Dissent silenced

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

Via Alarming News, Peter asks:

If Europeans ban the Nazi symbol, how are they going to protest George W. Bush when he visits?

I suggest they brandish this. Meanwhile, Mark Steyn defends Prince Harry:

It’s a good rule of thumb that, no matter how big an idiot someone is, he can never compete with the political class’s response to his idiocy. Thus, whatever feelings of unease I might have had about Prince Hitler were swept away the moment the rent-a-quote humbugs started lining up to denounce him.

I say to Harry: you go, girlfriend, you Reichstone Cowboy you. It’s uniforms night at my pad every Thursday and you’re more than welcome, Your Royal Heilness.

The most idiotic response came from British conservative leader Michael Howard: “I think it might be appropriate for [Harry] to tell us himself just how contrite he now is.” About which Steyn writes:

What’s conservative about demanding people submit to public self-abasement? Wasn’t it the Commies who used to insist you recant on TV and then disappear into re-education camp? A conservative party ought to be a refuge from the sanctimonious nannytollahs of the age. But, from his shabby Kerryesque opportunism on the war down, Mr Howard has no discernible coherent political philosophy – except for his all-pervasive authoritarianism, into which his repellent call for a display of princely contrition fits all too neatly.

Are there any conservatives in the Conservative Party?

Posted by Tim B. on 01/20/2005 at 07:47 PM
    1. Are there any conservatives in the Conservative Party?

      Not very many I’m afraid.  A poll of Conservative MPs showed that they split 50:50 Kerry/Bush for instance.  Howard’s opportunistic attacks on Blair over the Iraq war have succeeded in reducing popular support both for the war itself and the Conservative party.

      On the other hand, I continue to believe that Howard is better than he seems at the moment: he certainly was a very effective shadow Chancellor.

      Posted by rexie on 01/20 at 08:03 PM • #


    1. I think the Tories have come down with the dreaded “oppose everything from the treasury benches” disease that oppositions sometimes acquire. Being out of power for an extended period of time tends to compound the problem.

      Posted by Quentin George on 01/20 at 08:07 PM • #


    1. The EU response is pretty much what one has come to expect, demonstrating that Orwell was not wrong when he wrote 1984, just premature. Seriously, the response is an example of a cure that is worse than the disease. The basic attitude to freedom and human rights is the same in each case.

      Posted by Rafe on 01/20 at 08:21 PM • #


    1. Sorry to depart from the topic Tim, but I just can’t stop myself!
      Tonight on the 7:30 Report, the ABC and Ms. Colgin in particular, took yet ANOTHER whack at President Bush’s “Evangelical Christian base.” How many times have we been here before??? I’ve lost count.
      However, the most spectacular part of Ms. Colgin’s familar routine was when she…get this…she, someone from the ABC, accused others, namely those unscrupulous Christians, of using the Asian tsunami disaster for “political point-scoring!” WHAT GALL!
      All I could come up with after I regained my composure was that either the ABC treats its viewers with absolute contempt, or that ABC viewers are indeed contemptible! They would have to be, to swallow such abject audacity without protest!

      Posted by Brian on 01/20 at 08:56 PM • #


    1. Rexie said: “On the other hand, I continue to believe that Howard is better than he seems “

      Along the lines of Mark Twain: “Wagners music is better than it sounds”?

      He was hopeless when he ran the Home Office and should never have been elected. So I would rather say: kicking him out now would make the Tory Party look impossible.

      Or a Danish saying goes: if you don’t get then one you love, you gotta love the one you get.

      Posted by jorgen on 01/20 at 09:29 PM • #


    1. My theory is it’s all from an etymology mistake.  Outrage in fact comes from French outre excessive, made into a noun with -age.  English thinks it comes from -rage, suggesting that what is beyond what is proper deserves rage, “See, the word itself says so.’’ This is so useful as a political posture that the French reimported the English word as their own.

      Posted by rhhardin on 01/20 at 09:29 PM • #


    1. When Howard sent poor Boris Johnson up to Liverpool to apologise for writing that Liverpudlians are self-pitying whiners hooked on grief (or something of that sort), he lost a great deal of sympathy among those that thought the hysterical response to Ken Bigley’s death quite out of proportion.  But I take Jorgen’s point.  We have to make the best of what we’ve got.  At least Kenneth Clarke seems on side at the moment.

      Posted by rexie on 01/20 at 10:10 PM • #


    1. If Europeans ban the Nazi symbol, how are they going to protest George W. Bush when he visits?

      Bloody hell!  I wrote a letter to the Oz just yesterday that went as follows:

      Now that Prince Harry has provoked the EU into the idea of banning swastikas, one wonders what Europeans will paint on the walls of American and Israeli embassy buildings.

      Naturally, they didn’t print it.

      Posted by murph on 01/20 at 10:16 PM • #


    1. God save the ABC, they are transfixed on who will be Lathos successor, airports are staked out with eager journos with up-to-date breaking news on which ALP flunky has just no commented

      Posted by rog on 01/20 at 10:32 PM • #


    1. Back to Prince Harry, he should join Actors Equity and get paid for his fancy dress just like all those other method actors.

      Pass the cheesecake Marlon

      Posted by rog on 01/20 at 10:35 PM • #


    1. Gotta love those crazy pommies.

      Pissed on the “damn colonials” for generations, now it’s coming back to bite them on the arse.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 01/20 at 10:42 PM • #


    1. The swastika is an ancient symbol appropriated by the Nazis last century.  The Islam crescent moon is also ancient.  Are both rallying symbols to their cause?  The MSM press in Oz says that the former is.  Do we ban the swastika?  This is a question, not an answer �

      Posted by Stevo on 01/20 at 10:57 PM • #


    1. and Rudd posing and posturing and in Aceh to INSPECT our troops is not political point scoring thrust into the limelight by ABC and SBS public funded t.v.

      Posted by crash on 01/20 at 11:25 PM • #


    1. There are, I can assure you, not enough Conservative MPs who would pass as conservatives in the US or Oz to fit the fingers on your hand. I don’t know who to vote for in May.

      Posted by Steve on 01/21 at 12:19 AM • #


    1. Brian, what are you doing watching ABC?  It’s bad for your blood pressure and your sanity.

      It’s great to have Mark Steyn back to make us laugh as he reminds us of things we’ve forgotten.

      I’ve been wondering why left and the media have been so insistent that Bush, Cheney and now Condi admit their mistakes or confess to telling lies.  I’d forgotten the commie practice of public humiliation and confession followed by a trip to oblivion.

      How it must gall them to have let all that power slip through their fingers.

      Posted by blerp on 01/21 at 12:26 AM • #


    1. Really, it’s no wonder the Conservatives in Britain have to tread softly when you see things like the “documentary” (really a socialist political rant) last night on the BBC, equating the rise of the neo-cons in the US with the rise of al-Qaeda, and drawing parallels at every stage.  It was the most appalling example of media bias I have ever seen, and it often got its facts completely wrong, stating for instance that Clinton’s impeachment failed (whereas of course the House voted articles of impeachment and the Senate voted to fine him – he was also fined and suspended from practising law in other cases).

      I think Howard, if he were elected Prime Minister with a big majority, could be a good PM.  As somebody above says, don’t mistake his opportunism in Opposition for what he would do in government.  He can hardly do worse than Bliar, anyway.  I had today the pleasure of mailing a huge cheque to the Inland Revenue – whenever I question my support for the Conservatives, I remember how much extra Labour have cost me and how great Margaret Thatcher was, and that puts me right.

      Posted by PJ on 01/21 at 12:39 AM • #


    1. Michael Howard supports compulsory identity cards. The man is a turd.

      When the British Conservative Party stabbed Thatcher in the back they suffered the same moral and intellectual meltdown as did the ALP when it did the same for Hawke. The leaders of both parties since then have been shambling inadaquates. I love Britain and despair for it.

      Posted by Kevin Dunn on 01/21 at 01:01 AM • #


    1. > ban the Nazi symbol

      It would be more useful to ban hysterical outcries from media and politicians instead.

      Posted by jorgen on 01/21 at 01:04 AM • #


    1. The fascistic response to Harry’s “gaff” would be the frightening thing to be commented upon, if it were sincere. It’s just a handy beating stick to attack the royal family. I tend to think that the conservatives could have got some mileage out of taking the media to task over this as most people outside of media-land are familiar with fancy dress and know that one can dress up as a monster with being or supporting one. Lost opportunity, I say.

      Posted by David McBryde on 01/21 at 03:22 AM • #


    1. When the British Conservative Party stabbed Thatcher in the back they suffered the same moral and intellectual meltdown as did the ALP when it did the same for Hawke.

      Both Maggie & Bob have a right to chuckle ruefully at the respective demise of their parties they made successful before being shafted.

      Posted by underscore on 01/21 at 08:41 AM • #


    1. Maybe they need iI.D. cards to combat terrorists – they have a whole lot of illegal immigrants absconded and disappeared.

      Posted by crash on 01/21 at 10:46 AM • #


    1. Asylum-seekers, so-called, will not need ID cards under the proposals – so they won’t stop illegal immigrants, who work in the black economy anyway. Nor will terrorists be much inconvenienced by them – terrorists do not disguise their identities much, but primarily their intentions.

      If they must have ID cards, let the legislation contain sunset clauses so they will automatically lapse when the war on terrorism is over. I could support that.

      Posted by Kevin Dunn on 01/21 at 12:52 PM • #


  1. Michael Howard was the best Home Secretary of the 20th century, he is a more honest, competent and capable man than Tony Blair. People who complain about Howard being ‘opportunistic’ on the war are talking bollocks. The Tories have attacked Labour on their mishandling of the run up to war with the absurd intelligence dossiers, but they remain the only opposition party of any coalition member which supported the removal of Saddam.

    Posted by Ross on 01/22 at 09:56 AM • #