Amnesty silent over Hamas encouraging child martyrs

So Amnesty International, once a proud defender of free speech, the right to a fair trial and an open liberal society is now calling for an arms embargo on Israel and Hamas. It calls the rocket attacks by Hamas, and Israel's overwhelming response both illegal and immoral.

The fact Hamas started it is, of course, besides the point.

However, what particularly grates is the political imperative behind Amnesty in making this call. It knows it will go nowhere, primarily because the US wont isolate Israel. Imagine if Israel DID suffer an arms embargo. Might that embolden Iran? Which wants Israel wiped off the map, and is developing a nuclear weapons capability. No, Amnesty is silent about that. Wouldn't Hezbollah then start attacks? No, Amnesty doesn't care about that. Idiot Savant thinks it would help. It's incredibly naive to think that. Hamas is fundamentally evil, it should send shivers through the bones of any liberal minded person in the West to think of such people gaining power - much like neo-Nazis. Sadly, the left just sees someone fighting Israel and turns a blind eye.

More importantly, has Amnesty raised concerns about how Hamas encourages children to be martyrs?



No. Amnesty KNOWS the debate wont be about isolating Hamas and Hezbollah, two organisations that if they ever got into power would be egregious violators of human rights. They would oppress non-Muslims, they would discriminate against women, and brutally suppress non-Islamist politicians, media or speech. Amnesty wont say that.

So fuck them. I'll tell the next naive student who asks me to support Amnesty that I wont as long as it refuses to campaign against Islamism, and while we are at it, it remains next to silent about North Korea's gulags which enslave children.

Aviation security call unnecessary

I'm hardly surprised at the report in the Dominion Post of a recommendation to introduce security screening of all domestic passenger flights. The Police and Aviation Security Service have strong vested interests in expanding any security operation, even regardless of the miniscule risk.

The report says there is a "very low threat from terrorists, moderate risk from acutely disaffected people drunks, those suffering mental disorder or irrational grudges".

Yes seriously, there is a bigger threat from car bombs in built up areas. However, I don't notice security screening of private cars in built up areas. A similar threat for bombing trains and buses, because there is NO screening of who people are before trains and buses are boarded.

The "moderate risk" from acutely disaffected people, drunks, those suffering mental disorder or irrational grudges, is something that might be picked up on check in, and frankly "moderate" is nonsense. According to the report 3.7 events per year happen.

The review is entirely because of the case of Asha Ali Abdille who took knives on a Beech 1900 light and attacked the crew. This sort of risk could be better addressed by having lockable doors on the plane, instead of subjecting hundreds of thousands of travellers every day to a search. Don't forget that all aircraft above 19 seats have at least one member of cabin crew. Better yet, sue this mad woman for the cost she imposed on all of the passengers and the airline.

You see, the sense of perspective about security and terrorism is completely skewed by the narrow minded attitude of those only working in aviation. Has the report analysed the cost in delay, frustration and additional costs for making purchases at destinations for toiletries etc, because of the ridiculous restrictions on hand luggage? What are the costs to business and travellers of this? Those in security care next to nothing about that, remember how they goose stepped everyone into only carrying toiletries in little containers. These are on the same flights that have hot beverages, glass, shoes, belts, rope and any other kind of potential weapon.

To take a clear example - it's remarkable how in the UK iIwas always screened for flying on 50 seat regional flights, but those boarding trains going at 125mph from Euston, Kings Cross or Paddington (or arriving there) faced absolutely nothing. Much like those catching the tube or buses, because they couldn't function with the restrictions. Instead, there is the use of CCTV, the physical presence of security staff and the use of intelligence to monitor security.

Of course you wont 100% ensure there are no incidents. After all, there was security at US domestic airports before 9/11. There could still be incidents, but it is like other human activities. Driving is risky, walking in the street it risky, life is risky. It's about time that the endless call to impose delays, inconvenience and cost upon the 99% of those who fly, in a country with next to no risk of terrorist attack, be resisted. International flights obviously must face security screening, given the profile and realistic danger of terrorism. Domestic jet flights are barely understandable, given the speeds and fuel carried, but provincial flights?

The truth is that you are at far more danger walking around the streets of Whakatane, Wanganui, Kaitaia and Timaru at night, than you are risking boarding a plane at the airports there with someone who will kill you.

The government should demand a full benefit/cost assessment, taking into account the costs imposed on travellers (not the NZ$4.66 but the delay, stress and related costs of not carrying what you need in hand luggage) - and compare it to other risks, and propose other options.

Pakistan's appeasement of Islamists

The Pakistani government has effectively surrendered control of the North West Frontier Province to the Taliban, indirectly, by recognising the Taliban's interpretation of Sharia law as applying to the Province. This is in exchange for a ceasefire with the Taliban.

What this means, effectively, is the Taliban has won. It is like Poland setting up a government that recognises Nazi laws, in exchange for the Nazis not invading.

The Taliban has already destroyed girls schools in the province in the areas that it controls, and so in effect the sort of brutal, heartless, inhumane rule that it once applied to all of Afghanistan is now to rule part of Pakistan.

CNN reports on a Pakistani woman from the province who fears the spread of the Taliban's influence with this capitulation:

"The whole point is, if it's not contained to Swat, it's going to spill all over in Pakistan and the West also doesn't realize the seriousness of the situation," Bibi said. "Probably your next 9/11 is going to be from Swat."

