Saturday, March 05, 2011

How long before Christians are actively persecuted in England?

Sean Gabb

I return to the matter of our ruling class bias against Christians. Why? Why should Christians be so disliked? Why should Christian hoteliers be persecuted for refusing to take in homosexual guests, or refusing to let them occupy double beds? Why should Christians not be protected – given our apparently comprehensive anti-discrimination laws – when forbidden to wear crosses at work? Why should banknotes be printed with pictures on them of Charles Darwin? The facts that Darwin was a great man, and that I think he was right about evolution, are beside the point. For very large number of British citizens, he was a gross blasphemer. Why are the few British colonies that remain being ordered to remove any reference to Christianity from their constitutions? Why do many local authorities keep trying to rename Christmas as Winterval? Why is there so much evidence, both anecdotal and on the record, of an official bias against Christianity?

We are moving towards a persecution of Christianity because Christians believe in a source of authority separate from and higher than the State. Until recently, it was the custom of absolute states to make an accommodation with whatever church was largest. In return for being established, the priests would then preach obedience as a religious duty. Modern absolute states, though, are secular. Such were the Jacobin and the Bolshevik tyrannies. Such is our own, as yet, mild tyranny. In all three cases, religion was or is a problem. Though a Catholic, Aquinas speaks for most Christians when he explains the limits of obedience:

Laws are often unjust…. They may be contrary to the good of mankind… either with regard to their end – as when a ruler imposes laws which are burdensome and are not designed for the common good, but proceed from his own rapacity or vanity; or with regard to their maker – if, for example, a ruler should go beyond his proper powers; or with regard to their form – if, though intended for the common good, their burdens should be inequitably distributed. Such laws come closer to violence than to true law…. They do not, therefore, oblige in conscience, except perhaps for the avoidance of scandal or disorder. (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 96, 4, my translation)

Bad laws do not bind in conscience. And there may be times when even the avoidance of scandal or disorder do not justify public obedience. Then, it will be the duty of the Faithful to stand up and say “No!” It will be their duty to disobey regardless of what threats are made against them. Any ruling class that has absolutist ambitions, and is not willing or able to make an accommodation with the religious authorities, will eventually go too far. It will command things that cannot be given, and then find itself staring into a wall of resistance. The French Revolutionaries were taken by surprise. The Bolsheviks knew exactly what they were doing when they hanged all those priests and dynamited those churches. Our own ruling class also knows what it is doing. The politically correct lovefeast it has been preparing for us throughout my life requires the absolute obedience of the governed – absolute obedience to commands that no fundamentalist Christian can regard as lawful. Therefore, the gathering attack on Christianity.

As said, this does not yet apply to the other religions. The Jews are untouchable. Besides, religious Jews are a minority within a minority, and involve themselves in our national life only so far as is needed to separate themselves from it. The Moslems and others are not really considered part of the nation. Otherwise, they are considered objective allies of the new order under construction. Otherwise, no one wants to provoke them to rioting and blowing themselves up in coffee bars. But it goes without saying that other believers must eventually be persecuted should the Christians ever be humbled.

I think this explains what is happening. Whatever the case, it is wrong. Now, the accepted rule for defending any unpopular group is to begin with a disclaimer – for example: “I am not myself a Christian/homosexual/white nationalist, etc. Indeed, I bow to no man in the horror and disgust these people inspire in my heart.” There are further protestations that depend on the circumstances. But the concluding plea is the same: “It is therefore only out of a possibly misguided commitment to Victorian liberalism that I ask for these people not to suffer the extreme penalties of law. All else aside, it sets an unwise precedent that may be used one day against undoubtedly good people.”

Well, I do not propose to make this sort of defence. I am a Christian of sorts, and I think that even fundamentalist Christianity is a very fine religion. It is the historic faith of my country, and part of my national identity. It is also connected, however loosely, with the growth of civility and the rule of law. I do not like to see it persecuted. And the persecution is wrong in itself. I may not have a clear message to give about the refusal to let two elderly Pentecostalists become foster parents. But I do object to the creeping delegitimisation of the Christian Faith in England. Any Christian who is willing to stand up and speak in the terms set by Thomas Aquinas gets my support.

But now – and only now – that I have said this, I will talk about precedents. Sooner or later, the present order of things will come to an end. It is based on too many false assumptions about human nature. It is based, indeed, on too many misapprehensions about the natural world. In the short term – even without pointing guns at them – people can be bullied into nodding and smiling at the most ludicrous propositions. In the longer term, bullying always fails. The Bolsheviks had seventy years, and murdered on a scale still hard to conceive. They never produced their New Soviet Man. Except for the worse, they never touched the basic nature of the Russian people. Our own ruling class will fail. What new order will then be established I cannot say. But I suspect it will be broadly Christian.

