Civil Liberties

Labour candidates address sex-segregated election rally


We are not in Lahore in the Punjab, but Hodge Hill, Birmingham. It is not a private gathering in a mosque or other sanctified space of holiness, but a hired function hall for a public meeting, where the previous guests ate bacon sandwiches and unclean dogs begged beneath the tables. It is not a religiously mandated Friday Jumu’ah, where Muslims would listen to the call to prayer and begin their rakat with the tahyat-ul-masjid salah and listen attentively to the imam’s ritual khutbah. It is a Labour election rally, where Muslims are listening to parliamentary candidates, including Tom Watson, Liam Byrne, Kahlid Mahmood and Jack Dromey (Mr Harriet Harman) issue the call to vote, with assurances of sharia-compliant schools and a pledge to outlaw ‘Islamophobia’.

It is astonishing, in England in 2015, that zealots for absolute equality and gender parity would deign to address a sex-segregated meeting. How is this ‘progressive’? How is it consistent with Labour’s ‘equal society’ and enlightened notions of human rights?

The women aren’t quite second class, for they are not seated behind the men or shunted down to the basement as they are in many mosques. But they are separated nonetheless, like the sheep from the goats, and the inference is clear: when it comes to courting the Muslim vote, gender apartheid trumps equality.

Perhaps Khalid Mahmood is used to this sort of cultural directive, and tolerates it because he grasps the backward belief of some of his co-religionists that women are chattel and exist to obey orders. But would Tom Watson address a political gathering where white men sit on the right and black on the left? Isn’t that racist? Would Liam Byrne agree to speak at a meeting where heterosexuals were separated from homosexuals? Isn’t that homophobic? Would Jack Dromey accept an invitation to address an audience where Muslims were separated from Sikhs, or Protestants from Roman Catholics? Isn’t that bigoted sectarianism?

As the Archbishop of Canterbury recently observed, “Equality as an aim in itself through government action is doomed not merely to defeat but to totalitarianism.” Conservatives will not instinctively prioritise the universalism of equality, but would certainly advocate the liberal core concept of equal concern and respect expressed to all in their common humanity, without the need to respect some of their attributes or ends. Human equality for the Christian is not merely an abstraction of thought to be dispensed with for political expediency, but an incarnational assertion that we have a common purpose and share a common end.

As St Paul said: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus‘ (Gal 3:28). Clearly, Muslims are not all one in Mohammed: the seed of Abraham is not united in the ontological parity which negates the subordination of one sex to another. There exists still a formal religious and legal universalism which imposes gender limitations upon political and social practices.

Would Labour politicians address a meeting where Jews were segregated? If not, why is the segregation of women remotely acceptable to politicians who have dedicated their lives to ending the social and economic inequalities endured by women in all cultures throughout the whole of history?

  • Martin

    Like all politicians they aren’t interested in equality, else they’d forgo their pay & directorships, they’re interested in power alone.

  • Merchantman


  • Anton


  • Dreadnaught

    If this picture was from a Television news report, the cameras would be frantically scanning the crowd looking for the one or two white faces or even obvious non-muslims; an orthodox Jew or a punk-rocker perhaps. The director would make sure that those same white faces would be shown often enough to balance the number of brown faces, carrying on the fraud that we live in a happy multicultural, multiracial, multihued Narnian state of bliss.
    Can’t show an all brown faced, all muslim audience now can we?

  • sarky

    It would seem that under labours equality values, some groups are more equal than others.
    If they had a shred of integrity they would have left the moment they realised the set up of the room.
    However, it would seem the quest for votes is more important than values.

  • Your Grace,
    I think you need to be a little bit careful in your easy denunciation of the sexes sitting separately. I think you will find that many Christian congregations sit that way in their Lord’s day services in various countries. Certainly they did in Romania 25 years ago. Perhaps they also do so in their political meetings.
    I am more interested in the Labour promise of Sharia-compliant schools. Will there also be provided Bible-compliant schools? And if not, why not?

    • magnolia

      That may be so, but the point is that they are not in a place of worship, and that this illustrates some very unhealthy beliefs about men, women, and sexuality, which they express,if asked, actually quite freely, and which are not compatible with our laws. Namely that men and women must be separated for the men to be able to concentrate on anything other than lust. And that women should be very compliant, keep covered and quiet, for similar reasons, but also because Islam in all but its most moderate forms unashamedly marks them as inferior. Put this out on the streets and you can see why innocent British girls shoehorned into regrettably overt sexual fashions are seen as prostitutes, and treated that way.

      It really does matter.

      Men may only so much as shake the hand of a woman if married or closely related. This means all British men are instantly wrong-footed in what they consider passing politeness, and is just culturally incompatible, which is worrying.

      • Inspector General

        Nothing you can do, dear Mag. It’s a racial thing, and as we know, God created the races. See whom you’re up against!

        • Anton

          Islam is not a race!

          • Inspector General

            Does it matter?

          • Anton

            Others may decide that for themselves.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I think it does.

    • dannybhoy

      Context is all MM. This is not some denominational dispute over church practice, but the teachings and practices of a religion that is antiChristian and if not checked will destroy our own culture and way of life.

  • magnolia

    The very lowest levels of respect between the sexes and intermingling, otherwise known as our gentle, rational, and non-neurotic basic culture, are jettisoned cheerfully by those who are much more interested in”Islamophobia” or “homophobia”, or any number of trendy phobias. They will just shamelessly garner votes.

  • Inspector General

    I say, Cranmer, this is damn encouraging stuff, what!