Dean Nelson, in the Daily Telegraph, who knows the region writes with despair:

"in the new democratic Pakistan, and in an area 'ruled' by a secular party, terror is about to be announced the victor, and will now enjoy the spoils. The local Taliban's demand of Sharia Law has been agreed and the hope of justice among the families of those butchered for buying a video, singing a song, or governing in accordance with their secular mandate, has been killed too."

As Ayn Rand once said, when there is a compromise between the good and the evil, it is a triumph of evil. Islamists will now effectively have a safe haven in a province of a nuclear armed state. One can only hope it is temporary at best, contained to that province and that it does not spread. Pity the women and girls in the North West Frontier Province, who are about to see their lives get worse.

After all, this is a country which has as a Cabinet Minister a man who defended the murder of girls and women who dared seek to choose their husbands. Then again, the Minister of Education presided over an illegal tribal court which saw five infants handed over for marriage in exchange for a murder.

The difference between Iran and Pakistan looks more like Pakistan is apparently on our side.

There are Pakistanis against this, sadly their voices are not being heard enough.

My question is what does the new US administration think. Does it want to help Pakistan smash the Islamists? Or is this, as some have suggested, part of the Obama's administration's "smart power"?

Spineless Cameron on Wilders

David Cameron can lamblast the downfall of society, with the latest news of a 13yo boy fathering a child of a 15yo girl - par for the course of the chav underculture in Britain - because he's a Tory toff and the sons and daughters of the privileged never get pregnant, at least not in The Sun. It's an easy target, who is offended by damning teenagers?

So the testicular capacity of the Conservatives when it comes to Islamists is a little different. The Tories sat on the fence, far more interested in attracting Muslim votes than being principled. George Osborne questioned the wisdom of it, in terms of attracting publicity, but he wouldn't talk of freedom of speech.

The Tories aren't any more interested in this than Labour.

Fitna - see it here.

Fitna - the Dutch film by MP Geert Wilders. Warning this film contains graphic images. The film considers Islamism to be abhorrent to modern liberal democracies, and considers it as malignant as Nazism and Communism.

The House of Lords saw it last night. This film is the excuse given by the British government, supported by the so called Liberal Democrats, to ban Geert Wilders from promoting it in the UK - because he was branded an "extremist" and "peddling hate". Of course he was peddling hate - hatred of Islamism, not Muslims.

PART ONE



PART TWO



Maybe Muslims who are offended by this film might spend time focusing on attacking those who they say are damaging their religion, they might wage war against those they know who incite violence and hatred - and stop wondering why the rest of the world is scared when a segment of Islam so openly seeks to wage war on us all.

Mumbai's Islamist hell

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai, not only in hotels, but even hospitals specifically targeting US and British nationals, as well as local Jews is sadly a wakeup call to us all. Islamist terrorism never went away, it remains outside the Middle East, and has now damaged India - a state not founded on religion, but on pluralism and liberal democracy.

The finger will naturally be pointed at Pakistan and perhaps Bangladesh, both which should unreservedly condemn the attacks and work closely with India, if the perpetrators are from or gain succour from those in those countries. Hopefully it wont result in the rise of Hinduism in reaction, as Hindu nationalism can be equally as virulently hateful and violent as Islamism.

It is a chance for India's erstwhile neighbours to come together to stamp out Islamist (and other) terrorism - what's the chance Pakistan has the means to do so?

Why 9/11 matters

It wasn't a natural disaster, it wasn't an accident.

It was an act of war by Islamists from Saudi Arabia, backed by the tyrannical regime in Afghanistan against the USA, Western civilisation and secular free liberal society.

The battle is far from over, but the success has been to prevent a repeat attack in the US - although it has happened in the UK and Spain, more by inspiration than by direct control.

Islamists are stone age thugs using 21st century tools, they are one of many direct threats to the advancement of humanity, and the lives of those who wish to live peacefully and not initiate force against others. They must be fought both philosophically through the battle of ideas, and directly where and when they threaten freedom and lives.

That is why keeping Afghanistan and Iraq out of Islamist control is so important - the best examples to the Muslim world are secular states that allow pluralism and are at least partly free. Sadly, Turkey and Bosnia are the best there is, whilst most others are either oppressive or unable/unwilling to deal with their own murderous Islamists.

9/11 was not just an attack on the USA, it was an attack on the idea of the USA - a secular liberal free society where people can live their lives as they choose, without being forced to bow to any religion or political beliefs. To appreciate that you need to accept that secular liberal society is superior to theocratic autocracies of all kinds - to do that tolerance of individuals practicing Islam peacefully has to be separated from those using Islam as the foundation to wage, threaten and plan for civil war.

I do not care if individuals are Muslims and treat religion as a basis for how they live - until that extends to taking away my individual freedoms and attacking me. I don't like Islam, but there is a clear line between:
- Hating Islam as a philosophical and belief system;
- Fighting Islamist inspired attacks and threats; and
- Defending the right of someone to worship the Muslim faith whilst not posing a threat to anyone else.

Few disagree with the second point, few argue the first and not enough who argue the first also defend the third.

3 years ago today

I used the tube twice today, and was gently reminded by coverage in one of the free papers that today is the third anniversary of the terrorist bombings that killed 52 innocent people and injured 700 in London.

It is notable that it had a low profile today. London has been scarred, but neither the economy nor the culture of the city has been substantively hurt. In the regard, the Islamist terrorists did not achieve their goal of frightening Londoners nor frightening the British government to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan.

However I do wonder whether the relative nonchalance is naive, or a reflection of the success of the security forces in combating terrorist plots. I hope the latter, because Britain has paid a high price in individual freedom for security.

