Martin David From Across The Water

G20 Financial Fools Day: I was there

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:29:00 +0000

(This was the intended article on the G20 protests due to go up for Harry's Place, however in haste my e-mail to them was mistakenly put up instead.)

The sound of smashing glass from the RBS branch there were followed by cheers from the crowd, and as protesters pelted fruit and plastic bottles at police officers stood high on the steps of the Bank of England, I advised friends that we should leave before anything got worse. I had been to the G20-Meltdown rally that day, not as a ‘revolutionary’ or an anti-capitalist, but rather as a pro-capitalist classical liberal, expressing my concern over the way in which the Labour Government has handled the economy. I should have known however that once the first scaffolding rail had pierced the dull glass of RBS, none of that now mattered, my opinion was irrelevant.

The front of the Daily Express the next day had the headline ‘Anarchy does not rule UK’, its following coverage making a fervent and unashamed hard line against yesterdays protesting hoards. A photo on the cover of the newspaper showed demonstrators clashing with a gauntleted police officer, above the line ‘...police clashed with demonstrators trying to force their way into the City’, however as many other media outlets since have reported, a very opposite scenario had in fact occurred.

Rushing from the middle of Threadneedle St to the back of the four-thousand strong rally, I squeezed my way to the line of police blocking the road ahead only to be denied exodus. Two strongly linked chains of florescent garbed officers, separated by a bus-length, held back the few hundred wishing entry to the rally and prevented those inside from leaving. Members of the press were refused past the line, as were the elderly, and it did not go unnoticed that a young man with a seemingly severe head injury was also denied from exiting the scene. Chants ensued “let us out!”, “shame on you!” and one individual shouted impatiently at officers claiming his wife was in labour at the hospital.

An hour soon passed, and scuffles began as determined protestors scarped between lines only to be dived on, handcuffed and dragged away by more officers. The use of the surrounding walls as a urinal block was a sure sign that things were becoming dire, and as rumours of prolonged kettling for another two hours spread throughout the crowd, subtle pushing began. United only by common treatment and a desire to leave, the disgruntled caged masses surrounding the Bank of England had had enough of the interpreted disregard for British liberty. As banners waved and horns sounded a charge began on both sides of the divide, and as the oppressive chains disintegrated before us, officers fell back, retreating and regrouping with a keen desire to re-establish control.

With the chain now gone, I and my pro-capitalist cohorts swiftly left the scene, making our way to St Paul’s underground with a yearning to move on. The police later arrested the few who had caused most of the trouble, and subsequent reports suggested that control was later established after remaining protesters were allowed to drain away. The day had been eventful and enlightening to say the least, but the taste of appal was still in my mouth, after all how could the footsoldiers of Scotland Yard have acted in such a manner? Simply being in that crowd had evidently meant that our right to leave was denied by the state, the core foundations of liberty had not been allowed us any longer.

In contrast, to the oppressive 'kettling' techniques which protesters experienced on Wednesday, was the reaction of the metropolitan police when in January of this year- hundreds rioters took to the streets of Kensington in protest at the Israeli invasion of Gaza. How did the police react to this variety of protestors? See for yourselves:

Quid es Veritas?

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:16:00 +0000

A few weeks ago, notably on the Isle of Man, I attended a public lecture by historian Professor Ronald Hutton of Bristol University quaintly entitled 'The Druids', in which the Professor articulated on the history of Druidry in Britain and its Isles. Perched afront a sea of bleary eyed, bearded, woolen garbed representatives from the modern Druid community, and members of the local intelligencia, Professor Hutton spoke about the historical evidence backing up the existence such a world-renowned ancient religion, or lack thereof, and its relevance today. Having pulled apart some of the myths perpetuated about ancient Druidism in Britain, he went on to suggest that despite historical sources, principly that of the Roman- Tacitus for which nearly all understanding of British Druidism is based, it seemed more than probable that no such religion or movement officially existed here. He even went on to say that the word Druid, from the word druidae was actually the name of a barbaric individual refered to by the ancient Greeks and that this had ultimately been misunderstood by chroniclers over time.

Once having swiftly dismantled the historical basis for such a religion, assumedly leaving many in the hall wondering how sure they were of themselves, he then went on to the revival of Druidism as a Germanic reaction to renaissance Italy, its subsequent spreading throughout Europe, and to the modern Druid movement and its early beginnings in C18th London. What astonished me most was that the heckles of "Rubbish!", and other such remarks from severely unkempt members of the audience upon hearing Prof Hutton suggest that modern Druidism was nothing more than a dressing-up club spurred on by remnants of the 60s hippy-generation, were evidence that his lecture was having little or no effect on the mindsets of those self-acclaimed 'Druids'.

Overall the lecture was highly insightful and extremely enjoyable, and I am glad to say was evidently appreciated by the majority of the audience, whom later rewarded Professor Hutton with great applause. Upon leaving the lecture theatre however I couldn't help but realise what this might actually have signified in the grander scheme of things. You see religion, it would seem, does not value the importance of evidence, fact or reason, and does not apparently care for the logic behind its practices or origins. The only obvious truth in religion is that it is community, a set of mutually benefitial tribes of likeminded people who deep down do not really care if what they believe is proved to be fabricated or forged. The overwhelming temptation for an instinctively tribal, naturally social animal to 'belong' to any social group is almost impossible to resist; and modern advancements in science, medicine, anthropology, philosophical growth and even the enlightenment period still (it would seem) cannot break the overpowering desires of those whom purport to be 'the religious', to be just that. But then again, as Jonathan Swift once said, it is useless to attempt to reason someone out of an attitude which they were never reasoned into.

(Picture 1: British Druids at Stonehenge.)

Hydrangea Hiatus...[an informal post]

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:17:00 +0000

...and that'll do fine. In the two months that have just passed, not only have I somehow refrained from blogging to my heart's content, but much else has in fact happened in the world of...well the world. Talk's are underway in Zimbabwe which could see the beginning of the end of Mugabe's reign of tyranny, Inflation has risen to a new high of 4.4%, and of course Georgia has been invaded by Russia as it attempts to control it's own rogue regions. Not to mention the fact that last month Chris Huhne, the failed Lib Dem party leadership candidate, I saw soaking up the rays (or rather 'ray') here on the Isle of Man. I did wave to him but he didn't recognise me...musn't read the blog much anymore...*sigh*

Anyway on to better news:
Although From Across The Water had experienced a slight slow down in general post regularity before the hiatus commenced, this might not necessarily change. Although I assure you that no such hiatus shall again occur for at least another...while. Part time gardening is taking it's toll on the old energy reserves but i'm sure T.E Lawrence might have had the energy to write a blog after fighting the Ottomans all week, maybe even Churchill after fighting Jerry for years on end. Balls to it, those hydrangeas will have to wait!

Second: I begin reading Politics w. History in September and so plans are underway for a new Martin David blog Winchester, which would basically mean more frequent posts with more British political content, and perhaps the odd London, Brussels, Paris trip report thrown in.

Exciting stuff eh? So remember folks keep your eyes peeled, chins up, and your tweeds on. I'll be back in no time...

The Fuss Of Forty Two Days...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:50:00 +0000

This week Prime Minister Gordon Brown narrowly won a House of Commons vote on extending the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days. The vote, which was officially opposed by the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and 36 of Labour's back-bench rebels, will now have to survive a battle in the House of Lords before it can be implemented. Upon learning of the Governments victory, members of parliament were also shocked to learn of the resignation of Shadow Home Secretary David Davis in protest at the result. A decision for which the MP has received much mixed support and criticism about.

As a Conservative and a supporter of the 42 day proposal I have felt utterly compelled to express my gladness at Davis' resignation, and yet sadness that he is being branded as exemplary by members of the extreme left. Davis has never really had a place on the front bench of the new and improved Conservative Party, and I feel in all sincerity that even he himself new this. I suppose it was polite of David Cameron, upon winning leadership of the Conservatives, to offer Davis the place of Home Secretary, but come on let's get real. I mean how can a man such as he possibly lead the fight against home-grown terrorism and extremism in the same way in which Charles Clarke used to; there is simply no comparison.

The labelling of Davis as integral because of his decision to step down has really got up my nose these past few days, when the only REAL Conservative integral enough to do the right thing and vote with the Government is a one Ann Widdecombe MP. A woman who clearly sees that doing the right thing for ones country is more important than unquestionable loyalty to ones party. After all what's integral about playing party politics, trying to gain the vote of a few liberal idiots at the next general, when the national security of the state is at stake. In every poll taken over the issue, only around 30% of the public have shown to oppose the bill while around 65% support it; and yet somehow the Government has had to rely on Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionists to get the bill through Parliament. So much for representing your constituents Tories...

Many people in recent days have suggested concern over the 'taking of our rights' by the Government, saying that 42 day detention is an infringement of our civil liberties. One argument in particular which I found to be the most flawed was given by a well respected Conservative MP, a man who I myself admittedly admire. His argument was that further demeaning our civil liberties would be a great victory for extremism, and that terror should only be fought without undermining our liberties. But how exactly? And surely it would only be a victory for extremists if the denying of our liberties was somehow Islamic related, i.e. a national ban on alcohol, a ban on the education of women. Not that terror suspects can be held for two weeks more than currently held in extreme circumstances, and that's all it is- 2 weeks more. The very notion that we should deny many weapons in the fight against extremism merely due to philosophical principle, I find to be highly questionable...

(Picture 1: An armed Police Officer at Whitehall, London.)
(Picture 2: Ex-Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.)

The Problem Of A Promise Land...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:44:00 +0000

Marked by a visit by U.S President Bush to the region, this month marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. Celebrated by Jews across the world, and mourned by Arabs as al-Nakba or 'the catastrophe', the anniversary has shed new light on the original events which lead to the founding of the Jewish state, and speculation on the amount of time it might have left to remain. With Islamist group Hezbollah taking over parts of Beirut in the north, and Hamas increasing in strength and momentum in the south, peace will probably not be a luxury which the region can afford any time soon. But how do we in the west view the existence of a Jewish state in the Holy Land?

It is no secret that the plight of the Palestinians in this age of 'victim culture' has made sense to many on the British political left, and also to terror groups such as Al Qaeda, but the most astonishing development in the opposition to the Jewish state is in that of the mainstream media. The Guardian's evident hatred towards Israel is one I find the most distasteful and sickening, with an apparent desire to do as much damage to the reputation of Israel in Europe as possible. Articles written in the paper almost daily attack the operations of the IDF and Mossad, and yet make no such criticisms of rocket attacks from the Gaza strip or attempted suicide attacks indirectly funded by Iran. The mentality of the 21st century anti-Semite is one that oddly unites those of the political left, Islamists, and white supremacists, and can even seemingly be adopted by the average joe nowadays without much fuss.

This shared doctrine, which spans from opposition to Israel to perpetuated lies about the Jewish 9/11, is an inevitable consequence of the desensitisation of the world since the Holocaust. As with all conflicts and traumatising events in world history, there is a period afterwards of absolute mourning, a sense of injustice which stays for a period of living memory, or at most two to three generations. After this time however, when the people who had memory of those events are all but dying out, it seems that the taboos associated with those memories are no longer relevant. For example, to express support for Napoléon Bonaparte in mid 19th century Britain would have been seen to be almost blasphemous by the general population. Talk favourably of him in Britain today and nobody cares. We are no longer concerned by the threats of Imperial France, nor sensitive to the French Reign of Terror which saw thousands put to death by the horrific guillotine.

My personal standing on Israel has wavered over the years, as a child I grew up with huge admiration for the IDF and Mossad, even though not fully understanding the politics at the time. Upon learning of the ultranationalist Israeli Irgun which fought against the British in the 1940's my views did change for a while, however the passing of my days as an imperialist have led me to believe that the existence of Israel is a great thing. I now see it as the most important western outpost on the eastern frontier, with enough stability and national confidence to ensure the security of the eastern Mediterranean. It is, if nothing else, a cork in the neck of the Islamic world; an assurance to us that as long as it stands the world is free. As an Anglican, my mind is often on the Holy Land and what tragedies could befall it any day. I would hate to learn for example that Holy sites in Jerusalem or Bethlehem might end in the same fate as the Buddhas of Bayman under the orders of some Islamic cleric; the existence of the Jewish state is assurance that this cannot happen.

Israel's determination to survive when it is surrounded by countries that want to wipe it out cannot indefinitely continue without support from the west. We the inheritors of the modern world must ensure that the expressive sentiments of solidarity with Israel does not die from neglect, but continues on. Every day, the anti-Semitic malice of the western media recruits another free voter to its cause using perfected convincing strategies. How long before the actions of the do-gooding medio-intelligencia enable a united Islamic front to finally rid the region of the only significant non-Islamic country there, from under the watchful but placid eyes of the pointless United Nations? One only dreads to think. The problem of the promise land is of course that it is desperately wanted for the re-establishment of the promised Islamic Caliphate...

(Picture 1: Members of Hamas on parade in Gaza.)
(Picture 2: A 100,000 strong anti-Israeli protest in London, 2006.)