What we shall then see may not be very liberal. Possibly, homosexual acts will be made criminal again, or everything just short of criminal. I spent my early years as a libertarian denouncing the legal persecution of homosexuals. I have now spent years arguing against persecution by homosexuals. I may sooner or later need to turn round again. As with all collective revenge, the individuals affected will not be those who are now behaving so badly – just as those now persecuted probably did not make any fuss about the 1967 Act that legalised most homosexual acts. But that is the nature of collective revenge. Because the most prominent homosexual leaders have not been satisfied with a mere equality of rights, ordinary homosexuals in the future may find the current precedents used against them.

For the moment, however, England is a country where Christians are fair game for harassment. I do not suppose that the case of Mr and Mrs Johns will be my last reason for commenting on this fact.

More here

Will it ever stop? Yet another false rape claim from Britain

They sure come thick and fast

Two soldiers back from the Afghanistan frontline were falsely accused of rape by a teenage girl hours before a parade in their honour, a court heard today. The men were woken up to be arrested at dawn and instead of proudly marching through town with their comrades, spent the day in police custody falsely accused of a brutal sex attack.

Bobbie Martin, 18, was found in a ‘distressed state’ by a friend shortly after the alleged late night attack outside the Royal Hotel in Scarborough. She told police one of the men held her down while the other raped her. In reality it was all a ‘charade’ and ‘wicked lies’ made for no apparent reason against two honourable men who had done nothing wrong at all, the judge said.

Returning war heroes Major James Thurstan and Regimental Sergeant Major Edward Pickersgill of the Coldstream Guards – and who are both married – never laid a finger on the jobless teenager.

They were sitting on a bench eating a takeaway meal when the drunken teenager approached them, flirted and exposed herself.

The court heard they showed ‘considerable restraint’ to humour Martin before walking away and returning to their hotel beds to sleep. It was only when police examined CCTV that detectives realised the soldiers were telling the truth and the attack never happened.

Martin, of Leeds, admitted perverting the course of justice and was jailed for 18 months. Judge Stephen Ashurst told her that her lies ‘could have had devastating consequences’ for the soldiers had police not found the video footage. ‘You put on a considerable show and played the role of the victim,’ he said. ‘It was a complete charade.’

He said the soldiers had no idea why police arrested them. ‘One can only imagine the shock they felt. They had to explain to their families and colleagues how they came to be arrested. ‘Lest it be thought there is no smoke without fire, here there was no fire at all. These men had done nothing wrong at all.’

Major Thurstan and Sergeant Major Pickersgill, veterans of the Iraq campaign, served a six-month tour in central Helmand during which five of their comrades died. The Coldstream Guards were invited to Scarborough to join the homecoming parade of the 2nd Battalion Yorkshire Regiment, with whom they had served, for Armed Forces Day on June 26 last year.

Alan Mitcheson, prosecuting, told the court Martin was drunk after a celebration in town with friends and family. She was briefly separated from her female friend outside the hotel when she chatted to the soldiers. Her friend returned to find her ‘distressed’.

Police were called and Martin was taken to hospital, but refused to have a medical examination. Detectives found her underwear on the grass where she claimed to have been raped. The men had nothing to do with its removal.

The men were locked up for 12 hours, and had fingerprints, DNA and intimate medical samples taken. Mr Mitcheson said: ‘They were embarrassed and distressed, and missed the parade because they were in custody. ‘The Army is a very small place in which rumours spread very rapidly, both men being concerned that the completely false allegations would have an effect on their future careers.’

Martin initially stuck to her story before pleading guilty. Jonathan Devlin, defending, said: ‘Drink clearly played a part. The state of her intoxication was commented on by the two men who had the misfortune to come across her.’ A ‘traumatic’ childhood incident may have contributed, he added.

The judge said he hoped genuine rape victims took comfort from Martin’s punishment, adding: ‘Cases such as this cause serious damage to the interests of genuine victims.’


Cracking the glass ceiling: Female staff have the same chance as men of reaching the top, British figures reveal

Women have just as much chance as their male peers of winning promotion to top management, official figures revealed yesterday. Among women who work full-time, as many make it to senior level as do men.

The number of women classed as managers or senior officials in state statistics has shot up over the last ten years and now means well over a third of the highest ranked and best-paid workers are female.

The figures, published by the Office for National Statistics to mark International Women’s Day next week, suggest the ‘glass ceiling’ supposedly holding women back, is cracking up.

At senior management level, women appear to have achieved equality. According to workforce statistics, women make up 35.8 per cent of all full-time workers, while among managers and senior officials the proportion is 35.5 per cent – up from 30.7 per cent in 2001.

