In The Guardian, I read that in France there are calls for Asterix the Gaul to be removed as the face of a campaign promoting childrens' rights. Jean-Pierre Rozenczveig, of Defence for Children International, apparently feels that Asterix is too French, for a wonderful multicultural society like, um, France. The portrayal of Asterix's resistance to the Roman invaders also has inappropriate connotations, according to M. Rozenczveig, given that France is "aspiring to a happy and peaceful coexistence of all its diverse groups".
Even in terms of a European continent that is busily suppressing its own culture to make way for that of the immigrants, this has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. To paraphrase Obelix, "these leftists are crazy"! Not only are the Asterix books brilliant, but they have been translated into over a hundred languages. It seems unlikely that they would have gained such a vast readership all over the world if they were bigotedly Gallocentric.
But, of course, all this takes a back seat when compared with the fact that Asterix and his friends are hideously white (as Gaul/France, and the rest of Europe, tended to be 2,000 years ago). However, I have the solution. Because I know of a set of cartoons depicting a non-white Arab Muslim and his friends, which I feel fit very well with the new, multicultural image of France. I'm sure they'd go down well...
Too French for France
Schools overwhelmed by immigrants
Figures compiled by the Home Office reveal 4,200 children were brought from the former Eastern Bloc to Britain by their parents in the first three months of this year, or 65 every school day.It takes the total number of dependent children known by the Government to be living here to 30,000, although huge deficiencies in Government data mean the figure is likely to be an underestimate.
Schools have no option but to devote thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours trying to bring the newcomers up to the same standard as British youngsters.
David Green, director of the Civitas think-tank, said last night: "We do not have the capacity to cope with these numbers, but it is not possible to stop people from coming, so schools have to do the best they can.
"This must be having a detrimental effect on schools. We have seen in London that, where there are a lot of non-English speakers, the standards are very low.
"When a large number of children go into schools, it is very hard for the staff to accommodate them because they are effectively starting from first base and specialist teachers have to be brought in."
A few points on this:
First, the figure of 30,000+ is enough on itself to give cause for concern. Even spread equally across the entire country, this would be a lot of extra children. However, what is happening is that certain towns and cities, particularly, it seems, Slough, are taking a disproportionate number of these new children. So what we have is a situation where some areas are experiencing practically no change, while others are stretched to breaking point and beyond by these immigrants.
Second, the harm done by this does not just extend to the financial costs of coping with children who can speak not a word of English. There is also the damage to British children: if you are one of only a handful of native English speakers, in a class where the main language is Polish or Romanian, it is likely that your skills in those languages are likely to increase faster than your skills in English. In any event, the amount of extra time given over to explaining things to the immigrant children, and to making up the deficiencies in their basic knowledge, will inevitably mean that there is less time to be spent getting on with teaching what the children should be learning, and what they would be learning, if there were no immigrants.
Academics: Ban the promotion of heterosexuality
In 1988 the Thatcher government passed into law the famous Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools. This legislation was repealed by the Blair government in 2003, as a result of which homosexuality can be, and is, promoted in schools.
Now, in a bizarre twist, the University and Colleges Union, whose leftist madness I have discussed very recently, is calling for the promotion of heterosexuality in schools to be criminalised. By a unanimous vote, delegates at their annual conference have given their backing to a motion which reads:
All negative characterisations by teachers of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, identity and lifestyle should be outlawed and classified as an act of discrimination and an incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation.It should be noted that this motion is not simply calling for acts of discrimination and victimisation directed against homosexual individuals to be prohibited. They already are. Rather, the motion is calling for teachers to be prevented from even suggesting that heterosexuality could in any way be superior to the homosexual lifestyle. Alan Whitaker, of the Oxford and Cherwell Valley College, who proposed the motion, feels that a particular injustice is done by allowing teachers to express the view that heterosexual marriage is superior to homosexual "civil partnerships".
So, there you go. If these liberal academics have their way, then it will become unlawful even to tell children that the institution of heterosexual marriage, which is - or should be - the very bedrock of our society, is the best kind of relationship. This would be disastrous. Marriage has been continually undermined for many years now, and is more than ever in need of protection and promotion. But it seems that, for these academics, the demands of whining homosexuals take precedence over the needs of society.
Cross-posted at ATW
UCU Little Vichyists Update
Following on from last night's post on the subject, the BBC reports that academics of the University and Colleges Union have now officially voted, by a unanimous majority, to refuse to take any steps towards challenging Islamism on university campuses. The UCU's general secretary, Sally "Witch" Hunt, said:
Lecturers have a pivotal role in building trust. These proposals, if implemented, would make that all but impossible.Hmm. It sounds like old Witch Hunt is a real libertarian defender of free speech. The kind of principled advocate for her position that one can really respect, even when that position is patently absurd.
Universities must remain safe spaces for lecturers and students to discuss and debate all sorts of ideas, including those that some people may consider challenging, offensive and even extreme.