Three Cheers For Boris...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Sat, 03 May 2008 10:40:00 +0000

The fantastic news came just before midnight last night, but the suspense of the moment prior was utterly torturous, the mere prospect that the capital city of our great nation may have once again failed to escape from the iron grip of Red Ken was almost too much to bear. For 8 years the leftist, self-righteous and neglectful ways of Livingstone's City Hall have undoubtably ensured the transformation of London into a dangerous, unpleasant and confusing place remeniscent of the Dickensian city. A place where you are twice as likely to be a victim of street crime than in New York City, the once U.S. capital of crime.

The campaign of Boris Johnson has undoubtably given confidence back to the people of the City of London, a confidence not only for Boris himself, but also a confidence for the Conservative Party's ability to lead the greatest city in Europe. I commend Boris Johnson for taking London from the hoards of British left wing intelligencia, and wish him all the best in achieving his vision for it. I'm sure that Boris's well known trait of achieving what he sets out to achieve will no doubt prevail in this most prominent instance, and indeed in the next four years. Three cheers for Boris...

(Picture 1: A victorious Boris Johnson last night.)

The Persuasion of Conversion...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:05:00 +0000

Last week saw the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's controversial 'Rivers of Blood' speech, in which the late MP warned of the threats of a multi-cultural society. In it he aired the concerns of his constituents with regard to immigration and race, and suggested that the influx of huge numbers of foreign born peoples would lead to tensions in following years. The explicitly apocalyptic suggestivity and nature of the speech still harrows the mind even today.

"In 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.... We must be mad, literally mad, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’."

Taken out of context Powell seems irrational, like a racist scaremonger making false prophesies; but if it is known that Powell is reading a letter from a concerned constituent of his, the speech seems to loose much of its ferocity. At the time however this was irrelevant, the speech provoked outrage when it was broadcast in 1968, at a time when black America was at the height of it's civil rights movement, and the results of the British 1950s immigration experiment were first being made known. Powell was remembered for what he said on that day for the rest of his life, he became a hero to some, and an monster to others as a direct consequence of it. The speech has been a stumbling block in the immigration debate ever since that day in Birmingham, a 'no-go area' for most MP's and politicians, until the influx of predominantly white European migrants in recent years has changed everything.

For half a century or more, immigration and race were always seen as one entity, and of course the two have been historically intertwined for thousands of years. For a non-white person to be residing in the UK, their family line had to have been originally extracted from elsewhere, such is the nature of evolutionary development. Colour may be a physical indication that people are of a foreign descent genetically, even though this is obviously not the rule. And because it is not the rule, people of foreign white descent may have been overlooked in the past, or not known about, by the population of the time. Because of this, concerns aired about immigration in previous decades must have been directly linked to race and colour, therefore deeming it (rightly or wrongly) racist to see immigration as bad.

Due to this, concerns about immigration were previously ignored by politicians, as opposition to it was seen to be an overlying excuse for opposition to people of non-white descent. Despite the fact that an uneducated, racist element may still reside within the UK, I believe it is far smaller than those politicians previously thought. And that in fact more people are opposed to uncontrolled immigration full stop, whether immigrants coming into Britain are white or not. This realisation that immigration is no longer a race issue has taken the influx of Polish, Estonian and Lithuanian immigrants into Britain in recent years, for the Left to see that people are opposed to their uncontrolled migration as well, even though they are white. If immigration was still a race issue, surely we would see the promotion of the influx of Eastern Europeans, and at the same time the opposition of non-white immigrants. The snake of racism in Britain is evidently dying, and immigration is now being taken seriously by politicians.

This week, Islamic-extremist Abu Izzadeen and five other men were convicted on charges of terrorist fund-raising and inciting terrorism overseas. Izzadeen, who has been known to BBC 2's Newsnight for four years, has openly praised the 7/7 London suicide bombings and the atrocities of 9/11 live on television, and is a spokesman for banned extremist group Al-Ghurabaa. If I were to remark on the relevance of verses in the Quran which may justify the extremist views of Izzadeen, I may be accused of (as I have before) 'Islamaphobia'. The fact that extremists are generally known to be non-white may also have led to an accusation of my being a 'racist' or 'xenophobe' as well, until now.

One of the men convicted along with Izzadeen was 35 year old Simon (Sulayman) Keeler, a white convert to Islam from Whitechapel in London. Keeler's anti-American, anti-western sentiment had also been made known on BBC 2's Newsnight in 2004. On 9/11 he said this:

"I don't believe in democracy. It's man made. You're talking about a government that taxes the people to death. It oppresses many millions of people in the world. It wouldn't be such a shame to have them overturned. You're talking about one man, Tony Blair, sends a bunch of aircraft into Iraq, bombs a bunch of people. You're talking about another man, Osama Bin Laden, who sends a bunch of aeroplanes into America and bombs a bunch of people - what is the difference? You tell me."

And on the victims of 9/11:

"But you talk about 3,000 so-called innocents. What about the 200,000 innocents in Afghanistan? What about the one million children in Iraq who died as a result of America's foreign policy? Let's remember who we're talking about. You're crying about the fact that America, the oppressor, has been punched in the nose. That's what happened"

It is one thing to be aware of the frightening reality that is the home-grown threat of terrorism, but it is quite another to now accept that white, British converts may also be as willing to blow themselves up in British cities as people such as Muhammad Siddiq Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. The only good thing I can see from this scenario, is that the threat of this extremist ideology can now be made known. To see the London suicide bombers as nothing more than murderers is dangerous, and it is ignorant and naive to think that only foreignly extracted Muslims are capable of such atrocities. The proof of the danger of Islamism is now clear, the ideology must be defeated.

It is no use locking up people on terrorism charges all the time, hoping and praying that people like Anjem Choudary leave enough substantial evidence for the authorities to take legal action against them, even though we all know of their abhorrent views. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir need to be banned in Britain, as does the public proclamation of support for such groups. In Germany and Austria it is illegal to depict Nazism in a positive light or to possess any Nazi paraphernalia; and to openly deny the holocaust is an act that will rightly land one in jail in those countries. Nobody disputes these laws, and so why not implement something similar here? Islamism, like Nazism, is no joke.

Situationary evolution has once again meant that the racial gap has been bridged, potentially meaning that reactionary debate might no longer be hindered by re-worded accusations of racism. The enlightening realisation that we might not only be at war with Islamists, but with our own genetic countrymen in future years, changes the way we now view the extremist threat. There is now a danger that because the adoption of Islamism is a choice, which white and non-white may endeavour in, it may prove to become a far wider phenomenon than previously anticipated. Remember if you will the number of victims of the London bombings, 52 people were killed and 700 others were injured by a mere four men, a mere four dedicated Islamists. Race was an irrelevant factor...

(Picture 1: Enoch Powell in 1968.)
(Picture 2: Abu Izzadeen heckling John Reid in 2006.)
(Picture 3: Recently gaoled Sulayman Keeler at an extremist rally.)

A Bit Of Tasteless Promotion...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:26:00 +0000

Just for a tad bit of promotion, seeing as I am a member of the Conservative Party, I have decided to publish the following video below. And yes, I admit it, as tasteless and cringe worthy this medium may in fact turn out to be, I just had to post it here in the hope of bringing a few Labourites and Lib Dims to the light. I have thought about this post a great deal and know for certain that I wouldn't appreciate some of the worlds more admirable political commentators doing the same on their blogs. It's just not done, admitting to your fellow countrymen and women whom you support politically, in such an explicit and obvious way; but there, I hasten to say, you have it.
For those of you who may have missed the brand new Conservative Party Election Broadcast, directed by producer Matthew Vaughan, at 6.55pm on BBC 1 this evening, here it is:

The Menace Of Mugabe...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:18:00 +0000

As we await the final outcome of the elections in Zimbabwe, and indeed the subsequent violence that will no doubt follow, the Government here in Britain seem quite unconcerned about the whole matter. The trappings of post-colonial guilt and the incapacity of a Labour government to criticise post-apartheid South Africa has meant that President Mugabe and his merry band of thugs are free to run riot in what was once British Southern Rhodesia without any serious opposition from Britain. Thabo Mbeki the president of neighbouring South Africa, and a well known Mugabe sympathiser, said only days ago that the situation in Zimbabwe was 'manageable'. Words which must send dread through the few remaining white farmers left alive in Zimbabwe.

In recent days armed militias in support of Mugabe's ZANU PF have been reported to have been attacking and intimidating voters in what has been described as 'huge violence', a move which opposition groups claim is part of a wider Government strategy to gain votes through force. And just yesterday neighbouring Zambia has called for an emergency meeting of the Southern African Development Community, due to the delayed election results. A foreign reaction which is itself way overdue.

When last I visited Africa, I was not prepared for what I saw, and some of the things there truly shocked me. Poverty, death, and crime all of which I experienced and witnessed first hand, all of which are everyday realities for most people. I learned quickly the truth, the mentality of the region which views life as cheap, and changing that mind-set would be like changing the French to view snails much like the rest of the world does. It is an eclectic and complex mix of religious duty and desired well being for ones fellow neighbour, and yet also a survival society, where to rob or murder to feed your family is acceptable. The people of African nations seem individually to incorporate both the centuries old tribal values of long-gone eras with the more recent colonial imports of Europe. The latter primarily being: Religion, Government Structure and Social Formality.

The democratic evolution of a country is extremely important in the grand scheme of things. To have a government which rigs elections and polls can only ensure the people under its rule will value the importance of real democracy and appreciate free democratic rule later in their national lives. The evolution of a country like that of Zimbabwe in our eyes could be seen similar to that of an adolescent child who is making all the mistakes we did as children. And as a more developed adult nation, we try to prevent them from making the same mistakes we did, yet knowing full well in our subconscious that they have to learn their own lessons.

We must however remember that it is not the people of Zimbabwe whom are playing around with democracy, but Mugabe. The ability to 'see how democracy fits' is, as we see it, a right which every citizen of the world should be allowed to have. To have a voice, and an opportunity to make decisions on who governs us is one of the core foundations of democracy. The people of Zimbabwe have been denied this basic and fundamental right for over 20 years, because Robert Mugabe has decided otherwise. A man, who seems to have a problem with democracy.

Apart from the incredibly high inflation, the plummeting life expectancy figures, the internal displacement of millions, the human-rights abuses of Zimbabwe, and the fact that Mugabe fits the role of a Dictator to a tee, there is another reason why our Government should be playing a more prominent role in encouraging the removal of Mugabe. Over the past 10 or 11 years, the number of applicants for asylum in Britain has risen dramatically, with more asylum seekers being granted acceptance into Britain than ever before. This along with the influx of economic migrants and others, has meant that overall immigration figures are up. And apart from the strain on services, education and housing which go along with the wider issue of Immigration, other subsequent problems have seen the radicalisation of the white working classes, which I have covered in previous posts.

The inability to understand the difference between an Asylum Seeker and an Economic Migrant has meant that all immigrants have been tarred with the same brush, when it comes to influx figures, by those people. To them, figures are figures, and the numbers are acting as a recruiting agent for the extreme-right. To limit the number of asylum seekers allowed into Britain just for the sake of lowering overall figures might be considered to be insensitive and wrong. But to lower the number via the removal of the threats posed to those asylum seekers in their own country's, would be a triumph not just for British infrastructure, but a triumph for good. The Conservative Party have put forward ideas to 'cap' the number of immigrants coming to Britain in their manifesto, asylum seeker or not. But wouldn't it be far greater if we could eliminate foreign threats to those asylum seekers so that they would not need to seek asylum in Britain in the first place.

Having once known a Zimbabwean, church-going, asylum seeker here in Britain for many years, I understand the horror of what life is like for the poor Zimbabwean. Constance, as was her name, was an opposition activist in Zimbabwe and had suffered horrendous treatment at the hands of state police which she claimed had been ordered by senior government officials. Two of her daughters had been kidnapped, her husband was murdered and her son went into hiding as she fled to Britain to try and get asylum. From the conversations we used to have with Constance, it became apparent that she did not want to live in Britain, but Zimbabwe with her son, the only thing that prevented her from doing this was not famine or drought, but the ZANU PF.

I do not know the outcome of Constance's story but the last I heard she wanted to get her son to Britain also, but was denied this request by our Labour Government. Her plight has very much been on my mind in recent months for obvious reasons, and I hope for her sake that Mugabe is removed soon. Saddam Hussain, the late and former president of Iraq was similar in his ruling of Iraq as Mugabe is of Zimbabwe, but many people have commented that they don't want Zimbabwe to become the new Iraq. It wouldn't, and I'll tell you why. The situation in Iraq meant that when Saddam's Ba'ath Party was forced out of office by the invasion in 2003, there was a political void, a vacuum where nobody was experienced enough to know how to run the country. In Zimbabwe however, the opposition MDC party have enough support, knowledge and resources to take over after Mugabe.

If Mugabe does make a deal with someone to leave his role in return for an international pardon, making him exempt from prosecution, then I trust that someone will face just as much criticism for it. The ideal situation for Zimbabwe would be the removal of Mugabe from office, his prosecution at the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity and the Breaking of International Law, and the dismantling of the ZANU PF.

As far as i'm concerned Gordon Brown and his Labour Government can make a start by at least pretending to support the idea of a Zimbabwe without Mugabe, instead of chumming-up with South Africa's incompetent Mbeki. A move clearly related to the, currently irrelevant, support for a post-apartheid South African government...

(Picture 1: The defiant menace, Robert Mugabe.)
(Picture 2: Mugabe meets President Ahmadinejad of Iran.)
(Picture 3: A victim of Mugabe's Operation Murambatsvina or 'Clear the Filth'.)

It Had To Be The NUT...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:06:00 +0000

This week as I arrived at the famous Midland Hotel in the centre of Manchester, I noticed a messy table, in the otherwise immaculate foyer, which was covered with stacks of paper and empty cups. I checked in at reception and the concierge arranged for my luggage to be taken to my room. I passed the table, which was now surrounded by people, and made my way towards the elevator, only to notice the logo of the National Union of Teachers on it. 'It must be their AGM' I thought to myself, and not being very fond of the union anyway decided to forget about it. I got to my room, unpacked a few things, and had a drink from the mini bar, before switching on the television and BBC News 24.

"...The National Union of Teachers is criticising the existence of faith schools and at their Annual General Meeting in Manchester today..." blared out the television. I couldn't believe it, all this way for a holiday and the NUT had to be holding their annual conference at the Midland that very day. The television then shot to images of people giving out free copies of the Socialist Worker in the foyer in which I had just been standing, and showed clips of the conference in full flow. Despite having to drink in the same lounge as several badly dressed teachers for the next few days, some with Che t-shirts on and others wearing ones with the Hindu Aum on them, I did manage to conduct myself in a respectful manner. The NUT later vowed, at the conference, to boycott military recruitment activities in schools, claiming that the Armed Forces use 'propaganda' to glamorise war.

One leading NUT member said "...if people aren't old enough to vote, drive or drink at 16, then they shouldn't be allowed to fight for their country...". The NUT also said that they will back staff who send in 'anti-war' speakers to give pupils an alternative view, and openly stated that their aim is to deepen the military's manpower crisis and force the return of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the NUT do not have the power to stop the Armed Forces from recruiting in schools, but the stance they have taken in this instance I see to be very sad. The truth is that although 16 year olds can join the Armed Forces upon leaving school, they cannot take part in actual military operations until they reach 18. The military has given a sense of belonging and hope to many young people who may be failing at school, who know, because of school recruitment, that the Armed Forces will give them a career even if they don't get any GCSE's. What better way is there to channel the frustration and sense of rejection which many disaffected and unskilled school-leavers face, than to put them in a military setting?

If it were up to me, National Service would have been brought back along time ago. A mandatory 2 or 3 years service in a highly motivated, disciplined, and educating environment would do the same good today, as it did 50 years ago. My Grandfather, the seventh son and eighth child of 2 working-class parents, would never have seen 1950's Egypt, Algeria and Cyprus had it not been for his National Service. He would not be able to speak Sudanese Arabic nor have the cultural understanding of Arabs today had it not been for those brief 3 years when he was my age. I see so many people now, whom I'm sure you're aware, that have never been abroad and don't have any plans to do so. I see so many people now, who are claiming benefits because their parents have never taught them the value of motivation or hard-work. Crime is rising fast, we allow school age children to terrorise the streets and damage public property, we fail to bring up our children as a nation and then expect the government to find them a prison place. Why not let the military teach our children respect, loyalty and pride, and show them diversity of the world by taking them around it first hand?

To take a country which implements national service for example, Israel is a key role-model here. The streets of Tel Aviv are said to be some of the safest in the region, and the amount of law-abiding citizens aged between 16-24 there put our country to shame. The principles of respect, loyalty and pride passed down to them because of national service have ensured the Israeli youth are not the type to mug or beat one up should one past by them in the street. A reality which is normal and widely accepted in many parts of the UK after 6pm.

Many teenagers from disadvantaged areas have traditionally seen a career in the military as a way to improve their prospects, and for this reason I hope to God that teenagers take no notice of the NUT on this matter. If the National Union of Teachers could have their way, disadvantaged kids would be at home for the rest of their lives and not be given the opportunity to join the military; better prospects or not. All the NUT care about is damaging the Armed Forces as much as possible by brain-washing our children, a process which is happening while we, safe in the knowledge that our children's teachers are 'educating' them, are at work. If anything it's time to promote military recruitment in schools, Labour has already cut spending on the Armed Forces to stupidly low levels in recent years, surely the people most loyal to our Queen and country do not deserve another cowardly and unnecessary blow from the left.

My stay at the Midland last week was, I'm glad to say, a pleasant one. But I'm not surprised that if anyone was going to have an annual conference then, it had to be the NUT...

(Picture 1: The Midland Hotel Manchester.)
(Picutre 2: British troops on duty in Iraq.)

Happy Anniversary...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:12:00 +0000

Hurrah Hurrah, what a week. We've seen the first day of spring and the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. So many docudramas, documentaries and news reports to choose from, from the award winning 'Battle for Haditha' to Dispatches specials, and of course to the semi-revealing efforts of John Snow. Yesterday as President Bush spoke in a speech marking the anniversary, saying that US work with Sunni Muslims in Iraq was yielding the first large-scale Arab uprising against Al-Qaeda, many held anti-war protests in several U.S cities amid continued opposition to the war. But despite all the media hype and independent reports about political stability since the invasion, the question on everyone's minds is still: Has Iraq improved? It would seem that glancing at figures related to violence in recent months that levels look to have gone down, but does it really have anything directly to do with the operations of coalition forces?

The answer is of course yes, for without the removal of people like the infamous Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Al-Qaeda's most detested war criminal after Bin Laden himself, the Iraqi Government would find it almost impossible to sustain enough confidence in the country to be established at all. And despite what lies we might hear from those who detest the U.S and all it's allies, coalition forces are not occupying Iraq, but are there to do a job; to eradicate the insurgency in Iraq and the remnants of the Iraqi Army under Ba'ath Party rule. Once this has been done, with the help of the Iraqi Government, coalition forces can begin to withdraw. I find it harrowing whenever I hear people imply that Al-Qaeda in Iraq 'might have a point' in fighting foreign invaders, even though the majority of Al Qaeda in Iraq are in fact foreign fighters. Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, Algerians, the list goes on and on, but that is how the left justify themselves. The 'It's their country and we're not meant to be there' mentality perpetuated by the left, is the same ignorant twaddle which assumes that Christmas Carol services in primary schools are an affront to Islam. Despite the fact that Jesus is accepted by Muslims as a Prophet, and is mentioned in the Koran.

As I've spoken of before, these facts do not matter to the left. All they want to see is the complete secularisation of schools, the failure of coalition forces in Iraq, and the overall de-stabilisation of the establishment. If the neo-conservative Bush administration were to fail in attempting to rid the world of Al-Zawahiris and Al-Zarqawis, the left would deem it a great success. For to see such a mightily strong super-power fall at the hands of liberal adolescents shouting 'I told you so', would give them more credibility than they could ever achieved by conventional means. A tempting prospect which has been to hard to resist for those without morality or honour. Political gain to them, is more important than than the future of Iraq, or the removal of zealous mass murderers.

There is a difference between being a coward and being able to question the actions of Western forces abroad. Watching 'Battle for Haditha' on Channel 4 last week, it did not shock or surprise me to see the biased representation of American Marines killing Iraqi civilians, after all that's how awards are won. But for a few moments I did begin to question our very presence in a country which would do our reputation no good. Being a free thinker is important in this day and age, and I would remind anyone reading to always question, to always think independently. Questioning an invasion that I've always supported wasn't easy, but I see that it was healthy, for how many people against the invasion have ever dabbled on the other side of the fence for a few moments? just to see how it fits. I could see on screen the violent shooting of women, children and old men, along with the sound of shouting Americans and rapid machine-gun fire.

I knew the story was probably true, I knew that those innocent people who were shot for no reason other than to satisfy anger probably did feel pain; and I was truly sad. For me to feel anything but despair for another human being in pain or harms way would make me in-human; a stone without a conscience. For a split-second I detested every American, every Westerner, every soldier; and I hoped that one day some IED might blow those evil men to pieces. Then I remembered. I remembered the trusting jump suited American Nick Berg, the Liverpudlian Ken Bigley and others who have been subjected to horrific deaths at the hands of the insurgency. Where was the justice in that? I do not for one moment think that the lives of those really killed in Haditha were worth any less than those of Berg and Bigley, and that is how we should see all injustices, as equally bad.

It is easy to forget that we are at war every day. Even if Britain pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, we would still be fighting against the vast network of terrorist cells which are spread across Europe. The current main battlefield in the 'War on Terror' is in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what does the left think will happen if we withdraw our troops from those countries, apart from the emergence of two more rogue states. Do they think that jihadis will stay in those countries happy that we have gone? The current situation in Iraq acts as a jihadi magnet in the region, attracting terrorists of all nationalities to fight its newest tourist attraction, Western forces. But if the forces leave for the borders of home, the jihadis will surely follow, and IED's might begin to be planted on our roads instead. War is a horrible thing, and wicked men will always use it as an excuse to do things which we simply cannot advocate. Such actions have blinded people's judgement in many past wars, but winning this war is what should be focused on the most five years after the invasion.

For the betterment of future generations, the world must be made a safer and fairer place now, and the 'War on Terror' is plays a major part in that. We in the West should be promoting Democracy and Justice to those in Iraq, for if we are not convinced that the insurgency is wrong, then why should they be?...

(Picture 1: Baghdad and the Tigris in March 2003.)

They Must Be Barking...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:40:00 +0000

During the past week, thanks perhaps to the BBC's controversial new 'WHITE' series, I've felt increasingly saddened by what white, working-class Britain has become. In my younger days of political learning, when all was not certain and everything was new, I had initially understood the working classes to be the most moral and important of all voting peoples. Get them on your side, and your sure to be in office in no time; but my views on what they currently are have changed somewhat since.

Last nights episode of 'WHITE' focused on the borough of Barking in East London, where in the 2006 elections 12 BNP councillors were elected to represent a large part of the boroughs white working class, making it the second largest party there. The story focused on the views of the working classes, and of the social struggle many consider themselves to be in. Many new residents of the borough were of African and Eastern-European origin, and had (according to long-term residents) not properly integrated.

The documentary focused also on an elderly man named Monty, who originated from Poland and had set-up a shop in the borough. He had met a younger Ugandan lady in Barking, with whom he had become friends, and the two were now living together; her acting as his carer. Monty, it was later revealed, had spent 5 years in Auschwitz, were he had been left to suffer in horrific conditions before the liberation of the camps in 1945. It was apparent that the memories of those days haunted him still, in the days when segregation had resulted in the massacre of 6 million Jews.

The story then turned to the campaigning of BNP supporters in a Barking street, where leaflets and newspapers were being handed out to white, and in one case mixed race, passers by. It struck me as sad, that the core of Labour's past working-class supporters, were now turning to a party which actively promotes community segregation, and associates with holocaust deniers. I fail to understand how the election of a racist party can improve community cohesion, and I don't really think those voters do either.

The reason, I believe, the BNP have had so much success in areas such as this in recent years is because voters feel their opinions no longer matter to the party they voted in Government. The aftermath of recently increased immigration levels, and the vast cultural changes inspired by the speeches of Roy Jenkins 30 years ago, have resulted in an 'ignored child' reaction from the working-classes. A reaction, which if ignored for even longer, could get increasingly worse. The National Socialist Party of Germany focused on the concerns of the working-classes when rising to power, largely inspired by the ethos of Communist strategies; and members of the British National Party know this all to well.

I do not see the white working class people of Barking as the sort to be agreeing with ethnic-cleansing, far from it, but rather as a misguided, misrepresented generation, who often feel alone and ignored in a Britain which they are not familiar with. Similar voting patterns can be seen in areas of Northern-England, such as Oldham and Burnley, were community segregation has led to the BNP gaining seats there; even though most ethnic communities are third and fourth generation immigrants, and are by all accounts British citizens.

The truth is that Britain is successfully multi-racial, but unsuccessfully multi-cultural, and parties like the BNP have tried to blur the two together, basically saying that race and culture go hand-in-hand. That is a lie. The notion that Britain should be a vast hub of different cultures is preposterous, it can only lead to tension, but the notion that it should be a hub of different races is not so far-fetched. Just look at Britain in the days of the Empire, when India, West Africa, and the Caribbean were all considered British, as were their peoples. It is not plausible to say that Britain should ever be, or should ever have been 'all-white'. And culturally, just go to Kenya and ask for a cup of tea, or observe the way people say 'Chop-Chop' to hurry workers into action, the cultural effects Britain has had there still today is huge.

The solving of the mistake of multi-culturalism is one of the most valuable things we could do for the country. It could prevent terrorism, and the recruiting of radical Islamic groups, and could also prevent parties like the BNP gaining seats in councils. Greater integration and cohesion could result from having a culturally common ground, and racism could be routed out all together from all communities. The sense of community we used to have in Britain could once again be implemented if we were not so separated by different cultures.

The extent of segregation can even be observed today as news of an Anglican Priest who was attacked in a 'faith-hate' incident in Tower Hamlets on Wednesday is being reported by the BBC. It has been reported that Canon Michael Ainsworth, 57, was assaulted by two Asian youths at his church, while another looked on and jeered. An attack which I suspect was probably provoked by the desire to culturally/religiously-clense the area in question. A commonality of many communities feeling as though they must defend their insular, culturally concentrated areas from outside influence. Tower Hamlets is known to have a high population of Asian Muslims and Indians, but many white communities are also doing exactly the same. Hostilities on the grounds of race and faith have increased hugely in the past few years, coming from all sides of the fence.

Overall, the BBC's 'WHITE' series is provoking debate where before there was none. I hate to sound reactionary, or indeed say that I am so impressionable as to blog on the concerns highlighted in a BBC documentary, but the truth is most people do it all the time. Newspapers, News channels, and even fellow bloggers are affected by the products of the BBC every day; whether it's the 10 o'clock News, Eastenders or Blue Peter, all seek to provoke reactionary debate. Al-Jazeera claim to be 'setting the agenda' but I have to disagree, after all the BBC are far more well-funded.

Only time will tell what Britain will become in the next few decades, and the decisions we make now are key to the well-being of our children. We can look, with optimism, for change in the way seperate communities react to eachother, but I sincerely hope most of all that white working class Britain will not fall victim to those who might want to put people like Monty back in Auschwitz. Vote BNP? They must be barking...

(Picture 1: A butcher's window in Barking.)
(Picture 2: Holocaust survivor Monty, still young at heart.)
(Picture 3: BNP campaigners on a Barking street.)

Murphy's Law...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:58:00 +0000

Terrorist attacks in Israel committed by an Arab resident of Jerusalem, the protesting of thousands of Muslims over the re-publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad, the broadcasting of the first of many programmes in the BBC's controversial new 'WHITE' series; but why is all this happening now?

Watching Steven Hawking's fascinating documentary about the universe on Monday, I was compelled by the genius of his mind. When asked if he wanted to discover anything else in his life-time, he replied by saying that he would like to find the formula to everything, yes everything. The documentary was pretty good, with dazzling effects and mind-blowing facts, the Professor covered everything from atoms to black holes. There is however one thing that Mr Hawkins did not attempt to mention the nuclear composition of. Sod's Law eh?

The truth is that Murphy's (or Sod's) Law is indeed alive and well in the universe. Two weeks ago, I received a call from the Isle of Man casting agency, saying that they needed extras for a new film that was being made and that they wanted me to go to a costume fitting. To cut a long story short I did so, and filming it turns out was this weekend. I did plan to comment on the hugely relevant events of the times, but instead have ended up sat in a highly uncomfortable 1930's tuxedo for twelve hours a day, reading Martin Amis's 'The Second Plane' between takes, while Zac Efron (of the popular film High School Musical) re-spouts his lines over and over.

And so I ask Mr Murphy (whoever he was) and of course Mr Hawking: Why does everything have to happen now? Why can't the news just be about the NHS or something until next weekend? Eh well, a lesson well learned I say, always blog about serious world events before they occur. Oh the joys of Yin and Yang...

(Picture: The great Professor Steven Hawking of Cambridge University.)

Shame on Stop The War...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:50:00 +0000

Liverpool, named 2008 Capital of Culture, has always been synonymous with unions, industry, football, and of course the success of the Beatles; but a row has been sparked in recent weeks about the invitation of a Hezbollah activist to a Methodist Church in the Toxteth area of the city, by local anti-war campaigners. Ibrahim Mousawi, chief spokesman of the extremist Lebanese group, is due to speak at a 'Stop the War' rally on Tuesday evening, to talk about the invasion of Lebanon. Mousawi, who is currently banned in France and Ireland, is known to have been in charge of a 30-part 'documentary' which claimed Jews were behind a secret plot to take over the world, and is also known to have said in an interview with Australian broadcasters that '...pain is the only language the enemy understands...' when referring to the deaths of Israeli civilians. Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, has been criticised for allowing Mousawi into the UK, even though the Government has safeguards to prevent the entry of such people; David Cameron has also condemned the visit by the Hezbollah spokesman, claiming it to be a mistake.

The Stop the War Coalition was formed following the events of the September 11th, openly declaring at the time that they were opposed to any form of response by the U.S against those responsible for it. Amongst it's ranks are Communists, Islamists, and other 'do-gooders' who seem to have known in advance that there would be bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan should the countries be invaded. It is most famous for it's 'Not in My Name' posters and it's mass rallies in London; and claims to be opposed to; the American War of Independence, the American Civil War, World War I, and World War II. The group however seems to advocate armed resistance, like in movements such as those against the state of Israel, which from the start jumps out to me to be their first and most obvious ideological flaw. Though it might be too much of me to ask that they look for the trees of hypocrisy, beyond the their dense forests of bigotry.

It seems to me that such an organisation cannot ever gain the credibility it requires to bring about the changes it strives for. Being part of a pacifist movement (like those in many strands of Buddhism) does not involve the advocating of any form of violence or aggression, physical or otherwise; and most certainly does not see armed resistance as acceptable. The Stop the War Coalition is a coalition of left wing, anti-imperialists, many with individual aims and ideologies. Some are anti-capitalist, others anti-Jewish, and some members even claim 9/11 was an American conspiracy executed in order to justify it's subsequent foreign interventions. Despite what their more trivial personal quarrels may be, members of the group rely heavily on common values to get air-time and press-publicity, giving the Government and members of the public the illusion that most people in Britain are opposed to 'War' full stop.

Another problem with the group, due to the fact that it claims only to be 'Anti-War', is that there are many people on the right who also do not agree with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, yet they are not involved at all. Nick Griffin of the ghastly BNP, Peter Hitchens an admirable journalist and critic, and many old-style Conservatives such as Kenneth Clarke and Michael Heseltine, I can't however see any of them joining the coalition any time soon. Could it be perhaps that the Stop the War Coalition has additional agendas as well as the false claim of supporting pacifism, knowing jolly well that anyone (including Islamic militants) can aid their cause quite substantially by speaking at their wretched rallies, thus gaining even more support from people who despise the West we live in.

If the Stop the War Coalition wish to gain any ounce of credibility from the message they so persistently preach, perhaps they should study the true pacifist nature of the Buddhist monks protests in Burma last year, where their behaviour gained them world wide support. The Stop the War Coalition should hang their heads in shame for inviting such hate-fuelled racists to Britain, and Jacqui Smith for allowing it. Although the desire for the abolition of war is something which is to be admired, it is only practically existent in an ideal world. Also it should not be associated with radical political groups which claim to be something that they are not, but rather with true pacifist religious groups like Buddhists and the once existent Cathars of Medieval Europe.

The Stop the War Coalition is now so against what it sees to be a threat to it's leftist ideals, that it is now importing enemies of the West and our allies to talk in our towns and cities. God only knows where the bloody hell such deplorable people would have been put at Dunkirk, probably in the sea I suspect...

(Picture: Ibrahim Mousawi at a recent anti-war rally in Birmingham.)

The Bullet Magnet of Helmand...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:24:00 +0000

Kings, Princes, Dukes and Earls, all in ages past have seen their fair shares of military action. From William the Conqueror and George VI, to Prince Andrew the Duke of York and the 7th Earl of Derby, all have engaged in some kind of warfare. The news in recent days that for the past 10 weeks Prince Harry has been fighting in Afghanistan has come as a surprise to many, considering he was prevented from serving in Iraq early last year. The 23 year old is said to have arrived in the country on Christmas Eve, before moving on to serve with a Gurkha regiment in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, where the majority of British forces are based. The news today is that the Prince is being withdrawn from Afghanistan after a news blackout deal with media companies was broken; a decision by the MoD taken to ensure the continued safety of the Prince and the rest of his regiment.

From the point of view of a Royalist through and through, I see no problem with members of the Royal family or the Nobility serving on the front line with the rest. It is in our History as a nation to have such high standing members of society on the battlefield, fighting along-side their fellow countrymen. The difference here from a battlefield somewhere in 14th century Europe, is that the Taliban consider God to be their commander in chief, not a physical social being equal to that of Queen Elizabeth II. Had they have discovered the whereabouts, if not the existence all together, of Prince Harry, I'm sure they would have expected a man on some sort of elaborately decorated gold podium, rather than the typical officer he was soon shown to be seen as.

The decision to prevent him from going to Iraq, seemed to me, to be the correct one. British forces now have a limited presence in Iraq, while the influx of American troops there continues to grow. I think our promise to invade Iraq as part of a coalition has been fulfilled, and our duty has more or less been done in terms of securing the areas that we were given to control; the handing over of a now stable Basra having been a prime example of this. In Afghanistan, the fleeing Taliban are losing, their retreat into the desert regions of the country, away from the madrassas and mosques of the cities has ensured that Afghanistan is now far safer for a soldier than Iraq. Foreign Islamist fighters prefer Baghdad to Kabul, seeing Al-Qaeda in Iraq an easier organisation to find and join, than the simple, often farming, fighters of Afghanistan's Taliban.

For doing his part in support of the democratic Government and people of Afghanistan, the Prince is to be commended. His determined attitude towards potentially serving with his regiment has ensured he has succeeded in doing so, completing a tour and the job he has been trained to do. Participating in military service of this practical kind is an acknowledgement which I hope will stay with the Prince for many years to come; an acknowledgement which deserves respect in a time where Kings and Queens are seen by many as nothing more than mere figure-heads in the modern world.

Three cheers for Harry...

(Picture: Prince Harry in Helmand province, Afghanistan.)

Mistaking the Mehdi...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:50:00 +0000

Yesterday the leader of Iraq's Shia Mehdi Army, Muqtada al-Sadr, extended the August 2007 ceasefire by an additional 6 months, amid fears that violence could once again rise in the country should the ceasefire run out. The group, which was formed in 2003, has been fighting against coalition troops and Iraqi security forces since its creation, and has made many efforts to also concentrate firepower against Sunni/Kurd-insurgent groups such as Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna. Although suicide-bombings are looked upon as 'Haram' by members of the group, roadside-bombs (known by coalition forces as IED's) are not; and the discovery of high-tech weaponry used by the group has risen speculation that neighbouring Iran may play a part in it's initial and continued arming.

To me the move by the cleric doesn't make sense. The Mehdi Army has never been afraid of violence, hence its voluntary creation in the first place; and ending fighting, or denouncing violence would render Muqtada al-Sadrs leadership as pretty pointless, (unless the group was to become a political entity, rather than a purely paramilitary one). Another possibility is of course that the group just wants to re-stock up on arms, and the expected delivery date from Iran has been delayed. Iranian-post huh, but hey what did they expect?

As a long standing supporter of both the Iraq & Afghanistan invasions (both for different reasons), I find it hard to admit that coalition governments may have underestimated the cultural, religious and ethnic tensions left as part of Saddam Hussain's notorious legacy in Iraq. As is known, the Sunni-dictatorship which ruled Iraq horrifically persecuted both the majority Shia, and Kurdish populations of the country; using weapons of mass destruction, in operations like that of the Al-Anfal campaign, to do so. Since the invasion, both Sunni & Shia Muslims have been treated very much the same by coalition forces, which perhaps mistakenly saw them as just 'Iraqis', rather than seperate entities. By examining past events in History, perhaps I can further highlight what could have been done in utilising the political climate to our gain.

Last month here on the Isle of Man, I went along to a lecture on the English Civil War which was conducted by a leading man in the field, Professor Ronald Hutton of Bristol University. The professor outlined in the lecture that even before King Charles I raised his banner at Nottingham in 1642, declaring war on Parliament, the religious and cultural tensions within society had already decided which members of the population would side with who. Professor Hutton likened the situation to a rock which has been thrown against a wall with force. The rock will not break in a random fashion, but rather along pre-existing fault lines already existent within the rock. Studying these fault-lines before the rock is thrown could enable us to predict how the situation will unfold, and therefore help us know how to use it to our advantage.

The same could be said about Iraq, without understanding the tensions between Iraq's communities prior to the invasion, the hard-road might have been taken in trying to unite its reluctant peoples. The coalition governments, upon removing Saddam Hussain from power, expected the liberated Iraqis to take over the country, much as most liberated peoples have done in ages past. The people however were divided by tensions, and inexperienced in leadership and free-thought, deeming them incapable of anything to begin with. The crisis of the growth in violence and continuing political instability in the country was the impact of that rock hitting the wall, and the events that followed could have been known.

In my view, more of an effort should have been made to appease the majority Shia population in the forming of a new Iraq, rather than the Sunni. The Sunnis had their chance in ruling the country under the Ba'ath Party, and can't have felt anywhere near as persecuted as the Shias and Kurds. This desire for revenge by the Shia population was not appeased by the trial and execution of Saddam Hussain, but was split, bent and directed towards coalition forces and many innocent Sunni civilians in anger. This upsurge in violence by the Shia community could and should have been predicted by coalition governments.

A surprised realisation of the violence, followed by an attempt to stop the Mehdi Army using force, has not only encouraged the desire by Shias to make coalition forces their enemy, but has also ensured the group now has backing from Iran. British bases in Basra reported frequent rocket-attacks by Shia militias before the handover to Iraqi security forces in December, since then Iraq's second largest city has been much quieter. During the attacks however, some people in the nearby streets were heard by several inhabitants of Basra speaking 'Farsi', the language of nearby Iran; and many shells were also understood to be from across the border.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now, and has been since the invasion, a huge threat to the national security of the country. With foreign fighters actively recruited and imported by Al-Qaeda to fight the U.S. and Iraqi security forces, suicide bombings are commonplace and are seemingly very hard to prevent. The might of the Mehdi Army, had the Shias been properly utilised by coalition forces, could have been used to fight the Sunni Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq; and with the right support, could have potentially wiped out Al-Qaeda from Iraq all together. Instead, the road in making Iraq a democracy again has been made much harder due to the failure to understand community tensions, making coalition forces an enemy of both the Mehdi Army, and Al-Qaeda in post-invasion Iraq.

Despite what might seem as being harsh criticism towards strategic operations in Iraq, I have overwhelming faith that the country will one day become a fully democratic, fully in-control one thanks to the continued presence of coalition forces there, and every day the Iraqi government's mere existence is living proof of this. I hope also however that the fury of the Mehdi Army can somehow be tamed before Iraq arrives at what is generally considered to be the most deciding factor in the future of middle-east politics...

(Picture 1: Leader of the Mehdi Army and Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.)

(Picture 2: Members of the Mehdi Army during a street march.)

The Flight Against Terror...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:45:00 +0000

Last week, the convictions of five young British Muslim men jailed over extremist literature were quashed by the Appeal Court. The men, all of whom had been convicted in 2007, were originally arrested for downloading extremist literature, obtaining an Al-Qaeda Manual, and for having involvement with jihadist websites, on which they adopted the names of suicide bombers. The case for the prosecution was that the five extremists had planned to go to Pakistan to receive terrorist training and then go on to fight in Afghanistan, however the requirement to prove that every shred of evidence recovered supported this accusation may have been too much for the Crown Prosecution Service.

The case for the defence was that although it was evident the men were planning to go to Pakistan, it could not be proved that the extremist material recovered by police was to be used there; and so the case had the potential to be thrown out due to supposed lack of evidence. That, mixed with the ambiguity surrounding the Terrorism Act 2000, and the institution of politically biased Judges eventually led to the men's convictions being dropped, a decision which may prove to be a mistake should any of the men go on to be part of Britain's next batch of suicide bombers. Indeed the news of this 'triumph' will ring in the ears of many would-be jihadists, sending a message clear enough to them that involving themselves in internet terrorism and downloading Al-Qaeda manuals is something which is, in terms of law, somehow acceptable.

The argument for many, in favour of the dropping of the men's convictions, is that the very freedoms of expression and freedoms of thought existent in our democracy might have been undermined had the case succeeded in the allocation of jail sentences. This 'freedom at all costs' sentiment has been the stumbling block for many who attempt anti-terror measures, and scrutiny of British security agencies became apparent most recently with the bugging of Labour MP Sadiq Khan whilst visiting a terror suspect. The allegation was that a bugging device had been placed in an area where the Mr Khan and one of his constituents, a suspected terrorist, were sat; and that the conversation the men had was recorded by security officials.

Since the allegation came to light, many MPs have expressed the view that such discussions between MPs and constituents should be private, and that recording such discussions is an infringement of individual freedoms, and should therefore be outlawed. Never before had I realised that members of Parliament, and indeed members of the public, had the right to tell security agencies what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do in terms of surveillance. Maybe they have such high standing in society, that they will also be telling MI5 what colour their building should be next painted, or indeed what brand of staplers should be used in their offices.

As an avid fan of the fictional, spy-thriller, mini-series 24, the idea that legislation could prevent a character such as Jack Bauer from bugging a suspected terrorist because that suspect was with an elected Government official, seems to me to render the whole purpose of a security agency as futile. After all, security agencies like MI5 are dedicated to discovering which members of our society actively support or engage with enemies of the United Kingdom through the use of stealth surveillance technology, not brut force or torture which is used in many other countries. For those of you who might have devoted countless hours of your life into watching the award winning 24, you will know that Special Agent Jack Bauer is no stranger to using torture in the field; fiction of this kind however enables us as a society to have a healthy understanding of such situations, from which we can base our levels of morality which formulate the zeitgeist.

The controversy surrounding the allegation also highlighted the worry of many that Britain is creeping further and further towards a surveillance-state, a prospect that, in the wrong hands, could deeply benefit a dictatorship government. The trouble here, is that we don't live in a dictatorship, but many people still don't trust intelligence agencies or the establishment; seemingly regarding them as potential threats to their individual liberties. This is a mentality formed by many years of bombardment from well aired conspiracy theorists in the media, including the likes of Mohammad Al Fayed and the ridiculous David Ike. A broad mentality which, in this war against extremism, could not have come at a worst time. Calls for limitation or banning of surveillance technology should not come as a surprise, in this age where the principles of liberty have become somewhat of a betrayer in halting the attempted prevention of terrorist activities, but nor should such requests be taken seriously.

Thankfully justice did prevail yesterday, when 37 year old Parviz Khan was jailed for life for plotting to behead a British soldier 'like a pig'. Khan, a British-born resident of Birmingham, was also secretly recorded teaching his five year old son to hate the 'Kuffar' or non-believer, by security officials. "Who do you love?" asked Khan, "I love Sheik Osama Bin Laden...Allah and Sheik Abu Hamza" replied the boy. "And who do you kill?" Khan had asked, "America, Bush I kill, Blair kill, and yeah, Kuffar" replied the boy. Khan claimed up to £20,000 a year in benefits and often boasted about himself making the non-believers 'bleed financially', saying it was the duty of every Muslim to 'take from the Kuffar'. He made his children sleep on the floor of his cold home at night, to apparently 'toughen them up' should he ever take them to fight in the mountains of Afghanistan; and is thought to be totally unsafe for release at any time in the near future due to his murderous nature and wholehearted indoctrination.

Thanks to the covert and yet effective operations of British intelligence agencies, such plots are successfully prevented all the time. If agenices are successful in this then there are concerns over the wellbeing of the suspects from liberal extremists, and if they are not successful there is widespread criticism from those same people directed at our security services. No one should realistically be exempt from surveillance in the right circumstances; after all that is how dictatorships flourish.

If anything, we should be following the examples of Israel's Mossad in the fight against home-grown Islamic extremism, instead of persistently accommodating the concerns of a few paranoid communist sympathisers into our statute books.

(Picture: Kiefer Sutherland as 24's Jack Bauer.)

The Devious Doctor...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:33:00 +0000

This week Dr Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England, sparked outrage among many followers of the Anglican faith by openly suggesting in a speech at the 2008 Temple Festival that aspects of Islamic Sharia law should be adopted in Britain. The speech made by the Archbishop was only an hour long, but the days following have seen huge criticism of the comments by senior Anglican Bishops and MPs from all three main political parties. In the speech, Dr Williams talked about looking at "...what might be entailed in crafting a just and constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory law of the United Kingdom", and then went on to attempt to "dispel some myths about sharia". He commented on these 'myths', which it seems, he believes are irrational and falsely based; and said that most people think Sharia is "...oppressive to women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments". The way in which Dr Williams gave the lecture was a way that implicitly patronises its audience, a situation by which he is the enlightened preacher, and we are the sheep to be taught. I suppose one could expect nothing more from the Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who's job it is to lead Britain’s most senior Christian community, but to conduct a speech on a matter of serious political context in the way in which religious doctrines are given seems to me utterly absurd and quite arrogant-like.

To quote Dr Williams, he said the following "It seems that if we are to think intelligently about the relationship between Islam and British Law, we need a fair amount of deconstruction of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether mythologies about the nature of sharia or about the nature of the enlightenment; but as I’ve hinted I don’t believe this can be done without some thinking also about the very nature of law." The implication that we should somehow invest resources in altering perceptions of Islamic Law in Britain, for the soul purpose of bettering community relations, is quite a frightening prospect. In these times of 9/11, home-grown suicide bombers, and radical organisations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, people should be left to their own conclusions on the acceptability of Sharia Law in Britain. With access to the internet and a basic understanding of Arabic, one can easily see the punishments given out to thieves, murderers, homosexuals, and even drunks in Saudi Arabia, punishments which are all dictated by Islamic Law. The vital thing in this example is that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic Republic, like Iran or Pakistan, but is a Kingdom ruled by a Royal Family; Sharia Law therefore can be compatibly implemented under the reign of a Monarchy, and Dr Rowan Williams, the man who represents our Queen's Church, is seemingly sympathetic to the idea.

The Archbishops speech on Thursday has made the lives of many integrating Muslims against the implementation of Sharia Law very difficult, and has made many others, like me, question their own support for Anglicanism in the process. If we are to talk about improving community relations in terms of common ground, I think the successor of the Archbishop should undoubtedly be one of the most admirable and righteous figures in the Anglican faith: Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. The Bishop is just the kind of strong mediator the Church of England needs if it is to stand any chance of survival after the abysmal leadership of its current one. I don’t recall the church having so many divisions, rebellions, and public upheavals before Dr Williams was appointed, a man whose resignation is without a doubt now due. In researching the past affiliations of Dr Rowan Williams, it was no surprise to find that most of them were Anti-Nuclear, Anti-US and Anti-Coalition. He was once famously quoted saying that he believed the descendents of victims of the slave trade should be financially compensated, when referring to Al-Qaeda once said "...terrorists can have serious moral goals", and even openly criticised "Christian Zionists" for supporting the Jews return to Israel, in the British Muslim magazine 'Emel'. His appointment in 2002 has ultimately led to the weakening of the Church's credibility in terms of traditional foundation, as well as rational teaching; and has turned many away from the faith into what is now considered to be a largely secular society.

The Church Times columnist Andrew Brown once said "The trouble with Rowan Williams is that he can never remember that he is Archbishop". It's true, he seems to think that he's at some sort of Socialist Worker street rally every time he gives a speech; casually giving his views on all sorts of political issues, instead of on what he is supposed to. Of course the man should have his own political views, but it is not irresponsible to unnecessarily spout them and in the process label the whole Anglican faith? At this point might I remind everybody reading that the Pakistani-born Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali was born into a Punjabi-Christian family, and I firmly belive that because of this reason, the Bishop of Rochester has a better understanding of Islam than the Archbishop, and of course has had practical experience of Sharia. His outspoken comments on Islamic-extremism in Britain pull no punches in stating fact, and his appreciation for British culture and national identity I find deeply touching. If ever there was a man to strengthen the foundations of British Anglicanism in the face of increasingly hostile times, surely it would be him.

When the news came on Thursday that the Archbishop had made a speech on Sharia Law in Britain, I had a slight spell of Deja Vu. My mind harked back to Sunday night's Channel 4 programme 'Divorce Sharia Style', in which the lives of several Muslims were filmed as they dabbled with the idea of divorcing their spouses. The programme focused on the Sharia Council based in East London's Regents Park Mosque, and their attempts to assess the requests of divorce based on Sharia principles. I thoroughly enjoyed the programme and found it to be highly educating in terms of community insight and belief. During the middle of the programme however, Council representatives began to speak of how they wanted their practices of Sharia Law to be recognised by the state. A statement I initially took to mean in reference to Marriage and Divorce, not in what Sheikh Hassan, Senior Judge and Secretary of the Council, was about to say next. "We know that if Sharia laws are implemented then you can change this country into a haven of peace. Because once a thief’s hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. If only once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. There would be no rapists at all. This is why we say that, yes, we want to offer it to the British society. … And if they don’t accept it, they would need more and more prisons." I couldn't believe my ears, this man was openly advocating the proposal that Britain should not only implement Islamic Law with regard to wedlock, but with everything else as well.

That sort of talk I had heard before, from the lips of fundamentalist members of the radical group Hizb-ut-Tahrir on shows such as BBC2's Newsnight, a group dedicated to the creation of an Islamic State in Britain. I quickly dismissed the man as just another misguided old idealist who wanted what he thought was best for people. Not a bad man necessarily, just one of many other religious scholars who want everyone on the Earth to be united by the same faith. I went to bed that night and picked up Ed Hussain's 'The Islamist', a book which I have been reading for many weeks. In it Hussain describes in detail what he experienced as a young extremist, revealing the story of his life at the beginning and the end of his radicalisation. By a stroke of sheer coincidence, the chapter I was to read was about Hussain's joining of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, their beliefs and morals from his understanding, and their ultimate goals. From reading that night I learned that Hizb-ut-tahrir was not only an organisation dedicated to implementing an Islamic State in Britain, but eventually a world-wide Caliphate, or Islamic super-state. The organisation is banned in many countries including Saudi Arabia, but it is currently legally active in the UK. There is no doubt that people like Sheikh Hassan are in support groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or at least have some sympathies with them, a view not in the least shared by all Muslims.

Looking back at the programmes airing, I do wonder if the Archbishop happened to be watching Channel 4 that Sunday night, and whether or not his sympathies with such naive people did indeed prompt the speech. God Almighty I miss Henry II...one can only imagine would he have done with the man...

