BARBARIC CRUELTY TO CHILDREN CORRECT IN BRITAIN

If what I'm about to say sounds racist - then tough. I'm saying it anyway. When Britain first opened its doors to people from other creeds and countries, we welcomed their diversity, we respected their religions and we valued their customs. However, when we promised to respect other religions we didn't mean religions which advocate the ritual sacrifice and torture of children. We didn't mean religions which think it's OK to beat up, burn and slash children they claim are witches. We didn't agree to parading these children in so-called Christian churches and then having some sadist preacher (who charges 50 quid a time) beating kids with sticks until they pass out in order to "exorcise" them.

And what we certainly didn't expect is this barbarism to be tolerated by our own Metropolitan Police force, which kept secret a report claiming that countless children are being trafficked here from Africa and being used as domestic sex slaves or offered up as ritual sacrifices. This report - which still hasn't been published but was leaked to the BBC - was kept hidden because it was considered racially sensitive.

RACIALLY BLOODY SENSITIVE! This report has zilch to do with racism or religion - it's about the barbaric murder and torture of children by savages. And in a civilised society there's no place for that kind of "religion" or the people who practise it. However, it would seem that in politically-correct Britain, the police top brass would rather stand by and let children be murdered than offend religious sensitivities. How dare the Met Police and their boss, that politically-correct cretin Ian Blair, keep this report secret so as not to tarnish the reputation of "multi-cultural Britain". How dare he put the fear of offending African communities above the lives of defenceless children.

Because - forget African communities - this kind of behaviour offends every decent human being in this country because we don't sacrifice kids here. We don't blame them for every ill that befalls us. We don't slit their throats or cut off their arms and legs as happened last year to a little boy known only as "Adam" whose torso was found floating in the Thames and who was believed to have been a human sacrifice.

This kind of pagan savagery has no place here. As for those so-called Christian churchgoers who hoot, holler and cheer while children are tortured in front of them in the name of God - what evil is it that possesses them? And as videos of these kids being abused in church are being sold on the street, why are they still operating? Why haven't these megalomaniac preachers been slung in jail or out of this country and why haven't the congregations whose secrecy allows this horror to continue been charged with aiding and abetting child abuse?

Earlier this month an African woman called Sita Kisanga and the 38-year-old aunt of an eight-year-old girl who was tortured were both convicted at the Old Bailey. They'd branded this little girl a witch and as punishment she was cut 43 times with knives, beaten with a shoe and blinded with chilli peppers.

This cannot be allowed to continue, and if it means putting a bomb under our so-called multi-faith society then so be it. Because kids in this country are sacrosanct, and that's non-negotiable - no matter which God you worship. And no matter how tolerant we have been in the past it must be made crystal clear to those who follow these loony religions that while we Brits are a soft touch on most things - we're not soft on child killers or abusers. There's no room here for religions which preach that a cup of human blood boosts vitality and a concoction made from brain fragments leads to power and riches. Nor will we tolerate any god which believes that blind, deaf and handicapped children are witches and must be punished.

And Africans living in this country who know about these barbaric practices have a responsibility to inform on the heathens who practise them, otherwise they're every bit as guilty. As for our police chiefs and social workers - it's time they forgot about political correctness and accusations of racism (not to mention saving their own backsides) and concentrated a bit more on the slaughter of innocents in so-called civilised, multi-cultural Britain.

(From Carole Malone)



IN BRITAIN ONLY THE STATE CAN DISCRIMINATE

As Brian Micklethwait explains:

The ASBO – Anti-Social Behaviour Order – is a desperately depressing feature of modern British life, for many reasons. It is depressing because, in a sense, it is so necessary. Faced with the choice of, on the one hand, having ASBOs, or on the other hand not having them, with all other related policies remaining unchanged, many would choose to have them. I might even choose that myself. I agree that something needs to be done about the bad behaviour of children these days, and am prepared to risk sounding like an irascible old geezer for saying it.

Britain's ever-fretful government certainly thinks that something should be done, and a whole new raft of government controls and restrictions to be used against problem families and their problem children are now apparently being concocted. ASBOs for children under ten are to be introduced. New powers to allow problem families to be moved to secure gated communities – a combination of housing estates and prisons by the sound of them – are to be introduced. Binge drinkers are to be "named and shamed". (Can't law courts do that? I merely ask.) And so on.

Being quite old, I can remember how "problem families" used to be dealt with. Landlords used to refuse to rent accommodation to them.

And I can remember that one of the most constantly repeated arguments in favour of publicly provided, publicly paid-for housing was that, unlike with the hideous hovels supplied by the hated old private landlords, public housing wouldn't involve people being discriminated against merely because some landlord took a dislike to them.

Now, the government is the landlord, and the government is facing the same old problem, of people who are a problem.

But the biggest problem here is that discrimination, by anybody except the government, is regarded as bad. But if discrimination means the tendency of others to judge you by your behaviour – and to be eager to sell you goods and services, to employ you, to work with you, to trade with you, to supply you with medical services, and so on – if you behave well towards them, but to shun you if you behave like a barbarian, then discrimination is good. It is, in fact, essential if civilization is to continue at all.

Britain is now ruled by people who have spent the last half a century or more busily abolishing discrimination, that is, busily disconnecting bad behaviour from what would in the natural course of things be its natural consequences. And now, they are pathetically trying to reconstruct discrimination, in a nationalized form.

And nationalized discrimination works about as well as nationalized anything else.

I too have argued that discrimination belongs only in the private sphere. See here