WARNING: May not suit certain tastes.
Posted: Sun 26 Sep, 2004 12:34 am
Seems the politics usually end up on here somehow and not in the political forum...so here ya go:
Nigel Owens, Chairman of the Northern Ireland Springbok Club,
writes..............
FOX HUNTING - THE VIEW FROM ULSTER
As our nation collapses around his complacent ears, Blair and his red
bolshevick associates are more concerned with sacrificing innocent lambs to
the cruel wolves on the left of the Labour Party, than they are in actually
doing something to help the country.
Militant homosexuals can have rights - but fox hunters cannot.
Terrorist murderers can have rights (providing they are the right kind of
terrorists and loved by those brain dead dinosaurs who worship the Guardian
and snooze on the Labour backbenches) - but fox hunters cannot.
It's ok to have an abortion - but you can't go fox hunting. You can kill a
baby, but don't you dare kill a fox.
Failed Assylum Seekers / Economic Migrants have rights - but fox hunters do
not.
Burglars have rights - but fox hunters do not.
Abu Hamza (Hookie) has rights - but fox hunters do not.
It is ok to hold a conference at Finsbury Park Mosque commemorating Sept
11th - but don't you dare go fox hunting!
It's more or less legal now to take drugs in this country - but the
government wants to outlaw fox hunting. Perhaps the police might be better
employed doing something useful like fighting drugs?
The government can tolerate disgusting scum like Jeremy Harding and even
allow him air time on BBC Radio 4, but they cannot tolerate fox hunters.
The 'travelling community' (as they are now called) have rights - but fox
hunters do not.
The rantings of George Galloway are tolerated - but fox hunting is not.
Satanists are even tolerated - but fox hunting is not.
I think that, after being in power for so long and achieving so little, this
Labour government really should find something more important to do, and do
it now.
When the poor fox hunting protestors in Parliament Square were set upon
heavy handidly by the police, the Daily Mirror showed pictures of the
carnage, triumphantly gloating "now they know how the fox feels". Well,
well, well, I think we all know that the whinging Daily Mirror would be
singing a different tune if the protestors in question had been gay rights
activists, feminists, republicans, anti-war protestors, CND, Muslims,
students, Sinn Fein backed 'residents groups', etc. Then again, this all
goes to suggest that the ban on fox hunting has nothing to do with fox
hunting - it is all just yet another golden opportunity to bash the decent,
hard-working, patriotic, conservative tax payers of this land.
It is alright for republican and atheist MPs to take their oath, swearing by
Almighty God to be loyal to the Queen, and then go on to sit in the House of
Commons (despite the fact that we know they are lying, don't mean what they
say, don't believe in God and seek to bring down the monarchy). I remember
some time ago watching Tony Benn take his oath when he was in the Commons,
it all seemed like such a joke. Labour MP Tony Banks, just prior to his
spell as 'Sports Minister', took his oath, held his hand in the air where
everyone could see it and smugly crossed his fingures. What utter contempt!
Were any of these people removed from the chamber? No. Was the law
enforced? No.
People like that can enter the House of Commons chamber illegally. They
have been doing so for many decades now. But, whenever pro-hunt activists
enter the chamber illegally - all is urgency and alarm! Especially on the
part of those valient class warriors who fester and fail on the government
benches, spreading their poisonous influence and destroying our nation on a
daily basis.
We live in a land where the only people who possess credible amounts of
firearms and ammunition any more are drug dealers and the IRA. Perhaps the
government may wish to try doing something about this problem rather than
focusing on fox hunting.
And then to top it all off, the British Council (a body which travels the
world promoting Britain to overseas investors) has announced that they are
removing the Union Flag from their logo - apparently it gives the wrong
impression.
What does this all tell me? It tells me that the ban on fox hunting has
nothing to do with fox hunting.
It has nothing to do with logic, animal welfare, 'decency' (as if the left
would know anything about that) or anything else.
This smacks of a political decision, made overwhelmingly by people with a
chip on their shoulder who utterly despise all that is part of our great
British freedom, heritage and traditions. Most of all, many of them despise
people who have done well in this live and have ammassed great wealth.
So, whenever the government do move to fully enforce their law with full
rigour against against the persecuted, law abiding, tax payers of the fox
hunting fraternity - lets see them enforce the law against their own back
benchers who lie every time they take their oath of loyalty to God and the
Queen, so that they can sit in the Queen's parliament and draw their
salaries in currency with the Queen's head on it (which of course they want
to replace with the euro).
Blair has stated that he wants to 'destroy the forces of conservatism'.
This is only the beginning.
May God bless the Conservative patriots of the English countryside as they
now fight - England's Drumcree!
HUNTING - SOME LAWS SHOULD BE DISOBEYED
By Rodney Atkinson
Dateline 22nd September 2004
The anti-democratic nature of the Blair Government and the arbitrary nature
of their laws is no more evident than in the passage of the Bill to ban the
hunting of foxes with packs of dogs. It is necessary to emphasise certain
words in this description of the Labour Party's Bill because it is the very
selectivity in the targeting of this law which shows how obnoxious it is.
