Islam is NOT peace as long as Muslims do not fight Islamists

Today I saw an ad inside the tube that I thought was intriguing, it talked of a young woman police officer here in the UK who is a Muslim, and how she was committed to protecting British citizens and the country. All very well I thought, and the website link from it was this.
^
So what is it all about?

^

The website says the campaign has 5 goals:

1. Fight Islamophobia wherever it occurs (in other words bigotry against Muslims. Well fine, although if this means supporting campaigns to do violence to anyone critical or laughing at Islam, then count me out. Muslims should be able to live anywhere in peace not harassed because of their religion, but they also must respect the rights of others to free speech regarding their religion);

2. Create dialogue to ensure Muslim concerns are taken into account to ensure concerns about racism and social exclusion are understood and Muslim voices are always in mainstream media (in other words be a voice for Muslims in lobbying government, though I suspect the term "social exclusion" means seeking taxpayers' money);

3. Government to work for long and lasting peace in areas of conflict, helping eliminate injustices that fervent division and nurture violence (in other words, the Palestinian issue);

4. Be creative, so that our community understands the mainstream and what its community wants to hear (? spin doctoring ?);

5. To create friendships and a culture of understanding (fine!).
^
It appears to be a British Muslim campaign to spread the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that British Muslims do not want to fight the liberal secular democracy of the UK (which it effectively is) but work within it. Well it appears to, except that there is virtually nothing on the website that gives any support for pluralist Western liberal secular democracy at all.
^
The website has a lot of video which gives a positive view of "Muslims in your neighbourhood", and includes a section on Islam. None of that is wrong in itself, and not for a minute would I imply British Muslims are predominantly inclined towards terrorism. It's a reasonably clever site, lots of women and girls as well, no doubt designed to dispel views that Muslims are misogynistic and discriminatory.

^

Unfortunately, it fails here. It makes it clear that Islam explicitly discriminates against women as they are required to cover more than men, because, of course, women who don’t cover are inciting rape aren’t they? Of course people should wear whatever they choose, if Muslims choose to cover up that’s their choice.

^

There is the section on marriage which is also curious. The website says “It is generally recommended that prospective husband and wife meet prior to marriage; although some couples choose not to, leaving it to the judgement of their families.” Generally recommended! Then we have more sexism with allowing men to have multiple wives but not vice versa. Wonder why? After all if men and women are equal, or are men more equal than women?

^

Women of course are seen as being very special "The woman’s priority lies in being a good mother” well that’s clear but to make it clearer “The decision to work is hers if she chooses but she will not be disrespected if she decides to concentrate on her primary role as a mother.” I wonder if the converse is true.

^

Don't ask about homosexuals though - they don't exist.

^

However this site isn’t about women, where it helps to re-emphasise the underlying sexism of Islam, but about peace. So how IS it on peace?
^
Well apparently non-Muslims should never be harmed, but interestingly only in the context of an Islamic state. Yes the “Islam is peace” website seems implicitly to support an Islamic state – you know, the type that means the state is not secular, not blind to religion and does not treat you as an individual with individual rights. The website says so here in the section on "misconceptions" responding to the claim that Islam is intolerant of other religions:
^
“One who kills a non-Muslim person (under the guardianship of an Islamic state) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise."
^
So there you go, you’re ok “under the guardianship of an Islamic state”, not the British government. Not intolerant as long as Islam is the basis for all laws and government? I’m less than unimpressed, in fact the whole credibility of this website is severely dented by this and the next statement that "Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person (under the guardianship of an Islamic state), I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection".

^

You see this justifies bombings in London or New York or Spain or Bali. Peace???

^

There is a small section responding to misconceptions about Muslim Fundamentalism. This exists of course, it is the basis for the Iranian constitution and government, the Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda etc. It exists and it is evil. You might have thought that this website would condemn Muslims who use Islam to justify political violence or the imposition of Islamic laws on non-Muslims. No.

^

In fact the site's credibility was further eroded. Instead of accepting that some Muslims, including the Taliban, the Iranian government and Hamas apply literal radical interpretations of Islam that incite violence and waging holy war and terrorism, and condemning this AS IT SHOULD HAVE! ... it says “Unfortunately, due to a twisted mixture of biased reporting in the media and the actions of some misguided Muslims, the word "Islam" has become almost synonymous with "terrorism".

^

Hold on, the biased reporting? You can't mean the BBC which never uses the word "terrorist". However, is there denial that almost sole terrorist threat in the Western world today comes from Islamists?

