RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/7301/full

The essence of the position of British prime minister is that at least in theory, and quite often in practice, he or she can be dismissed at a moment’s notice. In the midst of Downing Street, the prime minister is in death. It is very difficult to stay at the top for long. The average length of time that a PM has spent in office, not always in a single stint, is five and a half years. Nor has the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, passed in 2011 so the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could carry on their coalition for a full five years without each party fearing the other might spring a general election on it, abolished this sudden-death tradition. Cameron felt obliged to declare at breakfast-time on the morning after the EU referendum that he would not be carrying on. He had encompassed his own downfall by a different but no less deadly method from the traditional overthrow either by voters in a general election (in recent decades, James Callaghan, John Major and Gordon Brown have gone in that way), or by rebels within the PM’s own party who reckon the leader has become an electoral liability (Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair).

This is part of our understanding of liberty. We are a free country because we can at any moment get rid of whoever is in charge. Throughout her 11 years and 209 days in power, Margaret Thatcher could have been chucked overboard, and she knew it. At the start of the 1980s, when unemployment rose to three million and great swathes of British industry collapsed, the general view was that unless, like Edward Heath, she did a U-turn, she was finished. The Falklands War, the miners’ strike, the Brighton bomb and the Westland affair could all have precipitated her downfall long before the poll tax and disagreements about Europe brought about her defeat by her own MPs. Many of her colleagues detested her, she managed to fall out even with ministers such as Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe who agreed with most of what she was doing, and the longer her leadership went on, the more unbearable it seemed to her rivals that she was allowing none of them a turn at being prime minister. In retrospect, it is surprising, not that she was thrown overboard at the end of 1990, but that she lasted so long.

We need a crisis, or a series of crises, in part because these can be turned into opportunities to turn out the prime minister, and sometimes the whole government. Commentators tend to deplore whatever difficulties we happen to be passing through, lamenting that these are the worst since the Second World War, or at least since Suez, and conveniently overlooking all the troubles which have occurred since then, which seemed bad enough at the time. They write on the unspoken assumption, welcome to whoever is in power at the time, that security is the highest political good. A degree of security is of course desirable, indeed necessary, but too much is dangerous to liberty. Parliamentary politics would perish, or atrophy, if we had nothing serious to argue about. The prime minister ought almost always to be in danger, at risk of being eclipsed by figures within his or her own party as well as by the leader of the opposition.

Conservative backwoodsmen ended up treating one of their most remarkable leaders, Robert Peel, as a renegade, despite the formative role he had played in the creation of their party. Labour MPs came to regard Ramsay MacDonald, who had done so much to create and lead their parliamentary party, as the worst traitor of all. The role of prime minister is essentially a sacrificial one.

Not that those who compete against each other for it are inclined to see it in this light. They believe they will be powerful, and they assure us they have the solutions we seek, however disappointing their predecessors may have proved. And it is true that most of them have a honeymoon period during which we allow ourselves to share in their optimism, for as voters we are torn between conflicting impulses. We long to believe we have found a saviour, but are determined to overthrow whoever fails to save us. We allow the stage to be dominated for a time by a successful prime minister, but then restore equality, for which all democracies have a deep desire, by dragging that individual back down to our own level, often with brutal abruptness.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/emmanuel-macron-pan-european-army-crackpot-idea/

His idea of a pan-European army is as crackpot as it is ungracious.

Almost everything French president Emmanuel Macron has said recently on the topic of foreign affairs, the United States, and nationalism and patriotism is silly. He implicitly rebukes Donald Trump for praising the idea of nationalism as a creed in which citizens of sovereign nations expect their leaders to put the interests of their fellow citizens first and those of other nations second. And while critiquing nationalism, Macron nonetheless talks and acts as though he is an insecure French chauvinist of the first order.

The French president suffers from the usual dreams of some sort of European “empire” — Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler . . . Brussels? He probably envisions a new Rome steered by French cultural elites whose wisdom, style, and sophistication would substitute for polluting tanks and bombers, and who would play Greece’s robed philosophers to Europe’s Roman legions: “It’s about Europe having to become a kind of empire, as China is. And how the U.S. is.”

But aside from the fact that the immigration-wary eastern and financially strapped southern Europeans are increasingly skeptical of northern European imperial ecumenicalism, can Macron cite any “empire” in the past — Persian, Roman, Ottoman, British — that was not first and foremost “nationalist”?

Would an envisioned non-nationalist “European empire” put the interests of the United States or China on an equal plane with its own? Would it follow U.N. dictates? Does Macron object to nationalism only because other nationalists are more powerful than he is, with his own brand of nationalism (whether defined as French or Europe Unionist)? And does he therefore seek competitive clout through a nationalist, imperial European project?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13328/turkey-us-conflict-contained

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that Turkey will not abide by the renewed U.S. sanctions on Iran’s oil and shipping industries, claiming that they are “steps aimed at unbalancing the world.”