Economist Ruth Lea, of the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said: ‘I am surprised the number of women managers is so high. In my industry, banking, women are still scarce at high level. But there are high numbers in the public sector. ‘For a generation of women now in their 60s and 70s, there were barriers. But the idea there is discrimination now is wrong: it just doesn’t happen.’

Analyst Jill Kirby said: ‘These figures show women are as likely to get senior management roles as men. 'The suggestion that they are being held back by discrimination no longer stacks up.’

There are 7.6 million women working full-time, and nearly 5.9 million part-time, many of them mothers. Only just over two million women are full-time mothers and housekeepers, or housewives.

Women managers are most common in the NHS, where nearly seven out of ten in senior roles are held by women. More than half the manager-grade workers in the education system are women. In the finance industry 36 per cent of managers are women – a higher proportion than the share of women among full-time workers.

Retailing, wholesale and motor trade firms have 34 per cent female managers. The lowest numbers are in manufacturing, where only one in five managers is a woman, and construction, around one in eight.

The latest breakdown of the gender pay gap shows women aged under 30 – the average age at which a woman has a baby – now earn more then men, and the difference between the pay of men and women under 40 is now almost negligible.


Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and racial harassment laws

Press coverage of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Tex., usually focuses on her megalomania (“‘I am a queen, and I demand to be treated like a queen,’ Jackson-Lee once said”), her race-baiting (like claiming the Tea Party is an offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan, and that the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was racist), and her amazing ignorance (like not knowing that astronauts landed on the Moon, not Mars; and not knowing what happened in the Vietnam War).

But being a race-baiting megalomaniac is no crime.

It is against the law, however, to racially harass your employees. And a recent story in Daily Caller suggests that many of her black employees could have viable racial-harassment claims against her. (Yes, her black employees – the story, “Congressional Bosses from Hell: Sheila Jackson Lee,” suggests that for all her public race-baiting directed at whites, in her own office, she treats her fellow blacks worse than she treats members of other races).

To violate federal workplace harassment law, racial harassment must be either “severe” or “pervasive” enough to create a “hostile work environment.” Jackson-Lee’s harassment was reportedly pervasive:

The Houston Democrat addressed one of her employees as ‘you stupid motherf***er.’ And not just once, but "constantly," recalls the staffer, "like, all the time." Other employees described a pattern of “yelling,” “screaming and swearing.

The harassment was not just offensive, but humiliating: A Jackson-Lee aide recounted an instance in which she was harassed by Jackson-Lee, “the time her parents came to Washington to visit: ‘They were really excited to come to the congressional office. They’re small town people, so for them it was a huge deal. They were actually sitting in the main lobby waiting area….[Jackson Lee] came out screaming at me over a scheduling change. Called me a ’stupid idiot. Don’t be a moron, you foolish girl’ and actually did this in front of my parents, of all things.’”

Jackson-Lee’s harassment altered her employees’ work environment, rendering it hostile and abusive. On days in which Jackson-Lee was absent, “the sounds emanating from inside” her Congressional office were full of “pleasant laughter and conversation. ‘You could tell when she wasn’t there.’” But when Jackson-Lee was present in the office, “a different set of sounds often came through closed doors to Jackson Lee’s office: screaming and, many times, crying.” She forced employees to wait hours for her, hours after the end of the business day, forcing them to stay in the office until “two, three, four o’clock in the morning.”

She is reportedly “harder on black staff.” Black staffers lamented that she was “‘far harsher to the African Americans who work for her. ‘“You stupid mother-effer” was like a constant,’ says one,” “‘all the time . . towards her African Americans staffers,’” whom “‘she felt comfortable enough’” around “‘to really curse out,’” unlike “‘other ethnic groups in the office.’”

The fact that she did not use the N-word or racist language does not mean her employees might not have a case against her for racial harassment. Federal appeals court rulings like Aman v. Cort Furniture (1996) make clear that an employer who abuses employees based on their race can still be held liable for racial harassment even if the employer never uses any racist language.

Harassment need not cause physical or psychological injury to be actionable. But if it does cause such harm, that can become a factor in favor of liability, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993). Jackson-Lee’s relentless harassment, one employee claimed, made that employee physically ill. “One staffer recalls a frank conversation with his doctor, who told him he needed to quit. “It’s your life or your job,” the doctor told him, warning that the stress and long hours were wreaking havoc on his body.

If Jackson-Lee engaged in physically threatening behavior, like throwing a cell phone, that is another factor supporting liability under the Supreme Court’s Harris decision.

Discrimination and harassment by government officials violate not only civil-rights laws, but also, in some cases, the Constitution itself. (See Davis v. Passman (1979)).



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: