Friday, April 29, 2005
RACE & IQ
"You recently posted an article about Ashkenazi Jews outperforming everybody else. The implication there was that about 1,500 years of the high intensity evolutionary pressure provided by goyim mobs was enough to produce a 12% IQ increase. This would actually fit quite well with the sort of differences we see < American blacks running at 12/15 points lower than whites for the last ceantury>. One problem with assuming that there have been substantial racial IQ differences over evolutionary periods is that one would have expected the smarter race to supplant the other while we were still living in caves. If, however, we assume that high IQ is not an evolutionary advantage to pre-urban societies & did not exist then, it would explain why there has been no long term evolutionary pressure in favour of Chinese & against sub-saharans
This would suggest that IQ differences would be apparent between racially quite similar groups
As regards the nature/nurture argument it is worth remembering that European culture has outrun Chinese & Scandinavian, Iraqi over the last few centuries so good luck & not being visited by Jenghiz Khan may beat brains
I remember reading somewhere that Polynesians score higher than just about anybody - since they have been settled for not much over a millennium this supports the quick evolution theory if we also accept the idea, popular in the US, that people who migrate tend to be smarter than those who stay at home
On the other hand I understand that the largest cranial cases ever found belong to Cro-Magnon & Neanderthal skulls
QUALITY RISES TO THE TOP
It appears that the leadership of Glasgow Labour & thus the Council, with responsibility for 2.5 billion of spending is maintaining it's well known & unique
THE Diary passed comment (April 27) on the leaflet produced for John Robertson, the Labour candidate for Glasgow North-west, in which it is claimed that "Spending on Education has went up 52%". The leaflet refers also to a "national minimim wage" and "record spending on tenant's homes". The election agent responsible for the content of this leaflet is Steven Purcell, the prospective leader of the Labour Group on Glasgow City Council.Congratulations Mr Bruce
Labour may indeed have introduced several new taxes by stealth but, clearly, syntax is not one of them.
Michael Bruce, 50 Millbrix Avenue, Glasgow.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Somebody described Goldsmith on C4 tonight as "pliable" for later changing his advice - I would not be so euphamistic - what is the law worth when the country's chief law officer is so corrupt that he will reverse himself at a word from his master.
If you don't want to go through the full thing here, from clause 29, is the essence of his original legal opinion:
the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperationTHESE PEOPLE ARE SCUM
PS From Section here is a titbit which is rather relevant to the AG's opinion on the illegality of the previous War To Commit Genocide With the KLA:
However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
WAS THE WAR AGAINST YUGOSLAVIA LEGAL - THE GOVERNMENT WON'T SAY IF THEY EVER ASKED
At first glance the case that the Yugoslav war was illegal is much stronger than for Iraq. Instead of being in a state of technical ceasefire with Iraq, we were at peace with & legally required to "take no action against the territorial integrity or unity" of Yugoslavia (line 1, clause 1, section 1 of the Helsinki Treaty)(we still are). We knew when we went to war to help them that "On its part, the Kosovo Liberation Army has committed more breaches of the ceasefire, and until this weekend was responsible for more deaths than the security forces" (Foreign Secretary Cook 18/1/99 2 months before going to war to help them). The "this weekend remark was regarding the Racak incident which has since been proven forensically to have been faked & on which the US "discoverer" has, under oath, reversed himself. We knew the KLA's first public act was the mass racial murder of group of unarmed Serb refugees & that they were thus guilty of & committed to genocide. Finally, unlike Iraq we knew Yugoslavia was a state with a democratically elected government, had never been an aggressor & had, in the 1970s, taken a specific decision not to create nuclear or other WMDs.
The astonishing thing about the reply worthy of Sir Humphrey, given under, is not that they didn't answer the question but that they specifically refused to say that the government had ever even asked if this war was legal:
"to disclose that the Law Officers have not advised on an issue might expose the government to criticism for not having consulted them, and hence having failed to give sufficient weight to the issue"
The reason alleged here for refusing to disclose, that it would establish a precedent, is clearly in conflict with other facts since the precedent has already been set in the case of Iraq. The obvious conclusion is that the government refused to take formal legal advice on the legality or otherwise of bombing Yugoslavia, if they were competent because they already knew this was a war crime & if they were not competent, because they didn't care.
I publicly accuse Mr Blair of being guilty of a war crime & of murder on a scale that makes Fred West look like a respectable citizen. I invite him to defend such reputation as he may still have.
Neil Craig 27 Woodlands Drive Glasgow G4 9DN
26 April 2005
Dear Mr Craig
Legal opinion of the Attorney General and Yugoslavia
Thank you for your email of 24 March which, owing to the Bank Holidays, was not received until 29 March. The Department for Constitutional Affairs can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in s.1 (1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of s.35 (1)(c) of that Act. I consider that, in the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether or not this Office holds the information. However, this should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you requested exists or does not exist.
Section 35(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides that information is exempt information if it relates to the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice. Section 35(3) and section 2(1)(b) together provide that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in respect of information which is exempt (or would be exempt) under section 35(1) if the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether or not this Office holds the information.
Section 35 is statutory recognition of the public interest in allowing government to have a clear space, immune from exposure to public view, in which it can debate matters internally with candour and free from the pressures of public political debate.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring that a government department is able to act free from external pressure in deciding what sort of legal advice it obtains, at what stage, from whom, and in particular whether it should seek advice from the Law Officers. This strong public interest is reflected in the long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, that neither the advice of Law Officers, nor the fact that their advice has been sought, is disclosed outside government. This convention is recognised in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code. It is also an interest which is recognised by the particular form of words used in section 35(1)(c) (contrast the general provision in relation to legal professional privilege in section 42(1)).
Since the Law Officers are the government’s most senior legal advisers, their advice has a particularly authoritative status within government. However, the need for government to obtain legal advice on a very wide range of matters is such that it would be impossible for such advice to be provided by the Law Officers in every case. Disclosure of the occasions when legal advice has been sought from the Law Officers would therefore have the effect of disclosing those matters which, in the judgment of the government, have a particularly high political priority or are assessed to be of particular legal difficulty. This would be directly counter to the strong public interest which underlies the whole of section 35 (see above). To disclose routinely whether the Law Officers have advised on particular issues would potentially create a two-fold detriment. On the one hand, to disclose that they have advised on an issue could be taken to indicate that particular importance was attached to it or even that the Government was in particular doubt about the strength of its legal position. Even if that impression were unfounded, the risk of creating it might deter the Government from consulting the Law Officers in appropriate cases. On the other hand, to disclose that the Law Officers have not advised on an issue might expose the government to criticism for not having consulted them, and hence having failed to give sufficient weight to the issue or to obtain the “best” advice. Again, even if unfounded this could lead to pressure to consult the Law Officers in inappropriate cases or in an unmanageably large number of cases.
In the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny and maintaining the current convention outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether or not the Department holds the information requested.
If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request, you may ask for an internal review. Requests for internal review should be addressed to: Access Rights Unit, Department for Constitutional Affairs, 1st floor, Clive House, 70 Petty France, London SW1H 9HD.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
If you have any queries about your request please contact me.
Head of Access Rights Unit