Man shaming and victim blaming: The A-Z of male suicide in the UK (Karen Woodall)

John Allman:

I think this piece by Karen Woodall (psychologist at the Family Separation Clinic) is excellent. She works with the parent and child victims of parental alienation.

Originally posted on Karen Woodall:

I caught the end of the Panorama Programme on male suicide in the UK last night.  Whilst I know something about the statistics around male suicide and understand some of those things which stack up against men, causing loss of hope and a spiral into despair, even I was shocked that 100 men are killing themselves every week in the UK.

100 men every week.  It is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. It is happening in our country right now and yet, apart from the exhortation to ‘talk about it’, we have, as yet, no national strategy, no national awareness of what is happening and no real idea of what to do about it other than telling men they need to talk about it.

So it’s all their fault then and if only men would be more like women and talk about it…

View original 1,345 more words


Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Feminism, Human Rights, Men's Rights, Mental health, Persecution of Minorities, Reblogged

The Hampstead Witch Hunt – parental alienation taken to extremes

John Allman:

I spent an hour or so yesterday, reading Thursday’s judgment in the High Court hearing that is most aptly described as the Hampstead Witch Hunt.  I had decided to blog about the case myself, when Karen Woodall beat me to it, clicking on “publish” during the past hour or so.  So I’m reblogging Karen’s excellent post, after this short introduction.

The child abuser in this case (the alienating mother, helped by her newest boyfriend) was extremely imaginative, in her crafting of the false accusations against dad, which she “tortured”  her eight and nine year-old son and daughter children into making (as Mrs Justice Pauffley put it.)   The abusers immediate motive would have been the same as every other alienator: manufacturing an excuse for disrupting the children’s relationship with the other parent, so that the alienator could have the children all to himself or herself. But, oh boy, this alienator really went to town on the task!  And the false accusations have gone absolutely viral.

It is quite fascinating to observe how supportive of the perpetrator, Ella Draper, was Dr Hodes, the first of the expert witnesses to see the child victims.  She could have been Marietta Higgs using a new name to escape her past, judging by the bespoke medical evidence she prepared, which could hardly have been better tailored to lend a temporary credibility to the false accusations the children were tortured into making.

It is sobering to realise that these children were at risk of never being allowed to see their innocent father again, even though they quickly admitted that their accusations had been lies, once they had been reassured that they weren’t going to be sent home to mum in the immediate future.  The only thing that saved them from this fate, unlike a million and more other children who do not have such lucky escapes, was the sheer incredibility of the simply massive criminal witchcraft industry that that the children were tortured into alleging that their father led, in Hampstead.

Even after this judgment of Mrs Justice Pauffley, there is still a sizeable community on the internet who are dissatisfied with the findings of the official witch hunt (that there had been neither witches nor witchcraft, in the children’s lives).  They are continuing to conduct their own unofficial witch hunt, whilst demanding a reconvening of the official witch hunt over which judge Pauffley had presided, this time minded to try harder to catch the witches.

Not only are P and Q now seeing their father again, twice a week I last heard, and Skyping him daily from temporary foster care, they will be seeing rather less of their mother, for a while.  Until the Interpol arrest warrant out on Ms Ella Draper, alienatrice extraordinaire,  is executed, and she is extradited from wherever she is hiding back to the UK, they won’t be seeing mum at all.  I hope they do eventually get to see her again, though.  Let every child have both parents, wherever possible, even when their parents are rascals like this.

If the coached false accusations against dad had been less far-fetched, the children would have lost their dad, like Gagged Dad‘s son has lost his, to all practical intents and purposes.  Just like almost every child with an alienating dad loses his mum, or vice versa.

I have decided to stand for Parliament in May, over this one issue – the right of every child, where possible, to both parents.  The professionals backed Ella, at first.  Professionals alas often back the alienating parent, when there is parental alienation afoot.  If Ella had not over-egged the pudding, and thus sabotaged her own plot, the professionals would likely have ousted dad Ricky from his children’s lives completely and permanently, without a second thought.

Originally posted on Karen Woodall:

I cannot be the only one to feel immense relief on watching the news of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement in the High Court this week, on the father who was supposedly a cult leader involved in importing babies to the UK in order to kill and eat them and dance around their skulls.  At least someone in the legal system is able to give a clear and unequivocal message, not only about the existence of satanic cults in Hampstead but on the way in which coaching a child to make false allegations of this nature is ‘torturing them.’  These children are now safe from the abuse that their mother and step father inflicted upon them, I cannot help but wonder about the mental and emotional health of their father who was at the centre of these allegations.

False allegations are a feature of family separation, especially when that separation is…

View original 1,801 more words

1 Comment

Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Feminism, Human Rights, Law, Men's Rights, Political, Reblogged

Abolish rape!

The criminal offence of “rape” should be abolished.  Seriously.  There is no need for it in this day and age.  The continuing existence of the archaic common law criminal offence of “rape”, nowadays enacted as a statutory criminal offence, is harming society.  It facilitates propaganda on the part of those anti-social elements within society who are antagonistic towards the “need” expressed in The Equality Act 2010 s149 “to foster good relations” between men and women.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 1 makes it a criminal offence, the offence called “rape”, for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent.  This offence of rape is potentially punishable by life imprisonment. Section 1 should be repealed, and replaced with a measure to abolish the criminal offence of “rape”.  No man would ever again be charged with rape in the UK.  O happy day!  The archaic, gender-skewed offence of “rape” simply isn’t needed in the modern world of sexual equality.  It is obsolete.

Section 2 of the same Act also makes it a criminal offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent.  This offence is called “assault by penetration”.  It is also potentially punishable by life imprisonment.  This offence should also be abolished too.  It isn’t needed either.

Section 4 is all that is needed.

Like ss1 and 2, s4 makes it a criminal offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, punishable by life imprisonment.  The offence is called (in s4) “causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent”.  Section 4 should, of course, be retained.  Men who rape women can instead be convicted of this offence and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The beauty of section 4 is that it also makes it an offence for a woman to have sexual intercourse with a man without his consent.  If she does, and is convicted, she too can be sentenced to life imprisonment.  But her offence will not be called “rape”, and her male victim will not be described as a “rape victim”.

The only rational reason I can discern for anyone wishing to retain the separate offences of “rape” and “assault by penetration” that men commit against women, but women cannot commit against men, is that he or she desires the retention of an offence with an emotive and archaic name that has an anachronistically gender-asymmetric statutory definition.  Why?  So that he or she can assert loudly and wrathfully that men rape women, not the other way round. Why would anybody be gleeful at being able to assert this, loudly, angrily and often, as some do?  Because he or she wishes to continue working the mischief that has brought relations between men and women to their present-day a low ebb, to the detriment of children. the mischief of stirring up as much irrational anger between the two sexes as possible.

Once we have only the gender neutral section 4 offence to talk about, we shall have become able to talk about non-consensual sexual intercourse far more calmly and rationally.  There are certain populist rabble-rousers whom (I predict) this change to the language wouldn’t suit.  A few of them are notoriously outspoken MPs or civil servants in high office.  Let them come here, and argue their case with me!  I offer to make mincemeat of their sophistry.

As a matter of interest, at least one study in the USA has reported that sexual intercourse (and other acts covered by section 4 in the UK, such as oral sex) that carrying a life sentence here, to which the female victim did not consent, is slightly less common than such acts to which the male victim did not consent.  If this finding is even close to being correct, and is reflected in the sexual behaviour of British people too, then the larger number of men than women in prison for non-consensual sex acts, will cease to be quoted by certain demagogues, in the hope of whipping up even more misandry.  It will instead be quoted by men’s rights activists (misogynist or otherwise), as compelling evidence of a gender-asymmetric enforcement of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in relation to the identical male and female offences that rightly both carry a potential sentence of life imprisonment.

I challenge anybody to provide me with an honourable reason for his or her opposing the abolition of the criminal offence of “rape” that I am today proposing, so that the majority of us who see the perils of too much gender politics can discuss with less emotion, and in a non-gendered manner, the grave problem of sexual intercourse being inflicted upon non-consenting victims, which always carries a potential life sentence for male and female offenders alike.  The offence, that is, already defined in the catch-all section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  The only offence that is needed in order to police non-consensual sex in society, which can enable this policing to be performed in a gender-neutral manner.


Filed under Feminism, Law, Men's Rights, Political, Righteousness

Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel

One succinct definition of “feminism” is,

Feminism: The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

The complementary definition of “masculism” is,

Masculism: The advocacy of men’s rights on the ground of equality of the sexes.           

Using the above definitions, masculism and feminism can be seen to be like mirror image twins.  They are equally egalitarian; men’s rights advocacy and women’s rights advocacy, with neither group advocating the infringement of the rights of the gender that isn’t their main focus.

It is in these senses of the two words, that I am both a feminist and a masculist at heart and in deed.

Most of the human right’s advocacy I do, isn’t gendered at all.  (It is that which I enjoy most.)  Amongst the minority of my human rights advocacy work that has to be gendered, I feel that I contribute most effectively to the overall cause of gender equality, when I practise in masculism.  My feminist advocacy practice isn’t therefore extensive yet.

In everyday life, we can easily see just how much masculists and feminists are ultimately on the same side, the side of equality of the sexes, rather than the supremacy of one sex or the other.  We can see this harmonious complementarity in play, by witnessing masculists and feminists having their frequent, amicable, polite, reasonable, and fruitful dialogues, for example when trading good-hearted banter on Twitter.


It’s like building the Euro tunnel …

Masculism and feminism (as defined above) are just different parts of the same project.  They are analogous to the British and French teams that dug the Euro tunnel, starting from different shores, but eventually meeting in the middle, beneath the sea bed.
Imagine what chaos there might have been, if there had been a single Anglo-French team, instead of two teams doing the digging, in opposite directions. Unless every team member was bilingual, they’d have needed every detail of the project to be explained in two languages. One a dreadful, illogical language that sexualises toddlers as they first learn to talk, because it is a language in which everything (even tables, chairs and cutlery) is gendered, either masculine or feminine! The other English.
Imagine that this single, joint Anglo-French team, had started digging from only one of the two shores (selected by tossing a coin), leaving absolutely nobody digging from the other shore!  I doubt the tunnel would have been open even today, with that arrangement in place.
It would be even more chaotic if the pursuit of gender equality were to left to a single, artificially merged school of thought, half of whose adherents tried to mansplain everything, the other half of whom could understand nothing until it had been femsplained to them.
And that is why we need both feminism and masculism in the world today, in order to promote gender equality adequately, digging from both “shores”, so-to-speak.
The former corporate motto of the now-completed construction project for the channel tunnel,
Two shores.  One English Channel.  Two directions.  One tunnel.
Deux rives.  Une Manche.  Deux directions.  Un tunnel.
 inspires a new slogan, which expresses perfectly the good-natured co-operation we can see today between masculists and feminists.
Two sexes.  One equality.
Tu jest!  C’est notre égalité, pas le vôtre!  Vous êtes tous les misogynes!
Topical relevance
I was pleased to learn that Mike Buchanan had published the manifesto of the UK’s new masculist political party.
I am disappointed to have noticed that it has all gone rather quiet. on the other side of la Manche that separates masculists like Mr Buchanan from feminists like Harriet Harman.  Quiet, that is, since Ms Harman mooted her exciting and original idea of forming a feminist political party, in order to put women’s rights onto the political agenda at last.  “About time too,” I thought to myself at the time, “after so many decades of neglect.”
I do hope that Ms Harman’s plan to start a feminist political party hasn’t quietly been shelved.  It would lead to an imbalance, if Ms Harman did not stick to her excellent Plan A, now that Justice For Men and Boys has published its excellent, scholarly general election manifesto and announced its Prospective Parliamentary Candidates.
Footnote for Hegelians
Thesis + antithesis becomes synthesis, eventually.  But there is often a nomenclature struggle, even if the resolution is as clumsy as the NASUWT, the merger of NAS (National Association of Schoolmasters) with the UWT (Union of Women Teachers.)
Footnote for French-speaking people
Your word for a tunnel is “le tunnel”, which you consider to be a masculine inanimate object.  The French word for a thing that thrusts into a tunnel, in order to deliver its load to the other end of the tunnel, which the tunnel was created to receive (in English called a locomotive), is “la locomotive”, a feminine inanimate object, in French.  How do you frenchsplain that?
It seems kinky enough to us Anglophones that you French people apparently consider that everything in the entire world has to be gendered in the first place.  That is even before we begin to discover how exactly you gender some things, often surprising us, because many of those French decisions about how things are gendered, to your quintessentially French way of thinking, often seems thoroughly counter-intuitive to us, nay perversely unnatural.


Filed under Family Rights, Feminism, Political, Satire and humour

Alienation watch: The lesser spotted alienation aware professional

John Allman:

This November 2014 blog post, on the part of Karen Woodall, has remained in my mind ever since I first read it.

Originally posted on Karen Woodall:

This week I have been confronted with the dearth of alienation awareness and expertise in the UK field of family services.  This is not a surprise to me but what has been surprising if not alarming is the emergence of a new type of professional, the lesser spotted professional if you like (it is coming up to the weekend, humour me).

This lesser spotted professional is someone who for the sake of a few hours training could be the alienation aware professional who knows what to do and how to do it.  That this person remains ignorant, not only of what they don’t know but what they do know, is both astounding and terrifying to me in equal measure.  This week, on wading through yet another case file, I became aware that the case, which has been bouncing back and forth twixt professionals in public and private law, was actually…

View original 1,574 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights

Please, miss, please may I watch my son’s school Christmas play?

St Stephens Day, 2014

It might seem strange that I am today publishing video footage of the abuse of a father’s family rights.  It is my hope that this video, though some might find it distressing to watch, might bring fresh hope to alienated parents the world over.  The video might persuade some other parent stripped of his or her family by public sector officials who consider themselves answerable to nobody, not to commit suicide during this lonely Christmas period.


It ironic that I make this publication on the day of the year when some make a point of remembering the sacrifice of the very first disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ to be put to death, as a punishment for his faithfulness to Christ, imposed without the formal passing of a sentence, after an unfair trial.  A death sentence for Stephen having articulated his own politically incorrect beliefs, almost two thousand years ago.  As many a bereaved parent has discovered throughout the world’s bloody history, facing death for one’s beliefs is sometimes easier to bear than the loss of one’s children.

I am the father of a minor, aged four, for whom I have parental responsibility.  I have won, in private family proceedings, enforceable against my son’s mother, as my respondent, a contact order.

The family court contact order in my favour said nothing whatsoever about what I wasn’t allowed to do.  It said nothing about what the Head of School of my son’s infant school had to prevent me from doing.  It certainly conferred upon nobody a licence physically to assault me on sight, without facing any legal consequences for their violence.  All that extra-judicial interference – extreme and violent contact denial – was inflicted upon me entirely voluntarily, without a court order permitting it, because that is what the perpetrator wanted to do.  I say that that treatment of me was unlawful, from start to finish.  Not that any such legal niceties have ever occupied the small minds of the various professionals concerned, whose actions suggest that they believe the modern doctrine that a boy without a dad is like a fish without a bicycle.

I attended my son’s school, hoping to join the audience of parents whose children were in the school Christmas play that morning.  I had looked forward to this day since my lad had started at this school.  Failing that preferred outcome, then, at very least, and to quote a certain Cornish folk song from an era as turbulent as our own, I was determined that I would “know the reason why”.  The reason why turns out to be in order to make the Head of School “happy”.  She was not “happy” to let me watch the play, so she attacked me physically herself, and also called the police.  Even after establishing that the Head of School’s “happiness” or otherwise for me to attend my son’s school play was the only reason for her agenda (since the court order she had told me and the police she had, turned out not exist, as I had always insisted was the case), the police did her bidding, and assaulted me.  (They should have restrained her, so that I was able to enter the auditorium in peace.)

Unmistakeable illegality

The video catches on film a flagrant abuse of family rights on the part of the highly unprofessional (and downright mean-spirited) Head of School at my son’s infants’ school, both mine and his.  I am disappointed that the common assault perpetrated against me by my son’s Head of School, less than a minute before the start of filming, wasn’t filmed too.  The attack on my person perpetrated by a couple of school teachers, alas happened slightly too quickly for my fellow-witness and cameraman even to get his filming device switched on in time for him capture that shocking moment.

Thank God my father and mother have not lived to see the day when school-teachers conduct themselves like thugs towards the parents of those whom they teach, including their own son, who had no intention other than sitting quietly, watching the play in which their grandson was performing!

Your help is needed

I imagine the good people behind (for example) J4MB, F4J, NF4J, RF4J, FNF (of which I am a member), MRA-UK, Christian Voice, Christian Concern, The Christian Institute, Justice For Families and UK Column (to name but a few), and other readers of this blog, will now want to do all they can to make this incriminating video, which shows exactly how the anti-family industry has taken to working its secretive and mendacious mischief, “go viral”.  My “olive branch” addressed to the perpetrator, which could surely have enabled an amicable, out-of-court settlement with any reasonable defendant, has apparently fallen on deaf ears (to use a humorous mixed metaphor).  The violent Head of School who assaulted me, has refused jaw-jaw with me.  She wants war-war.  Let her have war-war, if that is what she wants.  My decision to publish this video today, after delaying that decision for a fortnight, is because of her decision that there is nothing to talk about.

St Stephen’s Day

There is a story behind why I chose today as the day to publish that video today.

As I’ve said, today happens to be St Stephen’s Day.

I have, however, been reminded several times lately, about the fierce persecution of the first generation of the saints, the followers of “The Way” (later called “Christians”), that is documented in the New Testament of the Holy Bible, in The Acts of the Apostles chapters 6 thru 9, a good read that is a great deal more exciting than some of the bible, to me at least –  it is indeed a gripping yarn.

The said persecution seems to have been triggered by the unfair trial and martyrdom of the deacon Stephen, the first follower of The Way to be put to death for his faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ.  I should not be at all surprised to discover that was how I ended my own days, because an awful lot of my blog’s content, and my life’s activities, have turned out to be rather anti-establishment, during an age when Christians are amongst the least satisfied with what the establishment is doing to society, and the establishment itself is less tolerant of any criticism than I have ever known it to be, in my 61 years.

A principal perpetrator of that persecution, a secret policeman initially called Saul of Tarsus, later became a changed man, who later is referred to as the apostle Paul.  This Paul went on to write about a third of New Testament, and is still read today, by millions if not billions, more-or-less daily by many of them.  I even had occasion to quote this Paul’s writings myself, in the talk I gave in November this year in Brussels, which is linked to in my Christmas Day blog post of yesterday, punningly entitled Brussels sprouts, though that’s another story altogether.  The conversion of a thought policemen and torturer, into a Christian apologist, evangelist, missionary, and finally (by his own deliberate choices to insist upon his own legal rights) the political prisoner of the Roman state who wrote encouraging letters to various churches from prison, should be an inspiration to every reader.

I have taken what I took to be a providential hint.  I have concluded that today might well be the chosen day on which I publish the rather exciting video of what happened when I attempted to visit my four year-old son’s school on Thursday 11th December 2014.

This is a sensitive situation

I haven’t named my son or his school in this post, nor the town in Cornwall where the school is situated.  I have been careful to silence the “censored” video whenever my son’s name is uttered, an act of self-censorship.  No visual content has been censored, just my son’s name on the sound track.

I would respectfully ask anybody who might feel able to guess my son’s identity, or his school, please not to publish their guesses.  The perpetrators of the still-prospering “smash the family” paternal deprivation agenda, the creation of as near as achievable a fatherless society as can be socially engineered, need to be made answer publicly, in open court, for their abuses of children’s and families’ rights.  It is therefore necessary that nobody blurts out the secret details, lest secret courts that routinely imprison their victims for complaining about injustice, get their hands on the upcoming litigation, with the result that none of the readers of this blog will have the opportunity to watch a public trial about the important legal issues that I feel this video raises.

Wasn’t I harassing the Head of School?

No.  This was only my third visit ever to the school.  It was my first-ever visit without agreeing a prior appointment with the school staff, for a meeting with the staff, conducted when my son wasn’t present at the school.  So my visit definitely wasn’t part of any harassing “course of conduct”, for the purposes of The Protection From Harassment Act 1997, for which at least two incidents of the same type are required.  My visit was in order to join, perfectly innocently, the audience of parents watching their children (and my son) in what was my son’s first-ever school Christmas play, which was advertised on the school’s website, to encourage parents to attend as audience members.  The outcome of my visit was alas rather different from the harmless outcome that I had hoped for, but that was her choice, not mine.