^

“Some misguided Muslims”? Some in New York, London, Glasgow, Madrid, Bali, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, India? Is there denial that most terrorism in the world in the past few years has been carried out by Islamists? Is the use of quotation marks around “terrorism” implying that it is something else? What is "misguided" if it isn't a weasel word for evil?

^

It goes on “However, when one analyses the situation, the question that should come to mind is: Do the teachings of Islam encourage terrorism? The answer: Certainly not! Islam totally forbids the terrorist acts that are carried out by some misguided people. Islam encourages peace, mercy and forgiveness. Killing innocent people totally contradicts the teachings of Islam.”

^
To which I say “Stop telling me this! I'm not the problem, the problem is in people who hold YOUR religion and preach YOUR religion. Tell the Muslims who DO carry out terrorist acts, who DO aid and abet them, who DO cheer when they happen, who FUND it. Reject them, report them, fight them if you can - if you want to have respect of being a British Muslim. Otherwise you are part of the problem.

^
And that’s the rub. You can tell non-Muslim Britons as much as you like about how you are good citizens and the like. You can try to sell how good your religion is, fine, there is free speech.

^
BUT. If you want people to believe YOU believe in peace then maybe you need to do something more than tell those who fear Islamist terrorism. You need to fight those who are Islamist terrorists, you need to turn on them and their supporters, and their funders. It means opposing the murderous Iranian regime, which executes teenagers for having consensual sex, or punishes girls for claiming they have been raped. It means opposing the Taliban, which banned music, education for girls and was one of the most brutally repressive regimes on earth, and which providing shelter and succour for Osama Bin Laden. It means turning on those who hold your religion and use it against us all.

^

Peace is not defined as being Islam, and Islam clearly is not peace for a sizeable number of Muslims. However, the majority of British Muslims are undoubtedly hard working peaceful residents who get on with their lives with little bother to others. If the point of the website is to point that out, then I think it goes without saying to most non-Muslim people here.

^

Howevr, if Muslims in Britain want to really know what is wanted, it is a clear categorical rejection of any interest in seeking an Islamic state in Britain, and a rejection of terrorism, including admitting it IS an Islamic problem. It means turning on those within Islam in Britain who threaten violence against this country, and NOT wanting to overthrow the secular liberal democratic state.

^

Quite simply if you want to live in Britain, then accept that it is a secular Western liberal democracy where individual rights are, by and large, protected. If you don't like that, then leave, and if you want to conspire to fight against it, or protect those who conspire to wage war against it - then you're no longer welcome, you're a criminal.

^
Sadly this website not only doesn't do that, but appears to be in denial that there even is a problem called "Islamic Fundamentalism". I'm sure Muslims in Britain can do better than that.

Young people rebel against Nanny State

Gee what a surprise. The NZ Herald reports that "the number of people aged 15 to 45 who have smoked at least once in the previous year has increased from 31.1 per cent in 2003 to 35.8 per cent."

^

The Ministry of Health is astounded no doubt that constantly telling people how bad they are doing something so bad for them, sometimes means it seems more seductive, more taboo, and appealing.

^

The report continues "It may be there was a general decline in lifetime use for tobacco, but the groups that were picking up smoking were doing it because it was seen as 'cool' and somehow anti-establishment. That included some young people, particularly young women, who were reacting to the Government regulation and the social intolerance that was developing for smoking."

^

Everyone with enough neurons to feed themselves should know smoking is deadly. Those who don't frankly ought to be left well alone to smoke themselves to an early grave - one of the most depressing legacies of humanity in recent generations is how much effort is spent keeping the gene pool full of stupid people who breed and raise more stupid people. That is also why adults should be allowed to not wear seatbelts (and please don't mention health costs when you also support socialist medicine).

Herald on Sunday is a post-modernist Marxist rag

Kiwiblog's commentary on the Herald on Sunday's editorial say so much - it is effectively the Guardian of New Zealand and should not pretend to be anything else, but a leftwing rag edited by a postmodernist who does not believe in an objective reality.

^

The claim that racism has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with power is intriguing - it would mean that Hutus murdering Tutsis who were in power and wealthier wasn't racism. You see what it means is that Maori "can't" be racist in this "world view". So it isn't about a person being bigoted on race, it is only white people bigoted on race. So when governments discriminate against non-Maori in favour of Maori for funding, university places or the like - it can't be racist - even though, objectively it is.

^

Racism is when you discriminate against someone on the basis of skin colour. Put two kids in a school yard and have one say the other one is inferior because she is white, black, brown or yellow - and it is racism - or if a group of Maori kids call a caucasian kid names, it isn't? Yes that is what the Herald on Sunday is saying - and yes, that is what so many of our university graduates are taught, and a not inconsiderably number of bureaucrats believe.

