Below is my speech at the 22 September National Secular Society conference in London:

Sometimes I really don’t know what more to say.

What else can be said about Sharia law that– at least in your gut – you don’t already know?

It is based on the Koran, the Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. Its criminal code includes stoning to death for adultery and execution for apostasy and homosexuality. In Iran, for example, there are over 130 offences punishable by death.

Its civil code – which is imposed by Sharia courts in Britain – is discriminatory and unfair particularly against women. Basically it is a code of death and despair.

Not breaking news, is it? After all it is religious law. And that’s what – in my opinion – religion does best. A court based on the Bible and Torah would be similarly discriminatory and barbaric.

Yet the numbers of people who continue to defend Sharia courts in Britain as people’s ‘right to religion’ is staggering.

And of course – any excuse – will do. The best I have heard recently has to be ‘I have a Muslim friend who says Sharia is not as you say it is’. End of. Their skepticism seems to apply to everything but Islam.

But the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain itself explains for example why a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s.

It says:

‘If one forgets, the other can remind her.’ It’s the difference between a man and a woman’s brains.’ ‘A woman’s character is not so good for a case where testimony requires attention and concentration.’

And this also applies to divorce as men have unilateral right to divorce and only need to say talaq thrice whereas a woman have limited recourse to divorce.

The website says: ‘Women are governed by emotion; men by their minds so he will think twice before uttering talaq [divorce].’ It goes on to say it is not ‘derogatory’ but ‘the secret of women’s nature.’

In a Sharia court in Britain, a woman can’t even sign her own marriage contract; a male guardian must do it on her behalf. Child custody goes to the father at a pre-set age irrespective of the welfare of the child. Marital rape is seen to be the prerogative of the husband – a sharia judge recently said calling it rape is the act of aggression. The rules here in Britain are the same as the ones women in Iran face in family courts.

And they are also dealing with child marriages, which is nothing more than religiously-sanctioned child rape and paedophilia. In 2010, around 30 cases of child marriages were reported in Islington alone. At least three 11-year-old girls and two nine-year-olds had been forced into marriage with older men. The oldest girls were 16.

In the latest scandal, which by the way has only been covered by the tabloid rags like the Sun and Daily Mail, an investigation by the Sunday Times found imams in Britain willing to “marry” young girls after being approached by an undercover reporter posing as a father who said he wanted his 12 year old daughter married to prevent her from being tempted in to a ‘western lifestyle’.

Question these and you are often accused of Islamophobia, racism, intolerance, and denying people’s very right to religion and belief.

Before I go any further, I have a question for those who use human rights and anti-racist language to excuse and apologise for inequality, discrimination, violence against women and barbarity.

Even if it were people’s right to religion (most rights are not absolute and anyway Sharia courts are about politics not religion) – and even if they were real choices (let’s put aside the many threats and intimidation for now), what is your position on it?

Do you have one?

Do you think it’s wrong?

Whilst you may be very happy to promote it for the ‘other’ – what I call a racism of lower standards and expectations – would you like if for yourself and for your loved ones?

If not, then please stop apologising for it.

Hiding behind ‘rights’ and ‘choice’ to excuse misogyny is a betrayal of human principles. After all, years ago, certain men only had the ‘right’ to vote and own slaves.

Remember good old fashioned international solidarity – how I miss it – when we actually joined forces with those suffering under racial apartheid in South Africa for example.

Nowadays, many liberals and post-modernist leftists side with those imposing apartheid – sex apartheid – because it is considered the ‘right to religion’…

It’s a betrayal of human solidarity.

And this solidarity is fundamental particularly given that Islamism and Sharia law have killed a generation in what I call an Islamic inquisition. There is a difference after all between Christianity today and one during the inquisition.

Under an inquisition, there is no personal religion. You are merely told what to say and do and if you don’t abide you will pay the price for your dissent.

The ‘right to religion’ is meant to be the right to a personal religion and belief. But when religion is part of the state, or judicial system, it is no longer a matter of religious belief but of political power.

In fact, religion in the state, educational system or judicial system is the end of any form of equality, choice, rights, freedoms or democratic politics.

When I hear ‘the right to religion’ in the context of Sharia courts, to me it means the right of parasitical imams and regressive Islamic states and organisations to deem what is acceptable and what is not.

There is the assumption that the authentic Muslim is always reactionary, pro-Islamist, pro the veil, pro sexual apartheid, pro Sharia courts… But this is Islamism’s narrative.

