Contra mundum

Obscure Latin legal term that normally nobody ever would have heard about save only that these days it's coming somewhat into vogue because of gagging orders. It literally means "against the world" and it does seem that many of these gagging orders are being used specifically to deal with instances of preventing the public knowing about instances of companies as well as the rich and famous getting caught and their affairs published worldwide by the press or even bloggers I guess as the term is a catch all.

BBC.

Prime Minister David Cameron has said he feels "uneasy" about judges granting injunctions to protect the privacy of powerful individuals.

He argued that Parliament, not judges, should decide on the balance between press freedom and privacy.

The courts are using human rights legislation "to deliver a sort of privacy law", he warned.

His comments follow a number of recent injunctions which have banned the identification of celebrities.

Mr Cameron was challenged about the use of injunctions during a question-and-answer session at the General Motors factory in Luton.

He said: "I think there is a question here about privacy and about the way our system works."

"I think we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right?

"What ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy, is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection we want for individuals and [on] freedom of the press and the rest of it."

But Mr Cameron admitted he did not have all the answers and that he needed to think some more about the issues.

Of course parliamentary privilege means that an MP can get up and say what we aren't allowed to, though the Carter Ruck's of this world have recently tried to gag parliament itself, fortunately without success.
Thing is though if a company or guy gets caught with their figurative hand in the cookie jar why should they get legal protection via a gagging order? Ok I don't really give a damn about which premiership footballers are shagging other women outside their marriage, but if they are caught with their pants down then no, they don't get to gag the press. Same with Trafigura and Ivory Coast toxic waste.

Even today a judge set a new benchmark for secrecy laws yesterday by granting a TV star a permanent gagging order until now reserved for killer children.

The ‘family’ man, a household name, won the High Court injunction to suppress for ever ‘intimate’ photographs of him with a woman.

It is the latest in a series of increasingly draconian secrecy rulings and came just one day after appeal judges decreed that another celebrity who had an affair with a  colleague should remain anonymous to protect his children.

Perhaps he should have thought about protecting his children by not doing what he was doing? But for life? I can't imagine what the judge thought he was doing.
We really ought to be getting back to a situation where if you're caught doing something you shouldn't be then you pay the consequences. If that means having your name dragged through the mud by the press then so be it, gagging the press to prevent publication of your peccadillo's is not healthy for society as a whole, be it business or private individuals. If you don't want your kids to know what a scoundrel you are, then either be more careful or don't be a scoundrel in the first place, you shouldn't have recourse to the law to cover up your sins.

More about → Contra mundum

Islam: A Battle Plan to Conquer the World

By Alan Caruba

As Christians around the world celebrate Good Friday and then Easter, it behooves them to understand what the Koran, the book held sacred as the word of God (Allah), says about Christianity, Judaism and all other faiths.

This is particularly pertinent in an era in which Islam, the religion of more than a billion people throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and in increasing numbers, Europe, has entered upon a period of terrorism and warfare to advance its domination of the peoples of the Earth. Suffice to say Islam is not about tolerance.

In 2001, Diane Drew wrote a comparison of Christian scriptures with the teachings of Muhammad as found in the Koran, as well as a collection of his sayings, the Hadith. Ms. Drew makes no claims to being anything other than a Christian. She knows her Old and New Testament, and the Koran. Her website provides a clarity that is a gift to Christians who should make the effort to understand a religion that divides humanity between Dar es Islam and Dar es Harb, the world of Islam and the world of War.

I have taken the liberty of quoting from her exegesis—interpretation—that reveals not just the deep differences between Christianity and Islam, but the threat it poses to Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels”.

“Islam rejects the concept of the Trinity. The Koran misrepresents the teaching of Christianity regarding the Godhead, claiming Christians believe in ‘three gods’—Father, Mother, and Son.” (Sura 5:116, 5:73-75;cp. – Koran 5:114)

“Islam regards Jesus a prophet just like Moses, Abraham, and Noah” whereas, at the heart of Christianity is the belief that “Jesus was more than a prophet. He is God.” (Matthew 17.5; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:35; Philippians 2.6; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 4:15). “Islam rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ.” Other religions share this view, but they do not call for the death for those who refuse conversation or death for Muslims that convert to other faiths.

“Islam rejects the doctrine of original sin” citing Muhammad’s assertion that “Every human being is born in a state of a pure nature; but through the influence of his parents, he may become non-Muslim.”

Islam denies the crucifixion of Jesus. “They denied the truth and uttered a monstrous falsehood against Mary. They declared ‘We have put to death the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary the apostle of Allah. They did not crucify him, but they thought they did…They have no knowledge thereof but the pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain, but God took him up to Himself.” (Koran 4:154-158).

Of particular concern for Christians and Jews is the way that “Islam both allows and forbids murder and violence, depending on who is the recipient of the act,” says Dew, noting that the Koran calls on Muslims to “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion (Islam) reigns supreme, (Koran 8:37)

“The Koran instructs not to make friendship with Jews and Christians (Koran 5:51), but to war against them: ‘When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way’.” (Koran 4:5)

More to the point, the Koran instructs Muslims to “…kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (Koran 2:191) and “murder them and treat them harshly” (Koran 9:123), and “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” (Koran 8:12, cp. 8:60).

What Ms. Dew’s scholarly comparison of the texts of the Old and New Testament with the Koran reveals is less a religion than a battle plan for the conquest of the world. It is not the religion of love that Christianity professes, but of hatred for the unbeliever (the infidel) who must either convert or be killed.

Islam’s holy scriptures are regarded by Muslims as the word of God (Allah) and Islam regards Muhammad’s life as a guide to the practice of Islam.

I can make no claim to any great knowledge of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, but like anyone else, I can read and compare their holy scriptures. You can, too.

Islam is a religion divided by two sects, Sunni and Shiite, the members of which do not hesitate to kill each other, attacking each other’s mosques, murdering those attending funerals.

No one, not Jew, nor Christian, nor Buddhist, nor Hindu, nor atheist, is safe from Islam.

Americans and others around the world learned that afresh on 9/11. As Christians gather for Good Friday and for Easter, they must absorb, understand, and gird themselves against this harsh and dangerous reality.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

More about → Islam: A Battle Plan to Conquer the World

Oh Joy

It's nice when the lunacy of the EU and it's various environmental policies fully supported by our home grown enviroloons comes crashing upon the rocks of reality. I have a cupboard full of environmentally friendly green fluorescent miniature lightbulbs, they might be energy efficient, but if I had to buy one instead of getting them free via my power utilities company they would cost more than a standard old fashioned bulb and are despite claims not as bright, at least at first when switched on.
Still it's novel to discover today that not only do they contain mercury (something I did know) but also they are a proper little chemical warfare timebomb even when just switched on and not should they explode near someone.

Express.

HEALTH fears were raised last night over the use of energy saving lightbulbs after a report claimed they contain cancer causing chemicals.

Scientists warn that prolonged contact with the European Union-imposed bulbs could put people at risk after discovering that they “pulse out” poisonous materials when switched on.

The bulbs are already widely used in Britain after the EU ordered all traditional incandescent lightbulbs to be phased out by the end of this year.

While it was known that harmful amounts of mercury are released if one of the new “green” bulbs breaks, experts have now discovered they also emit several carcinogenic chemicals.

These include phenol – a poison used by the Nazis to kill concentration camp victims – and the toxins naphthalene and styrene, which are released as a form of steam when the bulb is switched on.
The German scientists behind the report advise that the bulbs should not be left on for extended periods, especially near a person’s head.

Researcher Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the independent Berlin Alab Laboratory, said: “For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment.”

He said the bulbs could be especially harmful if left on near a child’s head all night or used to read by for long periods near an adult.

Andreas Kirchner of the Federation of German Engineers, said: “Electrical smog develops around these lamps. I, therefore, use them only very economically. They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.”

Isn't it just wonderful how the enviroloons have made us trade in something safe if less energy efficient (though they do help heat a room) for a chemical timebomb, because sooner or later these bulbs like anything else heating up and cooling down will break, sometimes catastrophically. Even worse, whilst they are on they pulse out carcinogens. These righteous have it seems not thought out the full effect of their campaigns to reduce our energy emissions and have instead put ourselves and our kids at risk in the name of their green god. There is of course a bonus for some though...

Experts in Britain insisted the risks were relatively small and urged people not to panic but admitted more research was needed

Someone has clearly seen another way to pick our pockets via a government grant.

More about → Oh Joy