^

The post-modernist neo-Marxist structuralist definition used in the Herald on Sunday is the sort of moral relativist nonsense that is often trotted out by likeminded university lecturers - you know, the sort that say that a Maori lecturer humiliating a non-Maori student isn't racist because "Maori can't be racist". It is such mindless collectivist nonsense that appeals to the simple minded, and appeals to those who want to lie blatantly about their true agenda, which is a utopian (to them) vision of a revolutionary world where your place in it is defined by your race, class and sex. You see that's how the Herald on Sunday editor sees the world:

- A man has more power than a woman, the world makes it that way. Woman can't change this except through force;

- A caucasian has more power than a Maori, the world makes it that way. Maori can't change this except through force;

- A wealthy older person has more power than a poor young person, the world makes it that way. Young poor people can't change this except through force.

^

It think of us all as members of collective groups - you are not an individual, you are classified based on sex, race, income. It treats you as if who you are is defined by those characteristics, not what you do.

^

So many of those railing against the arrests of the Marxist Tuhoe activists and their comrades are "professional protestors" and great enthusiasts for state violence against the productive in order to pay for them and their friends. They warmly embrace the state ganging up against peaceful people who work hard, make a living and are successful with their lives, but suck on the state tit paid for by those people whether through welfare or state jobs. The Herald on Sunday is dead wrong in claiming "Those protesting against the police actions and their courtroom sequels are not seeking apartheid but evenhanded justice, openly dispensed".

^

Actually those protesting are seeking socialism, socialism with a strong Maori nationalist component that would cheerlead a kind of ethno-fascism regarding what is Maori over everything else - don't expect the media or education to be free and open under their world. After all, ever tried to have a free and frank debate about cultural value, history or philosophy with such people? Or do you just get a taste of "direct action" and violent threats? Simply look at their ideological comrades - Guevara, Lenin, Castro, Mao - none of whom hesitate to spill blood.

CYFS and Police fascism in 2007 - Cindy Kiro's world

I've reported on incidents like this before, an alleged (and strongly denied) case of adult incest. According to Stuff, a couple living together, he 48 and she 30, are biologically father and daughter, but she was adopted and didn't meet him until she was 19. They became close over time, remember that he wasn't her father throughout her childhood, and he moved from the UK to live with her, although they strongly deny a sexual relationship. Bizarrely, her birth mother found out and decided it was time to wreck vengeance for some reason, she contacted CYFS.

Now let's not forget that CYFS claims constantly it has a backlog of cases of children - as in people under 18 - at risk, and not being properly followed up. I would have thought that a case of alleged incest, between adults in their 30s and 40s, where there is little evidence, no complaint from anyone directly involved, would be bottom of the priority list.

Maybe CYFS CEO can be asked about that?

Then there is the Police response. Again, when you next report a burglary, or car conversion or even an intruder, ask yourself whether it will be quite as important as this. I also wonder if this isn't a case of a bunch of cops thinking that there is something so prurient about this case that they all want to be involved. Two adults have allegedly a criminal sexual relationship that involved nobody else but what do you do?

^

Stuff reports "12 armed police raided their Auckland home just after dawn on Easter Tuesday. The police, wearing bullet-proof vests and accompanied by a Child, Youth and Family officer, arrested the couple, who appeared in court a week later."

^

I guess it's a bit easier than raiding a criminal gang isn't it, big tough cops that they were!

^

CYFS busybodies then questioned the women's children (of a previous relationship) about whether "they had seen us touch in private places", so in other words getting her kids to spy on whether the couple had been sexual.

^

Remind you of anything? Well gay men before 1985 would know of this sort of questioning - it is the sort of questioning that is not out of place in Islamic Iran, and was not out of place in Nazi Germany. The childrens' mother and their biological grandfather were taken from the house at gunpoint, and the biggest concern of CYFS is whether the kids saw them grope - which apparently they did not.

^

So what about Cindy Kiro? Oh well you see, she wants children to be monitored by the state and regularly questioned about family life. I doubt she will stand up for this family to not have armed raids on it for doing nothing wrong.

^

Moreover I doubt whether there will be much outrage from other parties in Parliament.

^

So what is really going on here?

^

1. A couple are living together, aged 30 and 48. Nothing more is known, but they have had her kids questioned by CYFS investigators as to whether they've seen them do anything sexual, and they've had a DNA test each to determine if they are related (as his name is not actually on her birth certificate as the father).

