Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary has demanded extra anti-terror checks for Muslim men at airports as “that is where the threat is coming from.” This observation has brought cries of outrage from the Muslim Council of Britain and from Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim member of Parliament.
You can find the story here.
The budget airline chief, 58, believes terror suspects flagged at airports would “generally be males of a Muslim persuasion.”
Michael O’Leary believes Muslim men should be subjected to extra anti-terror checks at airports.
The Ryanair boss’s comments were condemned by charities and an MP.
Outspoken Mr O’Leary of the budget carrier made the controversial comments in an interview with The Times.
Charities and an MP blasted Mr O’Leary’s remarks and accused him of Islamophobia and racism.
Mr O’Leary said: “Who are the bombers? They are going to be single males travelling on their own.
“If you are travelling with a family of kids, on you go; the chances you are going to blow them all up is zero.
“You can’t say stuff, because it’s racism, but it will generally be males of a Muslim persuasion.”
“You can’t say stuff” but not “because its racism.” Rather, “because people will immediately call it racism.” What O’Leary means is this: too many of us have been frightened of being thought bigots, so the false, absurd charge of “racism” keeps being brought up by Defenders of the Faith of Islam, hoping to shield the faith from any kind of criticism.
He added: “Thirty years ago it was the Irish. If that is where the threat is coming from, deal with the threat.”
The Muslim Council of Britain said the Irish businessman’s comments were racist and discriminatory.
Even those who are most opposed to the ideology of Islam cannot be described as “racists.” It has to be endlessly repeated, urbi et orbi, that Islam is not a “race” and Muslim defenders should not be allowed to get away with pretending otherwise, and attempting to persuade us to agree. Ask the Muslim Council of Britain point-blank: “Is it your contention that there is a Muslim race? If so, what are the identifiable characteristics of that race which distinguish it from other races? How can Islam, which like Christianity lays claims to being an universal faith, with adherents worldwide, of all races — black, brown, yellow, and white — at the same time insist that it constitutes a race? No one suggests that critics of Christianity, and of Christians, are “racists.” Why should Islam, and adherents of Islam, be uniquely privileged to invoke “racism” to deflect criticism?”
A spokesman [for the Muslim Council of Great Britain] said: “He openly advocates discrimination against “males of a Muslim persuasion’, which presumably is not based on specific intelligence but solely whether someone ‘looks or acts like a Muslim’.”
An extra check, as O’Leary recommends, on Muslims at airports does not constitute impermissible “discrimination.” The state’s first duty is to protect the lives of its citizens. That justifies a higher level of scrutiny of those who have posed the greatest threat to those lives. Today, in the Western world, the data about past terrorist attacks involving airplanes supports the conclusion that those most likely to engage in such attacks are single male Muslims. Does the Muslim Council of Britain wish to deny that data?
The “specific intelligence” which Mr. O’Leary believes justifies giving extra scrutiny is this: according to the data accumulated in the last few decades, almost all those who have attempted terrorist attacks using planes – either by hijacking them, or by blowing them up in flight, or by using them as missiles deliberately flown into buildings – have been Muslims. That is all the intelligence one needs to give an extra level of scrutiny to male Muslim passengers. Think of the El Al flight flying from Tel Aviv to Paris, that Black September took over and flew to Entebbe, where the Jewish passengers were held hostage until rescued by Israeli commandos led by Jonathan Netanyahu, the brother of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Think of the Sabena Flight hijacked to Tel Aviv by four Muslim terrorists. Think of the attempts to blow up American planes by the Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid, both of which failed. Think of the four planes hijacked on 9/11 by Muslim terrorists, with two of them flown into the Twin Towers, a third into the Pentagon, and a fourth that had been headed to the Capitol instead crashed into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers rushed the cabin in a vain attempt to retake the plane. And if we were to look at the incidence of Muslim terrorism of all kinds – not just that involving planes – we discover that more than 36,000 attacks by Muslim terrorists have taken place since 9/11. That’s a colossal number. Or is it “Islamophobic” to say so?
