Muslims and Dhimmis in Britain

The Economist –back in May—offered some strange musings on the fate of Britain’s Muslims:
“The unhappiness of British Muslims is easy enough to explain: their living standards tend to be low and relatively few of the women work.” (source)
Hmmm… these two demographic data are presented in juxtaposition as if they were simply two external negative influences from which Muslim households tend to suffer. Could it be that one leads to the other? Could it be that households who, on average, have fewer second earners also tend to have lower household incomes?
Where the low female labour market participation is driven by religiously conservative lifestyle choices I struggle to see how this unhappiness should be seen as anything

Political correctness doesn’t go mad, it is mad

To realise how intellectually inconsistent PC politicians really are, consider this from Hazel Blairs:
„Although warning that people should not set out to “deliberately offend people” or make racist jokes, she believes that there should be more scope for people to express themselves.
“What I don’t want to see happen is because people are frightened of an over-reaction they don’t raise the issue,” she said. “What I don’t want people to say is that Muslims will be offended by Christmas, because they are not. There is this presumption that we don’t do things because people will be offended.““ (Source)
So she doesn’t want people to offend but then doesn’t want the fall-out which a consistent and forced avoidance of offence necessarily entails.

Euro-Feminism: an initiative for centralised social engineering

Der Spiegel, a German weekly, reports that French feminist Gisèle Halimi proposes a rule for centralised feminist legislation in the European Union. A team of researchers has worked under her direction to identify the most pro-feminist examples of legislation in a number of EU countries. Her proposal: all EU countries should be forced to adopt those laws flagged up on her feminist wish list.

Thus all countries would have to adopt

Hazel Blairs and the BNP

Hazel Blairs almost seems to appreciate the threat the BNP could pose for the Labour Party. The BBC quotes her today as saying that all parties must work hard to win back disaffected voters:

“She says other parties had to work to win back voters on “ignored” estates.” (source)
She is probably right when she fears that the BNP could become more of a problem for the Labour Party, although I think she got it wrong when she thinks the issue is just a handful of ‘forgotten estates’. The core

Is gender equality legislation counter-productive?

“In Sweden, three-quarters of working men are employed in the private sector, and two-thirds of working women are employed in public services. This industrial segregation of men and women results in massive occupational segregation, and a pay gap no lower than elsewhere in Europe – contrary to Swedish claims. A study by the International Labour Office shows that the Nordic countries have the highest degree of sex segregation in occupations among all OECD countries. The United States has the lowest level within the OECD group, and China has the lowest level in the world. Women are far more likely to reach top management in the US than in Sweden: the glass ceiling is thicker in Sweden, and seems to be a direct consequence of

Female sociologist warns against sexist legislation

“Dr Catherine Hakim argues that existing legislation has already eradicated sexism against women, and that the remaining gender pay gap is down to the different career choices made by men and women. ” (source)

This statement comes shortly after a study by the institute of economic affairs took a detailed look at the gender pay gap. The full iea report is available here.

Religious Discrimination as a Political Weapon?

Once upon a time, not discriminating against somebody meant not judging an individual adversely by irrelevant criteria such as race or religion. It used to mean allowing freedom of conscience; judging people by their ability or the contents of their character, not the colour of their skin. We have of course long reached the point where non-discrimination is taken to mean making arrangements or granting special favours to members of designated interest groups.

This shift has recently been illustrated by the case

Trevor Phillips Demands Quotas for Whites

Trevor Phillips recently called for white quotas to protect low skilled whites from better qualified immigrant competition. This is intended to prevent them from supporting far right parties:
“Mr Phillips argues that ministers should allow councils and education authorities to introduce measures favouring young whites unable to compete with highly-skilled immigrants and he says the financial crisis could trigger anti-immigrant feeling in the UK.” (source)
This blog has argued before that there is no such thing as positive discrimination. If local workers are not as well qualified

Mark Thompson, Islam and the BBC

The BBC’s Mark Thompson, according to the telegraph, argued in a lecture to Theos that Muslims should be treated more sensitively than Christians because they “… are a religious minority in Britain and also often from ethnic minorities…”.

These comments, of course were promptly played down by the BBC: “A BBC spokesman said Mr Thompson did not mean Islam should be given preferential treatment, just that all religions are different. He said: “People should look at his actual comments rather than trying to infer additional meaning that isn’t there.” (Source)

Looking at his actual comments is not so easy

The Politics of the Irrelevant

Heather McDonald has looked at the way the US elections are becoming dominated by substantively unimportant issues. The Republicans pioneered the habit of parading their family members as electoral assets. The democrats duly copied them.
“But the family show-and-tell imperative remains silly nevertheless, demonstrating a misguided conflation of the personal with the political. You could search the Federalist Papers long and hard without finding any indication that having a loving family is a qualification for office. Few investors care whether the companies whose shares they hold are headed by CEOs who had supportive mothers; it’s hard to see why filial relations should be any more relevant to a president’s capacity to negotiate with Congress or to conclude a treaty.” (Source)
The democrats, on their part, made an issue