    Women not only at the front but actually allowed into a political meeting! Would never have happened in Calcutta in the Inspectors day, I can tell you. Who knows what Islam in the English caliphate will be like in a thousand years time. Maybe the gals can dispense with their headscarves then, or maybe not.

    Or perhaps when the white foreigners leave the room, the ladies will be trailing a few feet behind their men again. Yes, that’s more likely it. Everybody will be congratulating themselves in Punjabi amongst other tongues on how ‘integrated’ they can be when they have to…

    Pip Pip !

    • dannybhoy

      Absolutely shocking that in 2015 representatives of the Labour party should address a gender segregated audience and offer assurances of shari’a compliant classrooms and offer a pledge to outlaw Islamaphobia..
      Perhaps we got it wrong.
      The antichrist will rise up from amongst the Labour Party..

      • sarky

        Milliband did look a bit demonic eating the bacon sandwich!!!!

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “Maybe the gals can dispense with their headscarves then, or maybe not.”
      I would go further Inspector. Under the joyous liberation of the United Islamic State of Britain, we will also see liberation of the press. They will produce a red-topped tabloid newspaper called “The Sunni”, with a daily picture on page three showing a woman without her burka.

      • Inspector General

        “The Sunni apologises for yesterdays photo of ‘Fatima in all her covered glory’ that was actually a shot of a rather full black bin bag taken from ground level. The guilty culprit was dragged before an improvised Islamic court, and duly thrown out of a seventh storey window, whereupon his lifeless corpse was hacked to pieces by the faithful below. Allah be praised.”

  • Inspector General

    “Ladies and Gentlemen. Among the speakers tonight is a senior detective from Scotland Yard”

    “Evening all. I’ve come to address you tonight on the issue of ‘Teachers in Birmingham receiving death threats for teaching gay equality’, which is todays Pink News headline.Now, we all know what Islam thinks about our sacred homosexual community, but we in the Met feel that it’s a bit over the top to go round beheading teachers for what will soon be education policy, if Labour get in, or Cameron’s crowd, come to that. So in the name of Allah, the most merciful, desist, if you can. Mind how you go.”

  • Politically__Incorrect

    This really is a glaring and undeniable example of the hypocrisy, not just of Labour, but of the whole PC culture. I would love to have seen one of the candidates raise the issue at the meeting and to watch the reaction from the floor. There is another case in the Birmingham area where the PC movement is strangely silent. There have been death threats and intimidation against teaching staff because of the new teaching on homosexuality. These threats are from the muslim community (now, who could have predicted that?). They are trying to blame it on the “Trojan horse” problem. Yeah sure. They don’t accept that Islam is fundamentally and institutionally anti-homosexual.

    Back to the issue in hand. One wonders what candidates like Tom Watson think about what is before their eyes. Clearly, there is one set of rules for muslims and another set of rules for everyone else. This problem seem to be spreading though. Take University College London, where, I was once proud to admit, I was a student. Students at that fine establishment which was once a beacon of equal human rights, have decided that only non-white females are allowed to attend anti-racism protests. These people are re-introducing the very idea of segregation

    • Anton

      Defining “white” is as difficult s defining any other race, so it should not be too difficult for a few brunettes to get in and cry “racism”. But UCL students’ action is deeply insidious.

      The forces of evil are coordinated across belief systems…

      • Dominic Stockford

        Indeed so – someone with mixed antecedents can be born any colour, despite their parents skin colour.

        • Yes, just look at Jack’s skin pigmentation.

          • Grouchy Jack

            You think you’ve got *issues*.

          • Mad Jack

            Button it, the pair of you.

    • DanJ0

      “They don’t accept that Islam is fundamentally and institutionally anti-homosexual.”

      Well, we all know that Islam and Christianity are fundamentally anti-homosexuality. Whether the people making the threats are actually anti-homosexual rather than against teaching that homosexuality is acceptable remains to be seen. As they were apparently made on Facebook, it should be easy to unmask the perps if the police have the will to do so. One strange thing in this story is the dismembered cats outside the schools. I thought cats were loved by Mohammed, and that killing them were against the Hadiths?

      • sarky

        Got a feeling theres a bit of trouble makinggoing on!

      • “Well, we all know here that Islam and Christianity are fundamentally anti-homosexuality.”

        As a morally acceptable expression of sexual intimacy, yes, and as an acceptable lifestyle to socially legitimise and endorse through marriage, yes. The difference is how the two religions address the issue. The Christian message of universal love and acceptance of human beings, combined with high standards for moral conduct, result in different approaches.

        Whereas Christians commit to loving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, because each has a unique dignity as a person made in the image of God, Islam has other ideas i.e. their physical elimination. Christians are called to “love the sinner, hate the sin”. This is not the case with Islam. They despise both the sinner and the sin.

  • Inspector General

    Meanwhile, in other news, Indonesian Head Hunters bemoan European immigration. Their spokesman said “its appalling. These immigrants completely disregard our culture. They refuse to collect heads, and even if they do, you try getting them to shrink them. They refuse to integrate”

    The Indonesian parliament discussed the situation, but said discussion ended abruptly when an honourable member suggested it was their own fault. That they themselves had opened the doors without any thoughts on how the new immigrants would conduct themselves. A motion was then swiftly passed in the house to the effect that the honourable fellow was probably right.

    • dannybhoy

      Spot on!

  • DanJ0

    Perhaps the MPs were respecting their freedom to manifest their religion, at least for the purpose of soliciting their vote in the election. Who knows whether the women are not in favour of gender segregation? Afterall, they’re products of their religious culture.

