Blogging on liberty, capitalism, reason, international affairs and foreign policy, from a distinctly libertarian and objectivist perspective
16 November 2015
Je Suis Parisien de nouveau
12 January 2015
Where's all the Islamophobia?
25 August 2014
Can civilisation confront evil?
Furthermore, the Islamic State does not simply want a Caliphate over Iraq and Syria, but across the entire Middle East and seeks to wage jihad against the United States and Britain. It doesn't just want to "peacefully" impose Shariah law (you know a bit like how the Taliban did in Afghanistan or the Khmer Rouge turned Cambodia's calendar to Year Zero), it wants the world to become a caliphate.
Be clear also that it is very well funded from selling oil from Syrian oil fields and if it gained control of more in Syria and Iraq, it could acquire weapons and have levels of funding the Taliban could only have dreamed of.
So think 9/11, 7/7 and think a level of danger that betrays the head in the sand "libertarians" who think this is a problem in the Middle East that can be ignored. Even if Israel and the Palestinians signed a peace treaty tomorrow that finalised the "two state solution" (even if Israel was wiped off the map), the "Islamic State" would not hesitate, unlike its brethren Hamas. Even if all of the Muslim world was run by a Caliphate, it would not hesitate, unlike its brethren Al Qaeda (who disowned it for being "too violent").
16 July 2014
Forgotten Posts from the Past : Spare a thought for the victims of NORAID
.
I fail to see why anyone can worship this family, and it's not because they are left wing, it's not because they are power hungry, but because they are slime. They aligned themselves with thugs, and became the untouchable family of legend. JFK's one big victory was the Cuban missile crisis, in which he performed admirably. However Ted Kennedy has long been a sleazy creep. I wont spare a moment of my emotions granting sympathy to this wealthy former terrorist supporting legend in his own mind.
19 January 2010
Police don't understand Twitter
That's what Paul Chambers said on Twitter, jokingly frustrated about snow closing his local airport.
He was arrested under the Terrorism Act for being suspected of creating a bomb hoax. He has his iphone and computer confiscated, and was questioned for seven hours straight.
According to the Daily Telegraph: "I had to explain Twitter to them in its entirety because they'd never heard of it. Then they asked all about my home life, and how work was going, and other personal things," he said.
This hardly surprises me, as one recent experience I had with Police showed a complete lack of understanding of the internet (e.g. what's a blog, what's a message board, how can you find out who people are on the internet?).
Now Paul was foolish, and it may have been appropriate to ask him a few questions. However now it has become a thought crime, a crime to joke about blowing something up. He wasn't at the airport, and it would be clear he just should have been told his statement worried the airport company.
No. Instead he is to be treated like a terrorist, by Police who don't even know the medium he used.
13 January 2010
Islam 4 UK driven underground
The pro sharia law organisation "Islam 4 UK" has now been declared a terrorist organisation by the UK government, banning it, which of course simply means it will regroup under a new name, and re-emerge. The move is unsurprising, but also shows the emptiness of New Labour, which like most things it doesn't like, thinks that a law banning it will make it better - this being the same government that has embraced funding Islamic groups, and has passed laws against "hate speech".
Islam4UK has responded by saying: "what is clear is that if you differ with the Brown regime and those who advocate freedom and democracy and whose citizens are supposedly dying for these ideals abroad, then freedom quickly dissipates to be replaced by dictatorship... Today's ban is another nail in the coffin of capitalism and another sign of the revival of Islam and Muslims. "
Islam4Uk openly admits it opposes freedom and democracy, and is celebrating being banned. Islam4UK after all envisages a world where you'd be imprisoned or worse for "insulting" Islam.
Is a ban helpful? No. It just shows weakness and plays into the hands of the organisation.
What would be a preferable response? A direct, open and loud declaration by all political parties that believe in it that Sharia law will not be implemented in the UK, that Western capitalist liberal democracy has survived threats from fascism and communism and wont tolerate stone age theocrats seeking to undermine it and the rights of individual citizens to live their lives peacefully as they see fit.
Oh and when Islam4UK does ever utter justification for the use of force to advance its politics, then it should be treated as a terrorist organisation (not banned), and its members and associates treated as such by law enforcement agencies.
07 January 2010
UK taxpayers fund Islamist enemy
He has received much publicity lately for organising a protest march in the town of Wootton Bassett, which holds unofficial public mourning events when the coffins of soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan arrive from the nearby RAF Lineham base.
Choudhary wants a counter protest to represent the "Muslims who have died" implicitly due to UK involvement in war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He claims they are the true victims.
Choudhary has long expressed views contrary to that of Western civilisation, celebrating the 9/11 terrorists as "martyrs", he refused to condemn the 2005 bombings in London and has long called for Sharia law to be implemented in the UK.
Now it is discovered that this enemy of the British political system and way of life is being funded by the taxpayer. He is a welfare parasite according to Guido Fawkes, getting around £25,000 a year from the taxpayer. The beloved welfare state funding, feeding, clothing, housing a man who effectively incites terrorism (but dances delicately along the line of not breaking the law as he does). He can't be deported as he was born here, but he gives a damned good reason for why the welfare state should be abolished.
Meanwhile, the appropriate response is to counter the views he expresses, to damn Islamism and damn the idea of an Islamic state for the UK. His views need to be confronted, his lies about what British troops are doing in Afghanistan exposed for what they are, and it's a good enough reason for serious questions to be asked as to why this man can claim so much on welfare.
29 December 2009
Terrorism exposes absurdities of the security bureaucrats
- Prohibiting people from moving in the cabin in the last hour of flight, when the 9/11 terrorists made their move in the beginning of the flight (next the security goons will be demanding passengers be strapped in seats with "bed pans" to urinate in);
- Banning the use of laptops and portable audio equipment on flights, effectively making business flights largely unproductive and boosting book sales at airports;
- Requiring some airline in flight entertainment systems to be shut down early, contrasting to Air NZ's successful and popular "gate to gate" continuous running of the systems.
Christopher Hitchens in Slate says:
The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to "feel safe." The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens' toothpaste.
We have already had to put up with the absurdity of being unable to take bottled drinks through airline security, but we can buy the same ones "airside" which means being price gouged at many airports (thankfully not Heathrow which has enough competing shops to make this no problem). Replacement of stainless steel cutlery with plastic was one of the most stupid, as anyone who got a glass of champagne could well figure out how a weapon could be created.
New Zealand of course coped for decades without any domestic security screening, until 9/11, and security goons were "shocked" at the knives and various objects people used to take on flights from Auckland to Christchurch. The unspoken truth is that the people who did this had no intention of using them against their fellow citizens anymore than they do on trains, buses, in shopping centres or walking the streets. It's a blessing that the Government ignored some calls for security screening for domestic flights using aircraft of less than 90 seats.
The case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wont see anyone fired from their jobs in Nigeria, Schiphol Airport or elsewhere in the security sector. There isn't accountability for failures, just as there isn't for the stupidity of the measures imposed on everyone else.
It should have been obvious to connect the likes of Abdulmutallab to needing additional screening, he was, after all, already on a list. However, that incompetence is now shrouded by adding hours of delays to travellers, hours of inconvenience and discomfort because some control freak has decided to make people "feel safe".
What the security goons and the politicians wont point out is that the risks of attacks remains constant, and ever present. In London, there is little difference today compared with 2004 in terms of the ease of being able to launch an attack on the underground or on a bus. The sheer numbers of people are so great, and the same applies to all metro rail systems. Fast intercity trains are also sitting targets, but then so are crowded downtown areas. The IRA didn't waste energy on transport networks, but waged much fear and death by using bombs on cars and vans, or in public areas.
So the message is, you can't be wholly safe anywhere. Islamist thugs will seek to attack as they see fit, when and wherever they wish. Some on the left wish to minimise this, and it should not be exagerrated, but it is real, it will exist for many years to come. Even lasting success in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel will only reduce, not eliminate the risk.
It is reasonable to take steps with aviation to stop people taking on board weapons, to screen for explosives and to use intelligence to stop those who there is good reason for suspicion, but someone needs to be responsible for the abject failings in this case and there should NOT be ridiculous kneejerk reactions just to be seen to be "doing something".
It's about time politicians and the public said no to being literally bent over and buggered by the incompetent and the inane. Aviation security is a serious business, it should be driven by real rational assessment of risk and the detailed use of intelligence to screen out passengers. Sadly what we seem to have is the sledgehammer trying to crack a seed, we deserve better from these ever burgeoning monopolies.
17 October 2009
Islamists threaten Dutch MP
What does he encounter? The very thing he describes. Militant freedom hating Muslims.
According to The Times:
"around thirty male activists from a group called Islam for UK began chanting, "Wilders burn in hell" and "Sharia for UK""
"Brandishing banners saying, “Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell” and “Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment”, the protesters were held back by about fifty policemen."
These lowlifes hate Britain, they hate the values of free speech, freedom of religion and individual rights, and they seek to destroy it. They, not Wilders, should be the focus of the government.
No. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary is seeking to protect these flowers of hatred from being offended because Wilders "would threaten community security and therefore public security".
No. The Islamists threaten me, they threaten most residents of the UK who live here because it offers the freedoms available to practice the religion you wish (including none), free speech, and live your life by and large as you see fit (notwithstanding the Nanny State around many activities).
Make it fundamentally clear, the vision these Islamists have for the UK would make New Labour's Nanny State look like a holiday in comparison.
Wilders expressed his opinion “I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom that we get.”. He's right of course, given the separation of religion and state is rare indeed in Muslim majority countries (only Turkey, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania have this). He justified comments that Islam is retarded by saying that in some Islamic dominated countries "homosexuals are beaten up and killed. Journalists are jailed. That action is retarded."
In response, a spokesman from "Islam for UK" said "because there is a war on Muslims he gets an easy ride". No, the war is on Islamists. Your misuse of language shows you're uninterested in confronting the Islamist threat. He continued "When Muslims defend their faith, they are seen as extremists." No, it is HOW you defend your faith. Calling for violence against those who disagree with you is the problem. Calling to overthrow the constitutional structure and fundamental values of British society, is the problem.
Mr Wilders is NOT like the BNP. However, the BNP rides on the wave of snivelling pussy footing around Islamists that is seen in the likes of the attempt to ban Mr Wilders. Wilders supports individual freedom, the BNP supports a big intrusive fascist state.
The UK government has for far too long been concerned about "offending Muslims", when in fact the freedom and right to offend whoever you wish is fundamental to British society. It is not racism, it is criticism of a philosophy, a point of view. Being Muslim is not something you have that is inate, it is, or should be, a conscious choice. If you say "freedom go to hell" then I say "to hell with you and your ideas". You are then the enemy.
If you cannot stand a society that criticises your strongly held beliefs and allows debate and derision of them, if you would rather threaten and use force to stop others offending you, then there is a better answer that should make you happier, and would make most Britons happier...
leave.
What the Greens COULD say about Urewera 17
Here's just an idea of what could have been said.
"The Green Party openly abhors violence and promotes peace, and while we are opposed to the anti-terrorism legislation that saw the raid and arrest of suspected criminals in the Ureweras, we can understand Police concern given the evidence collected about alleged activities in the area. Given it included plans to murder others and commit other criminal acts, it is only natural to be concerned.
The Green Party vehemently opposes people training to use firearms for any form of insurrection in New Zealand, or calls for killing or vandalism or any other such attacks. If anyone in our party promotes such a view, steps will be taken to eject them.
Whilst nobody has been convicted of any offences, the Police are duty bound to act when they have due course to fear for the lives and property of peaceful New Zealanders. The Police did so. While we always have concerns about how much force is used to undertake search warrants and arrest suspects, we are not concerned that the Police acted without due cause, per se.
We look forward to the justice system handling these cases appropriately. However, notwithstanding this, it is important to clarify that our policy of peace and justice is not compatible with those who seek political change through force or to seek terrorism or civil war in New Zealand. Whether they be Tuhoe or any other iwi, Maori or non-Maori. The Green Party disassociates itself from anyone supporting such criminal behaviour. We support Tino Rangitiratanga, but we do not support the use of violence to achieve political objectives in New Zealand"
I'm not holding my breath. I asked at the time "Why don't they condemn it if it were true", but the Greens preferred to damn the publicity around the evidence.
At least Pita Sharples expressed abhorence at the evidence.
The Greens want to rewrite history, blank out what was said, what was found and what motivated the Police to undertake the raids. Its friends are victims, they were brave and deserve our support.
Like hell.
16 October 2009
Greens commemorate Urewera 17
The Greens use it to remember the Police action taken to raid the homes of radical activists. People who seemed to express a lot of interest in fighting, but it wasn't fighting tyranny.
Catherine Delahunty calls what happened "human rights outrages". What is it she is talking about?
It's well established that members of the Green Party has many links to those who were arrested and charged. That Delahunty sympathises with Tuhoe and its communist self styled leader Tame Iti is hardly surprising.
Phil Howison wrote about this in much more detail, but in summary the Police found:
- Intercepted conversations indicated interest in attacking Parliament, assassinating John Key, bombing power stations, telecommunications facilities and the Waihopai military communications facility. It talked of driving farmers from their land and recruits should prove themselves by conducting an armed robbery or killing white people for "practice";
- A cache of firearms and ammunition, 20 weapons were seized;
- Quasi military training camps existed teaching firearm use and tactics.
This was a demonstrable reason to raid the people concerned, some of which have criminal histories including for assault and trespass.
Charges were not laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act because of how badly the legislation was drafted, it being described as "complex and incoherent", and "almost impossible to apply to domestic circumstances".
Delahunty has shown her true colours, she is no friend of peace or non-violence. Nobody who has seen the Pascoe affidavit would not be concerned about what was talked about.
Indeed, evidence since supports reports of the presence of military style training camps.
I would have thought the best thing for Green MPs to do is simply shut up.
It is too much to hope for the Greens to condemn caching firearms, military style training camps, talk of killings and vandalism. Instead there is denial about all of this, a blank out similar how the Greens accuse global warming sceptics of talking.
So what COULD the Greens have said?
11 September 2009
Half a man on 9/11
I can only link to what I wrote before as it is still apt, whilst there remain those keen to engage in mass murder for the sake of their ghost.
So to help darken the day further, the Daily Telegraph reports that the highest paid actor in the USA - Charlie Sheen - has come out supporting most of the lunatic conspiracy theories about 9/11. Bush ordered it and Bin Laden worked for the CIA.
The sitcom he acts in, Two and Half Men, is meant to be about a financially bereft divorced man and his young son living with his wealthier brother (played by Charlie Sheen). The half is meant to refer to the son (who has been 10-15yo as the series has run).
Now it's pretty clear which one is half a man. Although apparently this is old news, he is insane, stupid or evil, or some combination of the above.
22 August 2009
Libya greets killer as a hero
Of course the disgrace of his release lies with the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. The power lay with him to release al-Megrahi as it is devolved to the loony leftwing Scottish government. MacAskill's decision has been damned by the Obama Administration and David Cameron (the British government has been rather quiet). However, it is hardly surprising, MacAskill is on the left of the Scottish National Party (which itself is more leftwing than Labour or the Lib Dems), so he probably has had more sympathy for the hardened socialist Gaddafi than most.
Of course those people who died on that Pan Am flight don't get a few months to spend with family before they died...
04 August 2009
Hamas kids TV praises suicide bombing mother
None of this is new. Al Aqsa TV has used this childrens' programme variously to promote "wiping out the Jews" and promoting martyrdom as a good thing for children.
Want a summary of the episodes? Try this Wiki article, and see for yourself how to have childrens' programming that worships death, murder and suicide. Think how much this puts back any efforts at peace with Israel, and why so many Israelis think so little of Palestinians when some of them elect these sorts of people to government.
Prepared to treat Israel and Hamas as morally equivalent still?
29 April 2009
Maori Party sympathetic to Tamil Tigers?
Hone Harawira preferred "calling for restraint from the Sri Lankan Government in dealing with the last enclave of the Tamil Tigers", which appears to be sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers.
Now I know the Sri Lankan government has behaved appallingly towards Tamils in Sri Lanka, as the dominant Sinhalese minority discriminates against Tamils. There are legitimate issues to be addressed. However the LTTE is a terrorist organisation.
It has carried out suicide bombings, carrying out 168 such attacks over 20 years. It has been responsible for the death of hundreds through terrorist attacks. It uses civilians as human shields, and has previously recruited child soldiers.
The end of the LTTE should be welcomed, there should not be restraint in wiping out that organisation, but the fate of Tamils living in territory controlled by the LTTE is a real issue.
