, isn’t a good answer.

              Your mindset is the ordinary, common one, that there must be more and more people given the power to make decisions for us when there are disputes (such as what people “should” think about homosexuality).

              The larger, more uncommon mindset is that the people have a right to their intellectual and moral disputes, and that if you keep govermnent out of them, your nation and society will be better off. That mindset was outlined and advocated by philosophers of England and Scotland in the 17th and 18th centuries. The fact that you show no trace of it now, whereas many Americans can still understand and make arguments from it, demonstrates how far apart our nations have drifted.

              Will you feel better if I now make a snide comment about your intelligence or ability to cogitate? Well, sorry, I just can’t do that. It’s a worthless waste of time when there are important things to talk about.

              1. government isn’t ” leaping in to exercise an official function every time someone has an opinion — on homosexuality or any other matter.”

                it’s demanding that persons acting as agents of government to care for minor children for whom the government exercises guardianship be instructed in accordance with the policies of the government.

                and you’re insisting that the government is doing something vastly more broad……and while your intelligence should prevent you from making the claim…..your opinions are at odds with reason.

              2. I think we have got lost in translation,it wasn’t my aim to sound pissy.

                I’m not saying the government should shut down any broadcast media they don’t like.

                Like your good selves we have licencing laws,because there are some restrictions on freedom of speech.

                I work in the NHS,i am saying that just because we gave public health advise during Ramadan does not mean the Government has a double standard on homosexuality because we are scared of ‘ the Muslims’

                We also target and try to give health advice to prostitutes and drug addicts,this doesn’t mean the government approves these groups.
                It would be like you saying ‘England’ backs prostitution even though it’s illegal.

                It isn’t the NHS’s role to be political. The NHS does this across all the media ,there are homophobic comments there but it doesn’t mean we should stop giving the wider audience advice which benefit’s the whole country
                When i rambled on about comments made in the U.S media i was not saying they shouldn’t be able to say those things,i was saying ,that their views didn’t mean ,say in Peter King’s case ,the U.S government
                is not an ally in the War on terror because he is paid by the U.S government.
                Tax payers money is being used to promote Irish terrorism but your government is a load of crap and has double standards when it comes to muslim terrorism.

                I only saying that it is our tax payers money and if we don’t see it the same as you do,that doesn’t mean we are wrong.

                For what it’s worth,my sister is gay,in this case i don’t want my taxes
                to pay for foster and respite care from people who dehumanise her because of a religious belief,any religious belief.

                They are free to view homosexuality as they please but if they want the State to pay them then WE don’t think it is acceptable to see gay people that way and sit in judgement and not believe they are equal never mind acceptable.

                Say they wanted to give respite care to child with gay parent’s.
                Are you really saying it is ok to send them to an environment that will claim to the child that their parents lifestyle is unacceptable?
                With fostering and respite the State does involve the parents,do you not want their wishes expressed.?

                In their absence, have they no say in how they want their children cared for and the detail’s of what they would be taught.

                I find that more scary

                You are trying to force an opinion on how you see us,even though we broadly don’t feel the same


      2. Your take on the Johns case where you ommitted the bits of the story you thought were inconvenient to the case you wanted to make was well debunked by me last year. (The fact that rather than being a genuine controversy, the Johns, assisted by a far-right organization had attempted (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) to manufacture a ’cause celebrere’)

        Ramadan TV, a completely independent outfit, received a small subvention from the taxpayer to air health-related information to a particular section of the community that might not be reached by other media outlets. I would imagine that Mr. Quick’s outburst will not be helpful to the TV station if it intends to apply for a renewal of its small subvention next year.That’s a matter, of course, for the duly-elected local politicians to decide. What is also of note is the outrage of the notoriously homophobic far-right when some Moslem takes their best lines.

        And Mags is quite right when she highlights the relentless torrent of hatred and disdain against the Brits and other Europeans in this and other far-right US based web-sites. Brits like Mags should be reassured that this sewage is a minority taste in the US, and does not represent mainstream opinion of either liberal or conservative Americans.

        Britain, France, Germany, and all our European friends who share our core values are seen as kith and kin by all but a few extremists on this side of the pond. The latter are now so inured in their isolated ideological bitterness that they need to reinforce themselves by dining a-la-carte on the truth.

        1. You’re quite right that all our European friends share your core values. But those ‘values’ are those of the left, which are not America’s classical liberal values.

          1. On behalf of Queen and Country we appreciate your support and your
            correct interpretation and insight.

        2. What is also of note is the outrage of the notoriously homophobic far-right when some Moslem takes their best lines.

          When the suffix “phobia” is added to a word it denotes fear, as claustrophobia, a fear of enclosed spaces, or agoraphobia, a fear of crowds. The term “homophobia” is an Orwellian neologism. There are people that deplore homosexuality or are revulsed and repelled by it, but probably not many that are actually afraid of it. The canard that “hate is not a family value” also implies that revulsion is the same as hate.

          The “notoriously homophobic far-right”, is a lame attempt to lump together a diverse group of individuals under multiple umbrellas of derision.

    2. The NHS may have paid for public health advice but part of what it got was Abdullah Hakim Quick, who stated that “homosexuals must be killed, that they are “sick” and “not natural”, and that “Muslims are going to have to take a stand [against homosexuals] and it’s not enough to call names.”

      Your apologia makes no mention of that, which makes you and, as its public policy, the UK fair game for facing criticism. Where is your talk of hate speech when the Muslim utters it? Alas, nowhere to be found.

      We take notice of it and, when the pattern is unmistakable and certain, we mention it. Rather than examine it on its merits, you label it “anti-British rhetoric”, which given its inaccuracy is a form of hate speech. An attempt at delegitimizing through emotion, what cannot be rebutted through reason.

      1. ‘We take notice of it and, when the pattern is unmistakable and certain,’

        I have just told you that aspects are mistakable and uncertain but don’t pay any attention to me i only live here. Please put the Daily Mail down.

  5. how dare you demand accuracy and fair play.

    we’re Americans and no better than we ought to be.

    when you bloody British maniacs stop your wanton slaughter of young frogs for your unspeakably vile “toad in the hole”, come back with your cheeky lectures.

    1. I agree ,we are trying to outlaw the other unspeakably vile slaughter to produce ‘spotted dick’,a dish served up frequently during school dinners which has done great harm to citizens of the United Kingdom

        1. I understand that the victims of the “toad in the hole” holocaust are our friends with trotters. It’s the vile French who eat your kith and kin.

          1. P, it was a jest intended with myself (as an ignorant combative American) as the target.

            I know that you expect ultra-seriousness on this site, but keep an eye open. despite all else, if you are careful, you’ll learn that our hostess was a veeery dry and sharp wit.

  6. Speak for yourself, you’re no better than you ought to be.

    And toads are loathsome creatures, carriers of warts. The less of them, the better.

    The French, ‘frogs’ to the British, eat their frogs…care for an all expenses paid trip to France?

    Yes, I looked up “toad in the hole” well prepared, it might well be tasty.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: