A New Place Of Exile

Richard Hutton

Category: The Right-Minded View

The Right-Minded View: the Tommy Robinson protest march

It’s an outrage that Tommy Robinson has been imprisoned, just because he speaks out about how Muslim women are oppressing everyone, by wearing headscarves.

It makes you wonder what you are allowed to say, these days.

I know some people have pointed out that Tommy was convicted for contempt of court – but that’s the whole problem! What kind of police state has Britain become lately, when courts apply a law which has been in place since the 14th century?

You can’t even protect your house from terrorism, by stapling a ham sandwich to your own front door. Not without people giving you funny looks, and calling you “weird”, at least.

And there shouldn’t be any of these double standards, either. Muslims are always being let-off when they commit crimes: because of the biased liberal PC state.

And yet I’ve heard about statistics on the internet, which say that nearly all the inmates of state prisons are Muslims. Which just goes to show how dangerous they are.

What you have to understand is that this is scientific: the more Muslim someone is, the more crime they might commit.

So, if you’re 50% Muslim, then you’re only twice as likely to be criminal as someone who is 25% Muslim. But if you’re 0% Muslim, then you’re more unlikely to commit crimes than somebody who is a bit Muslim. And you can’t argue with basic facts – whether they’re true, or not.

But while no Muslims are ever imprisoned, Tommy Robinson has been put in a jail which is 100% Muslim.

Not only are all the prisoners Muslims, but the prison staff are as well. And the library books are all copies of the Koran. And the administrators use Sharia computers, with Halal keyboards. And even the drinking water has been converted to Islam.

Yet who is it that gets called “violent” or “extremist”?

British patriots, who support Tommy Robinson! Just because some of them have been throwing bricks through windows, and placing bombs outside Mosques. Hitting people, and things.

Which probably does go a bit far – even though it’s understandable.

But it’s not right or fair to use the actions of a few individuals to generalize about a larger group of people – or call them ‘terrorist-sympathizers’. That’s just plain wrong!

We’re not like the Muslims, after all. You don’t see us going around telling women what they can or can’t wear – which is why the Burkha should be banned, and wearing one should be an arrestable offence.

We don’t stand for intolerance. This is a free country – which is why we need to lock up anyone who takes liberties.

We just expect people to integrate into our society – which is why anyone who doesn’t speak English should be deported.

I mean, you can’t have lots of people living together, when there are some differences between us and them.

It would be like having a football team, with players from different countries in it, all playing for the same side. Or a stadium full of people who support opposing clubs, but manage to get along with each other. That stuff just doesn’t happen.

And I really am getting quite tired of the ‘You can’t say that because it offends me!’ crowd, who promote over-sensitivity. Upsetting people the way they do, and stifling debate. They really should shut up.

It’s not right to call people names – or say they’re “racist”. How can it be racism, when Islam isn’t even a race? It’s not like Africans, or foreigners!

There is no such thing as ‘Islamophobia’ – people are just trying to shut down criticism of Islam, and we need to be able to talk about the facts.

Like all those passages in the Koran, that tell people to fly planes into buildings, and stuff. Which is why only Muslims have ever been kamikazes.

And now what are they doing? Coming to Britain, and trying to ban Thicc Piglet – because it’s opposed to Halalic inscriptions!

This is a struggle between goodies and baddies. So we need to take a stand. We need to make Great Britain Great Britain Again. Only different – but the same.

We need to unprison Tommy Robinson, and say “we are all Thicc now”. Send a message.

Maybe if people had done that sooner, then maybe Charlie Hebdo and Salmon Rushdie might still be alive.

One year on: a sensible and moderate review of the General Election 2017


Given that it is a year to this very week, I can think of no better time to celebrate the first anniversary of Theresa May’s glorious triumph (perhaps too mild a word) in the General Election of 2017.

Paving the way – as it did – for the strong and stable government, which we enjoy today.

In fact, I recall only too well the Tory victory parades; and the festive street parties held in the newly-recrowned Prime Minister’s honour. Flags of celebration were hoisted. Bells pealed – ringing out the joy, nationwide.

Arguably more memorable still was the comprehensive vindication enjoyed by each and every political journalist, columnist, commentator, and analyst – sapient scribes, all; whose cautious predictions and insightful prescriptions were proven completely correct.

Before the election, they declared that May was brilliant; and would win a landslide victory, if not a 100 seat majority – resulting in a lifetime+ of Tory government.

And they were not wrong.

As they clarified afterwards, what they had meant all along was that May was awful; and would lose her Parliamentary majority – resulting in no less than a year+ of Tory government.

You cannot beat that for accuracy.

As for the cause of Labour’s disastrous improvement of fortunes, I think we need to lay the square of blame very fingerly at the door of one Jeremy Corbyn.

We all know what happened here: not only did Labour benefit from the media’s relentless pro-Corbyn bias (known to paleontologists as the Corbyniferous era); nor did Corbyn merely gain from the unflinching support of his MPs – but Momentum infiltrated the exit poll: and exit polls are a slur on the good name of reputable forecasting.

While Theresa May will take comfort in the fact that no majority is better than a bad majority – and pundits will find satisfaction in being entirely correct, once they had begun to say the opposite of everything they’d reiterated for two years; Corbyn really needs to take a long, hard look at himself.

He could, and should have gained at least 100% of the national vote – and probably more. If Labour had been led by one of the strategic masterminds behind the Edstone, then surely they would have done. Just like they did in 2015.

The Right-Minded View: Tony Blair’s wise words & Article 50’s anniversary.

I, for one, welcome Tony Blair’s wise words today. On the very first anniversary of Article 50, they could not be more timely.

I have had my disagreements with him in the past – for instance, his choice of tie has occasionally been less than sober.

I was even slightly inconvenienced by the Iraq war – as one of the protests against it caused traffic delays; which resulted in me being more than an hour late in getting home.

Nonetheless, even I have managed to overcome the fact that I agree with Blair about everything, and recognise him as the most principled man in politics: due to his staunch and unwavering opposition to something that I also happen to dislike.

In fact, I genuinely don’t get why people disfavour Blair.

So far as I can see it, his only “crime” was to undertake a humanitarian intervention; which made creative interpretation of the law – and imaginative deployment of rhetoric.

What’s so wrong about all of that? That sort of thing used to be taught in the better universities, as part of a young gentleman’s upbringing. Prizes were given.

And the way people carry on, you’d be forgiven for thinking that his post-PM role, running PR campaigns on behalf of dictators, was unsavoury.

The fact that Blair has managed to keep himself busy, while commanding high fees, strikes me as a true measure of the man’s qualities, I say.

I mean, he opposes Brexit – surely that more than makes up for everything else, anyway?

The Right-Minded View: I, and the people who agree with me, are very sensible.

We all know that Jeremy Corbyn is personally responsible for everything that people who occupy the sensible centre ground of politics currently dislike.

True, the Conservative Party decided to conduct the Brexit referendum – and were aided and abetted by Sensible Moderate Labour MPs, who all supported their call to have one; and arguably helped lay the rhetorical groundwork for the Leave campaign.

Therefore, clearly, Corbyn is the one to blame.

As for the shocking revelations that Corbyn once expressed a vague bit of support for an iffy mural half a decade ago – well, it simply takes the biscuit.

This isn’t like sending vans around BAME neighbourhoods, telling foreign people to go home – or deploying derogatory terms while discussing woodpiles in Parliament.

And it certainly isn’t on a par with using colourful language about People of Colour, before assuming the mantle of Foreign Secretary.

Oh no – even famed anti-racism campaigners, such as Nigel Farage and Norman Tebbit have seen fit to vent spleen at Corbyn. They can see that this sort of thing isn’t cricket.

Meanwhile long-standing advocates of religious tolerance, such as Iain Paisley Jr, have taken the very brave, and very principled stance of confronting the shortcomings of their political opponents.

Quite rightly too, I say.

And let us reserve our fullest condemnation for Jeremy Corbyn’s reluctance to condemn Vladimir Putin.

All we ask is that Corbyn utter a simple condemnation – no more, no less. We all know it would suffice.

Now, admittedly Corbyn did condemn Putin – but it’s not enough to simply utter condemnation, is it now? We all know it doesn’t suffice.

If only a Sensible Moderate Labour MP was in charge of their party right now – they could make good use of all the competence, and long-term thinking, which the strategic masterminds behind the Ed Stone are renowned for.

The Right-Minded View: Cold War – Part Deux. This time, it’s personal.

As far this whole Russian brouhaha goes – there’s a time and place to talk about politics. That time is never; and that place is nowhere.

I mean, do we really want the Houses of Parliament to be politicized?

It is not the job of the Opposition to actually oppose the government, after all – merely to support the way it is going about things; and perhaps pledge to go one better.

It comes as a matter of no small surprise, therefore, that the leader of the Opposition balks at the suggestion we must place our absolute trust in the proper authorities.

It’s people like that who allow the facts get in the way of a good story.

Even steadfast supporters of Jeremy Corbyn – such as commentators in the tabloid newspapers – have called this poor form; while, his unfailingly loyal backbenchers have seen fit to complain about him, for the first time ever.

By contrast, the fine response by many opposition MPs was a truly glorious sight to behold. There are times where the national interest comes first. The enemy in the Salisbury spy attack is Russia, not the government.

It’s not hard.

It’s called doing what’s right by this country’s proud history and traditions.

In fact, the real mystery is why such individuals have ended up as pariahs among their own voters. Scrambling obediently into line behind a Tory Prime Minster, purely to embarrass their own party’s leader? That’s such stuff as statesmanlike dreams are made of, I say.

True, Corbyn did condemn Russia and Putin – repeatedly; over a variety of formats. But it’s just not enough.

And while we received a very sober and dignified call to see evidence, before acting, from the French President Emmanuel Macron; Corbyn villainously asked to see evidence before acting – for reasons of pure evil.

What kind of irresponsible politician asks for an investigation to take place, instead of instantly rushing to conclusions?

What kind of leader stands by due process, instead of immediately bowing to political expedience; and following the crowd?

Oh, Corbyn might have called for asset-freezing injunctions; but what about REAL measures – such as, you know, strong words in Parliament? Macho posturing, bombast, saber-rattling – full of sound and fury. That sort of thing.

As ever, it fell to the electable members of the Labour Party, to set a solid example, for all to admire. Penning a good, stiff letter, thus:

“We, the undersigned, welcome this bout of hot air from a desperate Prime Minister trying stoke and exploit a major panic, in order to deflect attention from the appalling mess her government has made of – well, everything; by wrapping herself in an aura of faux patriotism”.

And if the most principled opportunists in Parliament are willing to place blind faith in the government, then it is not for the likes of you and me to question matters.

As for those wags mentioning the Light Brigade, or the whole Iraq jolly – well, it simply lacks taste.

If anything, it inclines one to re-evaluate who the real victims of that excellent war actually were.

I would wager that politicians whose judgment is questioned, instead of automatically deferred to, have suffered far more than the many thousands of people they helped liberate to death.

And let us have no more of this false-equivalence malarkey.

While Britain would surgically launch a drone strike at a wedding party, Russia instead deploys an indiscriminate nerve agent – which makes no distinction between combatant and civilian. A clear difference, between the two countries.

Our mistakes are made in good faith – and we learn all the correct lessons; no matter how many times it should prove necessary.

All told, it is overdue that we stopped politicizing the behaviour of politicians; and furthermore, Russia really should just shut up, and go away.

The Right-Minded View: on the new offence of intimidating one’s social and political betters.

It is about time that a government law was introduced, putting a stop to intimidation in public discourse.

Nobody abhors the nanny state more than I – but this is one area where a clampdown is long over due. And pronto.

Members of the common herd calling politicians “war criminals” – just because they initiated illegal wars. Or saying that their elected representatives are “incompetent”, and their policies “ill-conceived”. It all goes too far.

There was none of this online thuggery when I was a lad. Admittedly, the internet didn’t exist back then – but that is largely beside the point at hand.

I worry that our public debate is coarsening into a feral free for all. And also that political correctness means we can no longer say what we wish, without being tutted at.

I’ll have you know that it is quite possible to disagree with somebody, without demeaning them on account of opposing viewpoints. Through engaging in childish name-calling, for example.

If only the members of generation snowflake would take that on board.

But instead, what do we see? Braying mobs of young folk hurting peoples’ feelings; using rude words – and making them upset.

Likening grown men to gammon. Throwing cornflakes at cafes. Disagreeing with their social betters on the internet!

Not to mention radical students censoring panto; and militant statistics-watchdogs censuring government ministers.

Well, it’s not on. The decent among us shouldn’t have to put up with this sort of thing.

Thank God we have a sensible government, I say. One which will put a stop to PC palaver; and allow us to voice our robust opinions freely, once again.

And arrest anyone who makes disrespectful comments about us, in the process.

The Right-Minded View: defeating fascism in the marketplace of ideas.

To put it mildly, I am appalled that some people are determined to close down free-expression, and alternative views, in this day and age.

From what I gather, a certain politician encountered a certain amount of protest – while delivering a speech about the merits of ethnic self-interest, on a campus somewhere.

Well it simply goes too far. But then I’m afraid that’s the nature of the hard-left for you.

In fact, it all brings to mind the notorious Scuffle Of Cable Street – where Oswald Moseley’s Legitimate Concernsmen were no-platformed by the PC Brigade.

Those in attendance may not have agreed with what Sir M. had to say; but refusing to listen to his argument, and then argue against that argument with a better argument, merely degraded an otherwise perfectly civil debate about which groups were no longer welcome in British society.

You may have disagreed with Moseley’s politics; but saying he was not a good man perhaps hurt his feelings. Did you stop to think about that?

This is merely one of many historical precedents, of course; and in my view, fascism can be overcome without any of this indecorous protesting malarkey – simply by defeating it in the marketplace of ideas.

