Terror and internment

As I write, there has recently been yet another terror attack in Britain – the third this year.  Westminster and Manchester have both been targeted, and now the area around London Bridge as well.

It is reported that Prime Minister Theresa May has announced four tough new measures to deal with Islamic terror, which are:

• Continue military action on ISIS in Syria and Iraq;
• Make it harder for terror attacks to be planned online;
• Tougher prison sentences for terrorists;
• Persuade Muslim extremists that pluralistic values are superior to their own ideology.

I have already outlined in previous posts why the first measure is – to put it mildly - illogical.  The second measure makes sense, but time will tell how effective it will be in practice.  The third measure does not make much sense, unfortunately.   Three recent terror attacks have ended with the perpetrators dead.  One was killed by his own bomb, and the others were shot by the police.  If you plan to carry out a terror attack in which you expect to die, then you are unlikely to fear a prison sentence.

As for the final measure, I would be interested to know in what way the government intends to persuade Muslim extremists that they are wrong.  It would of course help matters if they could start by identifying who the Muslim extremists actually are.

A recent commentary by Katie Hopkins also takes the Prime Minister to task on this issue, but is also rather short on solutions.  Hopkins goes further than the Prime Minister, by arguing that all people suspected of being sympathetic to ISIS should be interned.  A commentary by Ross Clark argues a similar case, and notes that:

We certainly did not leave things to chance at the outbreak of the Second World War when 80,000 enemy aliens and fascist sympathisers were rounded up and put before special tribunals to assess the risk they posed to the nation.

Most were released but not before the authorities could be sure that they were not planning to assist the Nazis.

True, internment gained a bad name at the start of the Northern Ireland Troubles, when 2,000 suspected terrorists were rounded up – but failed to stop many others conducting a campaign of bombings and shootings.

But the difference then was that the suspects were held without trial.

We do not have to intern without trial Britons who have travelled to join IS because what they have done is a criminal offence.

This may be true, but surely the Britons who have fought for ISIS abroad are only a part of the problem.   So far as I am aware, not one of the five men who carried out the three recent terror attacks had ever fought for ISIS abroad.

I also wonder if either Hopkins or Clark would be keen on the idea of internment if they themselves were likely to be interned.  Let’s be clear about this.  The British government in the 1940s interned people they considered to be politically dangerous.  Hitler’s National Socialist regime also interned people they considered to be politically dangerous.  The difference was what exactly?

Comments are welcome.

Related previous posts include:

Terror in Manchester
The insanity of a war without frontiers

Churchill versus Hitler

A national newspaper is reporting that a new film about Winston Churchill contains many errors.  I do not know and do not care whether or not this is true.

Recently the political party Britain First organised a protest march in London which met with a violent counter-protest.  The march was protesting about Islamic terror attacks, and so presumably the counter-protest was largely made up of people who support Islamic terror attacks.

It was not at all surprising to see many of the counter-protest group holding placards bearing slogans expressing opposition to Hitler’s national socialist regime.  Then again, perhaps it ought to be surprising, given that Paul Golding of Britain First has said publicly that he admires Winston Churchill.

It is perhaps important to note that Paul Golding is aware of something which many people either do not know, or else try to conceal – and that is that Winston Churchill compared Islam with rabies.

I find it curious that many people – whatever their view of Adolf Hitler might be – are reluctant to admit the fact that he was tolerant of Islam.  In fact many thousands of Muslims fought in Hitler’s armies, and at least some of them are known to have fought tenaciously.

Related previous posts include:

Blame the establishment for the march of Islam

Religion and science education

A national newspaper recently reported an academic study into religion and science.  The study was a collaborative effort by psychologists at two universities, one in Britain and one in the USA, and it concluded that countries which tend to be strongly religious tend not to perform well in the teaching of mathematics and science at school.

I am aware that newspaper reports are often misleading, and so I recently took the time to speak with one of the academics involved in the study to find out more.

First, it appears that the authors of the report relied in part on a survey of attitudes to religion which they themselves did not compile.  This survey ranks eighty-two countries as to how strongly religious people in those countries tend to be.  Of the twelve deemed most religious, only two are predominantly Christian countries, with the other ten being Muslim countries.  Of the twelve deemed the least religious, almost all are predominantly Christian countries.

The authors discuss a displacement hypothesis, whereby school pupils spend time learning about religion instead of learning about science and mathematics.  Obviously this hypothesis applies equally to other subjects.  Time spent studying a foreign language is time not spent studying science or mathematics.