The legislation is not backed up by objective research. A Government
financed enquiry concluded that there were no grounds for banning fox
hunting on the grounds of cruelty. The ban has nothing to do with the
preservation of the fox since they will be shot and gassed in possibly far
greater numbers in future: it has nothing to do with cruelty to man or beast
- otherwise boxing, halal meat and battery chickens would be first to be
banned and fishing should have been included in the legislation. With no
objective and balanced judgement there remains only prejudice. No just law
can arise out of popular prejudice and unjust laws should not be obeyed.
Some would like to compare the Labour Party's banning of hunting with the
Conservative Party's closure of the coal mines. But miners were not
targeted, no one banned the use of coal and the Government's only worry was
the enormous economic cost of the subsidy. The miners were doing a dangerous
and unhealthy job, costing the taxpayer billions and costing other workers
their jobs The hunting business is a healthy, job creating sport which keeps
one of nature's most vicious animals under control. The only barbaric thing
in fox hunting is the fox - as many a headless lamb would testify, killed
not for food but for the apparent pleasure of the fox!
SPECIFIC TARGETTING OF THE LAW
No, the criteria chosen for this political ban (specifically hunting,
specifically with hounds, specifically foxes) were designed to target
specific types of people living in specific areas - people who predominantly
do not vote Labour. The criteria for this law were therefore illogical and
arbitrary - but they were politically very specific. That is little short of
fascism and reminiscent of the deliberate targeting of Jews in fascist
Europe between 1933 and 1945 where the "specific" went as far as defining
Jews by the specific shape of their faces. Another very specific targeting
was the Soviet Russian murder of the land owning peasant - the kulaks. In
Yugoslavia during the Second World War the Croats murdered (after 1941)
specifically of Christians (not Muslims!) who were Orthodox and Serb. The
equivalent of banning fox hunting with dogs for a Conservative Government
would be to use a parliamentary majority to ban trade unionists who made
political donations to the Labour Party.
UNJUST LAWS MUST BE BROKEN
Should the hunting ban become law, that law should be ignored because it
would come objectively under the heading of an unjust law. An unjust law is
an arbitrary law, targeting specific individuals and not passed by due
democratic process. There has been no democratic process in the introduction
of this law since it was never a part of a Labour manifesto (there was
merely a commitment to hold a vote, not specifically to ban hunting). The
Bill was not introduced by the Government, eight of the Labour Government's
own cabinet did not vote for it, including Blair himself and the proposed
use of the Parliament Act (should the Bill be thrown out by the Lords) would
be unconstitutional.
If unjust laws are passed the people should disobey those laws - for their
continuance would undermine the nature of all law.
Nigel Owens, Chairman of the Northern Ireland Springbok Club,
writes..............
FOX HUNTING - THE VIEW FROM ULSTER
As our nation collapses around his complacent ears, Blair and his red
bolshevick associates are more concerned with sacrificing innocent lambs to
the cruel wolves on the left of the Labour Party, than they are in actually
doing something to help the country.
Militant homosexuals can have rights - but fox hunters cannot.
Terrorist murderers can have rights (providing they are the right kind of
terrorists and loved by those brain dead dinosaurs who worship the Guardian
and snooze on the Labour backbenches) - but fox hunters cannot.
It's ok to have an abortion - but you can't go fox hunting. You can kill a
baby, but don't you dare kill a fox.
Failed Assylum Seekers / Economic Migrants have rights - but fox hunters do
not.
Burglars have rights - but fox hunters do not.
Abu Hamza (Hookie) has rights - but fox hunters do not.
It is ok to hold a conference at Finsbury Park Mosque commemorating Sept
11th - but don't you dare go fox hunting!
It's more or less legal now to take drugs in this country - but the
government wants to outlaw fox hunting. Perhaps the police might be better
employed doing something useful like fighting drugs?
The government can tolerate disgusting scum like Jeremy Harding and even
allow him air time on BBC Radio 4, but they cannot tolerate fox hunters.
The 'travelling community' (as they are now called) have rights - but fox
hunters do not.
The rantings of George Galloway are tolerated - but fox hunting is not.
Satanists are even tolerated - but fox hunting is not.
I think that, after being in power for so long and achieving so little, this
Labour government really should find something more important to do, and do
it now.
When the poor fox hunting protestors in Parliament Square were set upon
heavy handidly by the police, the Daily Mirror showed pictures of the
carnage, triumphantly gloating "now they know how the fox feels". Well,
well, well, I think we all know that the whinging Daily Mirror would be
singing a different tune if the protestors in question had been gay rights
activists, feminists, republicans, anti-war protestors, CND, Muslims,
students, Sinn Fein backed 'residents groups', etc. Then again, this all
goes to suggest that the ban on fox hunting has nothing to do with fox
hunting - it is all just yet another golden opportunity to bash the decent,
hard-working, patriotic, conservative tax payers of this land.
