The release of Aung San Suu Kyi after 15 years of house arrest has been greeted with warm statements from many world leaders.
I do not propose to discuss the subject as I have no knowledge of it - apart from the fact that I know that the Burmese Government is composed largely of thugs and that Miss Suu Kyi's imprisonment was a disgrace. And in any case many people far better qualified than I, have been or will be writing on the matter.
No, it was reading this BBC article and in particular Mr David Cameron's reponse that prompted this brief scribble. The BBC article included the following:
I do not propose to discuss the subject as I have no knowledge of it - apart from the fact that I know that the Burmese Government is composed largely of thugs and that Miss Suu Kyi's imprisonment was a disgrace. And in any case many people far better qualified than I, have been or will be writing on the matter.
No, it was reading this BBC article and in particular Mr David Cameron's reponse that prompted this brief scribble. The BBC article included the following:
UK Prime Minister David Cameron also said the release was "long overdue", describing her detention had been a "travesty"[sic.].
"Aung San Suu Kyi is an inspiration for all of us who believe in freedom of speech, democracy and human rights," he added.
Yes, très touchant, Mr Cameron. Now please tell us what is the extent of "freedom of speech. "
For example, are we allowed to condemn the climate change mafia, the green fascists, and the horrible nannying and bullying anti-tobacco lobby? Are we allowed to criticise the Mohammedans and other fanatical religious fundamentalists? Or the EU? Are we allowed to object to multi-culturalism?
And so on.
Until the next time
3 comments:
Let's give it a try Styx, here we go.
Mr Cameron, I was never asked whether I wanted to celebrate and enjoy multiculturalism; had I been I would have said no since I rather enjoyed the monoculture of my youth which did not need to be lectured to about 'cultural cohesion' because it was already cohesive.
Mr Enoch Powell has been proved correct in almost every aspect of his 'Rivers of Blood' speech for which he was drummed out of your Tory Party, such are its freedom of speech credentials.
Nicely put, thanks. Cultures inevitably evolve, but it is usurpation that I resent most strongly .
Powell was a exceptionally brilliant man, now largely remembered only for his famous Birmingham speech. He was also highly principled. I agreed with his stance on nuclear weapons:
What would the United Kingdom do? Would it discharge Polaris, Trident or whatever against the main centres of population of the Continent of Europe or in European Russia? If so, what would be the consequence? The consequence would not be that we should survive, that we should repel our antagonist – nor would it be that we should escape defeat. The consequence would be that we would make certain, as far as is humanly possible, the virtual destruction and elimination of the hope of the future in these islands.... I would much sooner that the power to use it was not in the hands of any individual in this country at all.
I have no objection on moral grounds to these terrible weapons sine they cannot of course be "uninvented"...
And as for "Rivers of Blood", yes he has been proved correct.
And on nuclear weapons too:
"I have always regarded the possession of the nuclear capability as a protection against nuclear blackmail. It is a protection against being threatened with nuclear weapons. What it is not a protection against is war".
I remember observing much the same at the time of the Falklands war: our expensive nuclear "deterrent" failed to impress General Galtieri after all!
Post a Comment