Michael O’Leary is dealing in probabilities, likelihoods, just as the security services do everywhere. He does not claim that all Muslims, or most Muslims, are terrorists. That charge against him is palpably absurd. He only states what should be obvious, and that Muslims are trying to shout down with cries of “Islamophobia”: a very high percentage of terrorist acts, and a very high percentage of terrorist acts involving planes, have been committed by Muslims. What O’Leary says is either true or false. If true, then no one should reasonably object to acting on that knowledge, in order to save lives. That means “extra checks” on Muslim passengers.
“This is the very definition of Islamophobia.”
The “very definition of Islamophobia” according to this spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, is for anyone – such as Michael O’Leary – to dare to state that Muslims constitute the greatest number, by far, of terrorists who seize planes, blow up planes, or use planes as flying missiles to bring down buildings, like the Twin Towers, that are full of Infidels.
The charge of “Islamophobia” is merely another way for Muslims to say “Shut up” to Infidels. O’Leary runs an airline; he is responsible for the safety of his passengers. He has both a right and a duty to point out, should he bother to reply to his Muslim critics, that “Islamophobia” is a word deliberately coined and put into widespread use since 9/11, in order to make the Infidels believe that all criticism of Islam, no matter how fact-based and sober, bespeaks “an irrational fear” of a peaceful faith. If you express misgivings, say, about the more than 100 Qur’anic verses that command Muslims to fight, to kill, to smite at the necks of, to strike terror in the hearts of, non-Muslims, you are an “Islamophobe.” If you note that the Qur’an tells Muslims that they are the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims the “most vile of created beings,” you will be called an “Islamophobe.” If you dare to quote such well-known hadith of Muhammad as “war is deceit” and “I have been made victorious through terror,” you are surely an “Islamophobe.” If you point out that Muhammad consummated his marriage to little Aisha when she was nine years old and he was 54, you are only doing this because you are an “Islamophobe.” Your intention in raising such matters, in quoting such verses, is to promote “Islamophobia.” Only an irrational hatred of Islam could have led you to bring up these verses; no fair-minded person would do such a thing.
Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, who is Muslim, blasted Mr O’Leary’s comments, which came two days after a far-right terrorist massacred ten people in a shooting in Germany.
Of what relevance is that news about a “far-right terrorist” who “massacred ten people in a shooting in Germany”? None at all. It is simply dropped in by the reporter — or is it Mahmood himself — a red herring intended to deflect our attention from Muslim terrorists, a way to undercut O’Leary by suggesting that “see, here’s an example just two days ago of far-right terrorism, so why don’t we talk about that?” But why? No one has denied the existence of far-right terrorism. And right now, all over the world, it is Muslim terrorists who are the greatest threat, claiming by far the most victims. Michael O’Leary is talking about the need to provide an extra check on passengers who are single, male, and Muslim because single male Muslims are the ones behind most terrorism. If far-right terrorists had, during the last two decades, been hijacking planes, blowing up planes, using planes as missiles, no doubt Michael O’Leary would be calling for greater scrutiny of passengers who are known to belong to or support far-right groups. But because they haven’t, he hasn’t.
Mr Mahmood said: “He’s effectively saying ‘everyone is game — if they look like a Muslim then they must be a terrorist’.
Mr. Mahmood knows perfectly well that O’Leary did not say, nor imply, that all Muslims are terrorists. Yet he simply carries on with this idiocy, knowing he won’t be laughed off the stage, so confused have the world’s Infidels become, so fearful of offending Muslims, that common sense is now, in the court of public opinion, called “Islamophobia” and few dare to appeal this judgment.
“It doesn’t improve community relations; it gives succour to people of a fascist mindset.
“In Germany this week a white person killed eight people. Should we profile white people to see if they’re fascists?”
Is that what we should be worrying about, if we own an airline and are responsible for the safety of passengers? Since when did it become an airline owner’s duty to “improve community relations”? And who says that the only way to “improve community relations” is to yield to every Muslim demand, to refrain from any Islamocriticism, to take care not to wound the tender psyches of Muslims who simply cannot abide any hint that they, or their faith, are less than wonderful?
Of course the word “fascist” – no surprise — had to be brought up by Muslims intent on blackening O’Leary’s name and undermining his sensible request for “extra checks” on Muslim passengers. To be an Islamocritic is not only to be an Islamophobe, but to have a “fascist mindset” which, in the very next sentence, grades into being a “fascist.” If you are disturbed by many Quranic verses, those that command Muslims to engage in violent Jihad — to fight, kill, smite, and strike terror in the hearts of the Infidels — then you must be a “fascist.” Who else could be disturbed by any of the verses in the immutable Qur’an? And again, this defender of Islam brings up a recent killing of eight people in Germany by a white man and asks, sarcastically and idiotically, “should we profile white people to see if they’re fascists?”
“He’s being very blinkered and is actually encouraging racism.”
One last time: Islam does not define a race. Muslims are not a race. Criticism of Islam is not “racism.” Criticism of Islam does not “actually encourage racism.” It encourages only the exercise of common sense. Look in the Qur’an – what does it say? Look around the world at the observable behavior of Muslims – what does that behavior tell us? O’Leary is saying aloud what any owner of an airline, any airline pilot, any members of a cabin crew, are thinking: “Never mind Muslim feelings and these absurd charges of “racism” and “Islamophobia.” Of course we want extra checking of Muslim passengers, just as O’Leary requests. We fly all the time. We want to be safe. Is that really so hard to understand? Please, Michael O’Leary, don’t be dissuaded. We’re with you. Keep it up.
Steve Edelman says
My adopted daughter (now an adult with two children of her own) used to call herself “Incan Princess.” She is certainly that for me. She was frequently checked because her appearance made some TSA people suspicious. Her reaction was wonderful. She said that it was absolutely necessary in order for people to feel safe. That, my friends, differentiates her from Moslems going through TSA lines while complaining.
FYI says
Doesn’t the ‘holy’ koran..
…. “give{s} succour to people of a fascist mindset”?
Just look what happens when someone converts to the religion of “peace”.
Khalid mahmood: a “muslim member of parliament”.That says it all.
A muslim member who subscribes to THIS..
“Oh ye who believe!take not the Jews and Christians for friends.They are friends to one another”
Koran 5:51
Something the muslim member of parliament probably doesn’t want the ‘infidel’ members to know.
mahmood comes from a religion that manages to be both antisemitic AND antiChristian
{see the ‘holy’ koran k9:30 k2:65etc},endlessly violent,has a Doctrine of Hate {al walaa wal baraa},teaches that Jews and christians are to be regarded as inferior to muslims and permits Taqqiya lying to promote its murderous,immoral religious cult.
Doesn’t mahmood say the fatiha “prayer” that disparages Jews and Christians?
He cannot deny it:antisemitic and antichristian at once.
Talk about bigotry,the hypocritical,fraudulently pious muslims are masters of it and they hide behind the “islamophobia” trick.
Doesn’t mahmood subscribe to his ‘holy’ koran ,a book that teaches that Jews and Christians are..
“the WORST of created beings” koran 98:6?
Isn’t mahmood’s British Labour Party notorious for its toxic antisemitism?No wonder it attracts muslims.
Good on Michael O’ Leary for putting the safety of passengers FIRST and not pandering to the endless dissembling lies of these muslim politicians{who you may note always tend to be Labour,part of that treasonous RED-GREEN Lefty-muslim political axis}
Rarely says
The Sun sets in the West guys. It’s a fact. Deny it all you want, it’s still a fact.
Also, 90 year old women en route to the christening of a great-grandchild almost never hijack planes. Duh.
Who does hijack planes? If it was one-armed banjo players or NFL quarterbacks no one would object to closer scrutiny of them. When the vast majority comes from one particular group doesn’t it make sense to take a close look at members of that group? Not if you don’t want to hurt somebody’s feelings I guess.
Rarely says
Personally, I don’t care about the ideology. For me it is sufficient justification for extra scrutiny that it is that group that is the biggest risk — by a country mile. Who cares “Why” ?
gravenimage says
Good post, Rarely.
Robert Spencer–who has a Near Eastern appearance and often writes about Jihad on his laptop in public–is not angry at being stopped and vetted at airports.
mortimer says
Michael O’Leary’s comments are both reasonable and in accordance with observable facts. Most of the transportation-terrorists are Muslim males … they have been from all races. O’Leary has said nothing that a fair-minded person could possibly identify as racist.
The version of Islam that terrorists practice is POLITICAL Islam … it is an ideology and has nothing to do with race. Political Islam is a set of supremacist ideas based on a spiritual mandate.
JIhadic terrorists come from all races.
Emilie Green says
I’m taking the one at Gate 5,
https://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/air-infidel1412-e13903589896911.jpg
gravenimage says
Hilarious cartoon!
infidel says
Hail hail Micheal… If RyanA were to be flying here in India, I swear that I will fly only on it as my mark of respect for U.
Anne Sardine says
Pigskin headrests.
PS my pen name is a parody of Ansar Din.
Istvan Vogel says
We all know Mr O’Leary is completely wrong. It’s nothing to do with the “Religion of Peace”. It’s all to do with “people of white”, right wing, old age pensioners who have become converted to Atheism. All OAPs should be stopped, questioned and carefully checked out wherever they are found. They are fairly easily identified as well which make it much easier for the security authorities.
Stieve says
Islamophobe (-phobic, -ia): any person, thing, act, action, belief , or other word, that in any way denys, evaluates, inquires, questions, or even reflects, poorly on islam. “Reflecting poorly” is solely at the discretion of the aggrieved.
So, it is ok to praise muhammed for marrying a 9 year old, and consummating the marriage. Shoot, go marry your own child, the younger the better. Islamo-cool.
But question if it is ok, moral, healthy for 9 year olds to be having sex, or even if her parents may be, just a tiny bit, uncomfortable with a 50-ish year old person humping their 9 year old virgin, and claiming to be the mouth of god, well that is just plain islamophobia, worst kind too.
One more example: killing infidels. Totally islamo-cool. I mean, what not to like? The koran is full of this stuff.
Even noticing the fact the koran instructs muslims to kill infidels, in black and white print on paper, but is not being
discussed in reverent tones (“Hey Bob, check out this passage here about killing non muslims…”), or being slightly concerned (“does this mean me too?”), is islamophobic.
See how easy it is to avoid offending muslims?
James Lincoln says
Stieve says,
“See how easy it is to avoid offending muslims?”
If anyone, or any group, is offended by someone using using factual, evidence-based logic – then tough luck…
Rufluc says
Why do the left, as well as their ‘protected species’ the ‘Muslim’, bang on so much about racism? Is it so awful and outrageous to point out the obvious differences between races when it’s appropriate to do so?
Yes, we are all humans, but we are also humans of different breeds. Just as there are dogs for example, that are of many different breeds too. But they’re all still dogs.
Using this very argument with leftists and Muslims, who persist with their overuse of the dreaded word ‘racist’, just ask them if they have any kids. If they have, then ask them if they would like to buy them a dog. If so, then offer them a choice between either a poodle or a Pitbull terrier.
What breed of dog do you think they would choose? A bit of a no brainer really. But why wouldn’t they choose the Pitbull? It’s simply because of the breed of dog and the level of threat that they would impose on their beloved children! ie. Docile vs Savage,
So are they in a way being ‘racist’, which arguably is the same as being a ‘breedist’? Because surely, if this applies to dogs (and to many other animals as well) why not to humans too?
In fact this same argument can also be extended to religious beliefs. Docile vs Savage, although I don’t think I need to point out which ones fall into each of these two categories, so maybe I’ll just leave you to decide that one, however obvious it maybe 🙂
James Lincoln says
Rufluc,
Excellent post, my compliments.
Rufluc says
Thanks James for your kind words. You’re most kind.
To be honest, it is an issue that I’ve pondered over for quite a while now as I do believe it’s a valid argument that can be used against the mindless lunatic left, who do tend to be rabid anti white racists themselves. But that is probably down to the ease at which their simplistic minds have been so easily manipulated to believe in the left wing garbage they spout and their mentors peddle (as you may appreciate by now, I’m not a great fan of the left!).
In their simple pathetic minds, the choice of dog I gave in my earlier example, it would be highly likely that the irony wouldn’t even register with them.
So where’s their argument? After all from their polarised point of view, they’re still both just dogs so it really shouldn’t matter which one they choose! Which of course is the same argument they apply to all humans, irrespective of the breed (or race). lol.
I’ve always wondered why different areas of the world are so very different to each other, and having travelled and worked around the world as I have, I can honestly say that from my observations and experience, it is because of the different races, coupled with their beliefs,
The far Eastern people (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese etc) all have low levels of crime and high levels of civility, infrastructure and expertise in so many different industries. These are hard working intelligent people I admire.
Indonesia on the other hand also have the same kind of people, but the quality of life there is lower and crime is higher. And yes, it’s the worlds most populated Muslim country. Is there a clue here?
The West also has a high standard of living, with a complex infrastructure, although the crime is much higher here, but then again this can be attributed to the fact that we have allowed our countries to be flooded with millions of Africans and Muslims. I call it multicultural mayhem! The huge surge of knife and gun crime in London for example is almost solely down to blacks and Muslims, but of course the truth is often played down and not reported on a race basis. The same applies throughout the West, especially Sweden.
Then there is the appalling UK wide mass gang raping, drugging, torturing and plying with alcohol of up to an estimated 1 million underage white girls by Muslims. A crime that has been ignored for over 40 years, whilst the hundreds of thousands of Muslim monsters (mostly Pakistanis) that were doing this were just left to commit their evil Islam based crimes with total impunity! In other words they were placed above the law purely because of their race and religious beliefs.
So why was this allowed to continue? Simply because of the widespread fear that people in authority (mostly liberal left wingers) had of being called a racist, and the need to maintain social cohesion (in other words because of the fear they had that the millions of barbaric Muslims in the UK would riot). Such is the beauty of left wing social enrichment!
You really couldn’t make it up! And I of course continue to despair!
James Lincoln says
Rufluc,
I have carefully read your post.
It is well written – and correct.
Tucker Carlson recently made the statement that Sweden would rather lose their country then be called “racist”.
He was correct…
Ray Jarman says
Hugh Fitzgerald mentions an often over looked aspect of diligence of a specific group. I never heard one member of the Irish community during the hay day of the IRA complain about stating that it was a terrorist organization and it was comprised of Irish people. Also, the Italian community never held uprisings where automobiles and stores were burned because someone stated that the mafia was comprised of mostly Italians and that their leaders were of Sicilian decent and the FBI and other law enforcement agencies focused on the real suspects rather than Jewish (Meyer Lansky being the exception) or Asian people. I am so sick and tired of people being afraid to state the truth and worse, when the few do speak out, they are ridiculed.
James Lincoln says
Ray Jarman says,
“I am so sick and tired of people being afraid to state the truth and worse, when the few do speak out, they are ridiculed.”
So am I, Ray…
gravenimage says
+1
Wilfred says
There is absolutely no doubt about what he said. If you love your country then you have the right to defend it even if it sounds absurd. Muslims have been the reason for all the violence committed in the name of islam. If you religion teaches you that death by martyrdom is the greatest good, how can you blame non believers for islamophobia. A white male may have killed eight men due to some mental illness, however muslims have killed millions in the name of religion. And then you tell me that i should have faith in islam so called religion of peace.
Walter Sieruk says
Micheal Leary does indeed, show common sense to demand extra security check at airports for Muslims , for none of us are able to read minds and some of them might be jihadist Muslims,
This is not prejudice but realistic good judgement for the reality that all violent jihadists are Muslims . This is a sad and tragic reality in this twenty- first century
As ,for example, all the 9/11 hijackers and mass murderers were Muslims . So was Richard Weed the airline shoe bomber. None of those men who were a extremely dangerous to the safety and lives of the public where members of any other religion but Islam.
Just in case anyone missed it here is a reiteration of my first hand observation as a security screener during the 1990’s.
So concerning the topic of Airport Security before September 11, 2001 during the 1990’s which seemed be sadly nothing but a hoax of show for the public. For a year of that decade I had a job as a security screener. As a type of airport security guard all of us, the security personal, had to follow the rules which allowed and non- serrated knifes and box cutter on the airplane as long as the sharp objects where under two inches long .So during a visited from one of the top person of the security company I told her “Those non-serrated knifes and box cutters can still be very dangerous and harmful in the hands of the wrong person.” Her response to me for saying that was only silence and an angry look that gave the message “Don’t you dare ever say such a thing as that again.”
As for the security supervisors said to be “In my opinion this is just a set of as a [empty] show for the traveling public to make them feel safe.”
One time a man walked through the metal detector and the alarm, buzzer, didn’t go off when he was wearing a rather large metal belt buckle. So he informed me about it. So I replied “Standing over there next to each other is the security manager and security supervisor its best if you inform them about that.” After he informed them they thanked him and said that they would look in that, they didn’t.