But wait. Astonishingly, she isn't. Here's what she had to say when Nick Griffin was banned from speaking at Bath University:
It was the correct decision. Allowing the BNP to speak would have compromised the safety of students and staff and sent out a very worrying message about Bath University's commitment to diversity.Okay. So on the one hand universities should allow free discussion of all views no matter how "challenging, offensive and even extreme" they might be. But on the other, the BNP should be prevented from speaking at universities because their views are seen as being, essentially, "challenging, offensive and even extreme" by Miss Hunt. It would appear that our great champion of free speech is in fact a bit of a hypocrite. Ultimately, as I wrote yesterday, the stance of the UCU simply suggests that, while they really, really hate the BNP, they have more than a sneaking sympathy for Islamic terrorists.
Blair's Heirs
Last week, at the height of the row over grammar schools, Lord Tebbit complained that the Tory Party had "rebranded itself as the party to implement New Labour policies more effectively". At the time, this appeared to be a criticism of David Cameron's rapid move to the left. However, it appears that Lord Tebbit was stating, not only the obvious effect of the Cameron project, but also its intention:
The Conservatives are the true "heirs to Blair" when it comes to reform of schools and hospitals, George Osborne will insist today.
In a provocative speech, the Shadow Chancellor will claim the Conservatives are more in favour of the Prime Minister's plans to give public service chiefs greater freedom to run their own affairs than Gordon Brown.
"This growing consensus between the current Prime Minister and the Conservative Party does not appear to include the next Prime Minister.
"And therein lies the political battle ahead," Mr Osborne will say.
So, to put it another way, the likely choice at the next election will be between more of what we've been getting for the last ten years, from Blair 2.0 (or "David Cameron" as he insists on calling himself), and Gordon Brown. Alas, the agony of choice!
And, as a matter of interest, how often can it have been the case that an opposition party has gone into elections presenting itself, and not the government, as the party that will preserve the status quo?
George Galloway's new job
If you want to know what full-time moron and occasional MP George Galloway is doing with himself these days, you can find out by clicking here and reading my latest post at ATW.
Of course, I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to hear one more word about the dreadful little man...
York Dungeon loses out to more traditional pursuits
It seems that the prospect of free entry was insufficient to tempt young thugs away from the delights of vandalism, shoplifting, and substance abuse, and into the York Dungeon.
Offering them free entry was still a bloody stupid idea, though.
Hypocritical Little Vichyists in the Ivory Tower
Academics are threatening to derail a Government drive to root out Islamic extremists on university campuses.
The University and College Union, will ask its 120,000 members to refuse to take part in the Government-led "witch hunt".
It insists that Muslims are being "demonised" because of new guidance that asks staff to look out for students falling under the influence of radical preachers.
The Department for Education and Skills has warned university staff to log suspicious behaviour amid fears that campuses are being infiltrated by fanatics recruiting for so-called jihad. In a 20-page report published in December, ministers warned of "serious, but not widespread, Islamic extremist activity in higher education institutions".
It asks lecturers to vet Islamic preachers who have been invited to campuses, ensure that "hate literature" is not distributed among students and report suspicious behaviour to police.
So, in essence, academics are supposed to be vigilant in an age when vigilance is required, they are supposed to pay particular attention to a group whose members have shown something of a proclivity for violence, and they are supposed to do their best to stop books like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being distributed. Seems like common sense to me.
But at the UCU annual conference in Bournemouth, lecturers will warn of a "recent rise" in racism and its "apparent promotion by Government policies".
Do they have any evidence to back up their claims?
Academics at the union's London Metropolitan University branch will say that "increasingly restrictive measures and the xenophobic language surrounding them" has led to an increase in racist attacks on Muslims.
It would behove academics at London Met to be particularly vigilant. After all, one of the would-be bombers arrested in the big raids last August was the president of the London Met Islamic Society. Not many universities can claim to have had a practising terrorist on their student roll.
It is sickening that these lecturers refuse to play any part in fighting against terrorism. If their professed concerns about civil liberties and witch hunts were genuine, then that might somewhat reduce the disgust with which I regard them. But those concerns are not the real reason these academics object. Rather, they, or at least, a large number of them, object to helping fight terrorism because they are on the terrorists' side. We've seen, in their boycotts of the Middle East's only democracy, how they are willing to throw their weight behind Islamist murderers, and we are seeing the same thing here. Many of these pampered leftist professors, luxuriating in their Ivory Towers at taxpayers' expense, actually want us to lose: they want to see Western civilisation destroyed by Islam.
Also frustrating, and further evidence of their true thoughts, is the utter hypocrisy of their professed concerns for "civil liberties" and worries about "witch hunts". For the benefit of any academics reading this:
Keeping an eye out for people who might commit terrorist acts, and focussing on the group most likely to commit such acts, is not a witch hunt.By contrast:
Threatening people with expulsion for publishing cartoons in a student newspaper is a witch hunt.All of these events have taken place in leading British universities recently, either with the active participation or the tacit endorsement of those same academics who are now protesting so very loudly. As for civil liberties in general, the academics might like to consider the following cases in which they have been restricted:
Hounding academics from their jobs for expressing politically-incorrect views, or attempting to do so, is a witch hunt.
Subjecting Jewish students to anti-Semitic intimidation on a routine basis is a witch hunt.
The bans on Nick Griffin and Dr Kuentzel from speaking at the respective universities of Bath and Leeds.Again, these instances of the suppression of the freedoms of speech and association were either actively or tacitly encouraged by academics. I guess that "witch hunts" are only bad when directed against people the academics like. A category which apparently includes Islamic terrorists.
The prohibitions imposed on Christian Unions.