Attention Class...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:30:00 +0000

With a report released this week which suggests that more and more parents are prepared to lie about their religion to get their children into top faith-schools, and the recent comments of award-winning playwright Alan Bennett against the existence of private schools, it would seem that the crusade against the class system has moved into its next phase of attack: Education. The left has, for decades, been attempting to erase our centuries old British aristocracy and middle-classes from society, and by using self-righteous reasoning almost reminiscent of that of Cromwell's they continue to succeed. The implementation of Labour's recent inheritance-tax, which can now take up to 40% of the inheritance should the figure be more than £250,000, is obviously targeted at the sons and daughters of the once social elite. Removing the possibility of continuing a family dynasty on the basis of all important 'Equal Opportunities'. The reformation of the House of Lords, which now means it will consist of 'elected-only' members has eradicated the centuries old tradition of handing down of peerages from father to son, effectively breaching a gap for even more left wing, obsessionist nobodies to fill the house. This Labour move in particular is one of several steps which I predict will occur in future years. The House of Lords (now being all elected) will firstly fill up with more people fuelled by a desire to further dismantle any remnants of the class system. The House will next be deemed by the Government to be just another House of Commons (as it is also now filled with elected members, rather than its rightful Lords), and finally a vote will be held on whether or not the House is significant enough to stay. The House (now being filled with people bent on its removal anyway) will win a vote to deem its existence unnecessary, leaving the House of Commons to be the sole decision maker, and the country, in my view, more susceptible to Dictatorship.

The removal of the class system, the aristocracy and eventually the Monarchy is a pattern which again and again can be seen in the history of many nations, most notably in those of the rest of Europe. Propagators of such acts consider what they do at the time to be righteous, and think they are ensuring the bettering of their people by doing so. As Orwell might once have privately interpreted it, a few poor people get fed up with a few rich people and decide to alleviate them from their wealth and power in the name of goodness; the poor people get a movement going (as they are a majority) and eventually do so, distributing it amongst themselves. I suppose the notion that this is in essence theft, and often cold-blooded murder, does not even enter their minds at the point of action, and seemingly it might not enter anyone's head for a good hundred years or so. The French revolution, the Russian revolution, the Chinese Revolution, all victories by the left in overthrowing centuries, sometimes millennia, old social hierarchies in favour of more 'equal' ones. Anti-establishment in Britain is by no means a new occurence, and without a doubt the acting against the ruling classes is part of our national history, whether you consider it to be treasonous or not. The difference is, that with the death of the British Empire with Winston Churchill in 1965, and the subsequent emergence of liberalism filling its void, the left has more power now over the ruling classes than it ought to. This does have some benefits however. For example the implementation of the Hunting Act 2004 has outright banned fox hunting with hounds, a sport which was, and still is today, popular amongst middle and upper class families. As a lover and great believer in the natural preservation of the countryside and wildlife of Britain, I thoroughly deplore the barbaric blood-sport; and see it as nothing more than socially accepted murder. The method by which foxes, badgers and anything else which finds itself at the mercy of such hunts are systematically ripped apart alive could never bring me any ounce of pleasure or gratification should I be responsible for its occurance. The notion that the social elite and intelligencia could be so bored as to participate in such hunts still baffles me to this day, and it disappoints me when ever I see admirable figures like Boris Johnson or Prince William advocating hunts, trail led or not. I welcomed the Labour enforced bill with open arms, after all I concluded that to be consistent as a society we might as well turn a blind eye to cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting as well if it brought people pleasure. The events which followed the act surprised me, it is said that because of the bill, more people than ever are now participating in illegal hunts across the country in defiance of the Government. A seemingly huge movement which defends the historic traditions and mentalities of their forefathers with action. I do not support the continuation of illegal hunts across the country but rather admire the people for taking such a strong stance against forced liberal restrictions. If only such movements would rally in response of real travesties like the reformation of the House of Lords, we might be less at threat from the left-wing office.

Getting back to Education, and the fact that parents are willing to have their children baptised to get them into top performing faith-schools doesn't surprise me at all. Being brought up a traditionalist Anglican at my first and most influential primary school, and further encouraged on by my mothers efforts to take us to a Baptist school most Sundays, I had the option (when aged 11) to attend either a top ranking CofE school or a largely secular but more local state high school. Much to my current regret I chose the latter, but the fact that I had a choice in the matter at all was down to the fact that I attended church. My final decision also shows how free thinking I had been encouraged to be as a boy, and it was taken (as I now realise) with much regard of the ultimately temporary friend base in which I was surrounded by at the time. The prospect of having to make new friends and start all over again was daunting to a weary 11 year old who had endured one school and house move already, all I could ultimately conceive of then was the coping of the 'here and now'. My mother had not purposely sent me to church for all those years just for me to turn down the opportunity when it arose, but in fact most of my friends at Sunday-school were there just for that very reason, openly admitting why they had started attending church in the first place, their motives were well known. This however did not hinder their willingness to learn at church, nor sing hymns, nor represent the church at Easter or at local community events; and they were just as much respected because of this. Their active role in the church outweighed the fact that they may have been going for ulterior motives, after all they supported what the church stood for, and those that didn't, didn't attend. The moral up-bringing of those parents' children at the church every week ensured that they learned about the Bible, the principles of British tradition, and the acceptability of behaviours in modern society; and quite frankly it did a better job at teaching those things than most parents could have done independently.

There are several arguments, I believe, for a persons right to attend church for whatever reason they deem fit; whether it be community, respectability or tradition, if not spiritual gratification. The first is that British Christianity is by no means what it used to be. In many parts of the country congregations are dying, churches are being demolished, and Christian based community traditions are becoming more and more frowned upon by secular councils. The realising of the premise that a child may only be considered for application at a top school because of his/her attendance at a church is bound to fill empty pews in and around the immediate local vicinity. The influx of young families into these places of worship means that those people are more likely to be affected by the moral obligations which are expected of church attending folk, more often than not resulting in a 'good citizenship-ness' which will consequently affect the community for the better. The second reason is that the whole basis of Christianity is to bring those who may not know about the principles of Christ into a place of its teaching. Thus an influx of people who may not have initially regarded themselves as Christian will be learning how to do so just by being at church. Alcoholics, thieves, murderers, adulterers, persecutors and all other forms of sinner have often been accepted into the church since its very conception, and so how is it logical to accept those people, yet deny entry to those who merely want the best for their children. The third and final reason in this argument is that this country is a free one, to claim that private and faith schools are elitist and un-equal, and therefore must be banned (as the playwright Alan Bennett this week proposed) would be to say that because private healthcare is only available to the rich, it is elitist and un-equal and therefore should also be banned. Or that expensive dining tables should be banned because they are only available to those rich enough to afford them, and are therefore elitist and un-equal. The basis of ones skills, experience, wealth and social merits to excel in life is something which all of society relies on to function properly. To suggest that this is somehow wrong would seem to me to be an illogical attack on behalf of people without such skills, experience, wealth or social merits, people connotative of Labours socialist core supporters.

Academic institutes such as Eton College have for centuries taught the 'crème de la crème' of British society, providing a top quality service to people who can afford to send their children there. Less grand examples of private educationary bodies continue to out perform many Government managed state schools, earning proud, attractive reputations which parents are obviously drawn to. The failings of state schools which many members of the public have noted, don't seem to be acknowledged enough by Government ministers. I suppose that if they think it's relatively okay to leave state schools in their current...state, then they should be prepared to accept that some parents aren't going to want to send their children there, shelling out up to £20,000 a year for ultimately better alternatives. Instead of talking about improving state schools to cap competition, Government supporters have edged away from its failings and attacked those privately funded bodies simply for being better at teaching, as well as simultaneously scrutinising parents for sending children there. Amongst all the carefully designed, politically correct Government talk about the problems of a society which doesn't know or care where it's children are at night, which often results in murders such as that of Garry Newlove outside his home in 2007, it seems the real criminals in the eyes of Labour are parents who care too much about their children.

In all honesty, the Government lobby at the heart of British policies should ask themselves this: 'Is it better to live in a place where parents send their children to church in an attempt to get them the best life can offer, or to live in a morally deficient society where parents don't care about where there children are, what they are doing, or whom they are with?' The irresponsible prattle of a few absent-mindees, who are given a platform in the hope that they might further de-stabilise our rich society is what repels me about our current age. It is the result of an immoral, illogical, socialist movement, which has taken too much power at the expense of the once ruling classes...

(Picture: The historic Eton College, Windsor.)

Mr Brown's Mrs Smith...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:38:00 +0000

The new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, speaking yesterday in her first major speech on Islamic Extremism, spoke of the introduction of new security measures and methods which are specifically designed to crack-down on the growing number of terrorist sympathisers in and around the British Isles. In the week where Al-Qaeda has publicly declared online the existence of a British wing to its organisation, and called to arms' many Muslims in Britain, the Home Secretary expressed the need to treat the use of internet terrorism with much the same seriousness as internet paedophilia; requiring the co-operation of both intelligence agencies and local authorities to help stop such activities. The speech comes after it was revealed that American Security chiefs are said to see Europe as 'riddled with terrorists', and a plot to blow-up Paris's Eiffel Tower by French-born Algerians was uncovered by French and U.S agencies. The main focus of the speech however was the decision by the Government to, in future, refer to any incidents of Islamic extremism or terrorism as 'Anti-Islamic activities', a term coined to supposedly prevent the portrayal of Islam as a malicious religion. The move is part of a wider Government strategy to re-label terms used in speeches and the like, which might serve to hinder Labours other political operations. The terms 'War on Terror' and 'Axis of Evil', first introduced by the Bush administration, were the first to go last year amid the succession of Gordon Brown as PM. Other examples include the scrapping of the word 'Immigrant' in favour of a less negatively sounding 'Migrant' in an attempt to dispel the negative-stereotypes which are commonly, supposedly unfairly, attributed to people from other countries.

One has to look at the facts of the matter when making such decisions, as the ordinary sense of most people will tell them that those who sympathise with terrorists are going to do so whether they are branded anti-Islamic or not, especially by a 'Crusader' Western Government. It may be said that the move has been taken to protect British Muslim communities from backlashes by the mainstream majority, or to provide a deeper understanding of Islam to those whom the Labour movement rely so heavily on for votes. But as Conservative MP Phillip Davies expressed, if the government spent less time worrying about things like this and more time on controlling our borders, the actual threats from terrorism and increased immigration levels might be disrupted, rather than the disruption of the opinions of the public. Gordon Browns Government has also decided to stop referring to the plight against terrorism as a war, seemingly claiming that by doing so would be playing into the hands of terrorists, and creating an all too apparent void between the values of the West and those of the Islamists. The treating of plotting and succeeding Jihadist groups in Britain as no more than petty criminals or common murderers cannot possibly have any benefits. I have heard people say it acts to give the groups less credibility when recruiting or trying to gain support, but groups such as this do not work like any other public enemy most can recall. They do not require a large amount of support in Britain to launch attacks on infastructure, government buildings or senior figures, they often work in groups of 10 or less and usually have extensive support, links and funding all from outside the country. The support of the masses in the West is not, and has never been, a main concern for Al-Qaeda's 'Ayman Al-Zawahiri' or (should he still be alive) his partner in crime 'Osama Bin Laden'. The 'home-grown' phenomenon has ensured that a significant enough amount of people are now prepared to attack the country of their nationality, the country that has mothered them often from childhood or birth, in favour of foreign doctrines of which we have no conception.

The 'home-grown' phenomenon, we must remember, is not uniquely British or European, but also concerns the Governments of the United States and surprisingly Canada. Last summer Canada thwarted a plot by 17 Islamic extremists to storm Parliament, take hostages and behead the prime minister and other leaders. The group also supposedly planned a bombing campaign in the country and imported weapons and ammunition from the U.S. for the purpose of terrorist training and operations. I find the argument that we are somehow more susceptible to threats of terror due to our foreign interventions quite lacking in this case, as it is widely known that Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq at any point, even though relations with the country and the United States suffered as a consequence. The Canadian Government even offered to pledge $300 million dollars to the rebuilding of the war-torn country, an offer which if anything shows the concern of the Canadians for the well-being of the Iraqi people. As for Afghanistan, Canada's intervention there is in line with international law, and it is supported by the UN and the newly appointed Afghan Government for having presence there. I find it difficult to see why those opposed to Canada's involvement in Afghanistan would plan to commit such acts in the country in which they live. Surely if they cared so much about the Taliban and thought that they were somehow unable to look after themselves, they would be fighting with them in the deserts of Kandahar, not beheading irrelevant people in Canada. I do not believe this dribble, this complete nonsense perpetuated by the dying remnants of the 60's anti-war movement about how wars in foreign countries significantly affect matters here. I would like to know why terrorist sympathisers, all too often European and American, sought out the terrorist training camps of Afghanistan before 9/11, before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan if this were true. After all why attack the West if we haven't intervened anywhere? Support for Israel (as was the supposed reason of the 9/11 attacks) is a petty excuse for such an reaction, it would be like America launching an attack against Syria for supporting and funding Palestinians, its just not their war to fight; and I might add many, even Jewish, Americans support the plight of the Palestinians. To label everyone as having the same view is just the way these ignorant, seemingly primitive terrorist groups work, if we are western we are Kaffir, if we are non-Muslim we are Kaffir, if we are liberal or even moderate Muslims we are Kaffir; and despite the lefts attempts to somehow gain favour with groups by attacking those in opposition to terrorist activities, western members of the 'anti-war' movement are just as much hated by these horrible people as the rest of us.

