This is amazing. The UK has declared quite a number of US extremists, including Eric Gliebe of the Skinheads, the Phelps from hate-filled Westboro Baptist Church and Michael Savage threats to their national security and for that matter not fit to enter the country. And not only have they've banned them but have equated them with Middle Eastern extremists as well.

Home Office name hate promoters excluded from the UK :: Home Office:

It follows the Home Secretary’s introduction of new measures against such individuals last year, including creating a presumption in favour of exclusion in respect of all those who have engaged in spreading hate.

Eric Gliebe
Has made web-radio broadcasts in which he vilifies certain ethnic groups and encourages the download and distribution of provocative racist leaflets and posters. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by justifying terrorist violence, provoking others to commit serious crime and fostering racial hatred.

Stephen Donald Black
Set up Stormfront, a racist website. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by promoting serious criminal activity and fostering hatred, which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom.

Mike Guzovsky
Leader of a violent group and actively involved with military training camps. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts.

Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and Shirley Phelps-Roper
Pastor and leading spokesperson of Westboro Baptist Church. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom.

Michael Alan Weiner (also known as Michael Savage)
Controversial daily radio host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.

Now compare this to the fact that the United States banned the most important novelist of Latin America from entering the country due to his work in Cuba and relationship with Fidel Castro.

Nevermind that Gabriel Garcia Marquez has written novels and articles against domestic terrorists everywhere, the most famous being Notas de un secuestro. The fact that the Nobel Laureate and author of One Hundred Years of Solitude was considered a threat to our national security while Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Michael Savage have carte blanche to broadcast their hatred and desires of violence against women, people of color, gays and immigrants tells you how bigotry has become a markatable product in this country and a tool of political power.  more this way»

Queen Elizabeth II is currently engaging in the most low-key state visit imaginable; Her host is one George Bush in the city of Washington.

There are many ironies here. The Queen's own Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is set to depart from office on May 9th; and if the American people had any say in the matter, Her host would likely leave office before that date. Unfortunately, we do not have that option; and so, there's a spectacle in our White House, wherein the arguably most admired world leader has dinner with the most despised.

Bush and his wife, Laura, were waiting on the driveway on a near-perfect spring day as the queen and her husband, Prince Philip, arrived by limousine. The two couples briefly shook hands before moving on to the formal welcome.

A brilliantly blue sky framed the colorful ceremony where red, white and blue bunting was draped over the fencelines on the South Lawn. The United States Air Force Band led a grand military procession onto the lawn.

The Queen is known for Her absolutely impeccable manners; Her Husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, less so. I find myself wondering if the old man will mention to his host that the Duke has a grandson currently on his way to George Bush's war in Iraq. That's the unspoken subtext of this visit. George and Laura Bush, of course, can make no similar claim. The Duke might also mention that he actually served in the Royal Navy, and that his sons did as well; draft-dodging is frowned upon in the House of Windsor. Keep an eye on the Duke; he's worth watching on this occasion.  more this way»

Apropos of nothing in particular, here's the highlight of Madonna's recent concert tour, filmed in the Wembley Arena in London. Enjoy.

As far as I know there is no European yarmulke-specific ban. But there are numerous headscarf, burqa and veil bans in place or under consideration.

Yesterday I saw a pod on Current TV about Britain's consideration of a headscarf ban, pushed by politicians like Jack Straw. It wasn't the most detailed of their segments, but it showed some of the deep xenophobia behind this movement. As a side note, for those who haven't watched Current TV, they have some very powerful stuff. They filmed in North Korea, revealing how seriously weird and screwed up that place is and showing a wry humor in the process. Their earlier coverage of Haiti was excellent. Their coverage of the Iraq and Afghan wars from the point of view of both our soldiers and the citizens of those nations has sometimes been extraordinary. They have some crap, but some of their stuff is well worth watching.

Back to the headscarf ban.

In France a ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools has been in place since 2004. I don't like their law, but it has one advantage of including all "conspicuous" religious symbols. My question is has it been equally enforced? Have Jews been prevented from wearing their Yarmulkes openly? What about crucifixes?

Some German states have headsarf-specific bans, preventing school teachers from wearing them. One wonders world reaction had they made it a yarmulke-specific ban!  more this way»

Posted on Campaign to End the Death Penalty

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 28 December 2006

The Bush administration welcomed the confirmation of the death penalty against Saddam Hussein, reopening the divide with the European Union and the United Nations, which are opposed to execution.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said Saddam should not be hanged for crimes against humanity because his trial had been flawed and was marred by political interference by the Iraqi government.

A spokeswoman for Amnesty said: "We are against the death penalty as a matter of principle but particularly in this case because it comes after a flawed trial."

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said: "Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings. That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq's National Security Adviser underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein's trial."

Iraq's US-appointed interim government reinstated the death penalty in August 2004, causing friction with its coalition partner, Britain. The former top British representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said the UK would not participate in a tribunal or legal process that could lead to execution.

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday that while the execution of Saddam was "a matter for the Iraqis", Britain remained opposed to the death penalty, and had made representations to the government on that score.  more this way»

Killing an innocent bystander because he looks "muslim" is acceptable as long as it is meant to protect said by-stander from the actual terrorists.

Better err on the wrong side of right than to not err at all.

England has become the new United States, were murder is not a crime but an unsanitary nuisance.  more this way»