U.S. President Donald Trump, in the same speech in which he hailed Erdoğan as a “friend and a tough, smart man,” ruled out the possibility of Gülen’s extradition.

The future actually looks potentially gloomier as the future of Syria shapes up and Erdoğan might well switch back to more radical anti-Western rhetoric ahead of critical local elections in March.

Only three months ago Turkey and its NATO ally the United States had too many issues about which to disagree: They had major divergences over Syria; they had different views on Turkey’s plans to deploy the Russian-made S-400 air defense system on NATO soil; they had mutual sanctions on top government officials due to Turkey’s refusal to free Andrew Brunson, an American evangelical Christian pastor living in Turkey who faced bogus charges of terrorism and espionage; they had a potential U.S. decision to block delivery to Turkey of arms systems, including the F-35 stealth fighter; they had potential U.S. sanctions on a Turkish public bank; the U.S. had doubled tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminium; a Turkish boycott on U.S. electronics; major differences over Syrian Kurds; and Turkey’s persistent demands for the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, a Muslim cleric who is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s political nemesis, living in self-exile in Pennsylvania.

Three months later, there is not much left of the anti-American euphoria in Turkey. Erdoğan has already stopped accusing the U.S. of waging economic warfare against Turkey. For his part, President Donald Trump has said, “We’re having a very good moment with Turkey … He [Erdoğan] is a friend of mine. He’s a strong man, he’s tough man, and he’s a smart man.”

What has changed so radically in three months to lift up the relationship from its worst tensions in decades to such warmth? Not much.

Under U.S. pressure, Turkey released Pastor Andrew Brunson; Turkey’s currency, the lira, has since steadied, and there is no more Turkish talk of an American “economic warfare.” Yet Ankara and Washington still have a rich menu of problems to be resolved. Washington has not had an ambassador in Ankara for more than a year now, a first in the modern history of U.S.-Turkish relations. But there is more.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13262/eu-confidence-game

The first problem of the European Court of Human Rights decision against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is that it means that, at least in cases of blasphemy, truth is not a defence.

Such a judgement hands over the decision on what is or is not allowed to be said not to a European or national court, but to whoever can claim, plausibly or otherwise, that another individual has risked “the peace.”

There have been similar mobster tricks tried for some years now. They all run on the old claim, “I’m not mad with you myself; I’m just holding my friend back here.”

At the start of this decade, a minor story occurred that set the scene for the years that have followed. In 2010, a Saudi lawyer named Faisal Yamani wrote to the Danish newspapers that had published cartoons of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed. Claiming to act on behalf of 95,000 descendants of Mohammed, the Saudi lawyer said that the cartoons were defamatory and that legal proceedings would thereby begin.

However, everything about the supposed legal claim reeked. How had Mr Yamani located all these descendants? How had he come up with exactly 95,000 of them? And how could you claim that a statement about somebody who died 1,400 years ago was “defamatory”? Legally, one cannot “defame” the dead.

Everything about the claim was laughable Yet it had its desired effect. At least one Danish paper — Politiken — swiftly issued an apology for republishing the cartoons. So Mr Yamani got what he wanted. He had (one might suggest) conjured up a set of alleged victims and cobbled together an alleged offence, but no matter, because he also got a European newspaper to fold in no seconds flat. It was an interesting probe of the European system of justice — and a good example of submission. And a fine scene-setting precedent for the decade that has followed.

Now, eight years later, an even greater act of submission has come along. This one not imposed from some dodgy Saudi lawyer, but from the highest court in Europe.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kremlins-interpol-power-play-1542672759

A close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely to be elected the new head of Interpol this week at the organization’s general assembly in Dubai. Maj. Gen. Alexander Prokopchuk has already coordinated the abuse of Interpol extradition requests, known as “red notices,” to pursue Mr. Putin’s enemies, including prominent American businessmen and environmental activists.

China’s arrest and detention of Meng Hongwei, the previous president who disappeared mysteriously earlier this month, has provided an opening for Mr. Putin to pursue his meddlesome agenda. But if the Kremlin tramples on the agency’s neutrality, how will the West respond? How will the civilized nations of the world—the ones that recognize and respect the rule of law—protect their citizens from the wrath of Mr. Putin’s new global police force when it is headed by a loyal general?

Gen. Prokopchuk’s allegiances are clear. He was appointed to Russia’s Interior Ministry in 2003, not too long after Mr. Putin ascended to the presidency. He became a key surrogate in the Putinization of the Russian state. Since 2011, when he was appointed head of Russia’s Interpol Bureau, he has been indispensable in Mr. Putin’s manipulation and abuse of what is supposed to be a neutral, apolitical international organization.

Part of the problem lies in how Interpol’s red-notice system works. The process for applying for one of these international arrest warrants is notoriously fickle, requiring a member state simply to submit a form. There is almost no oversight. Interpol rarely investigates the validity of these warrants. The organization acknowledges that approximately 97% of notice requests are not reviewed in depth. CONTINUE AT SITE

ttps://quadrant.org.au/opinion/muslim-extremists-vs-moderates-how-to-tell-the-difference/

Unless one is coming at you with a knife it can be hard to tell an extremist from a moderate, so here’s a handy guide: Muslim extremists will kill you while moderates deal in excuses and rationalizations for their more ardent brethren. Ultimately, though, both take their cues from the Koran.

Case one: Hassan Khalif Shire Ali drove a truck loaded with gas bottles into Melbourne’s CBD on November 9. After the vehicle became engulfed in flames, Ali attacked passers-by with a knife. He killed café bar owner Sisto Malaspina, 74, and wounded two other men.

Scott Morrison said that the Islamic community must do more to stop extremism. “For those who want to stick their head in the sand, for those who want to make excuses, you are not making Australia safer. You are giving people an excuse to look the other way and not deal with things right in front of you … If there are people in a religious community, an Islamic community, that are bringing in hateful, violent, extremist ideologies into your community, you’ve got to call it out.”

Australia’s Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed sharply rebuffed Morrison. “This bloody Prime Minister, instead of turning the heat on somebody else, he should answer us about what he did. He has spent billions of dollars — billions — on security services. And what is the end result? We have crazy people in the streets.”

Since 9/11, the Religion of Peace website records 34,150 deadly Islamic terrorist attacks. Over forty since the Melbourne attack. Lots of crazy Muslims around the world apparently.

Case two: Asia Bibi, a Christian, is in hiding in Pakistan after being acquitted of blasphemy. New prime minister Imran Kahn, you might recall he used to play the civilised game of cricket, has refused, under pressure of the rabid Islamic mobs, to let her leave the country pending a review of her acquittal. Her lawyer has already sensibly skedaddled. She spent eight years on death row, despite the intercession some years’ ago of Pope Benedict XVI, who, for his trouble, was sharply rebuffed by Pakistan’s prime minister at the time, Yousuf Raza Gilani.

In 2011, the governor of the Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, was assassinated by one of his police bodyguards. His ‘sin’ was opposing the blasphemy laws which had resulted in Bibi facing execution. The assassin was celebrated by the aforementioned mobs. Reportedly the British government has refused to offer Bib asylum in case it causes unrest among the same kind of mobs which now inhabit Britain.

What have these two quite disparate cases got in common? Yes, they have Islam in common; but it is more than that. They have in common a rejection of Enlightenment values; of civilised values. We like to pretend that differences can be worked through and resolved, but they can’t between people who have quite different value systems. Scott Morrison is whistling in the wind as was Pope Benedict.

https://www.steynonline.com/9023/welcome-to-the-hotel-brexifornia

The people of the United Kingdom face a political choice between Jeremy Corbyn, who is sincerely appalling, and Theresa May, who is insincerely appalling. Corbyn doesn’t like the Queen, the union, the army, the Jews; on the other hand, he’s quite partial to the IRA and Middle Eastern terrorists. And, somewhat to his credit, he’s either not very good at pretending otherwise or disinclined to do so. Mrs May, by contrast, is a shifty dissembler. Who knows what, if any, are her genuine beliefs – or even if she’s capable of recognizing such a concept.

Nevertheless, it is some considerable achievement for a Tory leader to have inflicted more damage on the nation than a polytechnic Trotskyite would. In June 2016, when David Cameron went flouncing off into the post-referendum sunset, Mrs May seized the prime ministership under a characteristically evasive battle-cry of “Brexit means Brexit”.

Two-and-a-half years on, Brexit means anything but Brexit. The Spectator has a grim hit parade of the Top Forty horrors to emerge from the PM’s “deal” with Brussels. Sample quote from her triumphant “agreement” with the Eurocrats:

All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States …shall be read as including the United Kingdom.

As I said months back: Welcome to the Hotel Brexifornia. You can check “Out” any time you like, but you can never leave.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/autistic-children-pushed-to-become-transgender/

The Daily Mail has a shocking story from the UK. A whistleblowing teacher claims that vulnerable autistic children are being persuaded that they are gender dysphoric.

From the story:

An astonishing 17 pupils at a single British school are in the process of changing gender, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Most of the youngsters undergoing the transformation are autistic, according to a teacher there, who said vulnerable children with mental health problems were being ‘tricked’ into believing they are the wrong sex.

The whistleblower says few of the transgender children are suffering from gender dysphoria – the medical term for someone who feels they were born in the wrong body – but are just easily influenced, latching on to the mistaken belief they are the wrong sex as a way of coping with the problems caused by autism.

This isn’t the only indication that something may be amiss:

The Mail on Sunday revealed that a third of youngsters referred to the NHS’s only gender identity clinic for children showed ‘moderate to severe autistic traits’.

It means that 150 autistic teenagers were given puberty blocker drugs which stop the body maturing.