Thursday, February 19, 2009

Britain Wakes Up ...

...Hand-wringing apologists in 3...2...1.

Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims'

So basically, it goes like this:

In Britain, the level of scrutiny you receive from the government is largely dependent on both the history of your personal actions and with whom you are known to associate.

To me, this sounds reasonable enough - very

The problem with that approach comes when you factor in Political Correctness and what aspects of their behavior you "mustn't see" because any such acknowledgement is inherently 'insensitive', 'judgemental' or 'discriminatory'.

It seems that someone at the Home Office had an epiphany - realizing that responsible adults (and particularly those responsible for the safety of others) are actually supposed to:

- make judgements,

- discriminate between good/bad/safe/harmful,

- and should do so based on the evidence put before them, regardless of the feelings or sensitivities of themselves or others.

Apparently, once the light died down and the host of angels ran out of breath, the decision was made to start paying attention to people's words and actions, and actually apply them as behavioral red flags to the existing Terror Code - and specifically when determining who should be subject to greater scrutiny as an "Extremist".

The measure (called 'Contest 2') would define extremists as those who "hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values."

(meaning essentially that the minority doesn't get to decide what's normal/acceptable for, or in opposition to, the rest of the country)

The meat of this is defined as:

According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
So, if you're living in Britain and you advocate the overthrow of the government, armed religious war against non-muslims, following a law other-than & to-the-exclusion-of the law of the Land, killing gays (because that's the only acceptable treatment for those who sin against Allah) , and/or cheer-on the killing of British soldiers abroad - you will be identified as an Extremist.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me - in fact, I'm a little surprised something so common-sense could come from government at any level.

Now, I can already see the 'thought-police' arguments coming 'round the bend - but let's bear in mind that what we're dealing with here is not some nebulous, double-plus-ungood preference against unhappiness.

This is a matter where it's the simplest thing in the world to draw a broad, straight line between words and actions, usually culminating in the fiery deaths of civilian commuters - and not the least because such actions are almost universally preceded and followed by these very words and sentiments.

Just like "Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are Muslims" - it also follows that "Not all people holding extreme views/beliefs commit mass murder, but all mass murderers hold extreme views/beliefs".

If the bombing/mass-murder parts are the actions, and we know about these only after-the-fact - then what becomes the common-theme predictor to preventing/opposing the actions?
"Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces."
Again - take what you've seen people do - when you take any random sampling of religious murders/executions across the world, are we talking about Lutheran, Norwegian grandmothers?
"Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation thinktank, said the root causes of terrorism were extremist views, even if those advocating the views did not call for violence.

Husain, once an extremist himself, said: "Violent extremism is produced by Islamist extremism and it's only right to get into the root causes."
"Root Causes".

Now, here in the US we're more accustomed to those on the Left shrieking about 'root causes' in terms of 'American Imperialism', 'Heartless Capitalism' and 'Evil Conservative Policies' as being the "root causes" of terrorism - but that only works when you disconnect 'A' from 'C'.

I am willing to stipulate right here that those can be "root causes" of indignation, anger and even outrage.

But at the same time one would have to also stipulate that billions of people all over the world feel these very same things over a myriad of conditions every day - and yet do not feel a moral imperative to slaughter innocent bystanders by the hundreds.

So what is the "root cause " of the decision to transform 'ourage' into 'murder'?

If this could remotely be considered a one-off situation the answer might be 'mental illness' generally, or 'psychosis' or 'sociopathy' more specifically.

But this cannot be - even remotely - considered a one-off situation.

And even even opponents to 'Contest 2' have to step carefully to avoid admitting it.

"Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims."

"That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists."
It's obvious that she's trying very, very hard not to say this - but is trapped by the imperative of having to create a sense of wide-spread victimization.

Roll back up to that list - according to one of the more vocal opponents to the common-sense 'Contest 2', that list would class most Muslims as extremists.

Now that's a very 'Horse's Mouth' moment there.

Most. Muslims.

And the proof, as they say...

"The Contest strategy (of which this proposal is "2" - MD) was put in place in 2003 as the UK beefed up its response to the threat of al-Qaida inspired terrorism. But the security service's assessment shows no drop in those they consider dangerous and the UK's terror threat level remains at severe general."
And with the PC-taboo on the identifying features of Islamic-Extremism hampering efforts, who would have thoght such a thing?

"In a speech in December, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the government's counterterrorism strategy had to include challenging nonviolent extremist groups that "skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies".
Good Morning, Home Office.

Let me put some coffee on for you.

- MuscleDaddy


  1. If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck....

  2. Good LORD! You mean they might actually come to the senses? We might actually get an ally in this fight?


  3. But...but...but...

    I thought it was only a tiny minority...


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.