There is no doubt that it has proven more difficult than the Islamist terrorists thought to undertake their own filthy form of civil war against British society - but Britain remains vulnerable - and has to remain vigilant. Hopefully the naivete about Islamists who preach jihad in British mosques has been shattered - for too long the UK has relied only on its tolerance to battle the intolerant. The message ought to be that if you, as an individual, wish to declare war on Britain's government and society, you will no longer receive the generosity of tolerance. An (effectively) secular United Kingdom must never be negotiable.

Hitchens tries waterboarding

One of the most controversial actions of the Bush Administration has been the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique at Guantanamo Bay for terrorism suspects.

Critics have described it as torture - and the use of torture by a liberal democracy is an abomination, it markedly weakens the moral position of those who wish to defend free secular society from the tyranny of dictatorships whether theocratic, nationalist, Marxist or otherwise. One of the dividing lines between civilisation and the barbarity of tyranny is the unwillingness of civilised states to inflict physical harm and pain upon those it incarcerates or to use the deliberate infliction of pain to seek confessions. It is not because it is always unreliable, at times it is not. Those enduring pain that would otherwise drive you mad are more likely to do what is necessary to avoid it continuing, than concoct some elaborate fantasy. Which is why some soldiers receive waterboarding as training to prepare in the event that they face the horrors of an enemy which wouldn't dare have this debate. The preparation is because of genuine fear that torture produces results.

However torture is wrong. Interrogations are not meant to be fun, they are harrowing, lengthy and can deprive the suspect of comfort and some sleep - but they should not cross the threshold of actually inflicting pain and suffering. To inflict such suffering upon one who may be innocent is simply sadism, to trust the evidence of one who confessed or revealed information under threat of pain is far more questionable than a confession given freely.

So what is waterboarding? Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens decided to find out first hand. His account is here. As far as he was concerned it was torture to go through with it, but he also gives the argument against it. He takes a considered view which gives me pause for thought, in both directions.

"a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay....On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint."

The counter is a number of arguments, but ones that I find most compelling:

"It may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information. ... To put it briefly, even the C.I.A. sources for the Washington Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “not all of it reliable.”

It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack."

If you could prove that a crime you had been accused of had been confessed by you because the Police tied you and shot water up your nostrils repeatedly, your confession would be meaningless. This is, of course, completely right and appropriate in our judicial system. However, even taking the argument that this is a form of war, the question of where you draw the line emerges.

Finally:

"One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true?"

Read for yourself, there is little doubt that waterboarding has helped extract information of value in the war against Islamist terrorism. However, the line that has been crossed is a dangerous one, and one that must be subject to full, free and frank debate. It is not a debate between those who want to be soft on Islamist terror and those who are sadistic fascists - it should be a debate about what constitutes that behaviour which is acceptable for the governments of Western free democracies to undertake. Waterboarding is, as Hitchens said, foreplay compared to how Al Qaeda operates, or Iran or North Korea or China, or indeed many other countries. The moral equivalency some on the left, including Amnesty International, applies to this is repulsive, but somewhat inevitable. I look forward to our friends on the left waging an orchestrated protest and campaign against Camp 22 in North Korea for example. However, a line has been crossed which gives reason to say the US engages in torture.

Hitchens is not soft on terrorism or Islamists, neither am I. I believe it slightly undermines the moral authority we have against Islamists who seek to portray Western secular societies as corrupt and cruel - yet it also may well have saved lives. Do the ends justify the means?

Bush's legacy on balance more good than bad

As the Bush Presidency enters its final months, it is worthwhile having a dispassionate look at the record so far. Those on the left, or indeed most people you encounter in many Western countries believe the hype that has been self generated that he has been the worst President in recent history. The war in Iraq is seen as clear evidence of this, as it has been expensive and cost many lives both military and civilian, though the overthrow of one of the Middle East's most tyrannical and militaristic dictatorships (and the murder and destruction it wrecked upon its own people and its neighbours is conveniently glossed over) is almost taken for granted. The failure to completely crush the Taliban is pointed at, meanwhile the fact the Taliban regime WAS overthrown, and that it was the most utterly heartless, lifeless, vile form of Islamist barbarism is also ignored - girls in Kabul can go to school now, people can play music - but Bush's critics prefer to ignore that. They ignore that the war on Iraq resulted in Libya's Colonel Gaddafi "giving up" his own weapons of mass destruction, opening up and engaging with the West, instead of pursuing his long history of backing terrorist and murderers on several continents.

Most importantly, there has not been another terrorist attack on the US since 9/11. That should be a cause of celebration - it's difficult to point to the absence of something and say "see what I have done", but in this case it is important. People are still flying, going about their daily business, albeit with much less convenience than they once did.

Bush critics point at failure to achieve peace in Israel, although the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel points to at least one step forward. The isolation of Hamas in Gaza has worked to prevent the entire Palestinian Authority from becoming an Islamist terrorist base. Meanwhile Israel has knocked out a nuclear facility in Syria, something that the so called "anti-nuclear/peace" movement wont ever give credit for. You see to them, it is no worse for a one-party state or Islamist theocracy to hold nuclear weapons, than for a liberal Western democracy to do so. The very same people also claim to support feminism and human rights, when they treat regimes which in practice reject both as being no worse than the USA or the UK.