Also, time alone is no guarantee of quality.  Half an hour spent in a classroom with a good teacher is surely more valuable than an hour spent in a classroom with an inadequate teacher.

In other words, this academic study appears to be so vague in its findings as to be of very little value.  If the authors would like to carry out further research, then maybe they could give us some more significant insights, but I see little reason to respond enthusiastically to a study which apparently treats all religions the same.  They are not all the same.

Terror in Westminster

A sufficient amount of time has passed since the terror attack in Westminster for me to feel confident about sharing my thoughts.

The facts are that a fifty-two year old Muslim man with a known history of violence drove a car onto the pavement while crossing Westminster bridge, deliberately ploughing into numerous pedestrians.  He then got out of his car in the precincts of the Houses of Parliament, and stabbed a policeman before being shot by another policeman.

The attacker – identified as Khalid Masood - died of his injuries, but by this point had killed four people and injured around forty others.

Unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister has publicly stated that Islam is not to blame.  It is also not surprising that she did not blame her own failings.  Prior to becoming Prime Minister last year, she served for six years as Home Secretary, and I have no problem in describing her as the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.  Masood might not have perpetrated this attack had he been imprisoned for some of his previous acts of violence, yet we live in a society in which far too many violent criminals escape with non-custodial sentences - assuming that they are even prosecuted in the first place.

It is also not surprising that Mrs May has not blamed the belligerent policies of successive British governments.  She happily served in the government of the warmonger David Cameron.

The Mayor of London has received a lot of criticism for saying that terror attacks are part and parcel of living in a large city.  There are in fact around twenty cities in the world with a larger population than London, plus another fifteen or so of similar size.  How many of those cities experience anything like what happened in Westminster?

It appears that Londoners are now living their lives very much as before, and proudly so.  This is important, because terrorism normally affects us in two ways.  First, the incident itself causes death and injury and destruction; second, the aftermath is that everyday life is to some extent disrupted as a consequence.  In fact sometimes the disruption is the only consequence.  The Provisional IRA used to explode bombs in central London, but then they experimented with planting bombs at railway stations and then informing the police by telephone.  The station would then be closed, and the bomb would be located and made safe.  No one would be killed or injured, but the disruption to the rail services served as the triumph of the terrorists.

It is reported that a leading media figure has spoken sneeringly of the dead attacker, and has referred to London as the city that stood up to the Luftwaffe, but the comparison is naive.  The Luftwaffe sent aeroplanes which could be identified and shot down, and which were not easily replaced.  Masood’s deadly rampage may not have been as devastating as a Luftwaffe bombing raid, but it was achieved with very little in the way of resources.  Quite simply, almost any car in Britain could be used tomorrow as a murder weapon.

There is of course a link to immigration, and I cannot resist quoting Richard Littlejohn on this subject:

The politicians have opened the floodgates to mass immigration without insisting on integration.

They pretend every culture, no matter how medieval and barbaric, is worthy of equal respect.

This is the same Richard Littlejohn who to my knowledge has never once made a positive comment about any political party which seeks to end immigration, or about any political party which seeks to put pressure on immigrants to integrate with the wider community.  (If I am wrong about this, please leave a comment.)

The United Kingdom continues to wage war against Islamic countries, and is currently doing so under the pretence of fighting ISIS.  The downside is that ISIS has a fifth column operating in this country, and the next ISIS-inspired terror attack could happen tomorrow.  A Muslim man (or woman) driving a car could easily mount the kerb, and where will you be when that happens?

I find it astonishing that so many police officers in this country are happy to persecute anti-establishment politicians.  I have long since lost count of the number of incidents I have come across where members of anti-establishment political parties have been arrested or mistreated by the police without good reason - including the instance of a parliamentary candidate who was removed from a hustings by police because a Labour councillor did not want him there.

I do not blame anti-establishment politicians for the murder of PC Keith Palmer.  Does anyone?

Update: it is now being claimed that Masood was not linked to ISIS.  Even if no formal link can be established, then this does not eliminate the possibility that Masood saw himself as striking a blow for ISIS.

The proper limits of government

Once again I find myself with many things to write about, but I am drawn to a press report on the case of a prison chaplain called Barry Trayhorn who is taking HMP Littlehey in Cambridgeshire to an employment tribunal because they objected to him reading out loud a passage from The Bible concerning homosexuality.

My first reaction is to wonder what the point is of having chaplains in prison if they are not allowed to quote the book which is after all foundational to their religion.  I also wonder what the prison's reaction would be to an imam quoting an Islamic source about homosexuality.

However what really interests me here is one of the comments left on the website of a national newspaper, which reads as follows:

If the Bible contains text that breaks the law, it should be removed from sale and public viewing, so should any other religious book that does the same. Why should people be subject to abuse by medieval practices and literature.

An immediate response is that this comment is a classic example of Britain's ongoing slide into communism. If communists do not like a text, then no one should be allowed to read it.  As it happens I do not like The Koran, but I do not seek to ban other people from reading it, although I have previously advanced a case for banning it from prisons.

I then found myself pondering the question of the proper limits of government.  In Britain, governments enact laws with the support of parliament.  On the whole I feel that laws are there to be obeyed, even if I do not agree with them.  Nevertheless there may be exceptions.  For example it is illegal to beg in public, but I wonder how many people would refuse to beg if they had no other source of income.

So far as I am aware, it is not currently illegal to give money to a beggar.  If it were, I wonder how many of us would never break that particular law?

If people are expected to obey laws, then it is perhaps reasonable that governments should tend not to enact laws which people are unwilling to obey.  A failure to understand this simple point appears to be one of the hallmarks of a communist.

Update: Barry Trayhorn's employment tribunal claim was unsuccessful.  I merely observe the fact.

Related previous posts include:
Now ban The Koran

The great paedo cover up continues

It is reported in the press that the government is planning to bring in new laws whereby it will be an imprisonable offence for any social worker or councillor or police officer to conspire in a cover up of paedophile activity.  Here are the facts so far as I can make them out.

According to at least one national newspaper report, Muslim paedophile gangs have been operating in this country since at least 1979, but for most of that time police officers and social workers took no action.  I believe that there may have been a prosecution in 1997, but if so then I don't know any details.

According to a recent report, Muslim paedophile gangs have been operating in Oxfordshire since 1999.  The British National Party found out about Muslim paedophile gangs in Lancashire and West Yorkshire in 2001, and began campaigning for prosecutions to take place, for which they received no praise or recognition from the evil establishment.

In 2004 the BBC secretly filmed the BNP leader Nick Griffin making a speech about paedophile gangs in the Yorkshire town of Keighley, which led to him being prosecuted twice by the evil establishment.  He received no support from any national newspaper, nor any mainstream political party, nor any church leader.

The first prosecutions of Muslim paedophile gang members I am aware of were in the summer of 2009, which by a not remotely curious coincidence was when two members of the British National Party were elected to the European Parliament.

I do not know how many members the British National Party had in 2001, but I imagine it would have been only a few thousand at most.  To suggest that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats - with not only far more members, but with councillors and MPs as well - knew nothing about the Muslim paedophile gangs is absurd.  Likewise, to suggest that no one in the Church of England or the national press knew nothing about it strains credibility to the limits.

A new law to imprison people who cover up child abuse will be only as much use as the extent to which it is used.  After all, raping children has been illegal for as long as I can remember, but that didn't stop the establishment doing nothing about it for years.

The reason why the establishment covered up Muslim rapist gangs for many years is because they are evil.  However for anyone wanting a more detailed answer, this Britain First video is instructive:

As it happens, Muhammad did not marry a child, because the real Muhammad is Jesus.  The Muhammad of Islam never existed.

Related previous posts include:
Now study Islam
The Church of England, race, and paedophiles

Blame the establishment for the march of Islam

George Galloway has spoken out against Pegida at its march in Newcastle today.  Before I comment on this, I will draw the reader's attention to a comment by Richard Littlejohn about Muslims from this country who go abroad to fight for Islam. I agree with him when he talks about institutionalised cowardice, but he does have trouble joining the dots at times.

Pegida has been described as far-right and extremist in the national press, and George Galloway has been quoted as calling them a German Nazi group.  A Pegida spokesman has been quoted as saying that they are not anti-Islam, but rather that they are opposed to extremism.  Here are some facts.

The term far-right is so hard to define as to be almost meaningless.  The words extremist and extremism are utterly devoid of practical meaning.  Adolf Hitler was tolerant of Islam, and allowed Muslims to serve in the Waffen-SS, and so it is not clear on what basis we should regard Pegida as Nazi.  This quote is from Wikipedia:

He [Himmler] was personally fascinated by the Islamic faith and believed that Islam created fearless soldiers.  He found their ferocity preferable to the gentility of Christians and believed their martial qualities should be further developed and put to use.  He thought that Muslim men would make perfect SS soldier

I am not a supporter of Pegida, but neither am I a supporter of the cowardly and infantile British establishment.

