Islamofascists indeed... still

.

Some objectivists have used the term Islamofascist to describe Muslim activists who want a theocracy based on Islam - I wholeheartedly agree with that term.

.

Hat tip to Robert Winefield’s blog on SOLO Passion, who got this from a German blog and German TV news site.
.
See if any New Zealand media will have the courage to print this. The Islamofascists join the National Front - evil twisted scum the lot of them. Defend this you simpering leftwing totalitarian arse licking bastards on the left!

.

UPDATE: Well Ruth may be right, it could be fake, although apparently CNN reported it too.

Where is the love?

Hat tip to Tony Milne.

.

A letter from a 12yo boy to Tim Barnett with a drawing of how he should be hanged and then shot by Brian Tamaki.

.

Charming stuff - where does this come from? Love for people you disagree with?

.

I thought it was topical given my exchanges with AJ Chesswas - since this is the logical conclusion of a philosophy which effectively calls gay people depraved and perverted.

The reason for freedom - to come

Allan has asked (see his response to my earlier post) for a justification, objectively, of my philosophical position. This will come in the next few days (I don't have much blog time for the next two).

.

It appears his position is that there are behaviours he asserts are destructive and that it is the duty of other people to not only inform you that they are, but to stop you. He extends that to the state. Instead of making your own judgment, the matter is not even up for debate. This justifies censorship of material that supports, for example, homosexuality and certainly depictions of sexuality. It also justifies charging, convicting and incarcerating adults for what they do in their personal relationships - out of love - to protect them - because some people need to lead and others to follow.

.

There is a fundamental similarity between this, Marxism-Leninism, National Socialism and fundamentalist Islam - it is authoritarian and is a "we know best" attitude, about moulding people (and imprisoning or killing those who resist or who are inferior) into "perfect citizens" experiencing the ideal life. Allan may not be advocating killing people, but that is only a matter of degree - he is advocating using force to punish people for what they do to their own bodies.

.

Of course we already do this for illegal drugs - so he has a point, if you want to be consistent you need to lock people away for doing other things that are "bad for them", although the evidence about sex outside marriage being bad is not quite like drugs. Drugs also are not always bad.

.

If this is what he is advocating, then he should be honest about it. It means that adults do not own their bodies, their bodies are owned by everyone - and the state, as the expression of "society" enforces the rules that are "agreed" and punishes transgressors and does not even allow debate or expressions of contrary perspectives.

.

Why does it matter? Because nothing is more personal than one's own body and the intimate relationships that are formed with it. The idea that your neighbour, or group of neighbours or bureaucrats and politicians know better what to do with it than you do, is treating you like a child, imbecile or slave.

.

The question comes down to - who owns your life? You? Society? The State? or "God"?

.

I believe I do, and it is your business when something I do interferes with your ownership of your life.

.

UPDATE: Too much work to do, so it will come out in the weekend!

Lego Bible - a little like South Park

Hat tip to Maia for the link to the Brick Testament - which has the Bible in Lego. It isn't complete yet but...

it's frigging hilarious!!!

See naked Adam and Eve and then not.

Noah found naked and drunk, and how seeing this was avoided and other weird goings on.

When you can murder your family, the ban on bestiality, women dressing like men, men dressing like women

It's addictive!

Smoking in England

.

If there ever was an issue that conflicted me personally it is smoking in bars. The House of Commons has voted to ban smoking in all workplaces, bars, restaurants and even private clubs in England.
.
I loathe tobacco smoke, I am asthmatic and lived in households full of smokers for years. I doesn’t induce my asthma (I think I became immune), but I do find it revolting and bars/restaurants which are free of smoke are wonderful for me personally. It is easier to breathe and my clothes don’t absolutely reek at the end of a night out.
.
However, I disagree with the banning of smoking in bars and restaurants. Why? Because it is, fundamentally, not up to me. A bar or restaurant is not a public place – it is private property that the owner has let open to people to access on the owner’s terms. This includes employees and customers. This is why bouncers exist at some bars, to remove people the owner does not want. This is why the owner should decide whether or not smoking is allowed.
.
The employees of bars and restaurants can decide whether they prefer to work in a smokefree environment or not – many will find they can’t negotiate that or find few like that, some will. However, the employees do not own that space and should not dictate to the owner what is allowed or not allowed, unless it conflicts with their employment contract.
.
The patrons can decide to enter the bar or restaurant or not. There are increasing number of restaurants in the UK with large smokefree zones, indicating customer demand for such an environment. That is the way it should be. You have no more right to demand a restaurant be smokefree than to demand its waiting staff be topless or that it have a vegetarian option. If you don’t like it, you wont be giving the owner your money – the owner misses out as much as you do. The owner takes the risk.
.
Part of the problem is a mentality that somehow the government must direct you on this – some bars claim they have to allow people to smoke. No they don’t. It is your choice – choice for the owner, assessing how to meet the demands of the greatest number of patrons. Choice of the worker, deciding whether a smoky environment is worth the pay. Choice of the patron, whether they want to go somewhere where smoking is allowed or not.
.
One final argument is that this will produce enormous health benefits. I actually believe this is true – as it will, no doubt, reduce exposure to tobacco smoke. It will also encourage people to stop smoking when they go out drinking and I think the English prefer to drink over smoking anyday!
.
However, the ends do not justify the means. Just because people make bad choices does not mean the state should make them for them. Some are prepared to trade their health for the pleasure of smoking – it is their life after all. It is disturbing that no decision had been made yet on banning smoking in cars - you can see where it is heading can't you?

.

Note also that many airlines that had allowed smoking stopped it out of passenger choice - the last time I was on a flight with smoking was in the late 90s with the now defunct Swissair, and there were only two seats in one corner of business class with it. Swissair banned smoking in 2000, although it had nothing to do with its bankruptcy in 2002!
.
Only private homes, care homes, hospitals (!), prisons and hotel bedrooms are exempt from this ban in England, effective in just over a year. Have to wonder why someone owning a bar has less rights than a prisoner, and why the state, which owns the majority of hospitals in the UK, doesn’t ban it in hospitals in its capacity as owner. Interesting the House of Commons are exempt from the ban, as a Royal Palace its precincts are exempt from statutory health and safety provisions - Hells' Bells and they aren't all dead yet or injured without the protection of the state?