So the question is this. Does the Maori Party sympathise with the murderous LTTE? If not, why can it not simply express concern about the plight of civilians caught in the civil war?
24 April 2009
More air security for what?
According to the NZ Herald up to 14 extra airports could get security screening, but it isn't for terrorists. No. It is to cover drunk people (who surely can be dealt with without everyone being screened), the mentally ill (who airlines should be able to discriminate against, if it weren't for the Human Rights Act) and the disaffected.
I called for a serious cost/benefit analysis of the measure, if only because I believe the delays, and inconvenience to travellers (simple things like stopping people taking water on flights) will outweigh the risk, particularly if other options are selected.
Take this comment from Ray Dumble, chief executive of Tauranga Airport Authority, who said the government is "using a boulder to crush an ant".
"To me the action is potentially disproportionate to the actual problem. But, like anything, it's a business cost which will be passed on ... in the end it will be the poor old passenger who pays."
It's simple. In the UK thousands of trains travel every day without ANY security screening, some go up to 125 mph carrying over 250 passengers at a time - and passengers are screened for nothing. If this can be sustained every day in a country with far more serious terrorism (and domestic anti-social behaviour) problems than NZ, then we can let people fly from Napier, New Plymouth, Tauranga and Nelson without being harassed because 1 in 10,000 people who fly are mad or drunk.23 April 2009
Taliban rolls further in Pakistan
Just like the 1930s in Europe, the Taliban did not stop there. It didn't say "thanks we'll be good now", the Taliban have used Swat as a base, to fight onwards and now capturing Buner District, nearer to Islamabad.
CNN reports:
"The Pakistani government appears unable or unwilling to stop the Taliban's steady advance deeper into the territory of this nuclear-armed country"
Is Pakistan a failing state? What will it take for the West to be worried about Pakistan's apparent impotence against the Taliban? Will it take Islamabad to be surrounded before governments wake up and realise that the Taliban is taking over a state that holds nuclear weapons - and if you think a nuclear armed Iran is scary....
29 March 2009
The enemy marches on London
Let's take what some are saying:
Actionaid: "We urge the G20 to lift the veil of secrecy that makes it easy for companies to avoid tax. This would allow developing countries to claim the money that they are owed, so they can use it to build hospitals, dig wells and employ teachers" In other words more government and NO idea about the corruption and theft that developing country governments engage in.
Trade Union Congress: Wants a fairer and greener place. Fair means "take money from those who have it to give to those who don't". Given this organisation spent a good part of its history promoting the progressive Sovietisation of the UK economy, it hardly has credibility.
Save the Children: Wants to take more money from you for the poor. No idea how to create it of course.
Stop Climate Chaos Coalition: Wants to take more money from you to subsidise "green jobs" and "low carbon economies", presumably like Cuba and North Korea. Ignoring how much a recession kills off consumption of carbon based fuels.
Plan: Wants governments to listen to what young people have to say, which typically is "spend more money from the magic money bank", until they get jobs and start appreciating where governments take money from.
Salvation Army: Wants to take more money from you for the poor.
WWF: An organisation you thought was about wildlife, actually wants "equity", so wants more of your money taken.
CND: Wants disarmament, implicitly wants NATO expansion against Russian imperialist threats to stop (I thought it's funding from Moscow ended years ago). Vile sympathisers for authoritarianism.
Stop the War Coalition: Another vile far leftwing sympathiser group for Islamist terrorists.
It has long wanted to leave Iraq to Islamist terror groups, leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, let Israel be overrun by Hizbollah and Hamas and engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament.
British Muslim Initiative: See Stop the War Coalition.
None of this mob say what they want, other than to thieve more with the tax system, and withdraw militarily from the world.
More disconcerting are the anarchists who explicitly call to "Make Capitalism History". These angry little children want to storm banks and start a revolution.
Their "manifesto" is described on a website as follows:
-Can we oust the bankers from power?
-Can we get rid of the corrupt politicians in their pay?
-Can we guarantee everyone a job, a home, a future?
-Can we establish government by the people, for the people, of the people?
-Can we abolish all borders and be patriots for our planet?
-Can we all live sustainably and stop climate chaos? Can we make capitalism history?
The answer are (in theory):
Yes
Yes and replace them with your own.
Possibly yes, but it will be none of anyone's choosing.