Islam is a belief system which is founded on a book which says what The Koran says.  Instead of accepting this simple fact, however, the establishment expects us to be blind to the truth.

I will admit in defence of George Galloway that he is opposed to Britain going to war against Muslim countries.  When we have around three million Muslims in this country and at the same time we allow our armed forces to kill Muslims in other countries, then we should not be surprised if some Muslims in this country take up arms in the cause of their fellow Muslims.

Rather than admit this, however, the government continues to wage illegal wars, and continues to allow more immigration, thereby swelling the Muslim population of this country.

Related previous posts include:
Respect MP assaulted
The future of the Muslim world

Emma and Chris are veritaphobic

Actress Emma Watson has recently made a speech to the United Nations about gender equality.  A video of this speech is included below.  Meanwhile, the Daily Express has published an essay by Chris Roycroft-Davies, who if I've got it right is or used to be a speechwriter for the war criminal David Cameron.  His essay can be read here.

Chris Roycroft-Davis

Emma Watson makes some good points, whereas Chris Roycroft-Davies makes hardly any.

He begins by quoting Otto von Bismarck about blood and iron, although I'm not sure that Bismarck is the best possible role model for humane government.  In fact I'm quite sure he isn't.

Roycroft-Davies then asserts that Britain will soon be joining in the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, although my understanding is that that is subject to a vote in parliament which has not yet taken place.

He argues that Britain has no choice but to enter the war, but he is wrong.  Last year British MPs voted against entering a war against Syria in order to remove President Assad, but now they are expected to vote to go to war against the enemies of Assad.

Perhaps the only truth he utters is that we are faced with an enemy fighting a war without borders.

In recent years, Britain has gone to war against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and each of those wars has made the world a more dangerous place.  This new war is unlikely to be any different.

And so to my central point: Emma Watson and Chris Roycroft-Davies are united in their veritaphobia - the fear of the truth.  Emma Watson does not mention the fact that Islam is a huge obstacle to gender equality.  Islam is after all founded on a book which says that Muslim men may beat and rape their wives.  Chris Roycroft-Davies does not mention the fact that Islam is fundamentally belligerent.

I am proud of the fact that I maintain a high standard of factual accuracy with this blog, but I will admit to having been wrong about ISIS.  I have previously argued that Muslims killing other Muslims cannot be explained in terms of The Koran.  I am indebted to David Woods for pointing out that Muslims are commanded to strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them (9:73).

Unbelievers are non-Muslims, whereas hypocrites are fake Muslims.  Any Muslim is free to regard any other Muslim as a fake, and of course the true Muslim is required to be belligerent.

It is highly unlikely that Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated while Islam exists.  The Muslim who is sweetness and light today could be a soldier of ISIS tomorrow.  Missiles can kill individual Muslims, but the war will never be won by missiles alone.

As well as being veritaphobic, Chris Roycroft-Davies is devoted to the cause of open door immigration.  If the British government wants to protect the British people from Islamic terror, then it should close our borders to Muslims, and seek to persuade Muslims in this country to abandon Islam.  I say persuade and not coerce, as coercion rarely works.

I am sure that a lot of people would happily demonise me for holding that point of view, but surely closing our borders to Muslims is more humane than bombing other countries.

Related previous posts include:
Your Muslim faith - really?
Now study Islam
Now ban The Koran
Bacon does not kill Muslims

What exactly is the British way?

This is not the British way.  So says The Daily Express in a comment about the ongoing protests against Israel in the United Kingdom.

It appears that the people who protest against Israel tend to be Muslims, and they tend to be immigrants.  If the British way is so very important to The Daily Express, then maybe they would care to express support for a political party whose policies include not allowing foreigners into Britain if they do not adhere to the British way.  Maybe they would like to go further and express support for a political party whose policies include the forcible repatriation of foreigners who do not adhere to the British way.

The Daily Express has also seen fit to publish a comment by Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society.  He does talk some sense, but he is wrong about not blaming Israel.  Israel is a terror state, and has never been anything else.  He is also wrong when he talks about Islamic extremism.  Quite simply, the word extremism is meaningless.

Islam is a belief system founded on a book which says what The Koran says.  I have already noted some of its content in previous posts.

I wonder how much of the content of The Koran should be regarded as the British way.  Maybe The Daily Express would like to inform us.

Related previous posts include:
MH17 and Gaza: western imperialism
Your Muslim faith - really?