As most of you would agree, the term 'Anti-Islamic' stirs up connotations of a group that is hell-bent on eradicating Islam, not a group that seeks to carry out attacks in the name of Islam. This decision by the Home Secretary just shows us how British anti-terror measures are going to work in the next few years, I can't wait to see what Mrs Smith comes up with next. The IRA was never referred to as being 'Anti-Catholic' or 'Anti-Irish', and I'm sure a decision to actively do so would have amounted in the British Government being seen as very weak by the international community, seemingly having no real line of defence left but to patronise their enemies, much like Browns Government now. The man wants to show that New Labour under him truly is New Labour, and any policy or action which might be deemed reminiscent of Tony Blair's conservativity by the electorate must be abandoned. The values of Islamist militant groups here and abroad, set on destroying our way of life in favour of an Islamic-World-State mimics the very mentality of groups like the American Klu Klux Klan, a mentality which is brutal, intolerant and animal-like...

(Picture: Home Secretary Jacqui Smith & Foreign Secretary David Milliband.)

The Bias Broadcasting Corporation

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:06:00 +0000

In the wake of the recent death of Flashman author, and Isle of Man resident, George MacDonald Fraser, the Daily Mail published a series of essays in which he had detailed the declining nature of the United Kingdom. In them, he describes the decay of ordinary morality, standards of decency, sportsmanship, politeness, respect for the law, family values, politics and religion in Britain which has upheld our society for generations; and of the social engineering of the past few decades which has seen the PC lobby transform the education system so that they above all can dictate what and how our young people will learn in schools. This latter occurance likens to somesort of fascist state of Orwellian conception, a government who controls and restrics the learning of children in our schools. Teaching slavery as though it was an 18th century British idea, the bias anti-monarchical teaching of King Henry Tudor's notorious reign as if to warn children of what an unchallenged King or Queen has the potential to do, and the introduction of General Studies which seems to work around truth and fact using carefully designed Politically Correct dampers. For example, mentioning the great feats of the peace icon Nelson Mandela against South Africa's aparteid, without mentioning he was actually a co-founder and subsequent leader of a militant, terrorist organisation; or of the mentioning of Communism without mentioning that Socialism is actually its milder form, and that our Labour government founds itself proudly on Socialist principles. Surely it is for the benefit of us all if our children are also taught to be free thinkers in the process of learning at school, providing them with all the facts about a subject before they are to be tested on their knowledge of it. That is what I would consider to be a healthy and adaquate education system, and by succumbing to anything less we are effectively grooming them up for the future benches of New Labour.

The influencing of the people of Britain by the PC lobby also spans into the bias workings of the media through our Orwellian conceived, everyday televisions, in which a supposedly 'impartial' broadcasting corporation, known as the BBC, uses its state funding to propogate onto our screens whatever it deems fit. The truth of the matter is that we are actually abliged by law to pay the BBC, through our TV licenses, which allows the corporation to dictate and restrict whatever we see from morning till night on their channels; whether it be the opinions of the Liberal Democrat ministers on government policy, or the 'modern adaptations' of Jane Austens over-fished drama's, and most things broadcast seem to have political undertones. The BBC also has reach of the minds of British children through the mediators of programmes like Blue Peter and SMart, who's actual presenters such as Richard Bacon and Mark Speight don't seem to be thought of as influential role models, and so are left to their own illegal drug taking devices without any mentioning of moral obligation. Even the thought that presenters (and Angus Deayton is another one) should be morally-fit to represent our high British standards of decency and sign of well spending of taxpayers money is almost laughable in the eyes of the media chiefs. It would seem as though the core of British Liberalism has exceeded the once evident social boundries of pit villages and unions, and has firmly made its way into of one of the greatest influencing weapons known to man, but does the responsibility in the decline of our morality and national culture really lie with the most influential organisation? The success of propoganda throughout the ages has proved to be a mighty force in the overthrowing of the English King, the beheading of the French Aristocracy, and the electing of a German Supreme Chancellor, it is a collective opinion which convinces the masses to agree with whoever conceived it. Just look at China, its Communist government carefully moderates all news channels and stories which are to be publically seen, even limiting the internet so that no free thought or additional influences can be accessed by the population. They understand the power of the media, and realise that it has the capability to overthrow even the most brutal and intollerant of regimes whatever their political standing.

No doubt we are all influenced by the media, but perhaps if people had a little more discretion in identifying the political motives of news channels and television companies like the BBC, we would all be in less danger of adhereing to the liberality which has no room for tradition in Britain. The wider populations attitude to current events and politics has been dramatically affected by the media in the last century, almost to a state of social revolution. Never before has so wide an audience been subject to the views of others, and the consequence of such huge advancements in our technology has led us to huge social changes in a just a few generations. The evidence of this 'liberalisation' in society which has led to many changes in public opinion, stems from the fact that although our British government has changed hands back and forth since the great days of imperialism, influences from the liberal controlled media has shown no evidence of drastic change. It is as though Brtiains main media centre (being the BBC) has been privatised to the extent that the views of those in control of it do not match those of any political party. Subsequently leaving the state funded organisation to pick and choose what it wants to tell and show people, depending on where it stands on certain political issues. This predicts that even if a far-left wing government took power tomorrow, the media would still have the ability to opinionate the population of the country in its arguably more moderate centre-left views.

I have no problem with our freedoms of speech, nor of a private organisation or corporation's right to promote its political morals or ideals; as Voltaire once famously said "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the end your right to say it"; but to have in todays Britain a publically funded organisation seemingly exempt from debate or democratic process, manipulating how we live as a society is quite frankly a discrace. If the BBC is to be continued to be funded by the people of Britain by law, then it should have the decency to be completely politically impartial, as it all too often claims to be...

A True Inspiration...

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:06:00 +0000

Like many across the world, I was deeply shocked and saddened at the news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan today. To hear of such an intelligent, strong, inspirational woman being ruthlessly murdered at the hands of such cowardly and very evil terrorist organisations has truly made me wonder whether or not the country is ready for democracy at all. It is obvious in my opinion that the countries upcoming presidential elections should be cancelled, and I genuinely hope that current President Pervez Musharraf will resume his position as General despite the wide spread critisicm he may face. Afterall pressure from America and Britain to step down his position as General of Pakistan's Army was largely done in support of Benazir Bhuttos campaign, and not I believe properly thought through.

I suppose the West have been nieve in thinking that Pakistan really could handle democracy, depsite the many assurances of Musharraf that it could not, just seeing the Presidents opposition to democratic elections as a political move to retain power over the country. But Pakistan is a country vastly unlike our own, it has existed independently for only 60 years and has little or no history of stable democracy comparible to our own. We have had centuries at perfecting democracy with much blood spent at its development and maintainence, and it is now so deeply weaved into our society and history that very few of us could imagine life without it, let alone conceive of its reforming or abolishing. Pakistan is a country not yet founded by independent historical foundation, there is nothing really to hold it together in terms of national ideology, every day Pakistans history is being written and consequently it is still open to new ideas and revoluntionary concepts, an environment in which extremists thrive. We being the West would like to think that one of these concepts could genuinly be democracy, and of course a successfully democratic Pakistan would be a truly wonderful thing, but we as a collective superpower have a duty to be realistic. Democracy as a whole has to be earned, it has to be wanted enough by a countries people to be implemented successfully and protected from those who would wish it ill. With regard to Afghanistan, this is a country which has had 260 years worth of independence, and the overall stability to sustain a successful democracy with the support of its people. It is largely a country divided by ethnicity, race, language, and tribe, but largely maintains peace through means of negotiation and compromise. Its communities are close and the once ruling extremist Taliban are slowly being defeated by Western and Afghan forces. It would seem that the people of Afghanistan are simple people that have had enough of war, they just want to support the side that can bring them peace the quickest, democratic or not. Strategically a democratically stable Afghanistan could improve the region in terms of security, and provide an all important model for the people of Pakistan and neighbouring Iran to aspire to.

It would seem from the point of view of most Westerners that the Pakistanis themselves are not doing enough to fight anti-democratic extremism. If there was, for example, an anti-democratic Christian terrorist organisation within Britain, who attacked political candidates with bombs and machine guns, they would be no doubt hounded out by vigilantes. Every man, woman, and child in Britain would be brought together by the powers that be, and encouraged to find and bring justice to such a group. We have already seen this is response to the rise of fascists in Britain, who in fact oppose our democracy altogether, and are subsequently hunted down by the press and members of the public to be exposed as the subversives that they are, even those who are not necessarily violent. The IRA however could not be seen in this light, as the IRA effectively operated outside of Britain, smuggling weapons and terrorists within our borders to specifically attack. They were also fighting for supposed freedom of the island of Ireland, not the destabilisation of British democracy. Pakistan has large numbers of seemingly uncontested terrorist organisations operating and attacking from within its borders, who essentially want Pakistan to submit to a regime similar to that of Taliban ruled Afghanistan, in which the country was ruled entirely by Islamic Sharia law.

With Benazir Bhutto gone, President Musharraf must reclaim his status as General in order to see Pakistan protected from the ever growing extremist threat. His declaring of Pakistan as being in a state of emergency only a few months ago was the type of action which proves he is willing and competent enough to prevent extremists taking control of the country. Should Musharraf ever step down or in turn be assassinated, Pakistan's nuclear capabilities could be entrusted to anyone, and we know from past experience that there are always worse people lurking in the background. Musharraf is no threat to the West, in fact i'm sure he admires our democratic structure as a society, and for any Western government to oppose decisions made by him from now on would be folly. If anything we should support a man who, although may not have been democratically elected, has the military strength and will to control the population of his country. It would seem that for now Pakistan must conform to its current state in order to survive.

Benazir Bhutto studied at Harvard and Oxford, and always maintained pro-western values throughout her presidency and 8 year exile. She was, in my eyes, a perfect candidate to share power with for Musharraf over the ruling of Pakistan, and a great personal inspiration. She often showed her support for pro-western values within the British Muslim community, readily appearing on programmes such as Question Time, Newsnight and BBC News 24, and had she have stayed in the United Kingdom could have taught our government a think or two about community cohesion. No doubt that her strength, pro-western values and intelligence, combined with Musharrafs power and military strength, might have given Pakistan a better chance in fighting extremism and paving the way for future democracy. I just hope that the tragedy of todays horrific events will hit home to many ordinary Pakistanis that they themselves must conquer the extremism within their country if they wish to see Pakistan be taken seriously as a world player.

God bless you Benazir Bhutto, may your soul rest in peace...

The Age of Separatism

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:08:00 +0000

On Monday of last week, Edinburgh saw Conservative party leader David Cameron make a speech on why he thought the Union of Britain was key in bettering the future of the country. He made clear the well known intentions of the SNP to make Scotland independent within ten years, and told of the growing English patriotism which, it could be argued, is largely in response to growing regional patriotism north and west of English borders. Cameron (who is known to be of Scottish descent) outlined that his party would make all efforts to preserve the Union as long as he was party leader, and that if elected PM he would ensure Scotland remained part of Britain.

The act of Union between our two countries has for three centuries ensured that these islands are recognised throughout the world as some of the wealthiest, economically stable and culturally richest around, and together nothing in modern times has benefited us more. We now live in an age where physical and/or genetic differences should no longer be an issue for bettering relationships in society. By allowing our primitive, pre-evolutionary, tribal instincts to define our modern day political views (whatever the topic), we are unequivocally erasing millions of years worth of human advancement in intelligence, and essentially succumbing to separatism. The need to define ones identity and to therefore have the ability to make decisions based on that identity is something that we all have to go through. Football, one of the most successful arena sports, which I might add often mimics that of a roman gladiatorial sport, is largely designed to feed tribal instincts among the population. Choose a team, wear the colours and unite with those who support the same as you, disapproving those who don’t. This is similar in politics and in international affairs, but generally speaking separatism is most commonly defined in modern times by three major things: Language, Religion and Culture.

The Scots are ultimately English speakers and are traditionally most likely to be Protestants or Catholics, but the small differences between our two cultures, like accent and diet, are some of the reasons why so many believe that we should not be united by union. The SNP are now promoting ‘Scottish Gaelic’ in their schools (which I do actually approve of for non-separatist reasons), and many are seemingly resorting to pre-union History to legitimise the idea of Scottish independence more and more. A prime example ,of this use of History to increase political gain, within the past two decades would be that of the 1995 film Braveheart, in which Australian director Mel Gibson portrays himself as a common Scot and the English as lying, pompous, thieving rapists who have forcibly taken the independence of Scotland. I must admit that the film did host some artistic content and at times made me think of my Scottish ancestry, in retrospect however I later discovered the film was largely historically inaccurate, and I now believe that it did more damage to the Anglo-Scottish alliance than anything else has within my generation. It made even me feel anti-English at the sight of a scared, vulnerable, heartbroken Gibson being disembowelled before a jeering crowd, and whatever the arguments of those who claim it was a non-biased film portraying simply the heritage of Scotland, it was clearly politically motivated.

