Under New Labour, “democracy” and “equality” should be rationed*

Labour MEP for London, Mary Honeyball, has recently seen controversy over her opinions of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.

The MEP is a “passionate campaigner for women’s rights” and is a member of the European Parliament Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee.

She states that she is not “prejudiced against any religion.” Judging by what I have read about her, she is prejudiced against ALL religions as she seems to consider that they all preach against her feminist ideals.

She is a member of the recently formed Labour Humanists. She says in her review of 2007 (page 14) that the humanists “are, amongst other things, doing good work pointing out the problems associated with faith schools and opposing Church of England bishops having seats in a reformed second chamber”.

She starts her review of religion with the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks. This strikes me as a particularly dishonest and disturbing introduction in an attempt to promote her feminist humanist agenda.

She is a signatory of the Brussels Declaration, which calls for a secular Europe.

On her blog on 2nd October, she wrote:

“The Embryology Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation, to women and their families. It is contained in the Labour manifesto on which the party was elected this term.”

The reply I left was this:

Aah, the Labour manifesto “ON WHICH THE PARTY WAS ELECTED THIS TERM?” (My emphasis)

The same worthless document that promised a referendum on the changing face of Europe? (One of your correspondents used the phrase “a Woolworth’s Pick’n’Mix” on a different matter.)

Mary Honeyball, you seem to think that by believing Catholics should be allowed on the throne again makes everything all right with your previous comments.

You wrote on that post: “I am against certain dogmas proclaimed by the Catholic Church where they undermine and attack the lives and aspirations of women.”

I’m not a Catholic, but I guess you mean it’s terrible to deny a woman the ‘right’ to have her unborn children killed by chemical or surgical means or the ‘right’ to deny her children a father.

What more can a woman aspire to than to marry a good man and bear his children?

What more can a man aspire to than to find a righteous woman?

New Labour has been systematically destroying the laws and institutions that have protected family life.

Who wins in New Labour’s New Britain? Not men, not women and not children, because the natural place to be is in a family. New Labour and the EU have created tensions between people through divide and rule tactics.

I am not saying that everyone has always been treated fairly, that would be ridiculous, but to try and address certain issues by destroying decent society itself is beyond gross negligence – it is either wilful destruction or unparalleled ignorance.

Either way, I reckon there are many in your Party guilty of crimes against humanity, not only with regards to the unwarranted warmongering.

As for your insistence that everyone in the Party must toe the line on the Government’s social engineering projects, you are probably aware of Conor McGinn who resigned as vice chairman of Young Labour because of hostility towards Catholics and the pro-life movement.

As he rightly said about the Embryology Bill, it is “an issue of conscience and not party politics.” He also quoted you, Mary Honeyball, as describing Catholicism as having a “a “vice-like grip” across Europe, and accusing Catholics of “interfering in the democratic process”.

So, only people or organisations who agree with the Government are allowed to have a say in this ‘democracy’? You are reported to have said that “democracy and religion do not mix.”

When one considers the surveillance society and squads of state snoopers; fingerprinting of children at school; banning people from taking photographs; the many arrests of law-abiding citizens making a stand; turning of the state into a surrogate parent and allowing the ‘authorities’ to execute people like Jean Charles de Menezes, would you say the country is becoming more like East Germany or Stalin’s Russia? Or potentially even worse?

*P.S. Of course if “democracy” and “equality” are rationed then neither exists.

About these ads

15 Comments

Filed under UK Politics

15 responses to “Under New Labour, “democracy” and “equality” should be rationed*

  1. richard

    Hello Stewart.

    I thought this might be a better forum to debate rather than relying on Tom Harris to moderate…

    Where were we?

  2. Hello Richard,

    It’s up to you, although old Tom gets about 60 times the traffic I do.

  3. richard

    I know, but he only updates at lunchtime and after his kids have gone to bed… :-)

    You were just about to tell me how old you think the Earth is.

  4. No I wasn’t! I reckon you owe me some replies to my questions. You failed to answer my last two posts on the subject.

    Thanks.

  5. Tom H. normally updates very regularly.

  6. richard

    I seem to recall that you were after an answer regarding wall lizards that had undergone rapid evolution over a few decades.

    Actually it’s a touch misleading to refer to most of the changes that occurred (e.g. differentiation of head size, bite strength) as “rapid evolution”. The analogy is much closer to “rapid natural selection” which often happens in ‘island’ environments where inbreeding accelerates and accentuates gross features.

