Archive for the ‘Theresa May’ category

No Tolerance for Extremism

June 16, 2017

No Tolerance for Extremism, Gatestone InstituteDenis MacEoin, June 16, 2017

What May plans to do will take us far, but not far enough. Her weakness, set against Corbyn’s show of strength, undermines the likelihood of any serious changes to how Britain tackles the Islamic threat. Bit by bit, the political fear of appearing xenophobic or “Islamophobic” will reassert itself. Labour will make sure of that. Members of parliament with substantial numbers of Muslim constituents will answer calls to water down any legislation that can be labeled as discriminatory to Muslims. It is only when we come to terms with the fact that terrorist attacks are not being carried out by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’is, Quakers or the members of any religion except Islam.

***********************

At the moment, the bar for taking extremists out of circulation is set ridiculously high. People known for their own extremism that reaches pre-terrorist levels should not be walking the streets when they have expressed support for Islamic State (ISIS) or tried to head to Syria or called for the destruction of Britain and other democracies or allied themselves to people already in prison. Their demand for free speech or freedom of belief must never be elevated above the rights of citizens to live safely in their own towns and cities. It is essential for parliament to lower the bar.

Is this to be the political landscape for the future, where groups of people demanding death and destruction are given the freedom of the streets whilst those wishing to hold a peaceful celebration are prevented from doing so?

To see extremist Islam as a “perversion” of Islam misses an important point. The politically correct insistence that radical versions of Islam somehow pervert an essentially peaceful and tolerant faith forces policy-makers and legislators, church leaders, rabbis, interfaith workers and the public at large to leave to one side an important reality. Flatly, Islam in its original and classic forms has everything to do with today’s radicals and the violence they commit. The Qur’an is explicit in its hatred for pagans, Jews and Christians. It calls for the fighting of holy war (jihad) to conquer the non-Muslim world, subdue it, and gradually bring it into the fold of Islam. Islam has been at war with Europe since the seventh century.

On the Sunday morning after the terrorist attacks in London the night of June 3, British Prime Minister Theresa May addressed the nation in a powerful speech. It deserves to be read in full, but several points stand out and call for a response.

We cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are. Things need to change and they need to change in four important ways.

First, while the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.

It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.

Lower down, she enhances that by saying:

Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide.

No one who has watched the endless stream of radical Muslim preachers who appear on YouTube or who post extremist, anti-Western, anti-democratic, or anti-Semitic opinions on Facebook would object to May’s stricture. But given earlier attempts to rein in the providers of so many internet spaces in a demand for better scrutiny and the removal of radicalizing material from their sites, we must remain pessimistic about how far May or any other Western leader can bring effective pressure to bear. Without strong financial disincentives, these rulers of the internet will pay little heed to the concerns of the wider public and our security services.

Perhaps May’s strongest statement comes some lines later:

While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is — to be frank — far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.

Here, she puts her finger on the most sensitive yet compelling reason for our vulnerability. The democracies have been and still are weakened by the very things that in other contexts give us strength. May speaks rightly of our “pluralistic British values”. But those values include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, open-mindedness, and tolerance — things that are not held as desirable values in any Muslim country. Such values are key to our survival as free and tolerant people unrestricted by any overarching ideology. Yet May is right. Even toleration has its limits. While allowing Muslims to live in our societies with full freedom to live their lives according to the tenets of their faith is desirable expression of our openness and love for humanity, we have been tolerant of radical Islam and even traditionalist and conservative Islam where it leads into radicalization and an extremism that erupts in physical assaults, fatalities, and, as intended, widespread public fear.

For years, we have known the identities of radical Islamic preachers and extremist organizations, but we have allowed them to bring their hatred for us onto university and college campuses, into mosques and Islamic centres, and even onto our streets, where they set up stalls to speak and hand out literature. Scroll down here or here to find long lists of radical individuals and organizations, few of which have even been banned. Few terrorist suspects have ever been deported. In a Telegraph article from 2015, one reads:

Here is an astonishing figure to mull over. In the past 10 years, the UK has deported just 12 terrorism suspects from its shores under its Deportation with Assurances (DWA) scheme. In the same period, France deported more than 100 more. The British figures come from a review of the DWA programme that is unlikely to be published until after the general election. It suggests, as we have always suspected, that the UK remains a soft touch for foreign-born jihadists.

It took eight years, 15 court cases and a £25 million bill to keep the hate preacher and terrorist fighter Abu Hamza and his huge family in the UK before he was finally deported (to the United States) in 2012, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In that same year, Theresa May (then Home Secretary) was frustrated because another sinister figure, Abu Qatada, could not be deported to Jordan because the European Court of Human Rights had ruled against it for fear of his being tortured there. But in 2013, once Jordan agreed not to do so, he was sent there only to be tried and set free. Last year, he used Twitter to urge Muslims to leave the UK for fear of persecution and “bloodshed” — a possible encouragement to would-be jihadis to head abroad. May spoke vehemently against the Strasbourg ruling:

It is simply isn’t acceptable, that after guarantees from the Jordanians about his treatment, after British courts have found that he is dangerous, after his removal has been approved by the highest courts in our land, we still cannot deport dangerous foreign nationals.

The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell far away from Britain.

We constantly undermine ourselves by our need to be principled. This is an ongoing problem in politics. Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, is frequently described as a man of principle, and in many ways that judgement seems fair. Certainly, he has stuck by his socialist principles even if they have led him to adopt positions not well aimed at creating security for Britain. He has supported the IRA; refused many times to condemn their terrorist attacks; has called Hamas and Hizbullah his “friends” and invited their representatives to the British parliament. If that were not enough, he has boasted of his opposition to every piece of anti-terrorist legislation parliament has tried to pass.

In a 2015 interview just shown by the tabloid newspaper The Sun, Corbyn spoke with the Bahrain-based LuaLua Television. Although The Sun is not a reliable source, the clip from the interview shows Corbyn speaking in English with an accurate Arabic translation in subtitles. The interviewer speaks in Arabic. What are alarming are Corbyn’s statements, including a criticism of the UK government laws preventing would-be fighters who have travelled to Syria and from returning to the UK:

The British government’s response has been to try to make it impossible for them to travel, to restrict their ability to travel, to take upon themselves the ability to remove passports and, strangely, to deny people the right of return – which is legally a very questionable decision.

Surely no responsible politician would want to make it easy for jihadi fighters to come and go between Syria and the UK, especially while Islamic State is encouraging jihadis who leave to go back to European countries to carry out acts of terror — which seems to be exactly what has been happening.

In 2002, Corbyn addressed a large anti-Israel rally in London attended by Hizbullah supporters, several radical preachers including Abu Hamza, and 300 members of al-Muhajiroun, a banned extremist organization. According to one left-wing newspaper:

None of these groups called (openly at least) for the destruction of the state of Israel. It was a different story though for the ultra-reactionaries of such organisations as Al Muhajiroun, who held placards reading, “Palestine is muslim”. They chanted, “Skud, Skud Israel” and “Gas, gas Tel Aviv”, along with their support for bin Laden. Two would-be suicide posers were dressed in combat fatigues with a ‘bomb’ strapped to their waists. This section accounted for no more than 200-300, but they made a noise far out of proportion to their numbers.[1]

Stories concerning Corbyn’s support for jihadis was plastered on the front pages of several newspapers one day before the general election on June 8. He may never take charge of our national security, but following the results of the election, which proved disastrous for May and her Conservative party, it is now not entirely unimaginable that he may yet form a minority government. Overconfidence in her party’s strength, a hardline stance on Brexit, and a lack of concern in her Manifesto for public sensitivities concerning the National Health Service, social care and pensions led May to lose the confidence of much of the public, especially some, such as the elderly, who were traditional Tory voters. The campaign she ran turned out to be very badly handled. The two advisers who worked on it have just resigned, and large numbers of citizens, including 60% of Conservatives, are calling on her to resign. She no longer commands the large parliamentary majority of which she was so sure when she called the election, in fact she has no majority at all without pairing with the backward-looking Democratic Unionist Party, founded by bigoted Ian Paisley in 1971 and now the largest party in Northern Ireland. Many predict that the alliance will soon founder.

Whoever remains in power in coming months, the threat of terrorism has risen to the top of the agenda as a public preoccupation. Except that almost nobody talked much about it in the days after the London Bridge attack leading up to the election. Alarmingly, large numbers of young people rushed to vote for the leader of the one party that will do the least to combat that threat. The abolition of student fees or other right-on issues mattered so much more. And yet, in a matter of months, the British people have grown frightened of a beast our political correctness and laxity helped create, a Frankenstein monster that has risen from its slab and shows no signs of lying back down again. This beast has, in a few fell swoops, changed the nature of politics in Britain as it has elsewhere.

Jeremy Corbyn is the last person to whom we should entrust our future safety, yet he is now in a position to water down or cancel any legislation that might ensure more preparedness and better control. Theresa May, whatever her political disaster, has at least promised firmness in our relations with the Muslim community, identifying the problem and calling for action.

That promise of action is exemplified in her statements that:

If we need to increase the length of custodial sentences for terrorist-related offences — even apparently less serious offences — that is what we will do. Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism, our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say “Enough is enough”.

On June 6, addressing party supporters in Slough, and again speaking about resistance to terrorism, she went farther, saying:

I mean longer prison sentences for those convicted of terrorist offences.

I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries.

And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.

And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it.

Clearly, not even May can ride roughshod over essential human rights values and legislation, things put in place to protect the public. Now, with Corbyn looking over shoulder, tough and measured action is in jeopardy. It is clear nonetheless that an excessive concern for the rights of dangerous individuals and hostile communities has served to take away vital protections for the lives of British citizens. This misguided generosity is linked to a growing worry that we have been too relaxed about individuals who have later gone on to commit atrocities in our midst. Salman Abedi, the suicide bomber who murdered 22 concert-goers, including several children, during an Ariane Grande concert in Manchester, had been reported to the authorities no fewer than five times, yet had been allowed to walk free enough to take forward his mission to kill and maim.

Youssef Zaghba, one of the three attackers on London Bridge and Borough Market on June 3, had been stopped in Bologna in 2016 carrying terrorist literature while trying to fly to Istanbul en route for Syria. He told officers “I am going to be a terrorist”, was arrested but later released. His name was flagged on an international terrorism database and the Italian authorities notified the British security services. Allowed to go to the UK, he helped kill seven people and injure more.

Even more alarmingly, his accomplice, Khuram Butt, a Pakistani-born British man, was well above the horizon. He had been reported to the security services and was alleged to have been an associate of Anjem Choudary, a radical preacher now serving time in jail for his support for Islamic State. Butt had defended Choudary by calling a Muslim opposed to the preacher an apostate (murtadd); and in 2016, he had appeared in a Channel 4 television documentary where he was seen with others in a park holding an ISIS flag and at two events attended by radical preachers who had been arrested for radicalizing others. One of those preachers, Mohammed Shamsuddin, has said: “Our message is deadly, we are calling for world domination, and for Sharia for the UK.”

In 2015, MI5, the UK’s domestic intelligence service, stated that it had 3,000 extremists on its watchlist. According to Business Insider:

There are 6,000 employees at GCHQ and 4,000 at MI5. But there are up to 3,000 terror suspects in the UK. At the French ratio, you would need 60,000 officers to track them all. That’s almost half of Britain’s total number of police officers, 127,000.

What this means, in effect, is that thousands of potential terrorists are left free to live with little interference from the police or MI5. Raising the number of police, as Jeremy Corbyn demands, would place a heavy strain on the economy of a country sailing into uncharted waters as it leaves the EU. The answer must be, as May suggests, a different approach to human rights legislation. At the moment, the bar for taking extremists out of circulation is set ridiculously high. People who are known for their own extremism that reaches pre-terrorist levels should not be walking the streets when they have expressed support for Islamic State or tried to head to Syria or called for the destruction of the UK and other democracies or allied themselves to people already in prison. Their demand for free speech or freedom of belief must never be elevated above the rights of citizens to live safely in their own towns and cities. It is essential for parliament to lower the bar.

That the police and security services are avoiding any real confrontation with Islamists is clear from the contents of this letter, sent on June 7 to the Daily Mail by pro-Israel activist Clive Hyman. It makes troubling treading:

On 18th June, Muslims will be holding a march in central London to celebrate Al-Quds Day. In previous years these marches have called for the destruction of Israel and death to the Jews, and the marchers have carried signs to this effect and flags supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS. Despite requests from both the Christian and Jewish communities for this march to be cancelled because of the violence it will incite amongst those participating and their followers, Mayor Khan and the Metropolitan police have refused to do so, their reason being that there has been no violence at these marches in previous years.

By comparison, an event to honour Israel organised by Christians United for Israel for 22nd June has been cancelled apparently because Mayor Khan and the Metropolitan Police cannot guarantee the safety of those who wish to attend.

Is this to be the political landscape for the future, where groups of people demanding death and destruction are given the freedom of the streets whilst those wishing to hold a peaceful celebration are prevented from doing so?

As might be expected, leftists have rejected May’s appeal for changes in human rights legislation. They argue that she will need to declare a state of emergency, something that can only be invoked when the life of the nation is under threat. This is not incorrect, since all democracies have to avoid potential dictators using changes in the law to give themselves powers they might not otherwise have. But that is not the whole story.

What May plans to do will take us far, but not far enough. Her weakness, set against Corbyn’s show of strength, undermines the likelihood of any serious changes to how Britain tackles the Islamic threat. Bit by bit, the political fear of appearing xenophobic or “Islamophobic” will reassert itself. Labour will make sure of that. Members of parliament with substantial numbers of Muslim constituents will answer calls to water down any legislation that can be labelled as discriminatory to Muslims. It is only when we come to terms with the fact that terrorist attacks are not being carried out by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’is, Quakers or the members of any religion except Islam.

Regrettably May herself fell into a politically-correct trap in her speech, when she said in reference to Islamic radicalism, “It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.” It is easy to see what she means by this — that she wants to distance radicalism and terrorism from the majority of decent Muslims in the UK, the ones like Sara Khan who work to create a British Islam based on the best Islamic values in alliance with the British values May rightly extols. However, to see extremist Islam as a “perversion” of Islam misses an important point. The politically correct insistence that radical versions of Islam somehow pervert an essentially peaceful and tolerant faith forces policy-makers and legislators, church leaders, rabbis, interfaith workers and the public at large to leave to one side an important reality. If not tackled head-on, that reality will not go away.

In a June 3 speech, British Prime Minister Theresa May regrettably fell into a politically-correct trap, when she said in reference to Islamic radicalism, “It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.” (Photo by Hannah McKay/Pool/Getty Images)

Flatly, Islam in its original and classic forms has everything to do with today’s radicals and the violence they commit. The Qur’an is explicit in its hatred for pagans, Jews, and Christians. It calls for the fighting of holy war (jihad) to conquer the non-Muslim world, subdue it, and gradually bring it into the fold of Islam. Muhammad himself led his followers into battle and sent out expeditions out of Arabia before his death in 632. The astonishing Islamic conquests that followed in the Middle East, Europe, and far beyond into Central Asia and India turned a swathe of territories into Islamic fiefdoms, and most of these remain under Muslim rule today. The Ottoman Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453 not only destroyed the Eastern Orthodox Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire), but is still regarded by Muslims as a turning point in the history of the world. The subsequent Ottoman conquests across eastern Europe were only halted when the King of Poland John III Sobieski (1629-1696) defeated a massive Turkish army under the command of Sultan Soleiman I outside the city of Vienna.

In 2015, after Islamist attacks in Paris, French president François Hollande declared that “We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world.” But Islam has been at war with Europe since the seventh century. The beheadings, crucifixions, massacres and demolitions of towns and churches carried out by Islamic State today are replicas of wider atrocities carried out by the Muslim conquerors of Spain in the 8th century.[2]

Jihad wars against the Byzantines were carried out twice a year. Spain and Portugal were occupied for centuries until the Christian kingdoms of the north drove the Muslims out, in a process that itself took some centuries. The Ottomans continued to be a threat down to their defeat in the First World War. From the sixteenth to late eighteenth centuries, the Muslim slavers, known as the Barbary pirates, dominated the Mediterranean and took more than a million Christian slaves to North Africa. In the nineteenth century, jihad wars against European colonists were frequent.[3] Today, Europeans and others are fighting wars against Islamic radicals from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria, and on the streets of our own cities.

To be at war is justification for extreme measures. Deportation and internment are unattractive, just as the measures Western countries have been forced to take against their enemies in other wars. But set next to the threat of unending terror in our cities, and given the nature of the people we will deport or intern, they are probably not as bad as the alternative. We will not execute terrorists (just as Israel has never executed the thousands of terrorists who have murdered its citizens) nor torture them or harm their families. Minor adjustments to our human rights laws and the lowering of the bar a bit on what we consider unacceptable are all we need. But that will not stop Jeremy Corbyn and his terrorist-supporting friends crying that such measures will be a “slippery slope” that will set back community relations by decades.

Dr. Denis MacEoin has recently completed a large study of concerns with Islam. He is an Arabist, Persianist, and a specialist in Shi’i Islam. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

______________________________________________

[1] See also here.

[2] See Darío Fernández-Morera, The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, Wilmington, 2016, chapters 1 and 2.

[3] See Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History, The Hague, 1979, especially chapter 3.

Theresa May’s Well-Deserved Defeat, and the UK’s Uncertain Future

June 11, 2017

Theresa May’s Well-Deserved Defeat, and the UK’s Uncertain Future, PJ Media, Michael Walsh, June 10, 2017

(Shutterstock)

No wonder they lost. Spinelessness is not an attractive character trait in anyone, much less a putative leader. What Mrs. May just discovered — and what we all should learn — is that the days of managing cultural decline via the administrative and the police state are over. At this point, it’s either fight back, defend your patrimony, or die.

Americans made that choice in November, and yet the pushback from the Deep State and the Democrats remains ferocious. Absent the return of St. George, it’s hard to see how the UK comes out of this alive.

********************************

For Irish-Americans, this is yet another Death of Little Nell moment. Theresa May’s foolish gambit in calling a snap election in order to facilitate Britain’s withdrawal from the EU has set in motion a chain of events that could well lead to the dissolution of the “United Kingdom” and the devolution of the Celtic countries — Scotland, all of Ireland, and perhaps Wales and Cornwall as well — from the British crown.

The prime minister’s decision to try to form a government with the Democratic Unionist Party of “Northern Ireland” and the Tories’ unexpected boost from the Scottish National Party (which saved them from utter defeat) will ultimately spell doom for the Great Britain the world has known since the Republic of Ireland declared its independence from the Crown in 1916 and won it by force of arms in 1921.

At City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels) has some observations on the disaster:

Theresa May has proved an apt pupil of the David Cameron school of political incompetence. Lacking principle, she is not even good at being unprincipled: a Machiavellian, it turns out, minus the cunning.

It did not help that she had the charisma of a carrot and the sparkle of a spade. As she presented herself to the public, no one would have wanted her as a dinner guest, except under the deepest social obligation. Technically, she won the election, in the sense that she received more votes than anyone else, but few voted for her with enthusiasm rather than from fear of the alternative. Her disastrous campaign included repeated genuflections in the direction of social democracy. Even after her defeat, moral if not quite literal, she burbled about a society in which no one was left behind—never mind that it would entail a society in which no one would be out in front, that is to say, a society resting in the stagnant pool of its own mediocrity.

Unfortunately, egalitarianism is a little like Islam in that, just as a moderate Muslim can always be outflanked by someone more Islamic than he, so an egalitarian can usually be outflanked by someone more egalitarian than he: and in the contest between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, no one will ever believe that the Conservatives are more devoted to equality of outcome than the Labour Party. May therefore chose her battleground with a perfect eye for defeat.

And defeat she got. Yet another childless leader of an increasingly barren European country, May — whose prime ministership was an accident of Cameron’s defeat in the Brexit referendum (she’s the Gerald Ford of England) — is scrambling to save her current mailing address at 10 Downing Street by allying with the Democratic Unionist Party in Belfast.

The Democratic Unionist Party have agreed in principle a “confidence and supply” deal to support a Conservative government, it has been announced. Theresa May was left eight seats short of an overall majority in the general election, while the DUP won 10 seats.

Tory chief whip Gavin Williamson went to Belfast on Saturday for talks with the Northern Irish party. Downing Street said the details of the outline deal would be discussed at a cabinet meeting on Monday. Any agreement would come into force when Parliament returns next week.

A “confidence and supply” deal is not a full coalition, but an agreement which sees the smaller party support the larger one in key votes such as the budget. A No 10 spokesman said: “We welcome this commitment, which can provide the stability and certainty the whole country requires as we embark on Brexit and beyond.”

Remember 1649? The Irish do

May must now turn to a handful of Unionists in England’s last major colony to save her bacon; meanwhile the Scots viewed the election as setting up yet another bite at the independence apple. So “beyond” seems a bit optimistic:

There was no mention of what concessions the DUP may have asked for, amid growing concern about the influence of a party opposed to abortion and gay marriage, and which has proved hugely controversial in the past over the homophobic and sectarian views of some of its representatives.

May earlier on Saturday lost her two closest aides as she struggled to reassert her leadership after a crushing election setback.

The Conservative leader has been warned that her days are numbered after calling Thursday’s vote three years early, only to lose her majority in parliament. Senior party figures have cautioned against any immediate leadership challenge, saying it would cause only further disruption as Britain prepares to start Brexit negotiations as early as June 19.

But media reports suggest they had demanded the departure of May’s joint chiefs of staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, as the price for allowing the 60-year-old vicar’s daughter to stay in office.

May put on a brave face after Thursday’s vote, expressing sorrow for the MPs who lost their seats but refusing to acknowledge how her election gamble backfired. “From hubris to humiliation,” said the left-leaning Guardian. “May stares into the abyss,” wrote The Times, while the Conservative-supporting Sun tabloid said succinctly: “She’s had her chips.”

As Great Britain dies, mostly thanks to the deliberate suicide of the Labour Party, it’s the Tories who are going to suffer. What England needed in the weak Cameron’s wake was a decisive leader who would reverse the effects (insofar as possible) of Labour’s gambit to boost its electorate via immigration, and to start a serious crackdown on the hordes of foreign Muslims who are already fundamentally changing the nature of the British state. Unable to stand up to bogus charges of “racism,” the Tories capitulated in principle, and got two attacks in London and the massacre in Manchester in return.

No wonder they lost. Spinelessness is not an attractive character trait in anyone, much less a putative leader. What Mrs. May just discovered — and what we all should learn — is that the days of managing cultural decline via the administrative and the police state are over. At this point, it’s either fight back, defend your patrimony, or die.

Americans made that choice in November, and yet the pushback from the Deep State and the Democrats remains ferocious. Absent the return of St. George, it’s hard to see how the UK comes out of this alive.

London Bridge is Falling Down

June 4, 2017

London Bridge is Falling Down, Power LineScott Johnson, June 4, 2017

(Please see also, Theresa May LATEST STATEMENT on London Attacks | Full Speech. — DM)

Though our problem in the United States is less severe than Britain’s, the same obtains here. We continue to import a steady stream of Muslim refugees and immigrants who compound the severity of the risk we face. Can’t we at least turn off the spigot?

**********************

Belief in Islam is a necessary condition of radicalization into Islamism. What is termed radical Islam or Islamism represents a form of Islam. It is a form of Islam with which we cannot live.

When we heard the first reports of the terror attack in London yesterday, there was little room for doubt that the attackers were Muslims celebrating Ramadan. We probably didn’t need to hear that one of the attackers proclaimed “This is for Allah” as he did his dirty work. His declaration was aimed at the slow learners in the audience.

Today Prime Minister May declared that “It is time to say ‘enough is enough.’”. It’s actually past time, but it’s a reasonable statement.

Prime Minister May added: “[W]hen it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism, things need to change.” Although some proposals are implicit in her statement, she does not seem entirely clear on what needs to change. It has something to do with preventing and mitigating “Islamist extremism.” So we have that much to go on.

How is it to be defeated? “It will only be defeated when we turn people’s minds away from this violence and make them understand that our values – pluralistic British values – are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate.”

Prime Minister May is not alone in the indirection of her diagnoses and proposals. Most of us are long gone into the self-censorship and shibboleths imposed by the forces of political correctness.

Whether the London Bridge attackers turn out to be “homegrown” or foreign, whether they are Muslims of the first, second or third generation in Britain, the problem they represent is entirely imported.

Though our problem in the United States is less severe than Britain’s, the same obtains here. We continue to import a steady stream of Muslim refugees and immigrants who compound the severity of the risk we face. Can’t we at least turn off the spigot?

Theresa May LATEST STATEMENT on London Attacks | Full Speech

June 4, 2017

Theresa May LATEST STATEMENT on London Attacks | Full Speech via YouTube, June 4, 2017

(Islamist ideology is mentioned, briefly. Unfortunately, PM May is no Winston Churchill. — DM)

 

The British Election: Will Voters Opt for Intolerance and Xenophobia?

June 4, 2017

The British Election: Will Voters Opt for Intolerance and Xenophobia?Alan M. Dershowitz, June 3, 2017

(If the Labour Party wins a majority in Parliament, what will it mean for BREXIT? — DM)

On June 8, British voters will head to the polls, three years early. When Prime Minister Theresa May called last month for a snap election, the assumption was that she would win easily and increase her parliamentary majority. Recent numbers, however, show the gap closing between May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn – who was given 200:1 odds of when he ran for the party leadership in 2015 – is doing surprisingly well again. This is despite the fact that Labour has been under fire for anti-Semitism in its ranks, and Corbyn himself has been accused of anti-Jewish bigotry. Corbyn denies having a problem with Jews, claiming that he is merely anti-Israel. Even if it were possible to hate Israel without being anti-Semitic – and I am not sure that it is – Corbyn’s words and deeds demonstrate that he often uses virulent anti-Zionism as a cover for his soft anti-Semitism.

For example, in a speech last year, he said that Jews are “no more responsible” for the actions of Israel than Muslims are for those of ISIS. In 2009, he announced: “It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.”

NOTTINGHAM, ENGLAND – JUNE 03: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn greets supporters at Beeston Youth and Community Centre he visits the East Midlands during the final weekend of the General Election campaign on June 3, 2017 in Nottingham, England. If elected in next week’s general election Mr Corbyn is pledging to create a million new jobs and to scrap zero-hours contracts. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

The company that Corbyn keeps, too, suggests that at best he gives a free pass to bigotry, racism and anti-Semitism within the ranks of his own party, and at worst, he espouses them. He has shared speaking platforms and led rallies with some of the most infamous Jew-haters. He has attended meetings hosted by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Paul Eisen, author of a blog titled: “My Life as a Holocaust Denier.” He has been associated with Sheikh Raed Salah – leader of the outlawed northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, a blood libel perpetuator convicted for incitement to violence and racism – whom he referred to as a “very honoured citizen” whose “voice must be heard.” Corbyn was also a paid contributor for Press TV, Iran’s tightly controlled media apparatus, whose production is directly overseen by anti-Semitic Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

One of the biggest criticisms of the “Corbynization” of British politics has been the mainstreaming of traditional anti-Semitism. The country’s chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, has called the problem within the Labour party “severe.”

Consider the late Gerald Kaufman, a Labour veteran and close political associate of Corbyn’s who touted conspiracy theories about Jews throughout his political career. When speaking at a pro-Palestinian event, Kaufman said: “Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party – as in the general election in May – support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives.” While Corbyn condemned this remark, he refused to yield to widespread demands for disciplinary action against Kaufman. This is in keeping with what a key former adviser to Corbyn, Harry Fletcher, wrote: “I’d suggest to him [Jeremy] about how he might build bridges with the Jewish community and none of it ever happened.”

Let’s be clear: I do not believe that Corbyn’s rise in the polls is due to his hatred of Jews and Israel, but rather in spite of it. May called for elections and then refused to debate her opponents. She is running a lacklustre campaign somewhat reminiscent of U.S. Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton’s last year. For his part, Corbyn is a populist, like U.S. President Donald Trump. Although politically polar opposites, they have much in common, such as a penchant for shooting from the hip and unpredictability.

Furthermore, many British voters are unaware of Corbyn’s anti-Semitic associations. Others know, but don’t care. Those on the hard-Left, such as union activists and academics, include knee-jerk opponents of the nation state of the Jewish people and supporters of academic and cultural boycotts of Israel. Many of these favor trade and engagement with such egregious human-rights violators as Iran, Cuba, China, Russia, Belarus and Venezuela. Singling out Israel – the Middle East’s only democracy, with one of the world’s best human-rights records, rule of law and concern for enemy civilians — for boycotts itself is a form of anti-Semitism.

Corbyn himself has called for boycotts of the Jewish state. He has advocated for an arms embargo, citing Israel’s supposed “breach” of the human-rights clause of the EU-Israel trade agreement. He also led the call to boycott Israel’s national soccer team in the European Championship in Wales. (Ironically, Israel only plays in this league because it was expelled from the Asian Football Confederation due to the Arab League’s boycott.)

Corbyn, as well, has been a vocal supporter of the so-called Palestinian “right of return,” something that would lead to an Arab majority and Jewish minority within Israel, and render the two-state solution completely obsolete.

Whether anti-Semitism is the cause or effect of the Labour party’s problem is not important. What is relevant is that Corbyn not only has not stemmed the tide, but has played a big part in perpetuating it.

British voters now have the opportunity to choose where they will go as a nation. Will they opt to move away from stability, rationality and tolerance toward simple mindedness and xenophobia? I sincerely hope not.

Bernie Sanders has already made his choice. He is campaigning for Corbyn despite his record on anti-Semitism. Sanders will have to explain why a Jew is helping to elect a bigot with the views Corbyn holds about the Jewish people and their nation state.

Labour Manchester Mayor Says Suicide Bomber ‘Not a Muslim’

May 25, 2017

Labour Manchester Mayor Says Suicide Bomber ‘Not a Muslim’, BreitbartLiam Deacon, May 25, 2017

(Please see also, President Trump and Pope Francis Meet Face-to-Face. — DM)

Leon Neal/Getty

The Labour mayor of Greater Manchester has claimed the suicide bomber who killed 22 was not a Muslim, insisting the “worst thing that can happen” is people blaming Muslims.

Andy Burnham, a former Labour frontbencher who was elected mayor this month, insisted the attack, claimed by Islamic State, had nothing to do with Islam.

“The message that I would want to get over – and this is how the vast majority of people feel – this man was a terrorist, not a Muslim,” he said, speaking to LBC Radio.

“He does not represent the Muslim community. We’ve got to keep that distinction in mind all the time. This was an unspeakable act. The worst thing that can happen is that people use this to blame an entire community, the Muslim community.

“In my view, the man who committed this atrocity no more represents the Muslim community than the individual who murdered my friend Jo Cox represents the white, Christian community.”

Similarly, following the Westminster knife and car attack, Prime Minister Theresa May said the “Islamist” attack on Parliament was not “Islamic”.

Haras Rafiq, the CEO of the anti-extremism Quilliam Foundation, which has advised the Government, accused Mr. Burnham of “basically doing what ISIS is doing”.

He said by declaring the terrorist a non-Muslim, he had “excommunicate[ed] Salman Abedi”, which is known as takfiri in Islam and is widely practised by extremists.

Mr. Rafiq said the Manchester attack has “something to do with some interpretation of Islam”, speaking on Sky News, adding:

“What we must not do anymore… is turn around and say ‘this person was not a Muslim’ – because he was, he was practising a form of Islamist, Salafi, jihadist Islam and that’s something we need to tackle head on.”

He also said “there is no such thing as a lone wolf”, predicting the terrorist was part of a “network”. He claimed “every single jihadist terrorist has been part of the globally inspired Islamist ideology”.

Theresa May, Britain’s prime minister, to seek early election on June 8

April 18, 2017

Theresa May, Britain’s prime minister, to seek early election on June 8, Washington Times, Jill Lawless – Associated Press, April 18, 2017

(BREXIT  – Theresa May:  It’s time to leave the EU. — DM)

Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May speaks to the media outside her official residence of 10 Downing Street in London, Tuesday April 18, 2017. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced she will seek early election on June 8 (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Polls give May’s Conservatives a double-digit lead on Labour, which is divided under left-wing leader Corbyn.

***************************

LONDON (AP) — In a shock announcement, Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday called for an early general election to be held June 8 to seek a strong mandate as she negotiates Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Standing outside 10 Downing Street, May said she would ask the House of Commons on Wednesday to back her call for an election, three years before the next scheduled date in May 2020.

She said that since Britons voted to leave the EU in June, the country had come together, but politicians had not. She said the political divisions “risk our ability to make a success of Brexit.”

At present, May’s governing Conservatives have 330 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons. May said that “our opponents believe that because the government’s majority is so small, our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course” on leaving the EU.

“They are wrong,” she said. “They underestimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country.”

Under Britain’s Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, elections are held every five years, but the prime minister can call a snap election if two-thirds of lawmakers vote for it.

The leader of the main opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has previously said he would back such a call.

May took office in July after predecessor David Cameron stepped down following his failed attempt to get voters to back remaining in the EU. Since then she has ruled out calling an early election to get her own mandate. But she said Tuesday she had “reluctantly” changed her mind.

Polls give May’s Conservatives a double-digit lead on Labour, which is divided under left-wing leader Corbyn.

The pound rose 0.1 percent against the U.S. dollar after the announcement, to 1.257, recovering from a 0.4 percent drop an hour earlier.

The Trumpocalypse Goes Global

February 2, 2017

The Trumpocalypse Goes Global, Power LineSteven Hayward, February 2, 2017

It isn’t just in the halls of Washington where Trump has everyone in an uproar. In the House of Commons over in Britain, the Corbynite Labour Party had a conniption fit, culminating in this nice exchange between Corbyn and Prime Minister Theresa May, who I must say is reminding me more and more of Margaret Thatcher all the time (about 1:30 long):

There was a similar debate up in Canada this week, too, but much less energetic and colorful, because Canada. (See below.)

Prediction: Trump is going to be a central issue in the upcoming French and German elections. The man’s political brand is going as global as his hotel brand.

What do they debate about in the Canadian parliament? Whether you can say “fart” in debate. Don’t they have a speech and debate clause? (3:38 long.)

Bonus! Nigel Farage gets in on the Trump action in the European Commission:

U.K. government loses Brexit case, must consult Parliament

January 24, 2017

U.K. government loses Brexit case, must consult Parliament, Washington Times, Danica Kirka, January 24, 2017

pmmayBritish Prime Minister Theresa May speaks on the third day of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2017. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans to trigger negotiations by the end of March.

The 8-3 ruling forces the government to put a bill before Parliament, giving pro-EU politicians a chance to soften the terms of Brexit — Britain’s exit from the EU. “Leave” campaigners had objected, saying Parliament shouldn’t have the power to overrule the electorate, which voted to leave the bloc in a June 23 referendum.

May had said she would use centuries-old powers known as royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty and launch two years of exit talks. The powers — traditionally held by the monarch — permit decisions about treaties and other issues to be made without a vote of Parliament.

“The referendum is of great political significance, but the act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result, so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the U.K. Constitution, namely by an act of Parliament,” the president of the Supreme Court David Neuberger said in reading the judgement.

“To proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries,” he said.

The case was considered the most important constitutional issue in a generation, clarifying who ultimately wields power in Britain’s system of government: the prime minister and her Cabinet, or Parliament.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller sued to force the government to seek Parliamentary approval before invoking Article 50. Leaving the EU will change the fundamental rights of citizens and this can’t be done without a vote of lawmakers, she argued.

May had argued the referendum gave her a mandate to take Britain out of the 28-nation bloc and that discussing the details of her strategy with Parliament would weaken the government’s negotiating position.

Significantly, the court also ruled that parts of the United Kingdom — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — do not need to be consulted. Had the court ruled that the “devolved” Parliaments needed a say, a significant delay to the process would have been likely as lawmakers from the regions piled in with concerns.

The decision doesn’t mean that Britain will remain in the EU. But it could delay the process — though May’s Downing Street office said its timetable remained on track.

The government moved quickly to say it would offer its plans in detail to the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon. Legal experts suggest that May will try to keep the scope of the legislation narrow — focusing solely on triggering Article 50 — in order to limit the chance for amendments that could delay a vote.

But opposition became evident immediately. Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the party would seek to amend the legislation to make sure the government is “accountable.” The Scottish National Party, the third largest party in the House of Commons, promised to offer 50 amendments.

“Today’s result comes as a surprise to no one. Unfortunately for businesses and other institutions, Brexit still means uncertainty,” said Phillip Souta, head of U.K. public policy at law firm Clifford Chance. “Parliament remains divided and the outcome of the negotiations remain unknown.”

The bill could also be subject to delay in the unelected House of Lords.

“Defeat in the House of Lords would not stop Brexit from happening, but it could delay it until mid-2020,” Souta said.

Miller, an online investment manager, had argued the case wasn’t about blocking Brexit. Instead, she said, it was about “democracy” and the “dangerous precedent” that a government can overrule Parliament.

For Miller, who brought the case with hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, the Supreme Court judges brought vindication after months of threats to her security that followed her involvement in the case.

“No prime minister, no government can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged,” she said. “Parliament alone is sovereign.”

The case revolved around an argument that dates back almost 400 years to the English Civil War as to whether power ultimately rests in the executive or Parliament.

Underscoring the importance of the case, May put Attorney General Jeremy Wright in charge of the legal team fighting the suit. Wright had argued the suit is an attempt to put a legal obstacle in the way of enacting the referendum result.

The decision is a bad defeat for the government and means that the government “still does not have control of the Brexit timetable,” said David Allen Green, lawyer at London legal firm Preiskel & Co.

“The appeal decision is, however, a victory for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and a vindication of an independent judiciary,” Green said. “The Supreme Court has told the government to get back into its box: A proper process has to be followed.”

Watch: PM Theresa May’s Speech Invoke BREXIT, Pound Soars 2,5%

January 17, 2017

Watch: PM Theresa May’s Speech Invoke BREXIT, Pound Soars 2,5%, Gatestone EUVincent van den Born, January 17, 2017

UK prime minister Theresa May has just given her speech on Britain’s departure from the European Union. The essence seemed to be that from now on, British people will decide on British laws, interpreted by British judges. They will regain control over their borders, leave the EU single market and establish separate free trade deals, alleviate as many barriers to trade as possible, and Britain will stop contributing large annual sums of money to the EU apparatus. May also warned against countries seeking a punitive Brexit, emphasising that if Britain suffers, Europe will suffer economically as well. May said:

“We will leave the EU, but we will not leave Europe.”

According to the EU, there will be no negotiating the four EU “fundamental freedoms.” Nor is there any inclination in EU countries to be very forthcoming in helping with Brexit: “It’s not up to Europe to figure out Brexit for Britain,” according to Christophe Caresche, French Socialist MP, “They need to present a clear framework, and we will respond within the negotiation process.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Feuronews%2Fposts%2F10154590188563110%3A0&width=500

With president-elect Trump going on record saying how good an idea he thinks Brexit is, and offering a bilateral trade deal, Brussels can’t rest easily. In an interview with German Welt, UK finance minister Philip Hammond didn’t mince words either. When told that in Germany, many still hope that the UK chooses to remain in the EU, Hammond was unequivocal: “That will not happen. Those of us who, like me, have campaigned to stay in the EU and tried to reform it from within have moved on. To put it frankly: since the referendum on the European side, we have seen a movement away from British positions. This suggests that the underlying driving force on the European side is still towards more political integration, towards a defence component for the European Union – things which are an abomination to the UK.

The UK front, thus, is solid. The same is not the case in Brussels. While Germany sounds a harsh note, in the person of Norbert Röttgen, MP of Angela Merkel’s CDU, by engaging aggressively with Hammond’s firm assertions that he will do everything to make Brexit work: “The U.K.’s two main economic weaknesses are its considerable trade deficit and a big budget deficit, (…) As such, Hammond’s threats with duties and tax cuts would primarily damage the U.K. and should be regarded as an expression of British cluelessness.” But ‘British cluelessness‘ is not what Caresche is scared of: “What we definitely don’t want is a negotiation that will create an attractive standard for leaving the EU that other countries would want to imitate. It’s not just a British issue — it’s also about not creating incentives for other countries to leave.”

A sentiment that is shared in ‘New Europe‘, as Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjartó makes clear: “If the U.K. will be able to sign economic and trade agreements with many serious actors of the world economy, and [at the same time] if the EU is not able to build this kind of cooperation with the U.K., then is going to be a very unfavorable position for us.”