Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Nanny's Religious Hatred

Nanny's Religious Hatred

Nanny dropped a bit of a clanger (or fumbled a ball, whatever you prefer) last night.

How sad!

Her much vaunted Religious Hatred bill was being voted on in the Commons.

Nanny was seeking new powers to ban people suspected of preaching religious hatred.

Yet she lost the vote!

The proposals, which formed a key part of Nanny's election manifesto last May (some cynics argued that it was sop designed to shore up the Muslim vote), will still become law, but with restrictions imposed by the House of Lords.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the defeat last night was that in one of the key votes, Nanny lost by a majority of one.

Guess who didn't vote?

None other than the head Nanny herself, Blairy Poppins!

I wonder if this "error" was by accident or design?

Fungus Clarke

Fungus Clarke, Nanny's Home Secretary, said of the defeat:

"I regret that on the question of the level of the bar at which prosecutions can be brought ...

that the government lost tonight

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill aims to give followers of all faiths equal protection from incitement.

Nanny's critics, including Rowan Atkinson, former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, and civil rights groups, have said that Nanny's Religious Hatred Law threatened free speech.

Rowan Atkinson has said some of his sketches, and others such as Monty Python's 1979 film "Life of Brian", could face prosecution if the original proposals had been passed.

To my view, if Nanny is sincere in her claim that she wishes to create an equal and tolerant society; where people of all faiths can practice their religions without fear, less is more.

In other words, remove the blasphemy law from the statute books; allow people to openly criticise religions. This will place all religions on the same level.

Healthy religions, that are comfortable with engaging in open and rigorous debate as to the meaning of life and other issues, will flourish. Those religions that attempt to stifle debate, by threatening those who would dare to question the "faith" with violence, will quite rightly die and will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

In fact those religions that currently stifle debate from within, and bristle at criticism/lampoons or cartoons, are already dead.

After all we no longer worship Zeus, Osiris or Wotan do we?


  1. Anonymous11:29 AM

    Ken said:

    "After all we no longer worship Zeus, Osiris or Wotan do we?"

    Well, no, not in public ...

  2. Anonymous12:53 PM

    "Well, no, not in public ..."

    Speak for yourself. I have several friends who are quite happy to be open about their belief systems.

    I've seen Ken use the sentence "After all we no longer worship Zeus, Osiris or Wotan do we?" before and muttered "says who?" at the screen ;)

  3. Anonymous1:34 PM

    "I have several friends who are quite happy to be open about their belief systems."

    You see that is the whole problem. If yuo have a secret society that runs the world the last thing you need is for people to mention it in public!

    You just can't get the recruits these days.

    The 'approved' religions are there to keep conflict going - same as football. Diversionary tactic and all that.

    So long as Fungus releases Soma on the masses soon we should be OK.

    Dream on ...

  4. Images coming from my TV today of armed gunmen protesting about some silly comic sketches really just shows the Muslim culture for what it really is, does it not??

  5. Anonymous4:52 PM

    Leaving aside the tolerance issue -it's interesting that the muslims are holding the whole of Denmark responsible for the cartoons, and are threatening their citizens with reprisals. But oddly they're not too keen on the west blowing up large chunks of the middle east in reprisal for the actions of their coreligionists.....

  6. Anonymous11:51 PM

    It occurs to me that there are a lot of western TV news crews wandering around the middle east looking for stories - should be fairly easy to create smoething out of nothing and use a narrow angle lens to majke a few people appear to be a milling throng.

    How many middle eastern TV news crews are there operating in London, or Manchester or Bradford?

    Do they focus on Berlin or Copenhagen perhaps?

    What is it about the western culture that makes it go out and about in the world creating news stories with which to beat itself up.

    I don't ever remember voting masochist party at any election, yet is seems to me that just about every news item, most certainly EVERY item on the BBC these days, is some sort of threat (fearlessly presented by a 'reporter' keen to make themselves a household name no doubt) that goes a long way towards suggesting we should all be practising self chastisement for being so naughty.

    Well bugger that. If they want to fall over themselves to grovel before every moronic scare and idiotic news story that appears on the wind that's up to them. I don't see why I have to pay them, whichever channel it is, to be so pathetic.

    And don't get me started on the weather 'things'. Why do they all have to try to be individual superstars? At best if anything I just want to hear the weather possibilities, not have to pur up with an attempt at auditioning for some future life role by some prat with an irredeemably annoying voice and accent.

    Having 2 kids at university I am paying 3 sodding TV licences whereas absent the family I would pay for none, TV being something I have happily lived without before.

    And for this all that happens is that some idiots wind up the muslims in the middle east and prattish reporters build the molehill into a mountain. Remove the funding and they might find it more difficult to inflict self harm at the same rate. Idiots.