    • Inspector General

      Indeed, dear fruit. One really cannot see what the fuss is all about. Any of the women complaining, as if they’d dare?

      • DanJ0

        How far do we go to make sure that manifesting one’s religion is an act of freedom rather than coercion?

        • Inspector General

          We can’t ask that question, or at least, we shouldn’t ask it until absolutely necessary,

        • Define a “free act”.

          • DanJ0


          • … see above …

          • DanJ0

            Oh go away you fecktard, I can’t be doing with your stupid games.

          • How terribly rude.

        • “How far do we go to make sure that manifesting one’s religion is an act of freedom rather than coercion?”
          What’s an act of freedom?

      • bluedog

        It’s actually surprising to learn that Muslim women are allowed to vote. One would expect them to be confined to the harem, purdah or whatever.

        • dannybhoy

          They vote as they’re told to vote I would imagine.

          • Pubcrawler

            By post.

  • len

    I am sure I have spotted a male standing on the female side?.

    Brave or what?.

    • bluedog

      Transgender more likely.

  • Terry Mushroom

    “a pledge to outlaw ‘Islamophobia’ ”

    But what is Islamophobia?

    • Orwell Ian

      Good question. Islamophobia as a nebulous thought crime can be anything “they” want it to be but legislation to criminalise offenders will require someone to define it in law. Perhaps Moses Miliband will enlighten us by wielding a chisel to convey the will of Allah via his tablet of stone.

    • Inspector General

      Islamophobia is what you promise to protect the excesses of Islam with in exchange for Islamic votes. Same with the suggested ‘crime’ of homophobia.

  • carl jacobs

    It seems that the Labor Party is being blamed for the preferences of the audience. If they prefer to sit in segregated sections, what is that to anyone else?

    • Inspector General

      Exactly Carl.

      • bluedog

        ‘Inexactly Carl’ would have been a better response. He’s spelt Labour wrong again.

        • carl jacobs

          I labor patiently in the hope the some few might be brought to understanding.

          • It would be equivalent to Jack calling you Karl Jakobs.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, no. ‘Karl’ is a legitimate alternate spelling of ‘Carl.’ Whereas there is no ‘u’ in ‘labor.’ It’s more like inserting a random letter ‘x’ into a word. Say, for example, “Carxl.” Or maybe “laboxr”. Totally incorrect.

          • How a political party chooses to spell its name, is no affair of yours, Carl. Your argument is, er, bollox.

          • carl jacobs


            The French have waded in on your side of the conflict. I am sure you understand the implications. I wil expect your abject surrender immediately. I demand your sword but you may keep your horse.

          • Solid points made, Carl. Jack is able to respect valid arguments and “love the person”, regardless of his opinions about nationality. Anyway, did the colonies reject French assistance when they rebelled against their legitimate rulers?

          • bluedog


          • carl jacobs

            That was pre-revolutionary France. And besides. All we really did was say “Look! Over there! The French!” It’s not our fault you fell for it.

          • One could, and many do, argue that it precipitated the Revolution.

          • carl jacobs

            The Declaration of independence states in explicit detail why the Colonies rebelled. It didn’t have anything to do with France. Imperial mismanagement and hubris caused the American Revolution.

          • carl jacobs

            Um…shouldn’t that be spelled “bollocks”? That’s what Oxford says anyway. Or should I question the authority of Oxford?


          • Don’t labour the point, Carl.

          • Linus

            While I agree that in most circumstances American spellings make more sense from a simple phonetic standpoint, the language isn’t called English for nothing.

            Let the English decide how to spell their words and if they want to include extra letters, it’s their privilege considering they invented the language.

            In any case, Americans would do well to keep silent about oddities of spelling considering their complete lack of consistency when it comes to dropping the u. Why should colour become color if contour does not become contor? Why should flavour become flavor when troubadour does not become troubador?

            It may be relevant here that the Americans invented an extra meaning for the word “flaky” that most of the rest of the English speaking world does not use…

          • carl jacobs

            This from the citizen of a nation that maintains a committee to protect the French Language from English intrusion.

          • Linus

            The French language is just that: a language. American English is just a dialect. And dialect speakers don’t get to dictate how the language from which their dialect derives should organize itself.

          • A most excellent rebuttal. Linus.

          • carl jacobs


            Your inability to separate your (stilted and excessively literal) perceptions from what is really going on can be truly astonishing at times. You should develop the skill of keeping your mouth shut when you encounter a subject you don’t actually understand.

          • Linus

            Oh dear, when an American starts rifling his (Oxford) dictionary for words of three syllables or more, you know you’ve touched a nerve. Good thing we can’t hear the accent. The Beverly Hillbillies is in town and ther’ spoilin’ for a fight!

            Stick to what you know, Jethro. KISS: keep it simple, stupid. Something along the lines of “Gee, Paw! I sure does hate that thar French varmint. Ken we hurls us a nookiller bamb over thar end give ‘im a good whuppin’?”

            Sigh! Violence is the answer to everything with you Murricans, isn’t it?

          • carl jacobs

            It was actually legitimate advice. More to the point, it was a statement against interest. It benefits me when you demonstrate that you don’t know what you are talking about. When you to say something like …

            And dialect speakers don’t get to dictate how the language from which their dialect derives should organize itself.

            … you just prove that you don’t get it. You don’t understand what is going on. Didn’t you get a clue from the fact that Jack was up-voting your comments? That should have triggered alarms and warnings in your head.

            And this “Beverly Hillbillies” motif. Must be French thing. It would help if your understanding of the US progressed beyond 60’s TV sitcoms.

