‘I’m in with the in-crowd.  I go where the in-crowd goes’ sang Dobie Gray.  Yesterday, the ‘peace processor’ transformation of all the major parties in Northern Ireland was complete as the leaders of the SDLP, the UUP, the IRA and the DUP all gathered on the Newtownards Road for the East Belfast Meatheads Reunion, passing itself off as Davy Dictionary’s farewell.  Did you see the images of some of Davy’s colleagues?  They were like walking bags of cholesterol.  It was as if 200 Mongos from Blazing Saddles had suddenly materialised in the Harland and Wolff hinterland.

My friend Bob McCartney was not present.  I know Bob is on holiday at the moment and isn’t due back until the end of the month.  However, had he been so inclined, I’m sure he could have returned briefly to ‘pay his respects’  before resuming his vacation.  The difference is, of course, that Bob is a principled politician whose disgust and contempt at the pervasive beatification of terrorists and the swooning of a supine media is well-known.  For Bob, remaining true to his principles outside the inner sanctum of ‘peace processing’ is a far more comfortable position to maintain.

What was Davy Dictionary?  A terrorist with an overgrown moustache; a political career of failure behind him; a jailbird mouth with more than a hint of thesaurus thrown in; a man who maintained his membership of an illegal terrorist organisation with the blessing of third-rate ministers.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Why the likes of Peter Robinson and Reg Empey had to attend is baffling.  There are no votes in Unionism for cuddling-up to terrorists – corpulent or otherwise!  There were ‘hundreds’ of mourners on the Newtownards Road.  When Bobby Sands failed on the Slimfast plan, 100,000 turned up to see his Karen Carpenter-shaped corpse planted six feet under.  That’s the difference between Unionists and nationalists: the former don’t do criminal lionisation en masse.

I can only guess that Robinson was present to display his credentials as a converted ‘peace process’ operative.  The same process that allows the lowest of the foreign low such as Albert Reynolds to strut along the Newtownards Road with impunity.  That’s something the gurus at Strandtown Hall should think about.

‘Don’t forget, my fine fellow, that the stockholder of yesteryear is the stowaway of today.’

1874 – A British army doctor reaches the British sentry post at Jalalabad, Afghanistan, the only survivor of a 16,000-strong Anglo-Indian expeditionary force that was massacred during its retreat from Kabul.

1916 – In an attempt to relieve their compatriots under heavy siege by Turkish forces at Kut-al Amara in Mesopotamia, British forces under the command of Lieutenant General Fenton Aylmer launch an attack against Turkish defensive positions on the banks of the Wadi River.

1941 – One of the Republic of Ireland’s greatest authors, James Joyce, dies on January 13, 1941. A commemorative museum was established for him in Dublin, where his first work, ‘Dubliners’, was composed in - according to Joyce – a ‘style of scrupulous meanness’.

1958 – In Scotland, the serial killer Peter Manuel is arrested after a series of attacks over a two year period that left nine people dead.

1991 – As protesters continue to fight for Lithuanian independence, 13 people are killed and more than 140 injured by the Soviet military.

1993 – American, British and French planes bomb a series of targets over southern Iraq.  The action is taken in response to repeated Iraqi breaches of the ‘no-fly zone’ implemented after the end of the Gulf War two years earlier.

It is because the British have lost pride in themselves that they conceive of British identity as membership in a mildly left-wing social democratic club devoted to abstract principles such as ”tolerance.” It is because they conceive of British identity in this neutral way that they have lost the ability to persuade others to assimilate to it. And because of that, discontented young jihadists murder people against whom they have no legitimate grievance.

Neither Blair nor New Labor understands this basic political fact. It runs up against all their natural political instincts. Unfortunately for the British, the other respectable political parties that used to understand these things, notably the Tories, have made a heroic effort to forget them. (‘Chicago Sun’, Dec 2006 – sorry ive just lost link, will add in later)