It is alright for republican and atheist MPs to take their oath, swearing by
Almighty God to be loyal to the Queen, and then go on to sit in the House of
Commons (despite the fact that we know they are lying, don't mean what they
say, don't believe in God and seek to bring down the monarchy). I remember
some time ago watching Tony Benn take his oath when he was in the Commons,
it all seemed like such a joke. Labour MP Tony Banks, just prior to his
spell as 'Sports Minister', took his oath, held his hand in the air where
everyone could see it and smugly crossed his fingures. What utter contempt!
Were any of these people removed from the chamber? No. Was the law
enforced? No.
People like that can enter the House of Commons chamber illegally. They
have been doing so for many decades now. But, whenever pro-hunt activists
enter the chamber illegally - all is urgency and alarm! Especially on the
part of those valient class warriors who fester and fail on the government
benches, spreading their poisonous influence and destroying our nation on a
daily basis.
We live in a land where the only people who possess credible amounts of
firearms and ammunition any more are drug dealers and the IRA. Perhaps the
government may wish to try doing something about this problem rather than
focusing on fox hunting.
And then to top it all off, the British Council (a body which travels the
world promoting Britain to overseas investors) has announced that they are
removing the Union Flag from their logo - apparently it gives the wrong
impression.
What does this all tell me? It tells me that the ban on fox hunting has
nothing to do with fox hunting.
It has nothing to do with logic, animal welfare, 'decency' (as if the left
would know anything about that) or anything else.
This smacks of a political decision, made overwhelmingly by people with a
chip on their shoulder who utterly despise all that is part of our great
British freedom, heritage and traditions. Most of all, many of them despise
people who have done well in this live and have ammassed great wealth.
So, whenever the government do move to fully enforce their law with full
rigour against against the persecuted, law abiding, tax payers of the fox
hunting fraternity - lets see them enforce the law against their own back
benchers who lie every time they take their oath of loyalty to God and the
Queen, so that they can sit in the Queen's parliament and draw their
salaries in currency with the Queen's head on it (which of course they want
to replace with the euro).
Blair has stated that he wants to 'destroy the forces of conservatism'.
This is only the beginning.
May God bless the Conservative patriots of the English countryside as they
now fight - England's Drumcree!
HUNTING - SOME LAWS SHOULD BE DISOBEYED
By Rodney Atkinson
Dateline 22nd September 2004
The anti-democratic nature of the Blair Government and the arbitrary nature
of their laws is no more evident than in the passage of the Bill to ban the
hunting of foxes with packs of dogs. It is necessary to emphasise certain
words in this description of the Labour Party's Bill because it is the very
selectivity in the targeting of this law which shows how obnoxious it is.
The legislation is not backed up by objective research. A Government
financed enquiry concluded that there were no grounds for banning fox
hunting on the grounds of cruelty. The ban has nothing to do with the
preservation of the fox since they will be shot and gassed in possibly far
greater numbers in future: it has nothing to do with cruelty to man or beast
- otherwise boxing, halal meat and battery chickens would be first to be
banned and fishing should have been included in the legislation. With no
objective and balanced judgement there remains only prejudice. No just law
can arise out of popular prejudice and unjust laws should not be obeyed.
Some would like to compare the Labour Party's banning of hunting with the
Conservative Party's closure of the coal mines. But miners were not
targeted, no one banned the use of coal and the Government's only worry was
the enormous economic cost of the subsidy. The miners were doing a dangerous
and unhealthy job, costing the taxpayer billions and costing other workers
their jobs The hunting business is a healthy, job creating sport which keeps
one of nature's most vicious animals under control. The only barbaric thing
in fox hunting is the fox - as many a headless lamb would testify, killed
not for food but for the apparent pleasure of the fox!
SPECIFIC TARGETTING OF THE LAW
No, the criteria chosen for this political ban (specifically hunting,
specifically with hounds, specifically foxes) were designed to target
specific types of people living in specific areas - people who predominantly
do not vote Labour. The criteria for this law were therefore illogical and
arbitrary - but they were politically very specific. That is little short of
fascism and reminiscent of the deliberate targeting of Jews in fascist
Europe between 1933 and 1945 where the "specific" went as far as defining
Jews by the specific shape of their faces. Another very specific targeting
was the Soviet Russian murder of the land owning peasant - the kulaks. In
Yugoslavia during the Second World War the Croats murdered (after 1941)
specifically of Christians (not Muslims!) who were Orthodox and Serb. The
equivalent of banning fox hunting with dogs for a Conservative Government
would be to use a parliamentary majority to ban trade unionists who made
political donations to the Labour Party.
UNJUST LAWS MUST BE BROKEN
Should the hunting ban become law, that law should be ignored because it
would come objectively under the heading of an unjust law. An unjust law is
an arbitrary law, targeting specific individuals and not passed by due
democratic process. There has been no democratic process in the introduction
of this law since it was never a part of a Labour manifesto (there was
merely a commitment to hold a vote, not specifically to ban hunting). The
Bill was not introduced by the Government, eight of the Labour Government's
own cabinet did not vote for it, including Blair himself and the proposed
use of the Parliament Act (should the Bill be thrown out by the Lords) would
be unconstitutional.
If unjust laws are passed the people should disobey those laws - for their
continuance would undermine the nature of all law.
