‘Baroness’ betrays us.
By Mike Cunningham On June 3rd, 2012Further to the revelations about some dragged-up poser who was given honours as well as a Cabinet seat, I was wondering about the following queries.
- When she was in Saudi Arabia, did she conform to local tradition by being covered in a large tailored blackout curtain with eyeholes?
- When she was in Saudi Arabia, did she walk behind her husband in due deference to the other local tradition that women have no place except in the home?
- When she was in Saudi Arabia, did she actually talk with the Department heads or senior members of the Saudi Government, or was it all window dressing?
- When she was in Saudi Arabia, did she ask for a female chauffeur?
I reckon we should be told!
Word is that this is all being dragged up because she spoke out against Muslim Men and white girl grooming.
The thing i love most about this blog is that it appears to stand firm against the notion that everything we say must be politically correct. So with that in mind allow me to say this. Warsi is nothing more than a token jesture to make the non-conservative party look slightly more appealing to muslims and feminists. As a farmer friend of mine used to say, ‘She’s as much use as tits on a bull’.
Looking at it from Warsi’s position, if i were her and i felt i was being used as a posterboy for the non-conservative party, i too would be getting everything out of it that i could. Lets be honest, she has no respect from her own religious community (Muslims don’t like women to have any power) and neither has she any respect from the majority of people from outside her own community. The only people she can claim to have respect from are the fools that swallow the spoonful of political correctness handed out by the non-conservatives, namely the pc leftists, the odd so called moderate muslims and the feminists.
Just saw her photograph in the newspaper article.
From the growth on her upper lip I’d say he was mistaken for a man and given a pass by the Mullahs.
It must be a ‘Cultural thing’
Barroness Uddin, stole over £100,000, Baroness Warsi is just a beginner.
What this shows is that even politicians representing different cultural backgrounds find it really difficult -if not impossible- to be truly united.
Our cultural backgrounds define us a person. They shape our values and our attitudes.
So Baroness Warsi having accepted an alien “honour” (I don’t think they do Baronesses in Islam) now finds herself out on a limb.
She has to weigh up her options. Which way to jump? If she admits guilt she will get it in the neck from both sides. If she fights the accusations, who will stick up for her?
Multiculturalism cannot overcome the realities of human nature..
Hiya Harri!
I was wondering where you’d got to. Hope all is well, and you’ve gotten over your addiction to sniffing chemicals…
I am waiting for your recommended book, “The Bookseller of Kabul” to arrive at our library..
Hey Agit
Enjoy the book when you get a copy, Inundated with work lately, so I have not had the pleasure of reading ‘The Imans Daughter’
Sniffing chemicals, I have been ‘Off the tools’ for many years now, I have students to do all that.
On topic, Baroness Warsi .. apart from ticking a politicaly correct box. what does she actualy do?
Off topic, but maybe a bone of contention, I have managed to watch a snippet of the Queens Diamond Jubilee, on BBC no less, now I thought i might have misheard, but I did not, according to the BBC reporter, one of the Queens main functions, is to ‘Protect faith’? Should that not be ‘Protect THE faith’?
Interesting
Harri,
in a multicultural society, the “host culture” has to be seen to
a) spit on its history and values
b) denounce itself and swear eternal gratitude to all other cultures for showing us the
the error of our ways.
c) ensure that all ethnic communities, diversities and oddities have adequate and equal
representation.
…which is why the government of these Sceptic Isles is anxious to retain Baroness Warsi.
…which is why the government of these Sceptic Isles is anxious to retain Baroness Warsi.
So, the contempt they hold all the little people in.. continues.
And Cromwell thought he was amongst a shower of shit
On the Andrew Marr show this a.m. the Bishop of London, no less, made quite a convoluted response to the question of whether it should be ‘of the Faith’, or ‘of Faith’.
He seemed to say that one or both was acceptable, and saw ‘faith’ as any sort of religious belief, and as basically a good thing, and not just specifically of the C.of E. version.
Hardly surprising really and explains the fondness for ecumenical gatherings among C.of E. bishops, and of royalty itself, Prince Andrew saying, some time ago, that he saw the Monarch as a defender of ‘faith’, and not ‘of the Faith’ specifically.
As Head of the Commonwealth – her proudest title, so she has said, – the Queen doesn’t really have too much option. As there also seems to be some confusion over the translation from the latin – Fidei defensor – over the addition of that litle word ‘of’.
BBC iPlayer – Andrew Marr show @ approx 27mins… http://bbc.in/KVfflJ
p.s that should be ‘little word ‘the’, not ‘of’…twit.
Earnest.
Many thanks for that, I really thought I had misheard.
Obvioulsy I did not.
I still swear, that ‘in the day’ the wording was ‘The Faith’
If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
Note to self .. must upgrade my ‘Spellchocker’
Obvioulsy?
Ernest,
Liberal theology has succeeded in “debunking” the Bible, and by doing so taken away the basis for Christian ethics -which is why we now live in a post Christian society.
In order to unite all the disparate cultures living cheek by jowl in the British Isles, “faith in faith” has become the buzzword for our times. By having faith in faith we get around the knotty problem of actually examining the various belief systems on which these faiths are built.