Its not all down to the government though. We do a good job ourselves. Even the Left’s grossly devisive policy of multi culturalism creating rifts – are acerbated by a general self loathing right across the board. The Right is as much to blame.  It isnt simply a mind of the political elite ‘to forget them’. Who would seriously want to try and stop the snow balling effect of self loathing Brits who enjoy indulging in Victor Meldrew syndrome quite unlike anything you see elsewhere? It’s a national sport we actually do excel at. On that note, the most banal but equally the most positive of role models gets short shrift from the British public even when he demonstrates himself working class made good. LOL.  What hope anyone else?!! If as an example I looked at Mikes America directly after the elections at the tail end of last year, rather than casting my eyes over an entirely glum piece, I saw an acknowledgement of what was wrong coupled with a set of proposals for how to challenge in the future.  Belief in America was never in question.  Likewise if you read any democrat sites in their constant struggle with their arch-nemesis Bush, belief in America is still never in question no matter how sold out they might feel they are. Their criticisms stem from a belief that their version of America is the preferred version.  Belief in the country lies at the heart of the issues. Taken to the extreme it even looks ridiculous to me. On a trip to the US a few years back without too money between us my friend and I ended up camping for part of the trip. On one site, up rolls some huge van, out drops Mr and Mrs America and the first thing they did was drive the Stars and Stripes into the ground right outside their van. We cracked up laughing it seemed so ‘unreal’.

I wonder if we are actually capable of criticising what’s wrong without running ourselves into the ground doing it. The French recognise a blip and define it. They call it ‘le declin’ and countless books are written worrying about it. They don’t embrace it as intrinsic to who they are.  

On the other hand – is this healthy contempt for everything and everyone a definition of who we are?!

As I’ve stated before, I am opposed to the concept of Human Rights as a basis for our legal code.

Now, we hear so much about human rights these days, we take it for granted so much that we have these rights, that my statement at first seems rather ludicrous, even fascist and totalitarian. (I’m not generally fascist or totalitarian, except on the first Monday of each month, at the regional meetings of the Grupen….er…ahem… nah, shhhh! forget I said that). So I feel the need to explain what I mean.

I think there is a huge difference between the current, widely accepted definition of a Right, and my own definition. The key to this difference lies in the question “Who is the final authority?” To me, a right means “a certain freedom or privilege, granted to you by a higher authority, earned in reward for your performance of a duty, or granted freely in recognition of some service that you have voluntarily performed”. In centuries past, we used to hear that such-and-such a person was “granted the freedom of the City of London”, whatever that meant in practise I don’t know. But the point is, the person didn’t just possess that freedom, that right, by the mere fact of his own existence; he couldn’t simply proclaim the right for himself, but rather, it had to be granted to him by the authorities. And it wasn’t granted for nothing, either.

But why, you may ask, do we need any “authority” to “grant” us rights? Surely “human rights” are self-evident, by their very nature?

To many people these days, due to the over-liberal interpretation of the word by the courts, a right simply means “a freedom or expectation of freedom that I possess, simply because I exist. It’s just there, by its very nature, because…well, it just is. Because I say so. I alone am the final judge of my rights, and everyone else must naturally agree that this right is there”. And here we see the problem: What if I don’t happen to agree that your rights are paramount over mine? Or that your rights and my rights can coexist without any conflict?

I might want to rule my life by the maxim “My right to happiness comes first, and where anything or anyone comes into conflict with that right, my right shall prevail”. Fine so far, and let’s say that my idea of ultimate happiness is a good night’s sleep. But my insanely annoying neighbour, whose idea of ultimate happiness is to play rap music at 120dB all night long, might also be ruling his life by the very same maxim.

Problem.

By acting out his “right”, my neighbour is denying me MY right, as I define it. But if I take action to stop him, then I am infringing HIS right, as he defines it. So – who is the authority here? Who has the ultimate moral authority to differentiate between my right and his right? You may simply say “well, the law of the land, of course”. But in so saying, you would be getting the fundamentals of this argument completely the wrong way round, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Remember, we’re talking about principles here, not laws. In this scenario, in this hypothetical definition of “human rights”, I am perfectly entitled to proclaim the absolute moral authority of my “right”, and so is the other chap entitled to proclaim and act upon his “right”. Those “rights” are supposed to be, in themselves, the very authority upon which the laws are based, in the first place! In this definition of rights, it is the moral authority of the “rights” themselves which give rise to the laws, rather than a case of the laws setting out the “rights”. So the essential paradox stands.

So you see (or at least, I hope I have shown) that we can’t simply assert our “rights” off our own backs and set ourselves up as our own moral judges. The principle of fully self-evident human rights, without any higher authority, is essentially anarchistic, totally at odds with the very concept of any legal system. We need a higher arbitrator, one who has the authority and power to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong.

