Over on The UK Debate Forum a chap currently living in America has posted a link to an article in The Washington Post suggesting that Obama "missed a golden opportunity" to react to Pastor Terry Jones.

Having read what this guest writer had to say, I have to admit I agree with almost every word.

I won't quote the article in full, The Washington Post deserves the benefit it gains from recording your click on their story.  But I will quote the first part of the article because it is the bit that struck home so forcefully with me.

Here is what the president should have said:

(Pastor) Jones has a solid constitutional right to burn any book he wants (assuming fire codes are met). But the First Amendment prevents the government from burning or censoring books. That is what makes us different from al Qaeda, Iran, and Shari'a law.

Jones has a right to believe anything he chooses. That right is absolutely protected -- the government cannot tell any American what to believe. That is what makes us different from al Qaeda, Iran, and Shari'a law.

The rest of America has an inalienable right to criticize Jones for his decision to burn the Koran. Just as Jones's speech is protected, so is his critics'. The American constitutional system rests on the necessity of open and often heated public debate. No "sensitivity" can prevent the press from publishing critical political cartoons about Mohammed or the pope. That is what makes us different from al Qaeda, Iran, and Shari'a law.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is the Muslim cleric proposing the Islamic Center two blocks from Ground Zero, has the right to build a mosque anywhere in New York so long as the plan satisfies the land use code. The First Amendment plainly condemns discrimination against any religious believer or group. As Mayor Bloomberg pointed out, there is no "mosque-free" zone. Because Rauf's project satisfies the land use code, the Constitution prevents New York or any other government from rejecting or impeding the plan based on religious identity. That is what makes us different from al Iran, and Shari'a law.

The rest of America has an inalienable right to debate Rauf's plan to choose a site two blocks from Ground Zero. Again, the First Amendment fosters such lively debate, partly because it is safer to permit zealots to vent than it is to tamp down their fire, but also because the more views that are circulated, the more likely it is that the truth, or at least a better vision, will emerge. That is what makes us different from al Qaeda, Iran, and Shari'a law.

And then President Obama should have reinforced our dedication to defeating threats to our constitutional order. He should have said: Here is the line we draw: beliefs are absolutely protected, speech is highly protected, but conduct can be regulated. So Jones and Rauf and every other American can talk, and criticize, and even rant. But they cannot kill or maim people whether they are religiously motivated or not.

Works For Me.

Pop Up Embed Embed this video on your site

OK now those of you who have had their internet and news access revoked for the past week or simply have had their minds on other things might be forgiven for not noticing that an unholy racket is starting to brew up over the decision by the chap portrayed in the above video, the man in charge of the "Dove World Outreach Center", to "Burn A Koran For September 11th"

Well, if you click the link in that last paragraph you will arrive at that establishment's page announcing "ten reasons to burn a koran" and in the sidebar you'll find a link offering five more.

As I pack my bags in preparation for my trip to this weekend's BNP Summer School (how typical to leave everything until the last minute) I turn on the BBC Radio 4 Ten O Clock News and hear that "for only the third time ever" (that's something I'll have to check) the Home Secretary has issued an order banning people from marching through the streets of Bradford.

The order was made to stop the English Defence League from marching through the town and it has, to the intense annoyance of a certain Weyman Bennett also caused Cameron's Claw Hammer Gang to be banned from marching to protest about EDL being allowed to march.

Now as our party members have been reminded The EDL are a proscribed organisation so were I writing this in any official party capacity I suppose a slap on the wrists would be coming my way just for suggesting they be allowed to do anything other than what Weyman would wish they would do. But that's another story that detracts from what I came here to say.

For after a cursory fifteen seconds or so of airtime was handed to the EDL's Tommy Robinson the lickspittle NUJ arse licking BBC allowed Weyman several minutes to rail away at how unfair it was that his band of brothers should not be allowed to strut up and down the streets to gloat at the EDL being prevented from doing the same.

But all the time he painted his claw hammer gang as whiter than white and pure as the driven snow, there was this nagging thing scratching away inside my head, trying to make me remember something.

And then I remembered.

Last time Weyman led his thugs into what he hoped would escalate into a street fight, in Bolton the police were waiting for him and he was promptly arrested on suspicion of having committed the crime of conspiracy to organise violent disorder and according to some sources was charged and bailed to appear in court at a later date to answer those charges.

So, Mr NUJ-arse-kissing BBC "journalist", answer me this. While you let Bennett whine and whinge about how "peaceful" his people are and how "violent" the EDL are, why did none of you bother to bring up the issue of Bennett's arrest and the subsequent charge of conspiracy to commit violent disorder ?

 
Image - and story - taken from "Radio France Internationale"

Well I must admit it, I never thought I would see the day come when this would happen, but it has. Or maybe not.

I remember driving off "Le Shuttle" at Coquelles and going to do some work for France Telecom some years ago. I remember it not for the job, nor the journey, nor the money, nor the difficulty or ease of getting paid it, nor for any of the dozen or so other things that flood into the mind when looking back at those high roller years.

No, the thing that sticks in the memory is the sight, the sound and above all the bloody smell of Sangatte, the "camp" for all manner of illegals who fancied their chances of jumping a truck and vanishing into the dark underworld on the other side, our side, of "La Manche".

God it must be a slow news day.

Over here on the BBC News site we hear of a man of Turkish Descent who is a permanent resident of New Zealand, is up on charges of domestic violence after passers by thought he was murdering his wife in the street.

Be honest.

If you saw this as you wandered home from the pub past the kebeb shop, what would you think ?

(image courtesy of url link from this page of the Mail Online)

But this man says he was performing a "kolbasti", a "dance" the literal translation of which is "caught red handed by the police" invented, if wikipedia is to be believed, by a bunch of turkish drunks.

Dancing ? Well I'm not convinced. Looking at the above it's not so much Midge Ure's"Dancing With Tears In My Eyes" as "Dancing With Petechiael Haemorrhage developing" (sorry for the spelling there). No I'm sorry on the evidence so far this is an Open and Shut Case M'Lud.