          • Linus

            And ignorance didn’t disappear from the world! It boarded a boat and emigrated to the colonies where, in the wide open spaces (once the natives had been exterminated and/or rounded up and dumped in reservations) it could breed to its heart’s content.

            And it did! Et voilà le résultat !

            Merci les Anglais pour cette bande de cowboys pourvue d’un arsénal nucléaire à faire tuer le monde entier. Faut espérer qu’ils sachent pas appuyer sur le bouton. Ça fait un peu peur quand même …

          • A very erudite argument, Linus.

          • Pubcrawler

            And all because Noah Webster wanted to expunge all traces of French influence on American spelling.

            Hmm, hang on. . .

    • Linus

      The speakers could have objected that segregation is not a value they support. But when politicians are out courting votes, I suspect they prefer not to rock the boat too much.

      Perhaps it’s a gauge of Labour’s desperation that they were willing to look the other way, although one also assumes that some horsetrading took place before the event so that the women weren’t banished to the back of the room as is usual when Muslims gather in public. Note the women are sitting on left of the men (from their point of view). Even in Western culture this is the inferior position, the distaff side, the sinister half of the escutcheon.

      This is another example of a Labour own goal that illustrates their basic incompetence, which must make the Conservatives (big and little c) here quake in their boots when you think they’re probably going to form your next government. And all because Cameron must be punished because he let the gays get married.

      This is what chickens coming home to roost look like. Get used to it. You’re in for 5 more years of it, at the very least.

      • Inspector General

        One for you Linus. Apparently you crowd aren’t ‘equal’ at all..

        “Why polyamorous marriages are the next step to equality”

        PN. enjoy…

        • Linus

          The Bible is full of polygamous marriages so things are going nowhere your beloved Judaeo-Christian culture hasn’t been before.

          The thing is tbough, they’re not actually going there. There’s a tiny number of people agitating for polyamorous marriage to be legalised, but there’s no groundswell of public opinion in its favour. Neither do any politicians see it as an issue that can win them the gratitude and votes of a minority numerous enough to count.

          I don’t think we’ll be seeing polyamorous marriage any time soon. Except as a bogeyman issue designed to frighten Christians into thinking the world is coming to an end, so they’d better vote fascist now, the issue just doesn’t exist.

          Pretty much the only people who talk about polyamory are the handful who practice it and rather a lot more conservative Christians desperate to prove that we really are sliding down the slippery slope they promised us when equal marriage was passed. Only we’re not. Polyamorous relationships remain a marginal and rare phenomenon. The slope just isn’t slippery and we’re not sliding, no matter how hard the likes of the Inspector push.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector is not so convinced of your reassurance. He recalls the placating of homosexual wants a decade ago with civil partnership, which he actually considered a fair and just arrangement. He was told then that CP would negate any future demand for same sex whatever.

            So what we have is a situation of continuing moving values. The table is slippery, and there’s a definite slope on it…

          • bluedog

            Precisely, Inspector. Marriage will inevitably become whatever the participants want it to be, and we know the Muslims permit four wives and child brides. The question therefore becomes, how many unreported polygamous marriages and child brides are there already in the UK? Four child brides would appear to be a reasonable objective for a devout Muslim of a certain age and independent means.

          • Inspector General

            Bluedog. What there is in our UK community which causes retching amongst us now will eventually annoy the secularists. When that happens, we have a runner, as they say.

            By the way, have you replaced your beloved late German Shepherd yet?

          • bluedog

            The late hound is irreplaceable, Inspector. However, my bride has a West Highland Terrier that comes close.

          • Inspector General

            One understands….

          • Linus

            The problem with civil partnerships was their discriminatory nature. They were a sop thrown by a conceited majority to an increasingly vocal minority that was unwilling to accept anything short of full equality.

            I would never have contracted a civil partnership as I found them offensive. Marriage apartheid and second class citizenship all rolled into one.

            The reason the gay community now has marriage is not because the beneficent straights gave it to us out of the kindness of their hearts (kindness! now there’s a joke!), but rather because we organized ourselves and conducted an effective campaign, putting the right pressure on the right people until they could no longer deny our right to equal treatment under the law. Your imaginary god apparently helps those who help themselves. Well, we did help ourselves and we got what were aiming for. Mission accomplished.

            If the half-dozen vague and disorganized pressure groups that want polyamorous marriage to be legalized get together and start building an effective campaign, then maybe one day they’ll be able to persuade enough people of the justice of their cause and they will get what they are aiming for.

            I doubt it will happen any time soon though. There just aren’t enough of them to influence public and political opinion. The gay community got marriage because just about everyone knows a gay couple. How many of us know a throuple or a quadruple? I certainly don’t.

          • … but why not polygamous marriage?
            The answer that the majority don’t want it hardly seems “fair” or “reasonable” to those that do. What possible objections to it can there be?

          • Linus

            Equal marriage didn’t become politically possible until a clear majority supported it. No political party would have touched it with a barge pole if they thought it wasn’t a vote winner – and this despite the vociferous minority objections to it. More people support gay marriage than oppose it. Even the mass demonstrations here in France didn’t change that.

            There’s no majority in favour of polygamous marriage. Indeed the women’s movement seems dead set against it, for reasons that are easy enough to understand. The examples of unofficial polygamy we’ve seen in France are clearly detrimental to the well-being of the women involved, so I think it will a long time before a majority can be persuaded that it’s a good idea.

            Until such time, polygamous marriage will not be legalized. And the half-dozen or so throuples or quadruples who desperately long to be married will just have to content themselves with unofficial unions.

          • You’re sooo mean and illiberal, Linus.