Cultural identity today has never meant so much to so many people. With the continued dubbing down of our patriotic, Anglican, Royalist traditions, the closure of hundreds of long established post offices and local markets, and the promotion of celebrated multiculturalism increasingly on the lips of teachers and television journalists, people just don’t know where to turn. The Government has in recent years failed the British people in rekindling the countries identity, and despite the fact that half of Parliament may attribute their accents to the Scottish highlands, the Scots have had enough. But then again why blame them? Independence of Scotland would in theory mean that they could control their own borders, dictate their own laws, and celebrate their own cultural identity without restriction. Of course whether or not the left-wing SNP would be fond of such things should they ever gain Scottish independence is arguable. Even the Welsh have had enough; they have now decided that Wales is in fact NOT part of England at all, seemingly deeming the Statute of Rhuddlan as never having existed.

We now face in Britain a threat from sepratism which has never before been seen. It is so diverse and complex that our very survival as a United Kingdom depends on its defeat sooner rather than later. The increasingly anti-British sentiments of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, British terrorist and sepratist organisations, organised criminals, liberal government officials, far-left groups, and worst of all the European Union can be defeated, and division I assure you plays no part in it. The union of Britain and the Commonwealth has always been our strength. It helped us to protect our allies in the Great War, it helped us defeat the fascist hoards of Nazi-Germany in the 1930s, surely it can still help us now in these dark days of suspicion and militancy. Community spirit is something we have to re-earn as a people, if we want to see the local village Post Offices, local bobbies, local butchers and personal accountability which once existed in Britain, uniting as a country is what we must do.

I often wonder about the true motives of the SNP and of its party leader Alex Salmond. Of course the SNP wants to be in control of its own land as any political party does, but do its members really believe that the bettering of Scotland can start with its independence? Or are its members desires to seperate Scotland from the Union part of an all together more sinister struggle for power? I really do sympathise with the average Scot, the Scot whose common sense is telling him that nonsense rules dictated by an English government are being forced upon his country, and that independence promised by the SNP might provide a way out. Afterall, so long as people in England are subject to Labours laws on immigration, inheritence and trade, so is he, but surely there is a more...conservative way out…

(Picture: Leader of the Scottish National Party Alex Salmond.)

Law & Disorder

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:53:00 +0000

Observing the introduction of new laws brought in under the Labour government to tackle crime, it would seem to many that the party genuinely does want to lower crime rates across the country. The success of things like Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in recent years and the proposals of new anti-terror legislation being put forward this month, Downing Streets image of a power-base ‘for the law-abiding majority’ has really taken off. According to government figures, violent crime is down, burglary is down, as is drug related crime; peel back this face of statistics and spin however and what really matters to the government seems clear.

The image of a British government working closely with the ministry of justice and indeed the judiciary, would seem to many to be a government capable of bringing the rule of law to the forefront of its aims, as well as serving out justice to those who have committed unlawful acts. The values of law and order are now, and have been for centuries, an essential part of our society, which we recognise have to be respected for the protection and maintaining of the greater good. The idea of putting an ordinary person in prison, taking away their liberties and rights, and restricting where they can and cannot go initially seems illogical. However put into that equation that the person in question has committed a series of violent murders and it would be logical to say, as a society, that the person in question must be locked away for the greater good, for the protection of the remainder of the law-abiding public. Furthermore however it would also be logical for the mother of the criminal to object to her sons’ imprisonment, as she would expectedly have emotional ties to him and would (in instinctive terms) naturally hope for the continuation of her sons genes.

It would seem that in recent years, the liberal core at the heart of the government has decided that the rehabilitation of prisoners should be a prime directive, and indeed that the spending of countless millions in this area is far better than its spending on the building of more prisons. Just look at the sentencing given out to convicted criminals today, what could be best described as a slap on the wrist for offences committed now, only two centuries ago would have either got you executed, deported to Australia or put on a prison-ship. Do you honestly think that armed gangs drugged-up to the eyeballs roamed the streets murdering people in those days and got away with it? Modern day criminals wouldn’t last a week in imperial Britain, and would certainly not be given the benefit of the doubt as is too often the case today.

To be fair it may well be that efforts have been made to put more ‘bobbies on the beat’, and to have more community officers roaming the towns and cities, but it would seem that only one card is being played here when two are needed. The introduction of more ‘lawful representatives’ is of course a small step in the right direction, but why bother using up resources trying to catch drug dealers when all they get at court is a nine-month prison sentence? The government has already concluded that the majority of offenders re-offend, hence their efforts to spend vast amounts of public money to ‘rehabilitate’ criminals. By doing this the government is sending out a signal to criminals, that if they commit a crime they will be put in prison for just the right amount of time they need to make criminal links, and will be treated with more recognition by society when they get out, ultimately being offered open arms and a clean slate at the expense of the ‘justice’ their victims expected to be delivered.

Why is it that the so called ‘justice system’ has in recent years dictated that to ‘serve time’ is to have your rights taken away for an allocated amount of time that is determined at your trial, which I might add is getting smaller by the year. Justice is no longer a fundamental principle of our society but a temporary gamble. It is a thing which was once successful in its aims, but has in modern-day Britain been mutilated and twisted to suit the needs and rights of the criminal rather than the victim. Where a breach of the law once had such a permanent affect on a criminal that he was stigmatised for life, fearful of the justice system and consequently resentful of his actions, it is now a badge of honour for many. It is time to acknowledge that there are some in our society who are naturally affected by the breakdown of traditional social values who cannot be affected by the ‘carrot’ approach. They have no morals, no parental guidance, and decide they will live by their own rules instead of the rules determined by law. They do what they want and do not fear either the police or the judicial system. The opposite is now the case; that members of the police force will not go into certain gang-controlled areas of the country out of fear, and I for one do not blame them, Justice is NOT prevailing in this instance and can certainly not protect them from harm.

The recognition of the authority and existence of gangs by our government is something which gives them status, and by the government practically showing that they can take no action further ensures that fear of the system will never again be imposed on criminals. It takes a certain mind-set to knowingly commit a crime, and by making the rights of the criminal your prime target you ensure they take your liberal kindness for weakness. From their point of view a television, daily access to a free gym, and a pool table is not a punishment, but a bribe in the hope that they will see the kindness of the government and not re-offend once out. Fear of the justice system is something which used to be essential to the safekeeping of the country as a moderate, law-abiding society, and in many parts of the world this is still the case. I do not necessarily advocate the use of amputation as a practical means of punishment, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the fear instilled by the consequence of stealing in Saudi Arabia has hugely affected the country’s stealing statistics; and that the implementation of such a punishment has ensured a lot less people have their possessions stolen. In today’s liberal, free-thinking Britain however, instilling fear into the minds of potential criminals is something which is frowned upon for some obscure reason. If the power of fear should be held by anybody it should certainly not be by those who roam the streets looking for vulnerable people to mug, or by drug-dealing gangs whom the police are too afraid and too under resourced to arrest. Surely the ends do in fact justify the means in this case, and that the retaking of the power of fear by the justice system is very necessary for the maintaining of the greater good.

Perhaps being safe to wander the streets here on the Isle of Man at any hour is largely down to (among other things) the fear of heavy sentencing given by judges, and the right to anonymity of the criminal denied by law, ensuring the fear of potential stigmatism by the community. Most if not all convicted criminals here have their names and addresses printed in the local newspaper at the time of sentencing and their right to parole is largely controlled by a system in favour of protecting the public. This could be tempting fate but we have not yet seen the arrival of left wing ‘do-gooders’ intent on reforming the system in favour of criminals, and I hope still that this will never happen.

I do look forward to the day when the rights of the law-abiding majority not to be mugged, burgled, conned, raped or murdered outweigh the rights of any criminal in Britain. Perhaps pensioners currently living in high-crime areas would be much safer in the knowledge that local drug-addicts dare not snatch a bag for fear of the repercussions of their actions, or indeed of the governments moral duty to protect the law-abiding majority at his/her expense.

This Week...Love & Hate.

noreply@blogger.com (Martin David) — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:01:00 +0000

For about a year or so now I have been watching, almost incessantly, BBC1's This Week, usually in the hope that it will fill my hunger for political banter last thing on a Thursday night. Stay put after BBC1's Question Time and you will be met by Andrew Neil, cracking well rehearsed quips about the 'Blue Nun' and of course our 'Great Leader' (A.K.A- Gordon Brown), and met by the sight of Dianne Abbott and Micheal Portillo sat comfortably on a dark mauve sofa. It would not be wrong to say that their innocent chuckling and gleaming facial expressions has always brought a spark of relaxation and light heartedness to the show, whether or not the current events of the week merit it. There is however an almost non-serious underlayer to the comments of the trio in reaction to some guest reports on the show, and an almost zealous criticism expressed by them that seems purely to be based on a matter of personal achievement rather than on reasonable argument. Of course politics can be relaxed, and it's good to see particular shows taking a different stace on current affairs, but surely the lighthearted atmosphere should stay lighthearted rather than turning into another fierce Paxman style interview.

This weeks edition of the show featured bestselling author and former Islamic radical Ed Hussain, who basically did his take on the week. His report began with scenes from the streets of Kartoum, with members of the Sudanese public holding up placards and weapons calling for the death of British teacher Gillian Gibbons. His report praised the successful actions of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi for their securing of her safe release, but urged the wider Islamic community in Britain to speak out more often against similar cases across the Islamic world. One of his main points was that although thousands of people from Britain each year go to Saudi Arabia to worship in places like Mecca and Mdina, when women are refused entry to certain areas on cultural grounds, the British nationals just accept it and do not speak out against the laws which are soley based on cultural, rather than Islamic, traditions. His main point was that British Muslims should know where they are from and be proud to be British, and that it took him a journey throughout the Middle-East, as a young radical, to finally discover that his place was Britain, and not the Islamic world state for which he had so long strived for. Watching Ed Hussains report really inspired me as a promoter of an intergrated Britain, and seeing an ex-radical like himself who now was so in touch with modern British values, almost made me think that he should be working for the Government on such matters. Fingers crossed Santa will be bringing me his book 'The Islamist' this Christmas.

Back to 'This Week' though, and Ed sat before the trio hoping to answer some questions and to go into more depth about his report as most guests do. He began to elaborate about what had radicalised him in his teens, and indeed what he believed other young muslims were feeling with particular regard to identity. He began to critisise the British Islamic community for not quite doing enough to prevent and condemn the preaching of extremists, and urged them passionately to do so with the realisation that they are British. Diane sat there cynically, as she usually does at this point of the show, and when asked what she thought about the report began to attack the views of Hussain. She was adamant that "in her constinuency" no such sects had infiltrated the Islamic community, and that "on the ground" people were happily living side by side with there fellow neighbours without any problem. "I dont really recognsie your very gloomy prognosis" she went on, commenting that because her muslim constituents had "womens projects", they were not part of the underlying problem highlighted by Hussain. She seemed to attack Hussain in a manner I thought quite rude and thoroughly offensive. The whole thing mimikced a broadcast earlier in the year when Ms Abbott told Peter Hitchens live on television that she thought his views were similar to that of the BNP, potentially destroying his career in one instant. Michael Portillo at this point tried to defend Mr Hussain and shift the emphasis onto his own personal views by spouting another obvious, highly agreeable comment almost to show his unhindered tantering to Diane. The debate however continued with Diane patronising Hussain as he began to quote the comments of MI5s Director Genral Johnathan Edmuds (who 3 weeks ago stated that an estimated 4,ooo British Muslims have already been radicalised) by simply smiling and shaking her head. Despite her cynisism and continued arrogance Hussain told Abbott that he had infact been radicalised in London and that he believes many muslims, even if not belonging to specific groups, share the mind set of separatism. He hit the nail on the head when he said to Abbott "There is a problem, and there's no point pussyfooting around the issue, what you do then is you allow that mind set to fester".

I mean for heavens sake, here is a man with experience of the extremo-Islamic movement in Britain being seriously contested by an arrogant Labour-rebel MP on matters which she can hardly comment on in comparison. The challenging of Hussains views were clear to me to be entirely political, clearly making sure that anybody from her constituency who also disagreed with his report would be voting her in at the next election. The debate continued further before Andrew Neil then ended it by making some sarcastic comment to Hussain, whom I thought had made his case very well.

To have such intellectuals on the show has undoubtably raised the kudos of the programme, but surely they have a responsibility to treat guests with a little more respect, even if they don't entirely agree with their personal views. Funny how guests like Toyah Wilcox, who featured at the end of the show, with a less controversial report seem to get treated with more respect by the trio. Such a love hate relationship I have for This Week, and even though broadcasts like last nights seem to be becoming more and more common, the non-inclusion of such guest reporters would be a great tragedy. I suppose guests on the show have to face a certain amount of criticism, more than anything to acquire credibility, afterall most political critics in society are widely known about thanks to such programmes.

Overall I would have to say that the comical performance of Andrew Neil, and the cheery smiles of Portillo and Abbott are a sort of addictive torture for me. This liberal specialist programme with a high value guests list is both my lover and my loathing.

Think i'll keep watching...for now...