Of course, in our societies, we achieve this balance realistically, by the process of democracy, i.e., majority consensus. It works fairly well, but when you get right down to basics, all it really means in practise is that the minority must agree to concede the absolute “self-evidence” of their rights to the majority. Therefore in practise, in the absence of any higher moral authority, such as “God”, there is no real all-embracing “self-evidence” of human rights, nor any absolute definition of those rights, but merely a consensus which the minority must begrudgingly accept. Hence, those who proclaim the full moral authority of “human rights” as a basis for law, find themselves in the moral conundrum of having to forge a path which simultaneously upholds the rights of Muslims to preach their full beliefs, and also the rights of homosexual people to not suffer from any discriminatory language by the former group! In the words of Joy Division, “Something Must Break!”, or if you prefer Dire Straits, “Two men say they’re Jesus – One of them must be wrong!” I defy anyone to find an all-embracing solution to the conflict of interests in the above example, which does not end up effectively saying "this group’s rights trump the other group’s rights, to some extent or other". Because if your solution DOES end up saying that, then you have effectively become the "higher authority", the "moral arbitrator", and so you will have denounced the principle of "human rights" by setting your authority above it.

Anyway, I hope I’ve made my line of thinking as clear as it can be. I’m interested to hear what people’s opinions are, on this whole thing. I have more thoughts to blab on this subject, but that’s enough for one post!

Simone Clarke is a talented, graceful and accomplished ballet dancer. She dances as a Principal for the English National Ballet, and they are pleased to have her. So why are the pavements outside the London Coliseum thronged with clowns who are parading their hatred of this unassuming but talented professional? Has she been charged with child abuse? NO! Has she been charged, or even suspected, of involvement in a particularly dreadful crime? NO! Well, why the fuss and palaver?

The local media have provided us with extensive coverage of the funeral of PUP Leader David Ervine today. There to pay tribute to Mr Ervine was IRA leader Gerry Adams, a former Irish Prime Minister and dedicated United Ireland Albert Reynolds, and the core Trimble-ites, including Lady Sylvia Hermon – who you may recall was "horrified" when her Party linked up with Mr Ervine at Stormont. By their company, you will know them.

More word games!

The DUP have gone back on a deal to agree the devolution of policing – Sinn Fein/IRA has said.

Party leader Gerry Adams said the DUP was given the text of the motion he would put to his party’s executive calling a special meeting on policing. He said the DUP was meant to say that if Sinn Fein translated its words into actions they would "accept the devolution of policing by May 2008". Mr Adams said the DUP had said "the required words were in the motion". He said that the DUP leader Ian Paisley was to have responded to them in a New Year statement.

Naturally, the DUP denies saying any such thing.

But the DUP has also had to deny telling the Prime Minister the very same thing. 

Funny how all those that the DUP engage in secret negotiations end up with ONE impression, whilst the rest of us are told another.

Only words?

I know that the IRA lie. I know that Blair lies. But one has to seriously wonder what is going on with DUP negotiators, behind closed doors…. 

As any member of my own family, both close and not-so- will testify, my knowledge of, and competency in, the sporting field is very close to abysmal. I have no interest in the juvenile antics of highly-overpaid so-called ‘stars’ in just about every arena of the sporting firmament, from football to darts, and my proficiency in archery was gained so I might compete on level terms with my sons and daughter.

It is quite obvious the ubercop PSNI Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde has little interest in the concept of justice.

I see he has been moaning (rightly) about the cost of prolonged farces such as the Bloody Sunday Enquiry (Currently costing £180m and rising all the time, folks). He suggest that these Public Enquiries are a poor way at getting at historical facts. I agree. But he then goes on to lavish praise on the  PSNI’s Historical Enquiries Team, which was set up to investigate killings carried out during the Troubles, was another way to deal with the past.

“What we are finding is where people are engaging with us we are getting positive feedback from families who are learning a lot more now than they ever did,” he said. “Again it shows the families of the victims are ahead of the politicians. They are not playing games with this.  They want to know what happened and many are not interested in prosecution. They just want to know the story.”

Let me just repeat that last sentence for you…”They just want to know the story”

The concept of justice has been erased from Sir Hugh’s mentality. Apparently the next of kin of those thousands slaughtered by the IRA are only interested in “the story.”

RUBBISH. I know many such people, who have tragically lost loved ones to the sort of terrorists that Sir Hugh longs to see sit on his Policing Board, and I know that the thing they most hunger for is JUSTICE.

They want to see the murderers pay for their crimes.

The Chief Constable gives the game away in this most recent statement – he is wishing away the very concept of prosecuting the guilty. And we all know why.