Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ The Gays

The new Jesus ‘n’ Mo strip is called LGBT. And it expresses the odious sentiment I saw right after the Orlando shootings: the first worry many Muslims and apologists had was not about how horrific the crime was, but about how much worse it would make people dislike Islam.
2016-06-22

From the Washington Post, we have a map of worldwide legal views of homosexuality and gay marriage, updated just a week ago. I’ll list the ten countries where homosexuality can be punished by death:

Afghanistan
Iran
Nigeria
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Yemen
Mauritana
United Arab Emirates

Every one of these countries is a Muslim-majority country.

This page gives you a list of 65 countries where homosexual acts are illegal. Re Palestine and Israel, according to Wikipedia, “Homosexuality is illegal in the Gaza Strip but not in the West Bank, although LGBT rights are not protected in either” and “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Israel are the most advanced in the Middle East and one of the most advanced in Asia.” Israel is in fact the only country in Asia to recognize same-sex unions.

The rest of the world (I am appalled that homosexuality is illegal in India, one of my favorite countries):

 

Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 7.55.58 AM Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 7.55.30 AM Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 7.55.42 AM Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 7.55.47 AM

 

 


60 Comments

  1. Randall Schenck
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    The blue parts on the map are the areas where common sense and secular forces have overcome religion.

    Latest information concerning the Orlando mass murderer is that he was bisexual. Not sure that item really says much of anything about his reasoning.

    • Scott Draper
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      Perhaps it’s just pop psychology, but there is this idea that what we hate most in others is the thing we hate most in ourselves.

      • Posted June 22, 2016 at 11:00 am | Permalink

        Otherwise known as reaction formation.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 22, 2016 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

          Apparently Doktor Freud is so out of fashion now he’s come all the way back around to being “pop”. Who knew?

  2. Paul S
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Belize is yellow, I haz a sad.

  3. Scott Draper
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    According to Wikipedia, in the US, 14 states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, even though they’ve been unenforceable for a while. And, surprise des surprises, these are mostly southern states. So, at least part of the US is ethically gray (ha!), even though technically blue.

    • p. puk
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      Adultery is a felony in Michigan.

      • Scott Draper
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:44 am | Permalink

        I’m always surprised to see that sort of thing in Northern states.

  4. RPGNo1
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Russia is neutral? Formally yes, but not in reality.
    And I fear, that the Russian government (with firm support of the Russian Orthodox Church and other nationalistic organizations) will tighten the thumbscrews in the future. 😦

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      When I was spending extended periods in Russia, they certainly weren’t tolerant of “blue boys,” and hadn’t heard of lesbians. The situation hasn’t improved, with Putin et al using them as targets for deflecting people’s attention from the country’s real problems.

  5. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    This does not seem to connect with what I read in why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq, which described an Islamic world largely tolerant of homosexual behavior.

    • Scott Draper
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      The book says

      the Koran, and Islamic law condemn wine drinking and homosexuality; in reality, Islamic civilization tolerates both.

      This is compatible with what Jerry posted above. It’s not clear what “tolerates” means.

      • p. puk
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

        It means we resist the urge to throw them out of buildings whenever we can. Sometimes the temptation is too great or the opportunity too easy.

        • Scott Draper
          Posted June 22, 2016 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

          Well, that’s what it means to you. “Tolerate” might mean that we allow the behavior until you piss someone off, then you get ratted to the authorities.

      • bric
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 11:39 am | Permalink

        It means it’s ok if you have enough money to pay the bribes

    • Posted June 22, 2016 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      There’s a disconnect between policy and law on the one hand and what people do on the other? That doesn’t sound surprising; it is true in many places in many respects.

  6. Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    You can test your knowledge of LGBT rights in the middle east with this handy quiz
    . http://order-order.com/2016/06/20/guidos-middle-east-gay-rights-quiz/

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

      4 for 4

  7. p. puk
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    Pedant here: Nigeria is NOT a Muslim majority country. Its primary religion is Christianity however the country is quite bipolar with very few Christians in the northern states.

    Indeed, capital punishment for homosexuality is only enforced by certain northern states where Sharia is applicable. Death by stoning is a religious mandate.

    That said, The secular laws of Nigeria are not terribly much friendlier to gays either.

    • Scott Draper
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      Wikipedia says that the ratio of Christian to Muslim isn’t clear. A Pew survey found that Muslims were more numerous; other polls found the opposite.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

        It is very tribe- and location- dependent. (At least that’s what I get from talking about general politics with Nigerians at work.) Sampling is going to be really difficult – if only because asking such questions will mark you as an outsider, and in the northern half of the country, that will mark you for kidnap and extortion or death by Boko Haram. There are a lot of not-nice people in Nigeria. Arguably more so than any of the other Bight of Benin countries.

  8. Kevin
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Maybe people like the idea of living a Hollywood drama/action movie. Being gay, living in hiding, living in psychological darkness and fear, never trusting anyone or anything, never able to love.

    It’s hard to make this kind of tragedy up, but religion is a fantastic authority on writing in the most adverse conditions for people to have to live.

    • Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

      In Iran, gays can come out and admit they have some kind of “sickness” and can’t function “naturally”.

      The benevolent government even exempts them from military service. It is as if they are females after all and are not fit for the service. They have to go through a humiliating and degrading process in which they are “examined” by military-approved doctors. They are also interviewed and need to admit that they can’t penetrate (which is considered the “manly” sexual function in the eyes of the Iranian military!)

      In the end the government issues a special exemption card for them. The color of the card instantly shows that the holder is afflicted with “neurological disorders” and can’t be hired for certain jobs.

  9. Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    If Nigeria is a Muslim-majority country, it is by a very narrow margin. See http://www.nairaland.com/2087216/christainity-largest-religion-nigeria-2014

    I was born in Nigeria and lived there until 1966. Went back for a month in 2008, traveled from the west to the east, then to central and finally northern Nigeria. Islam was clearly dominant in the north. The rest of the country felt extremely Christian.

    My impression was that the Christian missionary enterprise had been wildly successful there. Of course, these are largely subjective observations, and since both Muslims and Christians in the country are mostly fundamentalists, it makes little difference to the discussion of LGBT issues at hand.

  10. Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Turns out Freud was on to something after all.

  11. Henry Pickson
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I recently read one person write “Muslim countries and people don’t have any more animus towards lgbt than any other people, and less than Christians” and “Those that do are ones are areas with Western colonial history.”

    When I provided stats from Pew Research to show it appears otherwise in 35 Muslim majority countries, (plus Iran and Saudi Arabia) I was told (paraphrasing):

    “Islam has a rich and varied history with a wide variety of beliefs” and “there is a difference between homosexuality and same sex attraction”, and “American Muslims have a much higher acceptance of homosexuality” Along with four (long and painful) paragraphs of similar assertions that did not support her original assertion, nor change the basic assertion that it appears to be religiously inspired hatred towards a minority group.

    I pointed out legal immigrants coming into America are selected to be those most compatible with America’s multitude of beliefs, people best able to fit into American life where there are many varied peoples, not a random sample, so it’s not a surprise that they have higher acceptance of lgbt people.

    I honestly didn’t know what else to say or where to begin with the rest of her assertions.

    • Kevin
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      Legal immigrants to America from Asia, Middle East, India and Africa are definitely not a random sample. I have never really left America in my life, but know many foreign born people and if I were to base my impression on their home countries in association with how they behave almost all would be secular (or only privately religious), hard working, highly educated and or elite athlete. America, with all of its flaws, certainly does attract some of the better parts of humanity.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        Legal immigrants to America from Asia, Middle East, India and Africa are definitely not a random sample.

        The converse is certainly true too – the people I’ve known who have legally emigrated from America to [other countries] are very disparate to the Americans I’ve met who are temporarily located in other countries for their work.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted June 22, 2016 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

          One example – ex-pats in the last 50 years overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party. It’s never even close.

          • gravelinspector-Aidan
            Posted June 22, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

            That drifting cobweb … didn’t bowl me over in my astonishment.

      • Henry Pickson
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

        Yes. They are not just self selected, but selected by US immigration as well. They not only need to have the drive, motivation, intelligence, but are also selected by US immigration out of a very large pool of potential immigrants.

        There are literally boatloads of people wanting to get into the US, the USA can be (and I would argue should be) picky about the kind of people they let in. Or I should say, the USA can be and are picky about the attitudes and ethics of the people they let in, as well as other attributes deemed positive, education, wealth, etc.

        This is different from (some?) Western European countries where the immigrants are self selected but still a subset of a much larger number of people fleeing Syria or other countries, but bypassing regular immigration procedures.