As Palestinian professor Budeiri said following threats by Islamists for cartoons he had posted on his door: Islamists “choose to resort to abuse, and threats of physical violence, attempting to appropriate to themselves the sole authority of what Muslims can and cannot think, can and cannot do. There are and will remain as many different Muslims as there are unfettered minds.”

Muslims after all are not a homogeneous community as Islamists portray. When you give group rights to the ‘Muslim community’, you basically give further power to the dominant elite – the imams and Islamic ‘scholars’ [as Richard Dawkins says, you do need to read more than one book to be considered a scholar] – at the expense of women, and many others.

Conflating Islamism (and its Sharia courts) with Muslim is part of the effort of feigning representation and is the narrative peddled by Islamists. In fact Islamism or political Islam is part of the project for controlling the population at large and is not an exercise in people’s rights and choices.

To accept the Islamist version and narrative is to hand over countless individuals – many of them dissenting – to the far-Right Islamic movement and to ignore the resistance, the political, social and civil struggles, and class politics. Conflating Muslim and Islamist is like conflating Christian or English with the English Defence League or the British National Party.

Very often also a criticism of Islamism, Sharia or Islam is touted as being racist, discriminatory, and Islamophobic.
It’s not.
Let me give you an example of this. When a British court told a Muslim hospital consultant that he must pay his ex-wife maintenance even though under Sharia he believed he owed her nothing, the doctor said that the ‘Family law in Britain is biased against Muslim people’ but isn’t his wife Muslim too?

It does all depend on how you look at it and whose side you choose to take.

This has nothing to do with racism.

Such accusations of racism are particular to the west.

If you are criticising Islam, the veil, Sharia law, or Islamism in Iran, Egypt or Afghanistan the debate is not framed in the context of racism or Islamophobia.

When the Saudi government arrests 23 year old Hamza Kashgari for tweeting about Mohammad, it doesn’t accuse him of racism, it accuses him of blasphemy – an accusation punishable by death.

But that same government will accuse critics of Saudi policy at the UN Human Rights Committee as Islamophobic and racist.

What I’m trying to say is that Islamists and their apologists have coined the term Islamophobia – a political term – to scaremonger people into silence.

These bogus accusations of Islamophobia and offence serve Islamism in the same way that Sharia law serves them where they have power. It helps to threaten, intimidate and silence criticism, solidarity and dissent.

They work like secular fatwas and are used not to defend Muslims from bigotry but to defend Islam and Islamism.

Criticism of religion and that which is taboo is always important but particularly so during an inquisition.

Then it is often a matter of life and death.

Take the recent cartoons in the French weekly Charlie Hebdo.

In a climate where Islamist murder, violence and intimidation is cowering many into silence and submission, Charlie Hebdo’s insistence on poking fun at Islam on par with all religions and its refusal to back down despite calls for censorship is one that will be remembered.

It has been said that the magazine’s aim to reassert its leftwing secular tradition in this climate is more anti-Islamic than anti-clerical.

But anti-Islamism is this era’s anti-clericalism.

We are told the cartoons are ‘unhelpful’ [thank you Guardian] in a ‘climate of religious and racial prejudice’ but to say so misses the point.

What is ‘unhelpful’ is Islamism’s murder and mayhem.

Criticising Islam and Islamism is not about prejudice – that is Islamism’s narrative – which has been bought hook, line and sinker by those calling for censorship.

And what this lot forget is that those facing the most threats from the vile Islamist herds are not satirical French publications or even US and French embassies worldwide but the many countless human beings who are living under Islamism and Sharia law – like Saudi Hamza Kashgari, Indonesian Alex Aan, Egyptian Alber Saber and Pakistani Asia Bibi. And many of them are Muslims.

Of course Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are different from the racist Christian-Right film, ‘The Innocence of Muslims’. But free expression is not just for those we agree with. And let’s not forget a very very bad film is just that.

The real problem that needs to be addressed head on is Islamism not more censorship and submission.

If you think that the mob violence against the film and cartoons are merely about bad manners, and even about religion, you are mistaken. They are about politics.

It’s the same with Sharia courts in Britain. They are not about religion but political power.

If we are to succeed, we must, as the wonderful Salman Rushdie says, ‘be braver’.

But we have to move beyond polite and comfortable debates around Christianity to a renewed anti-clericalism and an uncompromising secularism which aims directly at Islam, Islamism and its Sharia laws and religion itself.

As the late Marxist Mansoor Hekmat said:

“In Islam … the individual has no rights or dignity. In Islam, the woman is a slave. In Islam, the child is on par with animals. In Islam, freethinking is a sin deserving of punishment. Music is corrupt. Sex without permission and religious certification, is the greatest of sins. This is the religion of death. In reality, all religions are such but most religions have been restrained by freethinking and freedom-loving humanity over hundreds of years. This one was never restrained or controlled.”

Restraining it – controlling it – in this day and age – that is our task.



  1. Dear Friends of The World,

    The weak earthlings of this planet Earth are…
    * There are people who are power greedy.
    * There are people who are position crazy.
    * There are people who are wealth hungry.
    * There are pretenders who are holding the majority.
    * There are perverters who are fact-twisting.
    * There are instigators who are causing segregation.
    * There are atheists who are misconstruing the
    “ Universal Truth “
    * There are puppets on a string.
    These people are possessive and pathetic and who
    practise partiality and prejudices.
    We must all walk the right moral parh of MODERATION

    “ The Mad, Mad, Mad World ”
    Modern man seems to apply his selfishness,
    egoism, greed, power and fame
    to anything he handles.
    One man cannot trust another although
    they live together. They live with suspicious,
    doubts and fantasies.
    Even in this world today, it is difficult
    to see what is in a man’s mind.
    He pretends to be cultured, civilized,
    educated, noble and religious.

    A man of true moral-cultivation,
    without pretence fears not.
    He sees all in brotherhood.
    A good person sees bad and knows it’s bad, and avoids,
    A bad person sees good and knows it’s good,
    but reluctant to repent and correct.
    A confused person can’t even see good or bad
    and is in suspense, drunk or blind
    The world today is upside down.
    Making oneself a fool and a clown.

    ** Confucius came into this world with his virtuous morals
    to help those who are ignorant and confused.

    ** There are many leaders who are hiding behind
    “Peace” to create wars.
    They are misleading their loyal citizens to harbour
    hatreds and creating enmities. Peace will never
    prevail if weapons of wars are produced and sold
    in the name of defence.
    The world will have no peace if injustice and prejudices exist.

    With justice to all
    Thank you for the sharing. Love in Peace to all beings

  2. Dear Global Friends,

    1st type of Atheist…( False or Fake Atheist )
    is one who uses the word blindly or follow blindly,
    just as to protect or make an excuse of oneself
    for personal gain , egoism , fame , power , greed
    and glamour. It shows that one does not fully understand
    about nature and spiritual knowledge because one’s potential
    capacity of one’s mind is less than five percent developed.
    So the human mind of spiritual knowledge of comprehension
    of God or demi-gods, or even fairies is very, very,
    very limited. This is due to one’s pure-self which is covered
    with the past and present sins.
    This type of atheist may be a hindrance to society
    and may mislead or cause confusion to the innocent ones.

    ** 2nd type of Atheist…( Secular Law Abiding Atheist )
    knows how to behave positively without going against the law
    but have self-esteemed and is strongly attached to worldly material things.
    One may be of curiosity and chasing after illusive
    proofs. But one does things fairly and moderately.
    One’s emotions are not stable. As stated from a
    proverb, “ curiosity kills a cat ”.

    This type of atheist is arrogant and at times one may isolate
    from others who are better than oneself or one may think highly
    knowledgeable of oneself. Moderately one does one’s own way.

    ** 3rd type of Atheist…( Moral Practitioner Atheist )
    knows how to cultivate one’s inner and outer-self
    morally and practise calmness meditation. These two methods are
    of paramount importance to oneself because they help to liberate one’s
    pure-self. One has no strong desires for these
    materialistic things. One may isolate from others,
    but does not hate, disturb or cause any harm to others.

    One may be in harmony to society and
    at times volunteer to help the society. No doubt
    that one does not believe in the existence of GOD,
    fairies and devils but one does respect them just
    like to human beings irrespective of races as well as to nature.

    One does not pollute and contaminate the land, sea and outer-space. One is in line with moral values and nature.
    This type of atheist is better than those religious
    persons whose hearts are empty of love for others
    and always claim one’s religion is the most correct
    and supreme. If one’s thought still remains with an iota of
    impurity then one is within the realms of samsara,
    one of the 31 planes of the “Three Worlds”of reincarnation.

    ** 4th type of Atheist…( Enlightened Atheist )
    A 4th type of Atheist who has gained one’s
    enlightenment in receiving one’s Universal wisdom
    of ” spiritual knowledge ” which supersedes human
    knowledge of comprehension requires a basic condition
    to fulfill one’s attainment of this Cosmic Consciousness
    through “Morality” and its Natural Way in calmness meditation as well. In-order to attain this spiritual knowledge one
    needs to fulfill the conditions of self purification in one’s body,
    mind and soul in practising daily moral values with a compulsory
    in calmness and stable meditation. They are inseparable.

    There must not be a single impurity of tangible or intangible issue in one’s thought. It should be totally pure to liberate one’s pure-self out of the 31 planes of samsara or the “Three Worlds” of reincarnation.
    This indeed is a true and pure moral cultivator who detaches all
    worldly desires and can perceive in comprehension of nature
    and the world beyond. Then one becomes a non-atheist.

    Whether one is an atheist, religious, or a
    non-religious, The Supreme Almighty still loves all.
    HE does not discriminate any but is discriminated
    by many. Whether one believes in HIM or not, HE
    still delivers many things for humans, animals.
    sea-creatures and plants to survive
    through many millions years until today. They are air, water, sunlight, cosmic energies, sea, air and land creatures, crops, minerals
    as well as many seen or unseen objects.

    Only the ignorant, selfish, egoistic, stubborn,
    greedy and deluded humans are disobeying and
    destroying what HE has given.
    Mankind can only destroy the environment
    but they cannot replace back to her original state.
    What they can replace is only limited and costly.

    Please have a heart of gratitude and Indiscriminate Love
    to all living and non-living beings, as well as to the
    Supreme Almighty so as to be classified as a
    One Civilised Humankind.

    Thank you for the sharing.

  3. Dear Global Friends,
    “ What is Religion ”
    It is to discipline and educate ourselves in self-realising by liberating all our bondage of various bad habits.

    1. Religion teaches us the true moral way of life in moderation, justice peace and harmony with indiscriminate love
    in sharing and caring one another.

    2. Religion teaches us to have filial piety towards our parents and elders.

    3. Religion teaches us to be humble, polite and respect one another without any discrimination whatsoever.

    4. Religion teaches us not to be greedy, selfish and dishonest.

    5. Religion teaches us not to cheat, pretend and be lazy.

    6. Religion teaches us not to be arrogant by threatening, suppressing, despising or belittling anyone.

    7. Religion teaches us not to commit adultery, infidelity and sexual misconduct by craving for more than one wife
    unless the one-wife cannot conceive or under infertility.

    8. Religion teaches us to dress moderately well by not be too seductive nor exposing one’s bodily parts.

    9. Religion teaches us not to chase strongly after fame, power and immoral wealth.

    10. Religion teaches us not to be too rigid in one’s moral practices

    Many moral teachings are set for human beings to practise, but it is due to a small group of immoral people who are against Heaven’s Principles in misleading the innocent or the ignorant ones for their selfish interests or gains.

    ** Freedom is being given to human beings by the Supreme Almighty, but many ingratitude people are abusing and misusing freedom for their personal or selfish gains. Most of the times moralities are being distorted, twisted and misleading by these immoral people.

    ** Too Dictatorship the innocent people suffer without freedom.
    ** Too Democratic or too much freedom the innocent people also suffer because the secular laws are being
    abused, misused and manipulated by immoral or greedy people or leaders for their personal profits.

    Therefore, Moderation and contentment in walking the moral path lead one to Peace and Harmony to develop into
    a future of a One Global Civilised Mankind.

    1. Atheist or a Religious person has one’s choice to decide…..
    2. Satan (Demon) or Divinity has one’s choice to merge……….
    3. Moral or Immoral is one’s choice to walk………

    ** Thank you for the sharing. Love, Peace and Justice be upon all beings.

  4. Dear Global Friends,
    Human beings claim to be intelligent and above Nature and Almighty. Is it true ?
    Some agree and some disagree, while many are at a cross road, or in doubt.

    ** If all the land, sea and air creatures were to disobey the Law of Nature and
    follow their own respective laws, like human beings, to attack human beings
    without reasons then all human beings might be extinct.

    ** As being seen today, immoral and greedy human beings have invaded the territories
    of these environmental creatures leaving them no space to breathe. It is due to humans’
    greediness, selfishness, egoism and non-love, that these immoral human beings ignore
    the Laws of Nature, thus spoilt the whole environment of the world as well as outer space.

    ** Moreover, immoral human beings kill human beings without mercy in sporadic warfares
    and poisoning one another in chemical processing of foods and drinks as well as other pollutants
    and contaminants.

    ** The best way for human beings are to follow the law of Nature in knowing how to balance
    the Outer Space, Greenery Earth, Environmental Creatures and Mankind in harmony.

    ** Thank you for the sharing. Peace and Harmony to all living and non-living beings.

  5. Dear Global Friends,

    Everything in this world follows the law of Nature, that is Universal Law or Universal Justice, not man-made word for “universal” The law of yin and yang or dualism applies to all living and non-living things, either in completement, relative or opposite. When they are in completement, relative or wholesomeness they harmonise as ONE. But when they are in opposites, disharmony occur, whereby conficts of disagreement may lead to war.

    So when there is an inter-action of yin and yang, many reasons, different opinions, etc, etc,start to develop endlessly, one claiming one’s right to be the master of all masters, leading to chaos and confusion. Many of the religious laws are man-made in tradition customs and cultures.

    In fact, all religions lead to only ONE moral teaching, that is GREAT LOVE for all living and non-living beings and the Universe beyond Universe. From Heaven, Earth and Humankind , the yin and yang MUST Be in harmony or balance or not, they are in disharmony. Therefore we find many types of differences, arguments,
    opinions, quarrels and wars.This is due to one’s Egoism, Selfishness, Greed, Attachment to power, wealth and prestige.

    Example, the inter-action of male and female must be in harmony inorder to produce another human generation.But due to gender discrimination, the females were being suppresed, humiliated, belittled and oppressed as an outcaste. Is this “civilisation ?” Yes, outwardly only for one’s own opinion, but inwardly it is totally not.

    May one have a thought and ask oneself, where do all the genders, males and females come from ? Don’t they come from the wombs of their mothers, and aren’t mothers come from females? Then where do the males come from ? From thin air or their own “mind-making” ? This is where the immorality of ill-treatment on the ladies by these irreligious people or groups of clerics, using the name of religion or GOD to intimidate, delude and control the innocent faithful followers.

    Wheher one is religious or not it is not important. The important point is for one to follow the law of nature where one’s heart should be purified with moral values of love, share and care for all mankind as a One Global Civilised Human Being Then have a generous and compassonate heart like nature to love all

    Thank you for the sharing. Love to all beings.

  6. In the awesome pattern of things you secure an A for effort and hard work. For right now I shall yield to your point. Arizona Family Dental, 590 N Alma School Rd #5, Chandler AZ 85224

  7. I am utterly sick of hearing the words Sharia law. Let’s stop giving it the dignity of such a word. Sharia coercion, or something similar. The other thing we need to get rid of is the phrase “Honour killing”. How about disgraceful slaughter, since that is what it is.

  8. Dear Global Friends,
    No matter what, laws are good for guiding the immoral or bad people to a moral and good path, by changing their bad habits.

    But the important point is whether the people holding the responsibility of the laws are truly sincere and just in executing their justice. Do they really go to the root of the problem or crime being committed, or do they abuse, misuse and manipulate their responsibilities through their own immoral means of laziness in not going through thorough investigating, and closing their case through corruption.

    It seems many innocent people are pressured to admit their crimes which they do not commit. The poor and illiterate people are mostly suppressed and wrongfully accused to admit their crimes, while most authorities holding the upper power do not pay much attention to these”petty” crimes, but pay more attention to those who are wealthy and more superior in power.

    Therefore, there is an imbalance of justice in many countries of this so-called learned civilised world. Prejudice is the “culture of justice”

    If human beings have no moral values in their lives, it is just like a fish without water.

    In fact, there is no good or bad in this world, but the difference is caused by a small group of people with an unstable immoral mind, while the foolish blind follow, thus create chaos and confusions among one another.

    Thank you for the sharing. Love to all beings.

  9. I was there on Saturday and it was a fantastic speech. I noticed there were cameras and whatnot about. Do you know if any video/audio will be posted on the internet eventually?

  10. I do not understand why the United Kingdom, having a secular law system, should allow Islamic courts (or courts of any other confession) in its own territory.
    Secular citizens are (or should be) subject to the same law system, whatever their faith or lack of it.
    They should not be required to swear on the Bible, the Quran or the Torah or any other “holy” book, because this could lead to discrimination by the judge or the jury (as we saw in the case where a judge was a Christian fundamentalist).
    To follow a particular faith or no faith at all is a private choice and should remain so. In a secular state citizens are recognised the right to choose but this should not turn into a privilege of religious commandments over secular laws, especially if this means discrimination against part of the population, as pointed out in the article.
    I am appaled that such a thing is allowed and supported at political level and it unmask the lie that Western countries make wars to bring democracy and defend the rights of women and minorities all over the world.

  11. Remember good old fashioned international solidarity – how I miss it – when we actually joined forces with those suffering under racial apartheid in South Africa for example.

    Nowadays, many liberals and post-modernist leftists side with those imposing apartheid – sex apartheid – because it is considered the ‘right to religion’…</blockquote?

    That's what the modern, first-world left is. I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you want internationalism and solidarity, you'll need to turn to the right, especially the secular right. The left'll just leave you to bleed.

    And of course – any excuse – will do. The best I have heard recently has to be ‘I have a Muslim friend who says Sharia is not as you say it is’. End of. Their skepticism seems to apply to everything but Islam.

    Or “Atheism +” as its called.

    If you want this lot to stand up in a real fight, I’m sorry to say you’re going to be disappointed. Why do you think I quit the left fifteen years ago?

    1. I can’t figure out why you would need to take an unfair dig at atheism +. A+ supports social justice, and will give no ground to Sharia law over secular law. Please point me to the place where you got the idea that A+ supports Sharia law. Although your dig at A+ made me cranky, I laughed out loud at your recommendation to look to the “secular right” for support, as the right wing has been such a beacon with its shining social justice platform, not to mention its well-known secular spokespeople.

      1. Simple. I’ve been observing this community for a long, long time. With the exception of Maryam and Namazie, I’ve rarely come across a more gutless collection of poseurs. Go and ask Myers about how he scurried for cover during the first cartoon riots. Did he republish the cartoon in solidarity after he published cartoon after cartoon mocking Christ? Did he hell.

        I laughed out loud at your recommendation to look to the “secular right” for support,

        Question: who was recently on one of the UK’s main political debate programs challenging the lethal levels of anti-gay violence in Africa at the hands of Islamic and Christian fanatics? Answer: the neoconservative Dougals Murray.

        shining social justice platform, not to mention its well-known secular spokespeople.

        To take this in reverse order, there is a very long, very tough secular tradition on the political right. If you don’t know about it, that’s your problem; go get a real education. Also “social justice” is something mouthed by people who don’t like to admit that they don’t have the courage to fight for real justice.

        I read FTB and WND to remind myself that self-satisfied ignorance comes in two flavours.

      2. Please point me to the place where you got the idea that A+ supports Sharia law

        Not support – just do sweet fanny adams to oppose it. Another case in point, take this moronic argument over Chick Fil-A. Huge outcries, wild whoops, bla-bla-bla. When Mayor Menino, one of the people fulminating over the company, handed out, what was it? 1.8 mil of municipal land to Islamic Society of Boston, whose spokesmen call for having gays killed… you sad twits didn’t even know about it.

        1. “1.8 mil of municipal land to Islamic Society of Boston, whose spokesmen call for having gays killed… you sad twits didn’t even know about it.”

          Nice to know your activism stopped it, I’m in awe

    2. I’ll go further: it was the neoconservatives who most strongly favoured doing something about Darfur, but people like you Kathleen one the day on that one and now everyone there’s been murdered. I hope you’re really, really happy about that. It was the American left that slobbered all over the rapist Clinton while he ordered capricious strikes on poor African countries and made sure that the genocide in Rwanda rolled on to completion (he didn’t just do nothing, he specifically ordered Albright to make sure that nothing was done at the UN level or anywhere). As regards A+, you can go see Myers still slobbering over Clinton today (so much for women’s rights by the way). I hope you are very proud of this record.

      1. I dont think its fair to blame Kathleen because you were not quite awesome enough to stop the killing yourself. Where were you? to busy being a blatherskite on the internet?

        1. You ever complained that Iraq was a “sovereign state” under Saddam? Or said that the inspections should go on longer? Or that you needed the international community’s sanction? Or said “War’s not the answer”? Or that things should go through the UN? Or said that Clinton’s sex life was his own business? Or nodded at a Michael Moore film? If so – these are your ideas in action, sonny.

          It’s called being a citizen of a democratic state. It’s called responsibility, something the left has always had problems with. If you were willing to go along with it, you’re to blame.

          For the record, the secular right movements I’m affiliated with did advocate immediate military action on Darfur. But this time our leaders chose to listen to people like you. I hope you’re proud of yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.