    • Dreadnaught

      Jack Dromy’s wife is Harriet Harman also a Lab MP and bleats on continually about all women shortlists, more this for women more that for women. She even launched Labour Women’s Campaign by painting a bus pink FFS!

      • Pubcrawler

        And, of course, both were involved in the NCCL during a rather murky period. For which they have been reluctant to eat humble PIE.

        • Inspector General

          Very clever, that man.

      • Inspector General

        Yes, one has heard of the blatantly sexist stance that woman takes.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    This must be one of the few instances where Islam treats men and women equally. Paragraph m2.3 of the Islamic law book Reliance of the Traveller reads: ‘It is unlawful for a man to look at a woman who is not his wife or one of his unmarriageable kin’. Paragraph m2.6 reads: ‘As for a woman looking at a man other than her husband or unmarriageable male relatives, it is unlawful, just as a man’s looking at her is.’ The law is based on verses 24:30 and 24:31 of the Qur’an.

    The sexes sit apart to reduce the chance of looking at each other and, thus, committing a sin. Ideally, screens are placed down the middle of the room. Note that there is no injunction against Muslim men looking at non-Muslim women or girls, non-Muslims being worthless.

    All parties, with one honourable exception, tell us that diversity makes Britain a better place. Next, they’ll be telling us that war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.

    • dannybhoy

      “All parties, with one honourable exception, tell us that diversity makes
      Britain a better place. Next, they’ll be telling us that war is peace,
      freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.”
      George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth..
      A young Muslim woman was saying on LBC today that for Muslim women to be present in a public meeting with Muslim men would have been unheard of 20 years ago.
      We might regard it as segregation but these Muslims regard it as progress..

    • Inspector General

      Do you know, JR, one has never seen that many upticks on a post of yours. Have you considered politics?

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Inspector General—LOL. I’ve been hard at work all day setting up multiple Disqus accounts and giving myself the

        • Inspector General

          A man after one’s own heart, JR. Honesty would be the death of us both in the public arena…

  • Apologies for going off theme, but this petition is worth signing.

    Crannerites will recall that late last year, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, took the decision to liberalise the enforcement policy around the Suicide Act of 1961. The new guidance would make it less likely that healthcare professionals would be prosecuted in cases accusing them of assisted suicide.

    This new policy was recently challenged by Nikki and Merv Kenward, two disability campaigners who have worked against assisted suicide. The Kenwards claim that the changes made to the enforcement of existing law are tantamount to actually making new law, thereby, bypassing Parliament in the process. They also claim that the new guidance is socially dangerous, as it leaves people who are suffering from debilitating conditions in a more vulnerable position.

    Lord Justice Bean has allowed the judicial review of new, liberal guidelines on the enforcement of the Suicide Act (1961). In making his ruling, Lord Justice Bean made the following statements:

    “We propose to grant permission to proceed with the substantive claim. We are saying nothing about the strength of the claimant’s claim beyond saying it is not frivolous or vexatious. The importance of the subject matter, and because justices did not speak with one voice in Nicklinson, leads us to the conclusion that the case should be heard at a divisional court.”

    And then, he concluded by saying: “The main burden of the case is against the DPP [the Director of Public Prosecutions].”

    Do read the article and pray for the couple bringing this legal challenge.

    • dannybhoy

      I signed it Jack.
      Where’s my gold star?

      • In Heaven waiting collection …

        • dannybhoy

          I look forward to it.
          (By the grace and mercy of God of course..)

        • not a machine

          Oh not selling graces are we 🙂

          • Free at point of collection …

          • not a machine

            feel comfortable now

  • preacher

    That’s politics & politicians for you!.

  • Inspector General

    When in a generation or two, people ask when did UK City Apartheid (UKCA) commence, we can tell them it arrived here with the immigrants. But we didn’t really call it apartheid until they started running their own schools (by the Trojan horse back door)

  • They all look pretty miserable, as I suppose we all would if we were about to be addressed at length by Tom Watson, Liam Byrne, Kahlid Mahmood and Jack Dromey.

    • Pubcrawler

      Indeed. It’s inhumane treatment of the sort I wouldn’t subject a dog to (and I don’t much like dogs). Where are Amnesty International?

      • Inspector General

        Think Amnesty International aren’t up to much lately as they’re still weeping over 8 heroin traffickers being shot…

        • carl jacobs

          Eight traffickers shot?

          [Google, Google]

          I see. Don’t tell Jack. He wouldnt approve. It seems someone said they had all be totally rehabilitated.

          And that makes all the difference. They probably shouldn’t have even been in prison. I mean, since they were rehabilitated and all.

          • Inspector General

            The Australian PM took it pretty badly. Think he was hoping to welcome his two back with handshakes at Sydney airport. That they’d already successfully made one drugs run at least, leading to the poisoning of Australian youth, probably wouldn’t have been mentioned during the champagne reception…

          • They could have been imprisoned to pay for their crimes. God have mercy on them and their families – and all those they drew into the use of drugs. There’s no celebration from Jack over this barbarity.

          • Inspector General

            One of the many attractions of the death penalty, for those who deserve it, is that afterwards there are no more continuing appeals that can stretch for decades. Nor are there no heads of state bothering other heads of state. No, not at all. Everybody packs their bags and goes home. How nice!

          • Yes, terribly “nice”, Inspector.

            One of the executed, Rodrigo Gularte, was twice diagnosed with schizophrenia, and only realised he was about to be shot minutes before he stood before the firing squad.

            How “nice”.

            According to the priest who administered his last rites, he was hearing voices in his empty cell and asked at the last “Am I being executed?…That’s not right.” He reportedly declared that he would be resurrected 10 days after his death.