Other time a supervisor said to me that “This security set up is bull S….” He even berated me for ,a number of times, when I called for bag check saying “Does that look like a test item ?” He really didn’t want to bother to get off his seat for make a bag check. I said to him “ I can’t see through the item maybe something dangerous is hidden being it .” On hearing that and he threw his head back and went through his eye rolling routine as to say “Don’t start getting ridiculous on me, nothing awful will ever happen.”
This might be somewhat related to a news report in the year 2005 about another airport ,the Chicago airport, which the news crew had a hidden counting devise and a hidden camera. They had counted one thousand bags went through the airport security and not even once was a call for a bag check. Went that confronted the security supervisor about that he said “There was nothing suspicious to call a check about” The news crew said “Still after a thousand bags, and not one need for a bag check call” That supervisor just restated “There was not a need for a bag check call.” Of course he wouldn’t change his story. If that airport was like the one of works at the call was not made because the security supervisor would “tell off” that security screener for making a call for a bag check.
James Lincoln says
Walter Sieruk,
Thank you for sharing your experiences in airport security. Bravo Zulu, you were always trying to do the right thing.
I’m not sure what’s going on behind-the-scenes regarding airport security now in 2020…
A couple of weeks ago, I went through security at Logan airport BOS en route to Palm Beach International PBI. I have TSA pre-check and a retired military ID. I have never been arrested and once held a top-secret security clearance while on active duty Navy involved in the Personal Reliability Program PRP.
The TSA agent, while very polite, went through my roller bag and removed a brand-new tube of toothpaste that was just slightly over the weight limit. I did not put up a fuss.
Thoughts?
gravenimage says
Thank you for sharing your experiences, Walter–very troubling.
By the way–I have mentioned this here before–in 1998 I made a trip to New York from San Francisco, and took an entire set of X-acto knives with me in my carry-on bag (I’m an illustrator). No one blinked.
ntesdorf says
Fear of Islam is not Islamophobia as it is real and it is not Racism as Islam is not a race. The vast majority of people blowing up planes are Muslim men and they should be treated as suspects.
gravenimage says
Ryanair’s Michael Leary Dares to Display Common Sense
………………..
Yes–glad to see it.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Criminal hypocrites (but I repeat myself) always find common sense (objective empirical facts and logic) to be hateful, bigoted, an/or racist – aka “hurtful” – to their lying “narratives!”
dumbledoresarmy says
From the article – “Mr O’Leary said: “Who are the bombers? They are going to be single males travelling on their own.
“If you are travelling with a family of kids, on you go; the chances you are going to blow them all up is zero.”
Except.. that isn’t quite true, when you are dealing with Muslims. Because there was at least one case of a Muslim couple with a cute baby, who planned to take a flight.. and they were going to conceal explosives **in the baby’s formula bottles**. They were going to blow up themselves.. AND THEIR INFANT CHILD – in order to kill lots and lots of hated infidels all at once. Because they believed that they – and their child – would be rewarded by allah’s paradise, for so doing.
Certainly, single Muslim men have carried out – or attempted to carry out – or plotted to carry out – the majority of jihad attacks on aeroplanes (and other forms of mass transport), but… precisely because at least some infidels, like Mr O’Leary, have noticed this and are wising up, the Ummah or mohammedan mob is likely to switch tactics and use.. the nice young couple with baby and cute kidlets in tow, perhaps even in modern clothes, the woman taking off her hijab for the occasion, precisely in order to deflect suspicion. Muslim women and girls have carried out acts of murderous jihad; have turned themselves into human bombs.
And Muslims – both men and women – have been perfectly prepared to use their own children, even very young children, as human bombs, wired to explode; because of Muslim beliefs about the shaheed, whose self-immolation in the process of waging jihad fi sabil allah qualifies him or her to procure “get out of torments-of-the-grave” cards for numerous family members.
Muslim males represent the *highest* security risk; but NO muslim – not even a lovely young couple with a doe-eyed mama and a babe in arms and a cute toddler and a pre-schooler – should be regarded as NOT presenting a potential security risk.
O’Leary’s caution is laudable.. but he still has a lot more to learn about the depravity of the Muslim worldview, its adoration of death and destruction.