    You can see other examples of rapid selection including Cichlids in Africa;
    (http://ecoworldly.com/2008/10/07/scientists-discover-fish-in-act-of-evolution-in-africas-greatest-lake/). You’ll note again that the lake forms a natural barrier to outside influences.

    Neither case is evidence that the evolution of man / dinosaurs / cockroaches happened in less time, indeed the ‘island’ nature of the environments described in both examples tends to suggest that in a normal distribution these changes would have taken substantially longer.

  7. Richard – excerpts from my last post on the subject on the T.H. blog:

    Firstly, you have to ‘enlighten’ yourself by accepting that a theory is not a fact and that science is often very one-sided depending upon current trends and who gets funding.

    There is a whole manmade-global-warming industry based on analysing selective data.

    Likewise, the evidence that evolution scientists have is the same as Creation scientists have, but when secular humanist/atheists have so much influence, they get ‘outraged’ that Creationism is taught in a few dozen schools.

    The whole geological dating system is flawed, but regardless, if a dinosaur is found in such-and-such a stratum, it must be X-millions of years old.

    Real evidence to the contrary is either ignored or explained away some other way, like the dinosaur bone soft tissue or the rapid evolution of these lizards I have mentioned before.

    Re. the lizards, according to Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst:

    “What is unique about this finding is that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and function of a species, but also influence behavioral ecology and natural history.”

  8. richard

    I’ll try and answer as many points as possible here.

    1)
    It’s completely true that in science (for the most part) whoever pays the piper does indeed call the tune but you have to admit that there are a very large number of scientists who take a starkly contrarian view on a whole range of issues from climate change to astrology, medical science and physics while still remaining true to the underlying ethic of the “scientific principle” (e.g. that only something which is hypotecated and subsequently replicatable can be considered to be a scientific “fact”).

    The problem with ID, Early Earth Creationism and other faith-based schools of pseudoscience is that they don’t follow the principles of real science inasmuch as they rely on a fundamentalist belief in God as a first principle and a rejection of all science that seems to disprove their original hypothesis (i.e. that evolution is subject to design by god / that the Earth is x thousand rather than x billion years old, etc)

    2)
    In answer to the specific examples raised;
    Yes, geological dating is a delicate science but the underlying principles of “geology as physics” (e.g. radiometric dating) have been well studied and are proven to be both highly accurate and replicatable.
    You can read more here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

    3)
    As far as “soft tissue” is concerned it’s undeniable that decay can be halted by clay or peat (as can found on the valley floor of Hell Valley) but this clearly represents the extreme end of that scale and definitely merits closer study.

    On the other hand I certainly wouldn’t consider this to be proof-positive that dinosaurs roamed the Earth less than a few thousand years ago in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  9. richard

    I had a few questions for you Stewart;

    1) How old is planet Earth?
    2) Is the rest of the universe older or the same age as planet Earth?
    3) Are we all the victims of an elaborate hoax by God to make it seem like everything is much older than it appears?

    Let me know…

  10. Richard,

    Sorry for keeping you waiting for answers. It’s not that I didn’t like your comments.

    1) You mentioned “the “scientific principle” (e.g. that only something which is hypotecated and subsequently replicatable can be considered to be a scientific “fact”).”

    How can you replicate the fabled “Big Bang” and subsequent 15 billion years? Evolution science is not based on evidence as much as on a lot of hypotheses and suppositions that become ‘truth’ by their repetition.

    As much as Creationists believe in an Almighty Creator, this in no way, shape or form involves “a rejection of all science that seems to disprove their original hypothesis.”

    One of the main differences with Creation science is that we accept that the Great Flood was a reality and which led to extremely rapid geological changes as would be expected.

    The main problem is that most Creationists don’t know enough science themselves to be able to debate robustly. I’m not saying I know it all, but I think it’s important to learn and it’s fascinating.

    2) Radioactive dating depends upon too many unknown factors to be considered accurate. I’ll concede to not being an expert on this issue, but you have to assume certain things about earth’s past for it to work.

    3) Re: T-Rex soft tissue: “On the other hand I certainly wouldn’t consider this to be proof-positive that dinosaurs roamed the Earth less than a few thousand years ago in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

    Me neither (although the ‘overwhelming evidence to the contrary’ depends on which camp’s reading of the evidence you believe), but it takes some explaining. Hopefully now other scientists are looking for the same evidence in their own samples now they know it’s possible.

