On the proposed Qur'an book burning by Pastor Terry Jones.

Well, first let me begin by stating the obvious: emotions have run way too high with this story (it's also quite sad that people are commemorating the 9th (yes: the 9th) anniversary of 9/11). It was to be expected that most Muslims - even moderate ones - would find this proposed act at least distasteful, if not downright despicable and unpardonable. That Americans, and people in American life, generally, have played to the emotions of the public on this story is more disgusting than the act proposed by Terry Jones itself.

America is one of the few countries on this planet with a written constitution that guarantees its citizens inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whilst most of these rights were trampled upon or wholly discarded during the Bush years, Americans still have the two most important rights that no Islamic state tolerates or affords: freedom of expression, and freedom of speech.

If this guy wants to burn the Qur'an, I personally don't have a problem with it. I understand that it will have repercussions with devout and small-minded Muslims all over the world, but to vouch to hope to prevent the act from taking place entirely is despicable. If people want to burn flags and other such articles (usually what they believe to be either symbols of idolatry or items of blasphemy), then let them. What no one seems to be saying is that it's unacceptable for Muslims worldwide, generally, to take this course of action. If this isn't a sign that Muslims can't solubly be integrated into western society, then I don't know what is. Whilst that comment might sound fascist, Islam is a clear and present danger to everything western socities hold dear. If you don't believe me, then recall in 1989 when Salman Rushdie was threatened with death by the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran for writing a book on a contentious part of the Qur'an known as 'the Satanic Verses' in which Mohammed condones polytheism (Muslims generally believe he was being posessed by the Devil in this part of the Qur'an). Tell the same to the Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh and his associates: he was murderded in 2oo4 for making a short film about Islam and the abuse of women practised by its adherents; his Norwegian counterpart was shot and left for dead, and his Japanese associate was killed in a scene of bloody religious retribution.

Whilst Pastor Jones might be right about the danger of Islamification, let us not forget the disgusting tree from which Islam sprouted: both Islam and Christianity (not to forget Mormonism) are Abrahamic religions, sourced from the Torah, with all its bloody pages and disgraceful content (both are almost exclusively plagiarised from it - a claim I can back up with verse after verse). So burn your books; burn your flags; put up your effigies: just don't stop me from putting into action the freedoms that my country, with all its flaws and curruptions, guarantees me.

Lincoln the racist.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” - Abraham Lincoln.

Mumbai.

Walking the streets

are haggard children:

far too torn and ragged

a picture of youth;

feet hard with miles

of incessant walking -

like somnambulants endlessly

walking through infinite deserts.

Their eyes are broken,

but somehow still full of

the colour of youth.

Their faces are beautiful,

and yet tell of a struggle

that's been wreaked

since time's conception.

They sell anything they can find;

steal anything they can find -

just to buy lentils and rice
and keep clothed and dry.

Sewerage lines overflow

into the streets,

and children

bathe in the water.

All's not well in Mumbai,

or Detroit, or Flint,

or Wigan, or Bristol,

or Beijing, or Ulan Bator;

all is not well.

Your whitener,

and your methamphetamine,

and your presciption pills,

and Valium and Zantac and Vicodin;

all is not well.

It's part of a culture

that we're creating,

but which we'll never know;

it carries on like some shoddily written tragedy

shown in a broken theatre;

God bless the world.

Keith Olbermann on the Haitian disaster and the comments of Rush Limbaugh and Pat 'anti-Christ' Robertson.

On last night's Question Time.

Last night, over eight million people tuned in to watch Question Time - four times its usual audience. The media storm surrounding Nick Griffin's appearance had whipped up much interest.

Many of the audience and panel's questions were directed at Mr Griffin, and, in answering them, his responses were flummoxed and came across as being desperate. (He also often failed to answer questions relating to stances he'd taken up in his past.)

Quotes about his party's evocations of Churchill and Hitler were put to him - many of which he denied saying - and he was also asked to justify comments he made at an American political rally at which the former head of the Ku Klux Klan was present.

He is believed to have said that his party would conceal their true nature until election time and dupe in members of the British public by using 'saleable' words such as 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'identity' (identity being a euphemism for race to him). He also said that he hoped to achieve control of the BBC if elected. Mr Griffin denied saying these things (despite the fact that one can hear him say them in a short Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw).

On the show, he disparaged Muslims and said that 'if Churchill were alive, he would be a member of the BNP.' He also disparaged Jack Straw's father (a conscientious objector during WW2 who was imprisoned), saying that his own father flew in the Royal Airforce.

At one point, he insinuated that 'indigenous' British people have been on this isle for 17,500 years - despite definite knowledge that the first Britons were Picts (a Celtic tribe who were present here some 4,000 years ago and were driven westwards by the Romans) and the Angles and Saxons didn't arrive until around 500 AD.

He also insinuated that his party stands for 'traditional, British, Christian values'. I wonder whether the admonition 'Do not judge, lest ye be judged' means much to Mr Griffin?

Although it's fair to say an unfair amount of time was spent probing Mr Griffin's beliefs and politics, I think such probing was a justified and necessary evil. He's a sickening character and I think he showed his willingness to deceive the public fully last night.

As of midday today, he has stated that he is due to lodge a formal complaint to the BBC for his 'unfair' treatment, and he has also challenged Jack Straw and David Cameron to formal debates.

I sincerely hope that no more platforms will be granted to him. I agree with Peter Hain that it might now appear to BNP enthusiasts that his party is as legitimate as any other major party purely because he's been allowed to take part in formal, televised debate.

His politics are disgraceful, deceitful and fascistic (and technically illegal because of his party's refusal to allow ethic minorities membership), and he deserves no recognition. I think we've all seen him for the callow, hollow, callous man he is. I hope sensible people will not identify with his claims about being treated unfairly. Sympathising with him would be playing right into his hands.

Creation.

This afternoon, out of sheer chance, I remembered that Creation is still being shown in cinemas. (For those of you who don't know - or might be fooled by the title - it's a biopic of Charles Darwin and his grand theory of evolution - the theory of which changed for ever the image of man within the cosmos.)

Upon looking around, though, I've found no cinemas in Brighton that are showing it - not even The Duke of York's Picturehouse. I'm thoroughly disgusted that fear and monetary sensibilities go before educational value in this country. Even if the picture were to have some inadequacies or bad character acting I'd still see it.

My faith in the secular nature of my country has been slightly shaken and I'm left feeling perturbed and dispeptic, with the odd taste of bile hanging around in the back of my throat.

A run-down on a few of today's events.

Seeing as I'm feeling quite alert as of now, I'm gonna comment on a few things I've seen and heard today.

First, due to the immediacy of the thing, I'm gonna mention Derren Brown's lottery stunt (which aired at 10.35pm on channel four). I have one word to say on the subject: Wow! (If I were five years younger, I might say: Wtf?)

Second of all, I'd like to give a few words on something I heard today which is, frankly, one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Someone told me the streets of Brighton were quite empty today because of fears of terrorism (regardless of the overcast weather). But why? Well, what's the date today? The 9th of September 2009: 09/09/09. What does that mean? Nothing, I hear you say - and quite rightly. But what if you turn those numbers upside-down? Yes: you get 06/06/06. A terrorist threat? Today? I'm not sure if the idiots circulating this shit are aware of the following fact, but surely one would have to be a Satanist - and only a Satanist - to want to commit such a terrorist act. Oh yeah! There are no Satanist terrorist groups! (Also, the number of The Beast is actually 616.)

Lastly, I heard from someone that a recent census revealed that Mohammed is the second most popular name in the UK - the first is Oliver. You may have been accosted by an idiotic, reactionary, Sun- or Daily Mail-reading friend today who told you about said 'story' and then paused for several seconds, only to finish off your little encounter with: Yeah, it's scary, innit? Okay, first of all, Mohammed is a popular name because it's the name of the prophet: a lot of Muslim men are called Mohammed. Mohammed is as integral a part of the Muslim family as mum and dad - and perhaps even more so. Why does the fact that some people choose to name their male children after the prophet rather than a famous orphan bother non-Muslim people? The fact that it's a popular name in no way reflects on the size of Britain's Muslim population. All it shows is that Mohammed is a common name amongst Muslims.

Keep your minds open, folks. I'm just trying to hold my lights up to the great void and inculcate a little rationalism into your day-to-day. Keep on reading!

A bit on UKIP and the Euro-election.

Today, at 6.25 pm, UKIP launched their 5-minute-long party election broadcast on channel 2. They brought up such issues as the increase in traffic congestion, resource depletion, EU expansion, and cut-backs in the public sector.

First, to point out the obvious, I'd like to say that three years ago there weren't as many people in Britain. That's due to immigration and natural increase, of course. The formula time + people = more cars highlights the basis of the issue.

However, that wasn't stated because it was implicit that the problem lies with the addition of more member states - such as Poland - three years ago. The use of such disgraceful points backed up by zero statistics highlights the fact that they're reaching out to a very ignorant few.

Second, they say they're a non-racist party. That sentiment is going to lure in a whole bunch of on-the-fence people.

It's funny how they say they're against racism when their policies imply they aren't - they're the antithesis of the sentiment stated by them. I, too, am reticent about the joining of Turkey to the EU, but only because of its human rights record - my reluctance has no bearing in the fact that Turkey is a Muslim nation.

So, UKIP say they're non-racist. The use of the phrase Non-racist, of course, suggests that there are racist parties out there. Why didn't they say 'not racist'? Are they trying to draw over BNP enthusiasts* or, perhaps, are they trying to distance themselves from the BNP?

One thing is certain, though: they stand for ancient English values from our colonial days that need crutches to stand up. If anything highlights this more it's their use of Winston Churchill giving the peace sign on their billboards. Two are scattered along Lewes Road - a third was destroyed. They're using Churchill - an idol of immense national pride - in vain. They're a party stooped in dishonesty and cowardice. They're imperialist. They may not be a racist party but they certainly appear to be xenophobic.

They stand for a select group of people who are confounded in their senses of national and personal identity and European policy. UKIP will get a good turn out on June 4th. I for one am voting Green. The wolves are at the door and it seems we may be about to grant them their first meal....

For everyone who wants a bit of pep and faith in the human condition, listen to Steve Earle's 'City of Immigrants'. I live in Brighton and the song seems to embody our city's spirit (even though the song is about New York!)

*It seems quite obvious that BNP enthusiasts are dyed-in-the-wool, inveterate racists but one has to assume there are a few mislead, conscionable people out there numbering in the thousands who could be swayed by UKIP's misleading sentiment.