            How “nice”.

            His family and friends, who will attend a funeral mass in Curitiba on Sunday, told the Guardian the signs of mental instability were apparent from before Gularte’s adolescence.
            Juliana Gularte said her cousin had been diagnosed firstly with cerebral dysrhythmia, which made him particularly impulsive, from the age of 10. Six years later, when he was sent to a rehabilitation centre as a result of drug and alcohol abuse, doctors discovered he had bipolar disorder.

            Terribly, terribly “nice”.

            Father Charlie Burrows, a priest who ministers to prisoners on death row in Cilacap, said he had tried unsuccessfully for three days to explain to Gularte that he was about to die. It was only when guards took the condemned to the execution yard that he realised.

            “He’s lost because he’s a schizophrenic. He asked if there was a sniper outside ready to shoot him, and I said no, and whether somebody would shoot him in the car, and I said no,” Burrows said.

            Yep, extremely “nice”.

          • Inspector General

            Right then Jack. Education time…

            When you spoon feed a patient, and half of it dribbles down their chin, that is called ‘mentally ill’

            When a schizophrenic joins a drug gang, that is what’s known as doing evil.

            Why a schizophrenic would want to join a drugs gang, considering the problems they have is quite beyond the Inspector.

            But the Inspector tells you this. hiding behind some disability in the hope that you will walk free after uncovered quest to obtain large amounts of good money from your actions does not indemnify you from the law.

          • And how many people with mental health conditions have you met to inform this ‘judgement’, Inspector?

            “Why a schizophrenic would want to join a drugs gang, considering the problems they have is quite beyond the Inspector.”

            That musing just reveals your ignorance.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector’s findings in this case, is final. There is no right of appeal.

          • carl jacobs

            They could have been imprisoned to pay for their crimes.

            Why should they have been imprisoned, Jack? They were (allegedly) rehabilitated. What then would be the purpose of further imprisonment?

            There’s no celebration …

            You are right. This isn’t a reason to celebrate.

            … over this barbarity.

            But you are wrong on the “why.” Justify your assertion. Why is this an act of barbarity?

          • Because.

          • carl jacobs


            Well, I’m convinced.

            I notice that you also skipped out on answering why they should remain in prison if they are rehabilitated. Not surprised.

          • Retributive justice for medicinal purposes and all that, Carl.

            Who the retribution is being paid to is still a bit of a mystery to Jack. It’s God who we offend, not man. It’s the moral order we disturb. And, Christ paid the price for all our offences. It’s Catholics who believe in penance and making amends in this life for sin.

            Imprisonment for how long is the issue. But death … and by firing squad … brutal and unnecessary in this day and age.

          • carl jacobs

            Retributive justice for medicinal purposes and all that, Carl.

            If the criminal is rehabilitated, then there is no further medicinal purpose, as you put it. The only reason to imprison a rehabilitated man is to punish him for his crime. Once you admit that this is true (and you must admit that this is true) then you have admitted that retribution and rehabilitation are separate things. So the question must of necessity move from “What punishment rehabilitates?” to “What punishment is just?”

            You don’t think death is a just punishment. I disagree. There is a woman in the US who cut a child out of another woman’s womb when the mother’s pregnancy was eight months advanced. The child died. The mother survived. There is no just punishment for that woman except that it involves her death. And if she receives an easy death, she has received better than she deserves. If you think this barbaric, then know I consider your reaction pusillanimous and weak.

          • Would you execute all women who abort children then?

          • carl jacobs

            This wasn’t an abortion. The perpetrator took a knife, cut open the woman’s stomach, and ripped out her child. Now please tell me:

            What is a just punishment for this crime?

          • Define “just”.

          • carl jacobs

            Wrong behavior retributed by the appropriate level of punushment.

          • Carl, justice is as giving to each his proper due.

            All other things being equal, and without other considerations being taken into account, an appropriate act of retributive punishment for taking a life would be to forfeit one’s own life.

            Jack accepts the State can carry out due punishment as an instrument of God. Murder is a violation of justice due to another and such an act requires an act of retributive justice – on the part of society – as an objective “balancing of the scales” of justice. Guilt requires punishment in proportion to the seriousness of the offence. Death is considered to be the proportionate punishment for the willful taking of innocent life.

            Just retribution, seeking to establish the right order of things is not vindictiveness, yet many are motivated by this. And this is the problem today. Capital punishment has been dislodged from natural law and is more and more an act of communal vindictiveness and hatred.

            The State has the right to use capital punishment – does it have the duty to do so, regardless of broader considerations and individual circumstances?

            What broader circumstances? John Paul II, in Evangelium Vitae, wrote of a “climate of widespread moral uncertainty” saying “we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable ‘culture of death’”. He pinpointed murder, genocide, abortion, and euthanasia as core evils of our culture, saying that not only are the unborn and aging under deadly attack, but “conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life.”

            John Paul II’s argument against the death penalty was not that it is objectively evil (like abortion, euthanasia and murder) but that modern liberal societies have rejected objective truth – a commitment to protecting human dignity and an appreciation of natural law. He considers that this makes it nearly impossible to carry out the death penalty in a manner properly attuned to justice and exhibiting moral rectitude.

            He wrote:

            “Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church’s Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defense of the sacredness and inviolability of human life.”

            The point is that the State ignores natural law regarding the killing of unborn babies and assists in self murder of the old, sick and disabled, and yet executes criminals on the basis of retributive justice. This is “moral schizophrenia”. If the State is to execute the woman you referred to, then, objectively speaking, based on natural law, it should also execute all who secure and perform abortions. The horrific circumstances aside, an innocent child has been murdered and the mother violated, and to “balance the scales” of justice, and re-established order, the lives of those responsible should be forfeited.