2. There is no allegation of any force involved in this relationship, even if there is anything sexual and certainly no allegation of children being involved. In other words, IT IS NOT ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS WHAT THESE TWO ADULTS DO CONSENSUALLY IN THEIR OWN HOME.

3. It is criminal for them to have a sexual relationship if they are related.

4. It is such a high priority for the New Zealand Government, led by Labour (after all they claim credit for building roads, they have to claim credit for this), to send 12 armed cops in to arrest this couple and separate the mother from her kids.

5. It's difficult to get any Police interest in most property crimes, and the Police constantly claim how overstretched they are to cope with serious crime, but enforcing this victimless crime gets the Police interested - I'd hate to think because of a prurient interest in the case.

6. CYFS claims it is also overstretched with a backlog of cases to investigate. A case of an adult couple potentially having consensual incest has priority, and there is a high priority to separate the mother from the children and put them through grilling to help the Police with their enquiries when there are NO allegations of abuse of the children.

^

Disgusting, abhorrent and yes fascist that a peaceful couple that may not even be having sexual relations get arrested and gunpoint and have to face this law.

^

The law is an ass, but what really disturbs me is how the Police and CYFS have not used the discretion they should to treat it more appropriately. What would be wrong to simply send two officers to ask a few questions? What would be wrong to treat it like car conversion, take the details but say unless there is any serious evidence nothing will be done?

^

So what should be done?

^

In this case, the charges should be dropped for lack of evidence and the couple left well alone (in a proper jurisdiction you could sue the cops for the mental anguish caused, but ACC stops all that).

^

The law on incest should be repealed in its entirety (children are protected by age of consent laws) or at least not be applicable when both parties are 18 and over. It is a waste of money to have the state pursue this, and a gross invasion of personal liberty and privacy to give a damn.

^

So WHAT if they fucked each other? So WHAT if it offends you? It isn't a crime to have a gangbang, or to tie consenting adults up and spank, whip and pee on them. Why should THIS be a crime?

^

More importantly, the cops and CYFS need to be held accountable for initiating force and causing harm to this family. They have hurt nobody, including each other (except perhaps the feelings of the woman's birth mother). The cops and CYFS need to learn something about individual rights - oh and Cindy Kiro and her entire office need to be fired and disbanded.

Airbus A380 is NOT a revolution, it's the end of an era

The enormous media coverage of the very first commercial passenger carrying flight of the Airbus A380 "whalejet"as some have coined it, has been full of the hype that Singapore Airlines would have hoped for. However, I'm not going to agree with the view of many that the A380 is a revolutionary step forward - it's not. Why?
^
1. It is not the "biggest plane in the world", as the Russian built Antonov An-225 took that title in 1988. However, it is the largest one to be mass produced, as there is only only An-225 to date, and it is the largest airliner.
^
2. It is not a particular quantum leap in capacity, if only because many airlines are using the vastly increased floorspace to upgrade their on board product. In any case, unlike the Boeing 747 it is not a doubling of seating compared to its predecessors.
^
3. It is not technologically a major leap forward compared to the last brand new large jet airliner introduced by the "big two" of Airbus and Boeing - the last was the Boeing 777. It does represent an evolution, but not a revolution.
^
4. The passenger product introduced by Singapore Airlines is only an advance in First Class Suites (the now famous double beds for some), with separate cabins, and beds separate from seats. The Business Class and Economy Class products are identical to their existing Boeing 777-300ER aircraft (which, by the way, don't yet fly to New Zealand), and have been getting rolled out on those 777s for the past year.
^
In short, it's bigger, quieter and the windows are a bit bigger. All very well, but that is it. You see the key difference between the A380 and future new airliners, is that it is probably the last predominantly aluminium jet airliner to be built. The next ones, the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350XWB will be predominantly carbon composite - with windows twice the size of existing airliners, a flight interior altitude substantially lower and humidity substantially higher than that of current airliners. In other words, a major change to the current experience of being dehydrated and feeling cooped in a metal tube. The A380 is a fine replacement for airlines that need a 747 or larger sized airliner, but there aren't too many of those - Air New Zealand almost certainly will never buy any.
^
It's also important to dismiss the nonsense debate that the A380 competes with the 787 Dreamliner - as if airlines that need a 450 seat airliner, wouldn't need a 250 seat one or vice versa. Given that Singapore Airlines, Qantas and BA have bought both, this is a debate created by journalists interviewing their laptops. There is clearly a market for the A380, it's just for now it not enough to make it break even - 190 so far. The Boeing 787 has sold 710 so far and hasn't flown. I think we can tell which aircraft manufacturer chose the right market to target!