The Fuss Of Forty Two Days...

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.)

Mr Brown's Mrs Smith...

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

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...

Law & Disorder

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.