    • p. puk
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      An Algerian friend of mine told me that “giving” anal sex wasn’t homosexual but “taking” it was. He also said that there is no shortage of heterosexual men having sex with “homosexuals” in Algeria where, presumably, more than 90% of people think that homosexuality is immoral.

      Women are not available for sex until marriage but homosexuals are.

      Makes loads of sense, doesn’t it?

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

        That is very much the opinion that the Romans had too – and is also reflected in the comments up-thread about Iran. (“foxer” in thread #8)

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

        Very similar to the attitude of those in prison.

        More proof that religion is a prison of the mind.

      • Posted June 23, 2016 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

        An old queen once told me, “Honey it doesn’t matter if you’re pitching or you’re catching, you’re both playing ball.”

        Islam is also littered with arcane fatwas about “animal husbandry” aka know your goat or camel in a biblical way, which is permissable, you just need to kill the animal after your cigarette and sell the meat to a neighboring village.

        All of this could be avoided with a healthy attitude about human sexuality.

        But noooooooo.

  12. Posted June 22, 2016 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Gay rights are a joke in the Middle East. But they are also a joke in many other places (Russia).

    However, the debate is not about reforming Islam or convincing ME dictators on gay rights as much as it is about determining if Islam is a religion or a violent militant ideology and if it should be tolerated in the open Western societies.

    This is essentially a Western problem, not an Islamic one. In criticizing Islam, many have gone too far and judged Muslims as a huge collective who have a common historical goal: destroying Western civilization.

    Nothing can be further from the truth, and I shudder when I see racists, fascists, and otherwise extremist Christians side with atheists when it comes to Muslims. Thankfully, we still have a long way to state-endorsed Muslim persecution. But it is important to understand that these people want just that! They are not interested in a civil debate about religion. They want blood. They want to see Muslims violently gathered and expelled from the West.

    It is in this political climate that repressive Islamic governments find fertile ground to spend their petrodollars on vulnerable young Muslims in Europe and US and turn them against their own countries.

    • p. puk
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

      Yet one of the cornerstones of Islamic theology is AL WALA’ WAL BARA’ which means to love and hate for the sake of Allah.

      Love that which Allah loves and hate that which Allah hates.

      To me this makes anyone who professes such theology a member of a hate group. And if the KKK is not tolerated, why should proponents of AL WALA’ WAL BARA’ be tolerated?

      • Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        Well, Islam is just like any other religion. It is a cacophony of conflicting ideas. The one you mentioned is one of them. There are other ideas in Islam that can justify religious freedoms and property rights (two more jokes in the Middle East BTW)

        And as I see it, KKK is tolerated in the West. They are not legally persecuted. There is no drone hovering over suspected KKK gathering and firing missile into their homes to take out one of their leaders!

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

          And as I see it, KKK is tolerated in the West.

          They’re not tolerated in the UK – indeed active members of the KKK have been banned from entering the UK because they’re active members of the KKK. By “the West”, do you mean “America”? If so, say so, because I suspect that there will be pushback from the Canadians on the board too.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted June 22, 2016 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

            And Kiwis. And I object to the casual conflation of atheists and right wingers foxer made too. Atheists criticize the ideas of Islam, not all Muslims, and I’m sick of having to make this point to those incapable of seeing the difference.

            • gravelinspector-Aidan
              Posted June 22, 2016 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

              Atheists criticize the ideas of Islam,

              s/Islam/religion/
              A plague on all their houses. All of them ; and a really nasty plague at that. Something itchy, visible, and extremely embarrassing. But only slowly fatal. (If there’s even a slight chance of getting what you wish for, best be very clear what you wish for.)

            • Posted June 22, 2016 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

              I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not trying to discourage any form of debate or criticism of Islam. Certainly I am not trying to brand a large group of people as “atheists” and then attack them based on what I think they think!

              I am merely bringing up the point about the dangers of painting all Muslims with this large collective brush and involving vague terms like culture in the debate. This danger is by no means a small one.

              The results of acquiring this kind of rhetoric and adhering to it can be disastrous. A few months ago, Sam Harris brought this British? guy to his podcast and the guy ranted the whole time about Muslim immigrants claiming they are not compatible with “European values”, to which Mr.Harris didn’t really object.

              Is this what the West has come to be? Closing its doors in the faces of war refugees based on some vague notion of “culture” or even “security”? This is moral bankruptcy, and I don’t care if an atheist utters it or not.

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted June 22, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

                So Sam Harris talks to Douglas Murray and immediately all atheists are right-wing when it comes to Muslims? I was one of those who spoke out on Twitter against Douglas Murray and thought Harris shouldn’t give Murray air time, as did many others. However, talking to someone doesn’t mean you share their views.

                And I have written on my website opposing those in the US who oppose taking refugees.

                I do not paint Muslims with a broad collective brush. When I make criticisms it is of specific people or specific doctrines of Islam. The constant charge that criticism of Islam is criticism of Muslims is a prejudice of low expectations.

            • Posted June 22, 2016 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

              I don’t think foxer was making a broad conflation of atheists with right wingers. I doubt the point of the comment was to assert that atheists are conflating criticism of Islamic doctrine with condemnations of Muslims as indivuals, I think the point was to be critical of those atheists whom actually are condemning all Muslims. As I said in an earlier comment on this thread, there are bloggers, youtubers and the like that identify as atheists or skeptics that have become so fixated on the criticizing the regressive left that they’ve boiled geopolitcs down to Muslim immigration in Western Europe and free speech on college campuses and have essentially given the right a free pass. Which is unbelievably scary to me. Where I live, politicans that are considered unelectably liberal would be situated well to the right of most tories. It’s not all atheists, it’s not even a high percentage of us in my estimation, but it’s still very disheartening and I think represents an encroachment of tribalism and disingenuous polemics in a community that should be extremely wary of such things.

            • Posted June 22, 2016 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

              I don’t think foxer was making a broad conflation of atheists with right wingers. I doubt the point of the comment was to assert that atheists are conflating criticism of Islamic doctrine with condemnations of Muslims as indivuals, I think the point was to be critical of those atheists whom actually are condemning all Muslims. As I said in an earlier comment on this thread, there are bloggers, youtubers and the like that identify as atheists or skeptics that have become so fixated on the criticizing the regressive left that they’ve boiled geopolitcs down to Muslim immigration in Western Europe and free speech on college campuses and have essentially given the right a free pass. Which is unbelievably scary to me. Where I live, politicans that are considered unelectably liberal would be situated well to the right of most tories. It’s not all atheists, it’s not even a high percentage of us in my estimation, but it’s still very disheartening and I think represents an encroachment of tribalism and disingenuous polemics in a community that should be extremely wary of such things.

            • Posted June 22, 2016 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

              I don’t think foxer was making a broad conflation of atheists with right wingers. I doubt the point of the comment was to assert that atheists are conflating criticism of Islamic doctrine with condemnations of Muslims as indivuals, I think the point was to be critical of those atheists whom actually are condemning all Muslims. As I said in an earlier comment on this thread, there are bloggers, youtubers and the like that identify as atheists or skeptics that have become so fixated on the criticizing the regressive left that they’ve boiled geopolitcs down to Muslim immigration in Western Europe and free speech on college campuses and have essentially given the right a free pass. Which is unbelievably scary to me. Where I live, politicans that are considered unelectably liberal would be situated well to the right of most tories. It’s not all atheists, it’s not even a high percentage of us in my estimation, but it’s still very disheartening and I think represents an encroachment of tribalism and disingenuous polemics in a community that should be extremely wary of such things.

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

                If I misunderstood, I apologize unreservedly. I agree with all you’ve said about the situation with some atheists.

          • Posted June 22, 2016 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

            I think it depends on how one defines tolerated in this context. The KKK are tolerated in that their right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment. But, most Americans, even in places like Alabama and Mississippi, think they’re utterly reprehensible.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 22, 2016 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

          … KKK is tolerated in the West. They are not legally persecuted.

          Members of the Klan are not persecuted in the US for their speech or beliefs. If they engage in acts that contravene the law, however, they’re subject to criminal prosecution, same as everyone else.

          I’m all in favor of giving safe haven in the US to human-rights refugees, but think they should be screened prior to entry to ensure they’ll abide by the host nation’s laws and mores while here.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      However, the debate is not about reforming Islam or convincing ME dictators on gay rights as much as it is about determining if Islam is a religion or a violent militant ideology and if it should be tolerated in the open Western societies.

      It’s not a binary (“either/ or”) choice. A religion can simultaneously be a violent and militaristic ideology. Example : Bushido (also several Hindism variants).

      Thankfully, we still have a long way to state-endorsed Muslim persecution.[…] They are not interested in a civil debate about religion. They want blood. They want to see Muslims violently gathered and expelled from the West.

      You’ll be voting for Trump then? [GRIN]

      It is in this political climate that repressive Islamic governments find fertile ground to spend their petrodollars on vulnerable young Muslims in Europe and US and turn them against their own countries.

      By no means all Islamic countries have significant “petrodollars”. If you’re trying to say something, say it, not a proxy for what you want to say. If you’re pointing fingers at a particular country, do so. I doubt you’re talking about Mauritania or Senegal.

    • Posted June 22, 2016 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      “. . . and I shudder when I see racists, fascists, and otherwise extremist Christians side with atheists when it comes to Muslims”
      I, sadly, agree. There are corners of the “skeptic” community which have become very, very ugly in recent months. There are even more “skeptics” whom have become so fixated on throwing shade at the regressive left that Milo Yiannopoulos, a perpetually trolling climate change denier, has become something of a flok hero in that community. I identified as a feminist for over twenty years and I know fiirsthand that there are mnay substantive criticisms that can be made of 3rd wave or intersectional feminism, but going on the BBC and calling them all “fat lesbians” isn’t among them. It makes no sense for a public figure like that to be embraced by anyone calling themselves a skeptic, nor does it make flat-out racsim and xenophobia a legitimate criticism of religious dogma.

    • Posted June 23, 2016 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

      Destroying Western civilization is of course not a common historical goal of Muslims, but I fear it will be the result of the actions of some of them, and of inaction of Westerners. Like it happened in Lebanon, on a larger scale.

  13. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Fear of consequent Islamophobia would be slightly OK had the victims in Orlando NOT been gay. Even so it should be a secondary concern (or even better tertiary, or quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary, or denary.)

    I recall that after Ronald Reagan was shot in 1982, some commentator expressed a sigh of relief that the shooter was from an affluent white family. Now that I can get behind!

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      I noticed a lot of cops beating up Coke machines with their night sticks in the years after the Reagan shooting.

  14. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Interesting map. Confounds some expectations. Northern Ireland is probably dragging the representation of the UK down by a notch (hardly an unprecedented situation).
    I would have expected Greenland to have “inherited” it’s status from Denmark – but I do know that the Danes have been quietly but steadily devolving powers to Greenland over the years, despite the considerable petrodollar potential. Seems to be some anomalies along the Mauritannia- Western Sahara border.
    The stand-out country in South America is Guyana, so I suspect that the laws there are more a reflection of un-repealed / un-reconsidered legal hang-overs from when it as a British Colony (we did drive one of the pioneers of computing to chemical castration and suicide about the time Guyana was acquiring independence).
    I’m surprised that Thailand hasn’t legalised same-sex relations, considering that there are posters going up locally for a visitation from the “Lady Boys of Bangkok” – a circus show where they’ve swapped the caged cats for powdered and be-wigged transvestites.
    The map’s compilers have recognised Somaliland, which would not be a good idea if they’re planning an Indian Ocean cruise any time soon.
    I’m very surprised to see that South Africa has legalised same-sex marriage. I bet that the situation on the ground is different to the situation in the law books.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 22, 2016 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

      I know of at least two mosques in Cape Town that welcome LGBT people and where men and women worship side by side. They’ve had some difficulties from more conservative Muslims, but it’s a sign of progress nevertheless.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted June 22, 2016 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        It is a sign of progress.
        However, the rhetoric of the very large majority of African tribal leaders (which almost exclusively means males) who I’ve head is vehemently, viciously anti-(male) gay. Also they’re not exactly enamoured of women’s rights.
        A very long way to go.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted June 22, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

          You’re quite right. I’m just saying that there is progress in South Africa, and it’s doing better than the rest of the continent in that regard.

        • Posted June 23, 2016 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

          Not only anti-male. Some African lesbians have suffered “corrective” rape, i.e. being raped, often gang-raped, with the justification that the forced intercourse would make them appreciate hetero-sex.

  15. Leigh Jackson
    Posted June 22, 2016 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    The death sentence for the crime of “buggery” in England was not abolished until 1861 and a hundred years later homophobia in the UK was still endemic in British society – and law. The British homophobic dark ages extends to my lifetime. Britain has seen the light – but only just seen it.


%d bloggers like this: