The Bullet Magnet of Helmand...

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 The news today is that the Prince is being withdrawn from Afghanistan after a news blackout deal with media companies was broken; a decision by the MoD taken to ensure the continued safety of the Prince and the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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...