            The State, based on natural law, has the right from God to use the death penalty. However, it does not have the duty to do so regardless of circumstances. This is a prudential decision. Pope John Paul II argued that in a ‘culture of death’ we must find other bloodless means of retributive justice.

            During the time of pagan Rome, Christians could not hold civil or military office if they could be obliged to judge capital crimes or execute capital punishment. Only after the Church was legalised and the state was influenced by its teaching, would they be allowed such offices. Thus, while the State may have the right, all other factors being respected, to execute the criminal, it also has to take other factors into account, including the opportunity for mercy. If the greater good of the society is protected adequately, then show mercy so that the respect due to every life is restored and so that the unconverted might be saved.

            Looking at this particular example, one also has to ask oneself about individual culpability. Such an evil act is hard to comprehend – but we have to attempt to do so if we are to be truly just. Was the act undertaken freely with full awareness and comprehension?
            These crimes are exceptionally rare.

            “The urge to slice a child from another woman comes from a place of such desperation, such need, that desire solidifies into action”, wrote Connecticut psychologist Theresa Porter, who has published a number of academic articles about infanticide and neonaticide.

            “The women who do these sort of things aren’t insane, quite the contrary. They recognize a want and act upon it. These women don’t simply want a baby; they need one in order to secure all the rewards and privileges of motherhood. These women so desired the attention, care and love that society gives pregnant women and new mothers that they were willing to kill to obtain it.”

            “Children weren’t individuals with their own rights or destinies; they were means to an end, a way of garnering attention. In the cases of cesarean kidnapping, the perpetrators are also seeking a role, that of a pregnant woman and new mother.”

            Bearing in mind the widespread acceptability of abortion, and this woman’s obvious pathology (or failure to resist evil), call it an act of “weakness” if you will, but Jack cannot see how society will benefit or the moral order be re-established, by executing this woman.

          • Ivan M

            There is no reason other than politics to keep the death penalty for drug trafficking. In Indonesia there are easier ways to get drugs in through all the porous borders.

            In the bad old days of the East India Company and its Dutch equivalent the VOC, there was a cold-blooded policy of enslaving native Chinese and Javanese to drugs in order to maintain the inelastic demand for opium, to pay for Chinese tea and Javanese stuff. Very properly the authorities of that time regarded this deliberate weakening of the native populations as acts of war, and thus subject to the death penalty. The ferocity of the drug laws owe their origin to this prior history. But such is no longer the case now and there is no longer any need for such emergency measures.

            In any case drugs for males – and the addicts are almost all males – are largely palliatives for the craving for sex. I say this from personal observations. The most drug-addled nations are countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan where the hapless buggers are reduced to buggery through the lack of access to females. In Indonesia though a largely Muslim country, they have a more relaxed attitude to sex, and thus do not face a similar problem. It is worth noting, though I know this only anecdotally, that their serious drug problem is in Aceh, which is a stronghold of the sharia buggers.

            Even if Jokowi, the Obama lookalike were to have considered a pardon, his hands would have been tied by the opposition which would accused him of caving in to foreign pressure. And that is why questions of justice or mercy do not count. It is just a matter of bad luck.

    • James M

      …Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. Or is that Ray cyst ?

  • The fifth column, shocking!

  • Trojan

    Segregation may be the tip of the iceberg. Did these women go voluntarily to listen to Tom Watson, Liam Byrne, Kahlid Mahmood and Jack Dromey? If not what pressure were they under to force them to attend?

    • Inspector General

      How does ‘a bloody good hiding’ in the privacy of an Islamic home grab you…

      • Pubcrawler

        Not my idea of a good night out, thanks, but if that’s what floats your boat . . .

        • Inspector General

          Not really, always come out black and blue..

