Rotten ‘Charities?’ Add The Red Cross To Your List!

I can remember a time when the Red Cross commanded universal respect, an organisation helping those in need for a hundred years or more!

 

.

…..

Times are a’changin…

Not A Penny More To The Red Cross!

Surely that should be our watch-word when contemplating Christmas giving this year, after Peter Maurer, the Red Cross International Committee chairman’s strident attack on Britain’s policy of removal of citizenship from adherents of the ISIS rape-gang.

.

Most of us would prefer that the sectarian scumbags’ heads be removed!

The ass argues the policy ‘is “not conducive” to long-term peace in the region…

• .

.

…an essentially irrelevant argument, in support of which he adduces the outrageous example of the filthy vixen Shamima Begum.

Maurer “failed to see” how depriving the evil ISIS sow- and other satanic Islamists of citizenship would help a crisis made more complex by the recent Turkish invasion.

.

IICRC’s Maurer

Dumbo Maurer does not seem to get it!

Can he really ‘fail to see’ that if every ISIS pig were buried six feet under, the Middle East and the world as a whole would be a cleaner, safer place? In what possible way is it preferable to bring them ‘home?’ 

Satanic evil should have no home, except deep in unhallowed ground.

.

.

Traitors, sows like Begum and swine like Usman Khan ( thanks again, BTW, to the cop who put that pig down the other day!) who repudiate their duty of allegiance to the country they have lived in, and lived off, instead declaring fealty to a foul jihadist ideology, have NO right to the nationality of the nation they betray.

The report also touches on an issue that any sensible government, in the UK or anywhere, needs to address, the ridiculous ‘international law’ –

– one of those supranational ‘conventions,’ signed presumably during a bout of absent-mindedness, whereby revocation of citizenship can only be implemented if the undesirable has alternative citizenship of another country ( in Bitch Begum’s case, Bangladesh) No matter how vile and vicious, he or she must under no circumstances be rendered ‘stateless!’

Why the Hell not?

Beasts like Begum should be made pariahs, no place to call home, footed from pillar to post like the curs they are.

Or better still, just killed!

,

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/30/red-cross-criticises-uk-for-stripping-isis-recruits-of-citizenship

Pig Prakash – Belated Congratulations To Australia!

Belated congratulations to Australia, where the satanic scumbag pictured below…

==

Neil Prakash, ISIS pig, behind bars in in a maximum-security prison in Turkey

ooooooooooooooooooooo

…has been stripped of his Australian citizenship.

While it would be much better to report that the swine had been hanged, it’s good to know that Un-Australian activities can have such a consequence, namely that he can no longer claim to be Australian.

Unfortunately this does not happen to all such vermin, the excuse being, as far as I know, that the Australian government is bound by some damfool convention…

…that inhibiits sovereign states rendering even the vilest of jihadists stateless…

… i.e. Oz can only do what has been done to Pig Prakash if the pig in question has another nationality, in PP’s case Fijian, although, perhaps understandably, Fiji is disowning the mangy brute.

This situation should be rectified.

If it is clear that some ‘Australian’ puts sectarian supranational allegiance above that owed to Queen and Country, then, regardless of what other passports may be in any pig’s possession, Australian citizenship should be annulled.

And of course we’re not talking only of Australia.

All civilised nations should repudiate that idiotic covenant, but needless to say, there are some leaders, like the UK’s Weasel-Woman…

==

=

…who will never do that, nor even lock up ISIS vermin allowed back in.

 

 

Cast-Iron’s Anti-Jihad Strategy – Hitting ‘Legal’ Obstacles?

When the Battle of Britain was raging and all four of my offspring’s grandparents were in the uniforms of their respective homelands, all serving Queen and Country, did Churchill’s brilliant rhetoric come under scrutiny to see if his exhortations to fight on the beaches etc. would stand up to legal challenge?

00000000000000000

• 
• ———-
• I think not.

The UK had, back then, not admitted millions of migrants a significant percentage of whom owed allegiance to an alien supranational ideology.

Nor were major parts of its media/political establishment more concerned with ‘human rights’ than with the well-being of their own nation.

–

–

Nor of course was the realm subject to dictates emanating from a non-British authority on the Continent of Europe – that’s after all what the Battle of Britain was about! 

A few thoughts that arise from reading another interesting article at ConservativeHome, by Paul Goodman, on Cast-Iron Cameron’s latest wobbly counter-jihadist speechifying. I was particularly fascinated by this part.

Those who volunteer to be prosecuted or monitored may be admitted earlier – and it is this possibility that allows the Prime Minister to claim that government would not be rendering such people stateless.  We may see what the courts make of that.  It could be that he would have liked the time-frame for the ban to be longer, and has chosen one that he thinks will stand up to legal challenge.

————

Who can launch a legal challenge to the law? If parliament passes legislation, it supersedes previous laws that it might contradict, not so? Thus if MPs vote to make traitors stateless, they are.

If MPs were to evokes a million cheers from the British public by re-instating the death penalty for treason (and any ISIS terrorists who went out on a UK passport IS a traitor, because Britain is part of the coalition fighting ISIS) then that, too, would be the law. 

If you break the law, you end up in court, if you don’t like the law, tough, you campaign to change it, but it’s not what the courts make of that.

It’s their job to enforce it, like or no like.

So what’s the problem? 

Supranational sticky-beaks, given the right to stick their beaks in by parliament – a gift which can be retireved by parliament. Cameron has to go th mile – withdraw from any treaty that hnders British self-defence.

The EUSSR and the European Convention on Human Rights are two obvious targets, but the UN Convention on Statelessness too appears to be getting in the way.

• oooo
• 
• ooo

• Scrap that nonsense and civilised countries could start kicking out disloyal scumbags instantly.