    It would be worth doing a search for any similar discoveries.

  11. richard

    1) Replicating the big bang;
    We don’t necessarily need to replicate the bang itself to see its effects. We can observe the pattern of doppler shift in distant galaxies and we can see that they are moving away from a common point at approximately the same speed. The assumption has to be that a force (probably an explosion) has occurred and has imparted inertia to objects that weigh trillions times trillions of tons.

    When you look at a hot, dense ball of gases moving apart from a central point at great speed it doesn’t take a particle physicist to assume that an explosion (whether it’s a hand grenade or a star) has happened.

    -=-=-
    2) “Radioactive dating depends upon too many unknown factors”; Actually the math is extremely simple and is conclusive proof that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old.

    Uranium decays into lead at a highly predictable rate over millions of years and through highly predictable stages. If you dig up some dirt you’ll find a small amount of uranium in almost every sample. If you compare the amount of lead to the amount of uranium you can calculate backwards to find the age of the sample.

    The simple fact is that the decay rates are constant and line up exactly with the rates that were predicted long before anyone had the idea (or capability) of using spectrometers to accurately date samples.

    This is a perfect example of the “scientific principle” at work across multiple fields;
    a) Mathematicians predicted the decay rate of various isotopes long before pure samples were available to test.
    b) Nuclear Physicists confirmed the decay rate using pure samples available because of advances in materials technology.
    c) Archeologists + Geologists have the idea of using these techniques to confirm dates of rocks, bones, etc.
    d) The whole lot is then cross-checked with known data (i.e. tree rings, sample depths, ice cores) to confirm that the findings are accurate.

    3) Soft tissue; There’s a perfectly reasonable explanation albeit the circumstances must have been a one in a million find.

    Soft tissue (which in this case means tissue that is not actually rock rather than tissue that is “soft” to the touch) is generally destroyed by the elements that lead to fossilisation. There’s no reason to assume that the same processes that have kept mammoths and other samples reasonably intact (e.g. peat / tar) wouldn’t work over much longer periods. It’s merely improbable that it would work over millions rather than hundreds of thousands of years, but not impossible and when you factor in the vast number of samples collected each year the probability has apparently moved in favour of the bone-diggers.

  12. Hi Richard,

    I’m a bit lethargic at the moment so sorry for delay. I feel like hibernating, actually.

    1) Well, yes, it’s all an assumption. The universe might have behaved differently in times past.

    2) The radioisotope dating methods are not reliable because “it is necessary to assume how much of the ‘daughter’ and ‘parent’ were present when the rock formed. It is also necessary to assume that no isotopes were gained or lost over time and that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant at the very slow rate measured today.”

    Also:

    “Research by the RATE project has uncovered much evidence that radioisotope decay rates were accelerated in a global catastrophic event in the recent past. This evidence includes the patterns of discordances between ‘dates’ from the different radioisotope systems.”

    I’m not denying that the half-life of the various isotopes are correct. Yes, you can do the math, but you can’t know all the factors about the sample’s past.

    Re. dating using ice cores: it has been thought that a freeze and a thaw represented one year, but in some areas there can be many thaws and refreezes in a single year giving rise to grossly inaccurate readings.

    And how did the WWII aircraft get buried under 250ft of ice after less than 50 years?

    3) Soft tissue – but how many scientists have been searching for it when they believed it was impossible?

    Just a few centuries ago, people thought that the sun revolved around the earth. What makes scientists so cocky now? They still probably don’t know 1% of 1% of what there is to know.

  13. James Lambert

    What a load of bollox you talk Stewart. If you’re going to quote science, at least make the effort to understand what science is. Ranting on about how “radioisotope dating methods are not reliable ” when you clearly know nothing about the process is just an admission of stupidity.

    Science is not about moulding facts and semantics to fit your insular world view on creationism.

    I was directed to your side by someone who told me I’d get a laugh. I did. Thank you for proving that idiots can actually use a PC successfully.

    Richard, you’re wasting your time with this fool.

  14. Thank you for your words of wisdom, James, very edifying.

    BTW, you should check how evolutionists make the evidence fit the facts. Seriously; it’s bad ‘science’. Sometimes it’s not science.

  15. I enjoy looking through a post that can make people think.
    Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s