  • not a machine

    One commentator has mentioned a Labour plan to introduce sharia complaint schools which is news to me , is in the manifesto ? However as your grace points out this is not a religious place or a religious meeting, it is a meet your political candidate one.The image leads to wonder if questions were asked by the women ,or relevant ones to women. Most of the women appear to be of an age of marriage so you would have thought some etiquette to be with your husband , so quite what the meeting is presenting to the candidates is not one of political enquiry but one of social/religious group .They were Labour politicians facing the audience and yet in some ways it appears more like the audience projecting there belief about social order without any reference to political discussion, whatever discussion was to be had it seems clear that nothing would question what is before as them having lawful meaning.
    does it matter ? well we don’t know what questions were asked which could have more meaning about how the meeting proceeded in front of these labour parliamentary candidates, courting what seems to be a Muslim only audience. I think it is a “Rochester today” moment for these high esteemed Labour candidates , Mr Dromey no less the husband of the most vocal women’s rights Labour candidate who in the last election had to tour part of her constituency in stab proof vest , so stab proof vest last time and no doubt many previous other meetings like this with nothing said , that such an arrangement goes against the historic labour movement of equality for women.
    Whilst the silence from those Labour candidates is all to damaging , I would think that the sort of labour women who were/are matriarch must be the most offended , I mean what does the likes of tipped rumoured next labour leader Yvette Cooper think of it in her northern constituency , about her male colleagues silence , but no we find silence from the Labour big hitting women also and we have that mismatch of equality mantra meeting those that tell Labour such things are not welcome or possible and to perhaps tone it down and not give the women any ideas about change or speaking intelligently , lest it may shame male (and more certain) enquiry.
    In political matters I have met some labour women who would give you a bunch of fives if you denigrated women in your questions or stymied there say if something of family was being ill served by there Mp no matter what flavour as they useually understand local facilities for the little uns are a bit more important to be secured rather than the broad brush strokes of national matters which gets lost as soon as the election is over .
    As no doubt edstone will come back to the for , he could just be as bland as what is inscribed upon it , in some ways he cannot really deviate from it and as one commentator phrased it , it may become a millstone , self acting upon its owner which if used on last day might be bad news for its production group..
    But I think the most hidden aspect of the election so far is how so few candidates are meeting the people and risking that mouthful of abuse that awaits in those constituencies that the spin hasn’t matched the reality for many years , so far I have more leaflets than you can shake a stick at and party window stickers or boards seem to have become dangerous things , one only lasting the week .
    The liberal democrats spilling the beans (strongly refuted ) that the Conservatives did not have the numbers is odd because if they sit down and think about it the Conservatives winning offered some chance of a future .
    Still 2 days to go and at 11:59pm on wed it all stops and the agonising wait ensues until the first exit polls at 10pm on thurs and a rather intense period until daybreak of Friday when most of the picture will be known .
    by the looks of it its the floating voters , scots in doubt and students hard luck, that those who think they have to be mined, questioned , canvassed and perhaps made all the more fed up will be in line for the fight of whats left in the bottom of the pot.
    I do not think a second election will be much good as I read it , we will be travelling down a different road and different campaign as the SNP has changed the rules about what they are wanting . I dont know but the Saturday football results being read out without “Stehousemuir” or “Hiberian ” or even “Hamiliton acdemicals” will be a sad day . I am puzzled by what optimism the SNP think they will manifest , the union reduced the recessions impact by a factor of ten in Scotland , so I think Ms sturgeon ought at least to inform her voters that a future where you have a recession ten times worse that what your coming out of is as likely as global warming taxing the oil and EU club fees somewhat hampering a wealth fund .The union is best finance security policy the scots could wish or vote for , as is fending off an in trouble euro that has no oil .
    A vote for the SNP is being sold as vote for freedom , rather unfortunately not about questions about Scotlands waiting captor , which Nicola Sturgeon will unashamedly take you to .
    Also not one leaflet has had a leader picture on them .
    2 days to go , labour throwing stingers out , lib dems resorting to confidences , conservatives working on that economic crusher , the snp resorting to verbal abuse on labour on the streets no better than a thug, in the once European city of culture Glasgow .
    Labour marginals will perhaps tell the most about the peoples verdict .
    night night

    • Inspector General

      Machine. Please. Consider paragraphs with a space between.

      • not a machine

        Of course inspector , must remember its composition and not knitting 🙂

        • Inspector General

          Well, old chap, it does look rather like a rant as it is…

          • not a machine

            If it looks like to rant to you , then your post have greatly influenced me 🙂

          • Inspector General

            That’s the ticket. Go forward all the better for gentle advice…

          • not a machine

            I bow (shuffles off to bathroom) ……:)

          • James M

            Watch out for the djinn – these fellows get around.

            “The dwelling-places of the jinn

            The jinn live where we do live on this earth. They are mostly to be found in ruins and unclean places like bathrooms, dunghills, garbage dumps and graveyards. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) taught us to take precautions when entering such places, by reciting the adhkar (mentioning Allah’s Name) prescribed by Islam.

            One of these are reported by Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) who says: “When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) entered the toilet, he would say, ‘Allahumma inni a`udhu bika min al-khubuthi wal-khaba’ith (O Allah, I seek Refuge with You from all offensive and wicked things [evil deeds and evil spirits]).’””


            Etiquette once in the WC:


  • bluedog

    This comes as no surprise, Your Grace, it was always bound to happen under the enlightened policy of multiculturalism. All values are now equal and there can be no remonstrating with those who chose to maintain their ancestral cultural habits. Prudently the women do appear to be differently dressed. If all were clad in the Muslim onesy, the burkha, it would presumably be possible to claim the wrong brides at the end of the party and take them home in error.

    • Inspector General

      Though one can’t be sure, it does rather seem that UKIP doesn’t do multiculturalism. One would like to think that, from UKIP’s point of view, we are all in it together.

      As one said earlier, don’t be in any doubt that muslims can do ‘polite West’ when it suits them…

      • not a machine

        Is that one where you have a nice meal and a good burgundy in evening suite , before being thrown off a building ?

        • Inspector General

          Come now, Machine. Being thrown off a high building did not exist in Islam even a hundred years ago. Just goes to show that despite detractors such as yourself, Islam can and does ‘progress’…

          • DanJ0

            I understood it to be a sentence from early Islam, not long after the Shia/Sunni schism. This is probably why Daesh are using it now to punish alleged homosexuals.

          • Inspector General

            Well, was looking at it from a logistics point of view. One would have expected the tallest structures around before the last century in Islam cursed countries to be city walls. High, but not so high as to be a guarantor of death in itself. However, if you’ve researched this particular, and it must also be said ‘genuine’ example of homophobia, then the Inspector bows to your superior…

          • DanJ0

            Minarets, and hence the stoning afterwards. Daesh has a fundamentalistic core, going back to the schism. It’s no coincidence that the land they hold is where it is, it has a particular significance in history.

          • Inspector General

            Oh yes, those things. All begins to make sense now…

    • James M

      I blame Vatican 2 for inflicting Bliarification upon the world, if avant la lettre. As Psalm 2 fails to say, “Kiss the Prophet, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way” – these daft perishers seem to want to promote exactly that.