Is it necessary to publish this video?

If I could think of any other way of rescuing my son from almost complete paternal deprivation, because the contact order in my favour is far from generous, then I would have used it.  I have tried many less confrontational approaches. It has proved to be akin to banging one’s head against a brick wall.

My attempt to enter amicable negotiations with the school, following my complaint about my treatment that day, has not been accepted.  I therefore saw no need to show any further restraint myself, about exposing publicly the Head of School’s wrong-doing.  I can always take this post down, and the You Tube video down, if the school governors surprise me pleasantly, by entering constructive dialogue later on, requesting that I withdraw this publication.

Is there something you’re not telling us?

Yes, of course.  There is probably a great deal that I am not telling you because I shall not learn it myself, unless and until disclosure is ordered in court proceedings that I have started against the school.  As you can see, I am not dealing with a fair and open system, in which each side puts its cards on the table.

The Head of School refused (twice, in the video) to disclose upon whose “legal advice” she had acted, when she emailed me the day before the school Christmas play saying that she would call the police if I came to watch the play, and when she physically assaulted me as I attempted (using no violence myself whatsoever) simply to walk calmly and peaceably into the school hall where my son’s school Christmas play was to be performed.  I have my suspicions that the withheld answer to that question of mine might very well have some bearing on another court case, in which I am acting as the advocate for the claimant in that case, who must remain anonymous for legal reasons.

What I can promise you is that I have never abused my son or his mother, nor harassed her.  Neither she nor he has any sound reason to fear that I might.

Are you perhaps in the same boat?

If you are affected by similar problems in your own family life, and watching this video has stirred emotions in you, please feel free to write to me.  I may not be able to help you directly, though don’t rule that possibility out either, but I might well be able to point you in the direction of supportive resources that others provide.

If you have heard gossip about me (because I am aware that there is some gossip “on the streets”, as one of my handful of detractors put it), then please be willing to write to me, asking whether what you have been told is true.  The chances are that it isn’t true.


Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Feminism, Homophobic, Human Rights, Law, Men's Rights, Persecution of Minorities, Political, Pro-life, Targeted

Nice curry, shame about the hate

David Cameron debunked

Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam then?  Is that Cameron’s latest thesis?  The clue isn’t in the name after all then?

Thank you, Mr Cameron, for educating the rest of us so well, provided, that is, we believe uncritically in the mere assertions of your democratically elected self (if that’s not overstating your coalition government’s mandate).

Cameron’s might seem like a pretty plausible stance, at first glance, to many a citizen.  Why, the speaker’s own “Parliamentary Conservative Party”, the bunch of legislators who (for example) are even willing meekly to advance the “smash the family” social engineering of their own Marxist Feminist infiltrators whenever Mr Cameron’s whips order them to do so, aren’t actually conservatives themselves nowadays, are they?  Not in deed as in profession.

What then could be more reasonable than that hypocrisy just like his own is what now fuels mayhem in Iraq and Syria?  Something as unconnected with what Islam really is, as he is with what conservatism really is?

But, hang on a minute, before swallowing, hook, line and sinker, what Cameron seems to be saying, to you. (It isn’t easy to work out what he is actually saying, objectively, to anybody who is listening, as he makes the noises that he thinks of as the right noises for him to be making now, with so many votes at stake.) Let us please think awhile, for a change.

I shall now use straw man rhetoric.  I use it not to prove a thought bite point of mine, though.  (Not that anybody is ever likely in the near future to challenge Mr Cameron to prove any such point that he makes, assuming he makes a point that we can all understand alike, and assuming that he is in the business of making proper points in the first place, rather than mere noises.)

I propose now to paraphrase some of the words of the real Mr Cameron, into the fictitious words of my “straw man” Cameron.   I do this merely in order to help me to make my point, to you, dear reader.  This small leeway for valid “straw man” rhetoric, rather than straw man argument, is surely allowed.  Once you have got my point, with the help of my Straw Cameron’s paraphrased speech, you are perfectly entitled to ask me to prove my point, although I am equally entitled not to be bothered to do that, because you could easily just read the Koran for yourself.