However I digress. Other criticisms of the Bush administration are around climate change - a reasonable concern, which has become a fad for armageddon like calls for radical intervention in the forms of taxes, subsidies and regulations in Western liberal democracies, whilst rapidly growing developing countries and oil rich states which per capita are as wealthy as Western democracies are expected to do nothing. Meanwhile the rising price of oil, due to demand and tax/regulatory/planning restrictions on supply (of both crude and refined product) have done more to reduce energy use (and in more efficient ways) than any nonsense about subsidising alternatives.

There is criticism on the economy, with some justification, but the current recession is led by the end of a property/credit boom that started well before Bush, as well as oil prices. More could have been done, certainly government spending has ballooned under Bush where it could have been cut back to ease the pressure on credit through the budget deficit.

Where criticism is valid has been in two areas:

1. The erosion of civil liberties as part of the war on terror, whereby wire tapping and interception is now a routinely used power by law enforcement authorities. The ability to use these powers is insufficiently monitored or limited. In short, law enforcement agencies have asked for powers they long dreamt of, because they believed it necessary to fight the war on terror - these requests have sadly not been sufficiently questioned.

2. The use of torture and rendition. In a state of war, it is difficult to determine the line between detaining suspects who are planning and aiding and abetting the waging of war against your country, and when people should be charged and tried for offences in a civilian court. The current situation is a blurring between those. It is important that those who are detained do face trial, and do have the right to defence. The risk of arresting and detaining the innocent is real, as is the risk that being deterred from doing so results in acts of terrorism being undertaken. The balance has been successful in preventing further terrorist acts, but it is important to be seen to be treating suspects fairly and impartially. Of particular concern has been the use of torture to obtain confessions and intelligence. Its efficacy is actually greater than critics make it out to be - those who face severe discomfort and pain are less capable of constructing consistent lies than spilling the truth. However, it's morally repugnant. It is difficult to spread the values of individual rights and liberty when you engage in practices that are milder versions of those you oppose. Fortunately both McCain and Obama reject it.

Some libertarians will see those last two points as self-evident that Bush is no friend of freedom. I disagree. He is a flawed friend of freedom. I have not mentioned his evangelism deliberately, largely because it has been exagerrated by his critics. As an atheist myself, the use of religion in a political context beyond demanding the simple right to freedom of belief appalls me. However, despite the fears of some he hasn't implemented a theocracy in the USA. His use of some theocratic language has been counterproductive, as it feeds the Islamists to talk of crusades, but despite his strong religious beliefs (and don't forget both Al Gore and John Kerry both claimed similar strong faith) it has not significantly undermined the fundamental secular nature of the USA.

Andrew Roberts in the Daily Telegraph believes that history will judge Bush well. It is frankly too early to say for sure, six months is a very long time in politics (New Zealand had three Prime Ministers in that time in 1990). He says:

"The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.

The number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is equivalent to the losses they endured - for a nation only a little over half the size in the mid-Forties - capturing a single island from the Japanese in the Pacific War."

Iraq has not become Vietnam.

So ask yourself this, what would have been different under Al Gore or John Kerry? 9/11 would still have happened, but would Al Gore have overthrown the Taliban? Who knows. Certainly Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq, does anyone really believe he would have just peacefully gone about oppressing his people and not tried again to wage war? Does anyone believe he wouldn't have tried to find common cause with Islamists (as the nominally secular Syria has done) to continue to wage war against Israel, the West and his neighbours to the south? Does anyone believe that Gaddafi would have surrendered?

Do you think there would have been any difference to global warming had Al Gore signed Kyoto? Remembering that Russia, India, China and the Middle East wouldn't have changed behaviour one iota (yes Russia is part of Kyoto but then you can be when your population is in freefall decline). Think that pouring loads of US taxpayers money (money they have spent themselves on other things) into subsidising biofuels more or electric cars would have made any difference at all? You think that a Presidency that sought approval from the likes of China and Russia to act (through the UN Security Council) would have been a deterrence to further attacks like 9/11? You think Hamas would have stopped shelling Israel had Israel been told to compromise more with it?

Of course, "what ifs" can never be proven - but one thing is sure. Since 9/11 there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil. Given the scale and seriousness of that one event, that is worth acknowledging. The only ones who wouldn't acknowledge that are those that cheered it on, like Annette Sykes or Barack Obama's former pastor, or those that cobble together fragments to consider it was all a conspiracy.

The USA couldn't organise a successful assassination against Castro, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Ayatollah Khomeini after all.

George Habash, terrorist - dead

Habash was the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist movement calling for the total abolition of the "zionist entity" by military means, with no negotiation or compromise. This included fighting to overthrow the Jordanian government of King Hussein so that Jordan could be a base for revolutionary war against Israel.

^

The PFLP engaged in a protracted list of terrorist incidents, one of the highest profile being the hijacking of four airliners in 1970 in the so called "Dawson's Field Hijackings". It rejected overtures of peace from the PLO, and has opposed any settlement with Israel.

^

good riddance to Habash, he was no friend of peace.

NZ's own insurgency

Hat tip to Not PC for pointing out Phil Howison's excellent article about the Urewera 17, you know that group that far too many have excused.

Phil has gone through much detail to demonstrate what a credible threat they posed, and does help you think what nonsense is behind those who think the arrests were some sort of Labour party manipulated political targeting.

Read it, it is one of the best researched articles so far on this incident, and all Maori and Green party candidates this year, in particular, deserve to be grilled about what they think of the views expressed by the Urewera 17.

Trotter vs Minto

Chris Trotter is a funny political beast, he is firmly on the left and most of the time I find him quite despicable. After all I recently pulled to bits his bizarre Marxist view of democratic politics being "them" vs "us", the "moneyed" vs the "workers". I remember many years ago a bizarre column of his claiming that when Air NZ introduced business class on domestic flights (which has been gone now for 6 years but will be back in a different form from next year) it was a sign of a change in New Zealand - the class in front was "them" while "us" sat in the back. Sheer nonsense of course as mostly "them" were politicians. He has said that "we pay a toll for our comfortable lives" in that other people's kids get abused. He sung praises for Wolfgang Rosenberg, a supporter of Stalinist East Germany.

However this time he is on the side of freedom, or at least against those who were advocating fomenting violent revolution. His open letter to John Minto in the Sunday Star Times some weeks ago spoke volumes, he nailed his colours to the mast of liberal democracy. His closing statement made a fundamental point:

"Because in the course of the past month, John, I have heard you make many accusations, seen you point many fingers and hurl many fistfuls of abuse. But I have not heard one word from you about the right of a democratic society, such as ours, to be protected from people who think it's OK to run around the bush with semi-automatics and Molotov cocktails. People who think it's OK to train young Maori men to be bodyguards for the Americans in Baghdad. People who think it's OK to reach a level of preparation for organised political violence so alarming that New Zealand's most liberal police commissioner, ever, felt he had no choice but to launch "Operation Eight". Because it's NOT OK, John. Political violence in a functioning democracy is NEVER OK. And I want to hear you say it. "

See that? Political violence in a functioning democracy is never ok. So does John Minto reply yes or no? No, of course not. This self proclaimed champion of human rights, who blames the West for how Robert Mugabe (no doubt one of his pinups) is treating Zimbabwe, who also blames everyone but the perpetrators for torturing their own kids, likes political violence. Indeed he is an apologist for violence committed by anyone he sees as a victim - nice chap.

Minto's response starts by claiming, so innocuously that "groups involved in working for social change saw the long shadow of the state loom over them". Oh "working for social change", which in his world doesn't include libertarians, Christian conservatives or the Business Roundtable, no it is code for socialist Marxist groups. Minto only supports those wanting statist collectivist solutions. He trots out again the excuse that evidence was leaked, of course all of the evidence is now publicly available thanks to the internet - and it IS damning. So he ignores it, he prefers to attack the anti-terror legislation - he doesn't even respond to Trotter's comment. He doesn't condemn the ideas expressed by those accused - because Minto, like too many in the so called "peace" movement have no interest in peace, or non-violence. You see "peace" means surrender.

Minto, rightly, would argue that peace under apartheid was impossible, so it was legitimate to fight to overthrow it. However, he would also argue the same about any other conflict, according to the side he supports. He wouldn't support Palestinians ceasing hostilities in the West Bank and Gaza unconditionally - though he would support them waging war against Israel and overrunning it. He wouldn't support the USA destroying an Iranian nuclear weapon's facility, but he would support the USA abolishing its own while Iran does nothing.
^
Minto is a revolutionary, he cares little for rule of law under liberal democracy. Indeed, his sympathy for Robert Mugabe tells you much about where he comes from - he opposes capitalism, Western liberal democracy (unless it doesn't mean his side wins and gets what he wants) and supports political violence. If the evidence found by the Police proved to be substantial, Minto would say acts of terrorism committed by those with such views were "justified" or "understandable". He's no friend of freedom, he is a sympathiser of thuggery and brutality as long as it is for Marxists. His well known anti-apartheid views were correct, but he was, again, supporting Marxists against a brutal regime - he doesn't criticise the ANC now despite its rampant corruption and intolerance for criticism. However, it is clear what side he is on - the peace he argues for is AFTER the revolution.

Pity Pakistan

Founded from the religious separatism, and bigotry that Jinnah inspired in the Pakistan movement, the artificial division of India into two then three states, the hundreds of thousands murdered and who died in the population transfer, as a heterogeneous India became several lands - and Pakistan and India would be antagonists, fighting over borders and Kashmir especially. It became an "Islamic Republic" ensuring that the common law legal system and criminal law it inherited from Britain would be frittered away with Islamic law and its brutal treatment of women.

So with its cold war with India, it was inevitable sadly that it would become nuclear - and so Pakistan is the only predominantly Muslim nuclear weapons state. It also is the location of not a few madrasses, teaching hatred of the West, fomenting the Islamist attitudes of anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, and anti-individualism. So letting Pakistan slide towards the sort of rule of Iran or the Taliban, would not just be scary, it would be downright dangerous.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Pakistanis are not Islamists, there is an Islamist element, but they are, by and large, moderate. So that is why having secular leaders, which has been mostly the case in recent years, is important. Unfortunately, those who Pakistan has had have either been authoritarian or grossly corrupt.

I didn't cheer the arrival of Benazir Bhutto. She may be a pin up of the left because she is a woman in a Muslim country, secular and a socialist, but her and her husband are under charges of corruption for a reason. Apparently a rather large property outside London was found that was paid for by the Pakistani government, which was allegedly for her and her husband (though she denied it), when the government was seeking to sell it off, suddenly they came out of the woodwork. Pervez Musharraf isn't so corrupt, but his state of emergency and martial law were unacceptable.

Now he has not only surrendered control of the army, but has declared the state of emergency will be over in a few weeks, with elections allowed in the New Year. That is all good, but what Pakistan needs is leadership - secular, modernising, reforming and not corrupt. India is growing enormously because it has finally unlocked the entrepreneurship of its people and its enormous market. Pakistan could share in this, if only it wasn't shackled by socialist policies that India has been throwing away, and the stifling influence of Islamism. The former needs reforms, the latter needs a serious battle against terrorism, seeking of peace with India on Kashmir, and to ensure the judiciary is fully independent, respects private property rights and contracts, and to be open. Pakistan is not Iran, but it is a long way from being a Turkey. That is the model it should be looking to follow, and if the economy is opened up, fear of terrorist attacks against Westerners reduced, then the prosperity that would arise would be a useful antidote against Islamism.

A booming Pakistan bordering Afghanistan and Iran will speak volumes, and will be our best hope that the nuclear weapons will stay in the hands of those who are sane.

Peacemakers

Stuff reports "If I had a can, I'd throw it at you" says one Tuhoe protestor, who doesn't respect the freedom of speech of those who disagree with them. Another says " "Why are you supporting the police? You just want to get us angry here." That's right, others can't have a different point of view without the angry mob coming out.

^

Imagine if the country was run by them, imagine how much freedom you'd have to protest, to keep your private property, to criticise and ridicule them - imagine how peaceful their law and order policy would be, how impartial their courts would be.

^

You know Tuhoe may have a point, but walking around town being intimidating and threatening doesn't win them any prizes - I think they should get self-government, over their own land with the agreement of landowners. Then the money from Wellington can dry up. Self determination is not fed from the money of others.

Why don’t they condemn it, if it were true?

The Green Party has nailed it’s colours to the mast – and they are dripping red, the red of Maoism and the red of the blood lust from the Police affidavits which they refuse to condemn in content.

^
Instead, Keith Locke is waging war against the Dom Post on the grounds that it jeopardizes the right to a fair trial by those facing the firearms charges. The affidavits do not reveal individuals, but there is an argument to be made on this – and again, it will be up the judicial system to decide.
^
However, to claim the Greens are neutral on this is a lie. The desire for an independent inquiry implies a belief the Police acted wrongly and excessively. The affidavit reported by the Dom Post indicates that there is, at least prima facie, cause for concern.
^
The real eye opener is the stony eyed silence of Locke and the Green Party on the allegations. Would it hurt to say “if the evidence in the affidavit is true, then it is disturbing and the Green Party wholeheartedly condemns those willing to use violence for political ends”. Apparently so. After given the Greens already called them “Maori, peace and environmental activists”, it would appear there is evidence that being a peace activist may also mean cheering about murder.

^

Idiot Savant simply condemns the publishing for the same reason as Keith Locke, but although he doesn't roundly condemn the content of the evidence, his comment on Jamie Lockett does indicate that view.

^

The Maori Party remains silent. Big surprise given how they nailed their colours to those accused being angels.

^

So, once again - will those who have roundly condemned the Police for the raids, those who have supported those arrested, condemn the sentiments in the affidavits? Will the Green Party and Maori Party in particular wholeheartedly declare abhorrence to anyone who wants to bring political violence to New Zealand?

^

or is this about supporting your mates?

^

On a final note, would you counter protest the "peaceful" looking Tuhoe hikoi? Do they look as if they would quietly and peacefully tolerate views expressed on this blog, or by other advocates of western capitalist liberal democracy? Or is looking tough, intimidating and threatening just a coincidence? and when the far left (which this lot clearly represent) protest in an intimidating manner, why aren't they condemned as much as Brian Tamaki and his goons when they do something not that far different? I don't agree with Idiot Savant that the Hikoi is just another public protest. It isn't Grey Power, they are intimidating - and it wouldn't be a surprise if any in the Hikoi possessed a firearm. In fact, I do think if it were an all caucasian protest by white supremacists the Police would and should respond in kind. Let's face it, what are the far left of Maori nationalists if not just a bunch of racist thugs?

^

UPDATE 1. Pita Sharples has at least said "Make no mistake - we are absolutely and categorically horrified by the threatening language we have read in the paper today" . However, he is more often a voice of some reason than others in the party.

Peace loving people of the Tuhoe "peace movement"

The Dominion Post's report on the evidence amassed against those arrested on firearms charges makes sobering reading. All of the claims that the police investigation was anti-Maori and the like look like what they are - the opportunistic kneejerk reaction of those who sympathise with the far left. The 156 page affidavit submitted to Manukau District Court includes all sorts of delightful statements. How about the bugged phone conversation on 17 August that went "Get someone to assassinate the prime minister, the new one, next year's one. Just been in office five days, bang ... Yeah, John Key ... just drop a bomb ... Just wait till he visits somewhere and just blow them ... They won't even find you."

^

Lovely types them, I guess it wouldn't matter if he was democratically elected, and wouldn't matter what innocent civilians were near them eh?

^

If this cannot be universally condemned, then those who refuse to condemn do not deserve to be in Parliament or part of the democratic process. They are friends of those willing to murder for political ends.

^

So besides assassinating John Key, bugged conversations told of:

• Calls to kill police and evict non-Maori farmers;
• Talk of using a sniper's rifle to assassinate US President Bush;
• Making nail bombs and napalm;
• How to throw Molotov cocktails;
• Blowing up power stations, gas plants, Telecom, petrol stations and the Waihopai Spy Station.

^

The Dom Post lists of many more of the bugged conversations tells us even more:

• "Kill Pakehas" for practice;
• Wanting to emulate the IRA;
• Using the "Al Qaeda manual" on terror tactics.

^

It's all bloody frightening, and indicates a desire to engage in an orchestrated campaign of killings, bombings and to create enormous economic damage and carnage. The motive is clear, to divide the country - to try to lead a sectarian Maori uprising against the entire liberal democratic system and capitalist economy. Indeed, sectarian is the word - this is Tuhoe against New Zealand. The Maoist background of Tame Iti doesn't look too out of place here, and those uttering those statements are thugs, the same sort of thugs that wouldn't look twice at shooting you if you got in the way.

^

Now the bigger question is this. Do those who have thrown around their slogans and accusations that the police action was racist, fascist, unjustified and politically motivated sympathise with what their "friends" said, or are they too going to react with horror and dismay. After all, this Labour Government is hardly a tool of the liberal right, and Helen Clark has fairly solid leftwing credentials. If HER government can be appalled, then you might ask exactly how the Maori Party, the Green Party and the sycophants of the far left who automatically assumed the Police were being racist and fascist feel about it now?

^

The Dom Post editorial clearly points out:

"The police have been accused of over-reacting, and of being racist. Supporters of those accused have argued there is nothing to justify the operation the police mounted, that notions of domestic terrorism are as insubstantial as the Urewera mist, and that those arrested are the victims of some sort of vendetta. They argue that those the police arrested are blameless. Their claims have not been tested in any meaningful way till now. "

^

As the editorial further points out, the Police had a duty to act " Police needed to treat that seriously and needed to investigate. To do anything less would have been to fail in their duty to protect New Zealanders. We believe that the police were right to act. "

^

Go on, it's time for Keith Locke to express his view, as a self proclaimed peace campaigner now that evidence is out. It is time for the Maori Party to decide what it believes in - do you oppose political violence? Do you oppose murder? Do you oppose mass vandalism to destroy the economy? Do you oppose violent evictions of farmers from their private property? Or is your support for peace about as skindeep as your support for freedom? At least Maia inadvertently may be quite true in her post, as a friend of the fascist left.

^

oh and when you see the hikoi supporting those who support terrorism, you might tell them what you think of them. Methinks those on the hikoi might go home and reflect on who their friends are.

So consider this

If New Zealand white supremacists, who have for years damned Western liberal democratic civilisation as corrupt, attacked capitalism and were warm towards Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain and South Africa's apartheid regime, had weapons training camps in the hills, and had been arrested on firearms charges and possibly terrorism - would the Maori Party, Green Party and all those who have long been warm towards the butchers of Marxism Leninism be sympathetic and weeping tears? Would Archbishop Brown Turei be defending their civil rights?

^

Of course not, nor should they - so why are their buddies exempt from the rule of law when they themselves show little respect for it, or secular liberal democracy?

Islam is NOT peace as long as Muslims do not fight Islamists

Today I saw an ad inside the tube that I thought was intriguing, it talked of a young woman police officer here in the UK who is a Muslim, and how she was committed to protecting British citizens and the country. All very well I thought, and the website link from it was this.
^
So what is it all about?

^

The website says the campaign has 5 goals:

1. Fight Islamophobia wherever it occurs (in other words bigotry against Muslims. Well fine, although if this means supporting campaigns to do violence to anyone critical or laughing at Islam, then count me out. Muslims should be able to live anywhere in peace not harassed because of their religion, but they also must respect the rights of others to free speech regarding their religion);

2. Create dialogue to ensure Muslim concerns are taken into account to ensure concerns about racism and social exclusion are understood and Muslim voices are always in mainstream media (in other words be a voice for Muslims in lobbying government, though I suspect the term "social exclusion" means seeking taxpayers' money);

3. Government to work for long and lasting peace in areas of conflict, helping eliminate injustices that fervent division and nurture violence (in other words, the Palestinian issue);

4. Be creative, so that our community understands the mainstream and what its community wants to hear (? spin doctoring ?);

5. To create friendships and a culture of understanding (fine!).
^
It appears to be a British Muslim campaign to spread the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that British Muslims do not want to fight the liberal secular democracy of the UK (which it effectively is) but work within it. Well it appears to, except that there is virtually nothing on the website that gives any support for pluralist Western liberal secular democracy at all.
^
The website has a lot of video which gives a positive view of "Muslims in your neighbourhood", and includes a section on Islam. None of that is wrong in itself, and not for a minute would I imply British Muslims are predominantly inclined towards terrorism. It's a reasonably clever site, lots of women and girls as well, no doubt designed to dispel views that Muslims are misogynistic and discriminatory.

^

Unfortunately, it fails here. It makes it clear that Islam explicitly discriminates against women as they are required to cover more than men, because, of course, women who don’t cover are inciting rape aren’t they? Of course people should wear whatever they choose, if Muslims choose to cover up that’s their choice.

^

There is the section on marriage which is also curious. The website says “It is generally recommended that prospective husband and wife meet prior to marriage; although some couples choose not to, leaving it to the judgement of their families.” Generally recommended! Then we have more sexism with allowing men to have multiple wives but not vice versa. Wonder why? After all if men and women are equal, or are men more equal than women?

^

Women of course are seen as being very special "The woman’s priority lies in being a good mother” well that’s clear but to make it clearer “The decision to work is hers if she chooses but she will not be disrespected if she decides to concentrate on her primary role as a mother.” I wonder if the converse is true.

^

Don't ask about homosexuals though - they don't exist.

^

However this site isn’t about women, where it helps to re-emphasise the underlying sexism of Islam, but about peace. So how IS it on peace?
^
Well apparently non-Muslims should never be harmed, but interestingly only in the context of an Islamic state. Yes the “Islam is peace” website seems implicitly to support an Islamic state – you know, the type that means the state is not secular, not blind to religion and does not treat you as an individual with individual rights. The website says so here in the section on "misconceptions" responding to the claim that Islam is intolerant of other religions:
^
“One who kills a non-Muslim person (under the guardianship of an Islamic state) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise."
^
So there you go, you’re ok “under the guardianship of an Islamic state”, not the British government. Not intolerant as long as Islam is the basis for all laws and government? I’m less than unimpressed, in fact the whole credibility of this website is severely dented by this and the next statement that "Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person (under the guardianship of an Islamic state), I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection".

^

You see this justifies bombings in London or New York or Spain or Bali. Peace???

^

There is a small section responding to misconceptions about Muslim Fundamentalism. This exists of course, it is the basis for the Iranian constitution and government, the Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda etc. It exists and it is evil. You might have thought that this website would condemn Muslims who use Islam to justify political violence or the imposition of Islamic laws on non-Muslims. No.

^

In fact the site's credibility was further eroded. Instead of accepting that some Muslims, including the Taliban, the Iranian government and Hamas apply literal radical interpretations of Islam that incite violence and waging holy war and terrorism, and condemning this AS IT SHOULD HAVE! ... it says “Unfortunately, due to a twisted mixture of biased reporting in the media and the actions of some misguided Muslims, the word "Islam" has become almost synonymous with "terrorism".

^

Hold on, the biased reporting? You can't mean the BBC which never uses the word "terrorist". However, is there denial that almost sole terrorist threat in the Western world today comes from Islamists?

^

“Some misguided Muslims”? Some in New York, London, Glasgow, Madrid, Bali, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, India? Is there denial that most terrorism in the world in the past few years has been carried out by Islamists? Is the use of quotation marks around “terrorism” implying that it is something else? What is "misguided" if it isn't a weasel word for evil?

^

It goes on “However, when one analyses the situation, the question that should come to mind is: Do the teachings of Islam encourage terrorism? The answer: Certainly not! Islam totally forbids the terrorist acts that are carried out by some misguided people. Islam encourages peace, mercy and forgiveness. Killing innocent people totally contradicts the teachings of Islam.”

^
To which I say “Stop telling me this! I'm not the problem, the problem is in people who hold YOUR religion and preach YOUR religion. Tell the Muslims who DO carry out terrorist acts, who DO aid and abet them, who DO cheer when they happen, who FUND it. Reject them, report them, fight them if you can - if you want to have respect of being a British Muslim. Otherwise you are part of the problem.

^
And that’s the rub. You can tell non-Muslim Britons as much as you like about how you are good citizens and the like. You can try to sell how good your religion is, fine, there is free speech.

^
BUT. If you want people to believe YOU believe in peace then maybe you need to do something more than tell those who fear Islamist terrorism. You need to fight those who are Islamist terrorists, you need to turn on them and their supporters, and their funders. It means opposing the murderous Iranian regime, which executes teenagers for having consensual sex, or punishes girls for claiming they have been raped. It means opposing the Taliban, which banned music, education for girls and was one of the most brutally repressive regimes on earth, and which providing shelter and succour for Osama Bin Laden. It means turning on those who hold your religion and use it against us all.

^

Peace is not defined as being Islam, and Islam clearly is not peace for a sizeable number of Muslims. However, the majority of British Muslims are undoubtedly hard working peaceful residents who get on with their lives with little bother to others. If the point of the website is to point that out, then I think it goes without saying to most non-Muslim people here.

^

Howevr, if Muslims in Britain want to really know what is wanted, it is a clear categorical rejection of any interest in seeking an Islamic state in Britain, and a rejection of terrorism, including admitting it IS an Islamic problem. It means turning on those within Islam in Britain who threaten violence against this country, and NOT wanting to overthrow the secular liberal democratic state.

^

Quite simply if you want to live in Britain, then accept that it is a secular Western liberal democracy where individual rights are, by and large, protected. If you don't like that, then leave, and if you want to conspire to fight against it, or protect those who conspire to wage war against it - then you're no longer welcome, you're a criminal.

^
Sadly this website not only doesn't do that, but appears to be in denial that there even is a problem called "Islamic Fundamentalism". I'm sure Muslims in Britain can do better than that.

Travel today and the friend of Ken Livingstone

Someone left a package unattended on a train I caught today, but it was sorted out - but everyone was reminded about what not to do. It would be fair to say most London residents have become a bit complacent about it all, because thwarted plots are largely ignored. Let's not forget:

- The first plot failed because ambulance staff were vigilant;

- The second plot failed because the bomb failed to go off, possibly because the car pound where it had been taken to was outside mobile phone coverage;

- The third plot failed because the courage of Glaswegians superseded that of the bombers.

^

On the bright side, the Diana concert went off unaffected (setting aside that the only bright point is that there was no terrorism, as I haven't the slightest interest in supporting such a vapid figure of histort). The Gay Pride festival did too, another potential target.

^

The station had armed police pointing their semi-automatic weapons towards the floor, and plenty of other police in bullet proof outfits.

^

It's the 2nd of July, and frankly I can't wait for the next six days to be over. 7/7 is coming up.

^

Oh and as a side note, Ken Livingstone's friend is visiting Iran. According to the Islamic Republic of Iran News Agency He said "The world arrogance is getting weaker thanks to the anti-imperialism movement worldwide, particularly in American countries." He visited Belarus and pledged solidarity with Lukashenko. Swissinfo reports Livingstone's friend said "There are few peoples in the world who endure such strong pressure from the empire as Belarus. In this struggle we are brothers," "The empire which calls us dictators is itself trying to impose its dictatorship on the world.

^

When will bloggers sympathetic to this thug wake up and smell the blood?