At last a hint of sanity in the PC world called the British Government.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at August 12, 2006 7:38 PM

Finally.

Posted by: Daisytoo at August 12, 2006 7:38 PM

These Muslim MP's appear to have been selected more on the basis of their religion than their intelligence. They honestly don't realise what sinister, threatening blackmailers they are coming across as (and in fact are).It must be the stultifying effect of Islam.

Posted by: wallyUK at August 12, 2006 7:45 PM

All these Lord Ahmeds and Ali's were given peerages, as they delivered the Muslim vote to Labour.

Posted by: DP111 at August 12, 2006 8:08 PM

I wish just once, just once, our elected leaders would say something like this:

"To anyone who disagrees with your government's foreign policy, be assured that your government welcomes honest criticism. If you want to effect change, you can use any or all of the tools a democracy gives you: Run for high office. Vote. Participate in political campaigns. Demonstrate peacefully. Write. Speak. Broadcast. But never, never, never threaten, much less cause, violence against your fellow citizens. Nor imply that domestic violence is somehow the 'inevitable' outcome of any foreign policy. Violence has no place in solving disputes in a modern democracy, no matter how strongly you feel, no matter what you've read, no matter what you've been told. It's as simple as that."

Posted by: Steven L. at August 12, 2006 8:11 PM

If Islamofascists are unhappy living in the West, they could always piss off back to whatever Islamic utopia they like. Fifty years ago we imprisoned people during WW2 for simply expressiong a slightly positive view of Hitler; this Islamit letter is treason.

Posted by: fucking sick of islamofascists at August 12, 2006 8:21 PM

"At last a hint of sanity in the PC world called the British Government."

Holger-

If I remember correctly, Kim Howells had an "If I was an Israeli I would have smacked him" moment a few weeks back. While in Israel he criticised them for the attacks on Lebanon. It's a bit different when the threat, however veiled or wrapped in cotton wool, is directed at our own government and country. I'm happy that he spoke well on the matter, but let's see if he stays consistent in future.

Posted by: Wishbone at August 12, 2006 8:24 PM

This letter is just another example of blaming Islamic violence on "grievances" and "injustice". There are any number of places, groups, nations or whatever that have grievances with someone else over injustices real or perceived, but this threat from the "Ummah" is the ONLY one that leads to this type of ongoing, persistent problem of random mass terrorism against civilians. And the ONLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between it and any of the others is Islam. Clearly the religion of peace needs some reworking. If its followers don't reform it themselves very soon, we should do it for them by way of aggressive police and government control over every Islamic school, mosque or other institution.

I suggest that every western government should establish a "ministry for religious affairs" that's granted jurisdition over this sort of thing, keeps an eye on religious controversies and licences religious ministers. Such government minding has long been the norm in Islamic countries, so it might as well be here too, at least until the character of Islam is permanently changed for the better, if it ever can be. If even this doesn't solve Islam's violence, then perhaps it'll need to be outlawed and eliminated and the Koran banned as hate literature.

Posted by: templar at August 12, 2006 9:47 PM

Howells said "no government formulates policy based on a perceived risk from terrorists...." I just hope he sticks to that. He has been an idiot in the past on occasion. Maybe he has grown up a bit now.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at August 12, 2006 9:54 PM

Having read mathematics at the university, I can only same that 2 + 2 = 4.

But, I must admit, I didn't do my readings at Harvard or Stanford or MIT (Noam Chomsky) or Oxford or the U. of Heidleberg, so maybe I'm wrong on this important equation. Lemme know if I'm wrong on this.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at August 12, 2006 10:32 PM

Take away the titles that the Curry Magnates have foolishly been awarded, and kick them out of the House of Lords as a start. Kick all of those wbo use veiled or unveiled threats out of the country if not citizens. If citizens, look into what it was they had to swear to as part of their naturalization. Find out what it was, and if it is sufficient to institute proceedings to strip them of their citizenshp, after an inquiry into whether or not they committed perjury, and an inquiry into whether or not someone who claims to be a Believing Muslim can in fact offer an infidel nation-state, any Infidel nation-state, unfeigned and permanent loyalty. This has to be made the subject of investigation and widespread public discussion. What loyalty does Islam inculcate into its Believers? What stance and attitudes does it tell its Believers to take toward Infidels? Don't hide this matter. Discuss it, day after day after day. Ask about the duty of loyalty, sole loyalty, to fellow Muslims, to the umma al-islamiyya. Ask how that can be squared with supposed loyalty to the Infdiel laws and customs and political institutions of Great Britain, or indeed of any Infidel nation-state, and ask how a Muslim can expect us to trust him to be loyal to that state, or to us, the Infidels who, alarmed and awakened, do not wish to give up our civilizational legacy to those whom we regard as permanently hostile, even mureerously so -- as they are proving, day after day, week after week, testing incident after testing incident, so obviously, so transparently, to be.

Posted by: Hugh at August 12, 2006 11:40 PM

Britain should send the Pakis packing.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 13, 2006 12:42 AM

Hugh/

Come on, come on! Surely the "curry magnates" (a wonderful, but meaningless, propaganda phrase) are just more of your "ditzy" lords. You never did answer me on the thread two or three days ago, did you? You can't have it both ways, you know. Either lords are "ditzy" (great word) or they mean something and get into our upper house because they have some sort of power base (whether they should so have or not is a separate question).

For heaven's sake, man, be consistent.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 13, 2006 1:53 AM

I'm not inclined to feel too pleased about something that should have been a matter of course. Howells has been very very wobbly before, too. His voting record shows strong support for the war in Iraq - but then is that a good thing? There are good and bad reasons for being either for or against that war, as has been pointed out here many times. I think he can probably be put down as one who doesn't understand. More seriously, Howells has publicly distanced himself from the cabinet by criticizing Israel's attempt to defend itself from the terrorist group Hizballah. It would appear that he is strongly against terrorism so long as the terrorism is not directed at Israel.

Minister condemns Israeli action

There are plenty of other fools, fellow-travellers, and bought men in English public life. (Howells is actually Welsh, but I couldn't care less about Welsh national sensibilities: there will be no national sensibilities in thirty years if we do deal with this thorny problem now.)

The Archbishop of York can be put down among the fools. He is just beginning a "vigil" which will involve his squatting in York Minster. He wants "peace" - peace in our time.

Archbishop in Lebanon peace vigil

Posted by: Yojimbo at August 13, 2006 2:47 AM

"I suggest that every western government should establish a "ministry for religious affairs"

Templar, that is a terrible idea. It is only Islam that we must deal with, not religion per se.

Posted by: redwine at August 13, 2006 3:54 AM

It is only Islam that we must deal with, not religion per se.

Yes, and the only reason it's the only "religion" that has to be dealt with is because it's not really a religion. It's a competing, incompatible, dangerous political ideology disguised as a religion.

Worst thing a govt can have is a Muslim as an MP. Clearly they do not represent the people or the country they are in, but Islam. They use our systems, in this case, democracy, against us. To destroy that democracy. 5% dictating to the rest of the country what its policies should be. Never mind waiting til they outbreed us and reach critical mass. Way before then, a few in power can do the same damage, way sooner.

Posted by: feralee at August 13, 2006 6:00 AM

"They use our systems, in this case, democracy, against us. To destroy that democracy"

There really is too much talk of "Democracy". Democracy is not so great. The analogy of "Two Wolves and a Lamb deciding what they're going to eat for dinner" sums it up nicely. More talk of a constitutional Republic that enshrines our liberty, would be nice. Liberty is worth fighting for, not Democracy.

Posted by: redwine at August 13, 2006 6:19 AM

Amen, said the Corner, to that.

Posted by: Hugh at August 13, 2006 7:41 AM

Templar, that is a terrible idea. It is only Islam that we must deal with, not religion per se.

Posted by: redwine at August 13, 2006 03:54 AM

Thank you Redwine and Feralee for your responses. Both of you are, of course, absolutely right that its only Islam that has to be dealt with - generally - but on very rare occasions its been other groups that have been the source of serious terrorism. Recall the Jim Jones cult in South Africa or the terrorist activity of Seikh groups that resulted in the Airliner bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in the 1980's. Here in Canada, the problem of violence in the Seikh community on our west coast - where the men who are thought to have carried out the bombing live - has continued in the years since, although its generally been a problem of gang activity. Even so its been serious enough that a group of them some years ago assaulted the Attorney General of British Columbia at the time -himself a Seikh - and put him in the hospital. If I recall correctly, even the thinking of the group that bombed the Murraugh federal building in Oklahoma City had at least some religious roots. There are even a few Christian hotheads like the Catholic fanatics (don't worry I can say this since I'm Catholic) who bomb abortion clinics (its happened more than once) or bomb theatres when heretical or blasphemous films (such as "Hail Mary") are shown. This is especially unusual of course, nowhere even remotely near the scale of what Islam is responsible for, but the examples show that there are at least a few hotheads in just about any religion who can threaten our safety.

Clearly though, as you say, the focus needs to be on Islam. I referred to "religous affairs" because that makes the notion non-specific enough to get by the PC crowd, but the agency wouldn't have to have reference to religion in its name at all. Its a role could probably be fulfilled by the Interior or Public Security ministries that most Western democracies already have (e.g. maybe in the U.S. it could be part of the mandate of the Department of Homeland Security). Anyway, the point is that we need to be frank about the fact that government and society have a legitimate interest in knowing and having a say in what goes on in religious circles, even if in practice that usually means taking repressive measures ONLY against Islam (we would expect of course that our courts would prevent the agencies from casting this net too far and I assume that legislation governing the mandate of the agencies would be written to allow them just enough authority to exclude the expression of religious views that are anti-social or sociopathic (e.g. the arrogant Islamic assumption that Muslims are, by definition, superior to other human beings) or that directly rationalize or justify such things as terrorist attacks, domestic violence (e.g. Islamic "honor killings"), threats or public disturbances. The governing legislation should make it clear that the agencies have no competence in the purely "ethereal" matters of theology such as whether the Mother of God was conceived without stain of original sin, what is or is not a kosher meat, what direction one should face in prayer or what the foundations of religion are (provided that "Jihad" or other such stupidity is not included).

In any event, this type of ministry could have a much more positive role than simply to monitor the religious scene. It could govern policies for immigration, the proper reception and integration of immigrants into our societies, and generally keeping government properly informed on issues in its immmigrant communities, including conflicts between different groups and how to diffuse or avoid problems or threats arising from them. As we know, these matters are all at the root of our current terrorist problem - which, again, I say, you're right - is an almost exclusively Islamic problem.

Now that I've provided this clarification, I'd be grateful to know your response. Thanks again.

Posted by: templar at August 13, 2006 12:10 PM

A rather good article in the Observer today from the left-wing (yes!) Nick Cohen:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1843569,00.html

Posted by: JFGR at August 13, 2006 12:12 PM

Voltaire

There is a minor tradition of upper class English twits converting to Islam through the ages. Maybe this chap is in that mould.

Templar - it's spelt 'Sikh' not 'Seikh', and the Lockerbie bombing was by Libyans.

Posted by: Cisoux at August 13, 2006 2:17 PM

Templar - it's spelt 'Sikh' not 'Seikh', and the Lockerbie bombing was by Libyans.

Posted by: Cisoux at August 13, 2006 02:17 PM

Hello Cisoux! Thanks for the corrections. It's been so many years since the story I referred to I got the two incidents merged together in my mind. The flight I had in mind was Air India 182 which blew up off the coast of Ireland in 1985.

As for the spelling - got me on that one! Take care and thanks again.

Posted by: templar at August 13, 2006 5:11 PM

Regarding Islamic lords or other public representatives, we should consider this possible scenario: a property or other legal dispute between a muslim and a non-muslim constituent. The outcome is clear, and any injustice would actually be sanctioned and required by the representative's "religion."
I am not naive. I realize that similar scenarios happen often-times amongst different ethnic or religious or even socio-economic groups. But in local government, having to appeal to a Mohammedan for redress would be futile.
Islam really is a whole "'nother" thing and its presence in the west is getting scarier by the hour! - at least to me.

Posted by: Sansantiago at August 13, 2006 6:07 PM

As the case of Spain shows, the title should be, "Change your foreign policy, and we'll blow you up anyway."

Posted by: Kepha at August 13, 2006 9:26 PM