For example, instead of launching a violent uprising against local authorities, the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto should’ve taken the more civil approach of constructive engagement. Calm leafleting, for example.

Or better yet, they may have sought to occupy the moral high ground – through peaceful engagement, and asking respectful questions of their opponents.

What’s more, when the Soviets swept into Berlin during the onset of 1945, they didn’t deploy force of arms to achieve their ends. Oh no. Instead they engaged Wehrmacht officers in robust debate – leading to a full and frank exchange of views.

What they realised was really quite straightforward. Namely, that smashed windows – and broken rules – will always lead to raised eyebrows.

Consequently, the best way to bring about the Third Reich’s demise, was by praising moderate stormtroopers – encouraging them to do the right thing.

Accordingly, they all lived very sensibly ever after.

And say what you like about the Nazis, but at least they didn’t go around calling people rude names on the internet. Not if the historical records are anything to judge by, at any rate.

Besides, things have changed a bit since the 1930’s and 40’s, haven’t they? So why not give Moderate Fascists another shot at government? Where’s the harm?

Fingers Crossed, they won’t begin erecting concentration camps and all that palaver, once again.

The Right-Minded View: Men evolved to protect the boundaries of tribes, Feminism precedes the fall of empires – a commonsense approach to sexual politics.

Call me old-fashioned if you will, but from where I’m standing so much of what passes for feminism these days is not feminism per se, as I see it; but – instead – an unabashed attempt to achieve socio-economic parity for women in all walks of life.

This is of course not unreasonable; but anyone with a pair of ears can see that it is not enough. I think we have to look at this in context.

I simply cannot remember the last time I read an article about genuine areas of concern for women – such as the most efficient arrangements of potpourri; or the best way to find a husband.

As for so-called ‘sexual equality’ – I have an acquaintance who is very knowledgeable about such things; and according to him it is entirely unnecessary in this day and age.

For example, women don’t need equal pay legislation – as they can simply work additional hours, until they have earned as much as their male colleagues.

What’s more, rather than worry unduly about reproductive rights, they might simply embrace a lifetime of celibacy instead.

There is no need for educational opportunities either, he reckons. Should a woman need help with anything complex, she may simply request assistance from any passing gentleman that happens to be in the vicinity; who – being a fellow of gentility – will graciously grant it forthwith.

I feel that little more remains to be said on this subject, quite frankly; save to note that sexual equality is perhaps a matter best discussed between a woman and her doctor.

The Right-Minded View: Donald Trump’s Tax-Cuts Are A Momentous Achievement

I, for one, welcome the prospect of a tax-cut for the wealth-creators of this world. A fair reward for good deeds done, I say.

Instead of punishing ambition by increasing taxes on those of us who happen to have girded our loins – and earned nicer holidays than our neighbours – it is far better to let everyone benefit from the trickle-down effects of prosperity’s rising tide.

High-time that people familiarised themselves with the Laugher curve – whereby if you reduce taxes, you increase them; so I understand.

It’s not as if anything much is funded by taxation – hospitals, schools, the police force, the military (and a few other things besides) not withstanding. So why do we have to pay it? This is precisely why the Cayman Islands remain such an attractive venture for so many of us – no matter how patriotic we may be.

All smacks of the politics of envy, in fact, this caviling.

It reminds me only too well of the impertinent response to recent news that our own fair Queen had been a bit creative with the old accountancy.

People overlooked the fact that it is Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. Her face is on the bank notes. And she is the Queen of Bermuda, after all – so why shouldn’t she keep her money there?

I say that these Republican fellows follow suit – true, none of them actually paid tax to begin with, thanks to the many entirely justifiable loopholes they “exploit” (to use the overly emotive language beloved by the Left, here). So it’s not as if it changes very much, as is, now, is it?

And complaints to the contrary simply serve to show how hollow the pretensions of these so-called “socialists” are – as they talk about equality, while demanding that the wealthy pay a higher-rate of tax than the poor.

I consider the matter closed.


The Right-Minded View: British Media Impartiality

If you ask me, questioning the merits of British newspaper columnists crosses a line of basic decency: these are the people who hold Britain’s most important opinions. It is not for the likes of every johnny-come-lately to query their competence.

As it should happen, I – for one – think that our government is very sensible; and doing a fine job. What’s more, I find it hard to believe that respectable people – such as the owners of professional newspapers – would ever do anything at odds with the public good.

That is perhaps why so many government ministers maintain close ties with the self-same media magnates: because of their shared commitment to philanthropy.

So, keep the press free I say.

And if people do insist on making their feelings known, then they could simply leave a message on their own cellphones; where enterprising journalists can find them, should they wish to.