Isn’t Straw Cameron merely saying this? :-

Just as the (Parliamentary) Conservatives in the UK by-and-large aren’t really conservatives at all nowadays, likewise (“trust me on this, I’m a Prime Minister”) Islamist Extremists, far from being extremely Islamic as you’d naturally expect from the nomenclature, are, in fact, hardly Islamic people at all, perhaps not even true Moslems at all, not even moderately so.

My straw Cameron is here borrowing, and applying to Islam, on which he makes pretensions to having such expertise, a distinction of protestant theology said to have eternal consequences.  That is, the distinction between, on the one hand, “true believers” – born-again saints if you like – real Christians – people who are thought to be “saved” and who are collectively referred to as “the church invisible” – and, on the other hand, “hypocrites” and “temporary believers” (as I seem to remember that the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689 refer to them) sojourning within what protestants used to call “the church visible”.

Isn’t what Straw Cameron is really saying also this, on the other hand? :-

That it’s really that nice Turkish chap at the kebab shop, or Bengali waiter at the “Indian” restaurant, who, for all we know, wouldn’t hurt a fly, eats pork chops served to him at table if it would offend a tactless English host not to (or because he just likes pork) who is the true Moslem? The so-called Moslem who drinks lager (but only socially, and very occasionally, of course), because Allah is merciful?  The Moslem who quite possibly hasn’t visited a mosque or spoken to an imam in five years?  The nominal Moslem, like the seven Bosnian refugees who drank lager (at least, the adults did) and ate bacon butties, to whom I offered shelter in my house in Guildford over twenty years ago, when a local church was bringing Moslems over from war-torn Bosnia to the UK as refugees, by the bus-load?  The “moderate” Moslem next door who is not at risk of ever planting a bomb himself, or chopping off some other poor frightened chap’s head, possibly because he keeps his only copy of the Koran (and that hardly ever used) in a box in his attic?

If Islam is “the religion of peace”, Straw Cameron continues, then might not this peace-loving nice-guy stereotype be the “true” Moslem that Mr Cameron so enthusiastically envisages, even though Mr Cameron is at other times as cynical about truth as was Pontius “What is truth?” Pilate himself?  How convenient would that be!

Mr Cameron, I suspect, doesn’t relate well to any brand of what he’d call “fundamentalism”.  God knows he has gone out of his way to ensure that many Christian fundamentalists will never again vote Tory.  Cameron is best known in the circles in which I move for betraying conservative fundamentals.  He is a kinder and wiser person, in some respects, than he would be, if he had insisted upon believing in, and acting upon, the literal truth of the whole counsel of the scriptures of Conservatism published in the last Tory manifesto.  I grant him that compliment.  But he has also done great harm which surely nobody in their right mind would ever have elected him to do, because he has disdained belief in the literal truth of his own manifesto, the scriptures of modern British Conservatism.

Straw Cameron’s argument is that Islamic Extremists aren’t even moderately Islamic, as he understands what it is to be Islamic; whilst Islamic Moderates, his sort of people, or at least people he can put up with, are extremely akin to his preferred mental picture of what it is to be Islamic in the first place.  N’est-ce pas?

Not approving of any sort of fundamentalism helps Mr Cameron to overcome the cognitive dissonance, whereby obeying the Islamic scriptures, specifically the Koran, interpreted literally, by becoming a terrorist (say), isn’t at all what he means by “Islamic”, whereas humbly serving drunk English lager louts bacon burgers in a take-away, never reading the Koran, and certainly never becoming a terrorist, is extremely Islamic to Mr Cameron’s imaginative and wishful way of thinking.

Islamic Moderates are thus extremely Islamic according to Mr Cameron, whilst Islamic Extremists aren’t even moderately Islamic.

Islam is what it is.  No matter how many millions believe what they hear from Mr Cameron, their mistaken belief cannot miraculously make a lie true. Wishing, and therefore declaring in a political speech what one hopes will turn out to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, that war-mongering Islam has really been a religion of peace all along, an unjustly misunderstood calming influence on the world stage for the past dozen centuries, isn’t going to fool the people.

David Cameron mocks the phrase “a clash of civilisations”, in a speech in which he describes exactly that!

I enjoyed making my point so much, I have no time left to prove it.  Anybody know whether it is true?  Would the real Islam please stand up?


Filed under Islam, Political, Satire and humour