That way we wicked indigenous Brits can be one of the “universal faith crowd.” No one will ask you what you actually believe,or how it relates to external realities. That might prove embarrassing.
Of course, a refusal to question (all) belief systems means it becomes increasingly difficult to question their practices -0both cultural and religious.
Hence the Asian Muslims grooming and raping little white English schoolgirls, or parents murdering their daughters because the daughter refuses to conform to their cultural behaviour.
Harri,
Cromwell was an English hero. Not because he beat up on the Irish, the Catholics or the unbelievers; but because he did away with the Divine Right of Kings and enabled Parliament to represent the people.
No, still none the wiser, but then aqain, it is in the Gaurdian?
Queen says the Church of England is misunderstoodAt a multifaith reception at Lambeth Palace, the Queen says the church has a duty to protect all faiths
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/15/queen-says-church-misunderstood
And then there is this ..
Queen highlights Church of England’s duty to all faiths
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17047885
And then, there is this…
Queen ‘should remain Defender of the Faith’ – BBC poll By ALEX STRANGWAYES-BOOTH – BBC NEWS
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645934-queen-should-remain-defender-of-the-faith-bbc-poll
So, what is it, ‘Faiths’ or ‘The Faith’, an important question, that needs answering methinks.
Agit
Going off on a tangent maybe .. who moi?
But…
Harri,
Cromwell was an English hero. Not because he beat up on the Irish, the Catholics or the unbelievers; but because he did away with the Divine Right of Kings and enabled Parliament to represent the people.
The English have no need to ‘beat up the Irish’ .. that is now the sole responsibility of their EU masters. they can beat them up to their hearts content .. and they will.
Agit … ‘Parliament to represent the people’ ‘represent the people’ when did that tradition start?
“He seemed to say that one or both was acceptable, and saw ‘faith’ as any sort of religious belief, and as basically a good thing, and not just specifically of the C.of E. version.”
Typical nonsense from Chartres. Our monarch is “Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
She is the protestant Queen of a protestant constitutional monarchy.
//Defender of the Faith.”
She is the protestant Queen //
I suppose you know that title was awarded by the Pope for an attack on Protestantism.
If there is one monarchial title more absurd than “Defender of the Faith” then surely it must be “Defender of Faith”.
“She is the protestant Queen of a protestant constitutional monarchy.”
But she has said that her proudest title is ‘Head of the Commonwealth’. I remember when there was many a heated discussion on opening our borders to immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, that the Queen rather broke with the usual protocol and made some quite strong comments in favour of ‘opening the doors’. If nothing else, she certainly had some influence on that decision.
“Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
Religion and monarchy truly are perfect bedfellows. Each relies for its acceptance entirely on conditioning from an early age. Dispense with that conditioning and a child would see that both are rooted in absurdity.
“Religion and monarchy truly are perfect bedfellows. Each relies for its acceptance entirely on conditioning from an early age.”
Interestingly Richard, God did not want the Israelites to have a king, and here’s why…..
I Samuel:8
10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him.
11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.
13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants.
15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants.
16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.
18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, 20 dthat we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
“Interestingly Richard, God did not want the Israelites to have a king”
Interestingly, Agit8ed, the mad myths of illiterate Bronze-Age goatherds have no relevance to my life in the 21st century.
Actually,
and interestingly,
they do.
You might not like it, but we are the sum of all that has gone before.
You wanna borrow borrow my gun?
Agit8ed,
We may be the sum of what’s gone before (and I was reading an interesting philosophical piece on that very topic only yesterday) but those myths, while perhaps having been the life-blood of the ancients, really have no relevance to my life in the modern world.
Nor do kings, queens and emperors. I’ll leave monarchs and gods to those conditioned since childhood to revere them.
So do you wanna borrow my gun or not?
Why ever would I want to borrow your gun? I abhor violence.
Richard,
A quote of yours from an earleir thread:-
I’m glad that I share the planet with selfless human beings whose values are not yours.
And you think those values have nothing to do with Christianity?
‘mad myths of illiterate Bronze-Age goatherds have no relevance to my life in the 21st century.
Remarks such as that show your general shallowness of thought, and the disregard you have for history. You rival Peter with his ‘sky god’ remarks for arrogant narrow mindedness, one might even call it bigotry, – but then that seems to be a rather common trait among you generation Xer’s.
“Why ever would I want to borrow your gun? I abhor violence.”
Well I know my views drive you mad, and I thought you might want to shoot yourself.
It’s obvious that the Tories have decided to ditch this loudmouth harridan. Good riddance.
Ernest,
“And you think those values have nothing to do with Christianity?”
No, I don’t think anything of the sort.
“Remarks such as that show your general shallowness of thought, and the disregard you have for history.”
Shallowness of thought? Because I call Bronze-Age myths by their proper name?
“You rival Peter with his ‘sky god’ remarks for arrogant narrow mindedness, one might even call it bigotry”
One might—but one would be mistaken. In fact, my findings are a direct result of ratiocination—in contrast to the nonsense with which children continue to be conditioned.
And I repeat: religion and monarchies make perfect bedfellows. The irrational and the unseemly.
Agit8ed,
“Well I know my views drive you mad, and I thought you might want to shoot yourself.”
Your views do nothing of the sort. In fact I appreciate how you make you case in most matters.