No, you will establish a new dictatorship.
Yes (good luck with that one)
No, not without a fight.
You see bankers are being advised to dress down and avoid work next week, because the City of London Police and the London Metropolitan Police can't guarantee their safety - nice that.
The G20 will be a waste of time, largely because most politicians there are clueless as to why their own interventions precipated the crisis. However, far more dangerous are the insane destroyers out to destroy capitalism, without having any moral alternative (if any alternative). Hopefully most stay at home, don't do any violence and are largely treated with the contempt they deserve.
Sadly nobody will be protesting as to the grand theft that government have engaged in for years - because those protesting not only agree with government theft through taxes, but want more.
09 March 2009
Say no to knighting Ted Kennedy!
How ironic.
The "Real IRA" sprayed the two soldiers with bullets, including the two men delivering pizzas to them, one of whom was a Pole. They then approached the shoulders and shot them dead on the ground.
Charming.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the sectarian barbarians say Northern Ireland is still "occupied", even though most people in Northern Ireland are glad for peace, and even had the audacity to say that targeting the two pizza delivery men in their bombing was justified because they were "collaborating". What sort of peculiar insanity is it, except the kind of warped Orwellian doublespeak to say that a couple of young men simply making a living were in some way "collaborating" with the Army.
Furthermore, whilst Gordon Brown rightfully described the incident as "evil and cowardly attacks", Sinn Fein (you know, the other IRA's political wing)'s leader Gerry Adams didn't say it was evil.
No. It was "wrong and counterproductive" and "Those responsible have no support, no strategy to achieve a United Ireland." So as the Daily Telegraph's Philip Johnston says it is about tactics, not morality. How could it be, Adams happily believed in executions and violence for decades.
So what about Ted Kennedy? Well quite simply, the Senator for many years was one of the chief agents to raise funds and moral support for the IRA. Simon Heffer describes the honour as a snub to those murdered by the IRA.
We should never forget the support granted by NORAID to the murder and violence in Ulster. Kennedy's positive role in persuading the IRA to give up terrorism is little redemption for the decades he was funding it, and was only due to Al Qaeda's actions on 9/11 which make terrorism suddenly impossible for US citizens to support.
A growing movement is against giving this hypocritical amoral lowlife any honour, see here.
Andrew Roberts in the Daily Mail gives a damning overview of the life of this scoundrel, including his reckless actions in killing Mary Jo Kopechne and being expelled from Harvard for cheating at exams.
Ted Kennedy exemplifies the worst of politics in the United States - a fraud, a thieving conniving pork barrel peddling image merchant who has supported murder and violence. A nasty piece of work if ever there was one. The last Labour government granted Nicolae Ceausescu a knighthood, which was stripped from him a day before his execution. Kennedy is no Ceausescu, but it would be nice if Gordon Brown and this Labour government remembered what an enemy to the UK that Ted Kennedy has been.
25 February 2009
Britain's Islamist underworld
He quotes a former MI6 agent, Alastair Crooke:
Crooke's point seemed to be that we in the West could learn a lot from Islamism, since it was, in some ways, morally superior to our fly-blown, materialist, individualist societies. Islamism, as practised by Hezbollah, Hamas and President Ahmadinejad, was saying something profound “about the essence of man”. He went on: “It is not just about violence or a whimsical reaction to modernity, it is a new way of seeing our existence...” Islamists wanted “a society based on compassion and justice”.
As Aaronovitch says "Then a piece of apologia that would have impressed any old Communist: “There are many mistakes... the Iranians would admit this isn't the finished article.”"
Meanwhile, former Islamist Ed Husain is concerned that mosques in the UK are run by first generation migrants:
Britain's mosques are run by men who are physically in Britain, but psychologically in Pakistan. They retain their village rituals and sectarianism, and prevent the growth of an indigenous British Islam. And for as long as young Muslims are confused about whether they belong in Britain or elsewhere, we risk handing them over to preying extremists in our midst.
Meanwhile those training to be imams and elders are overwhelmingly in seminaries that are Islamist in outlook:
Of the 27 or so Muslim seminaries or dar ul uloom in Britain, 25 come from the austere, Deobandi tradition - the preferred school of the Taleban. So while British soldiers risk their lives in Afghanistan, in British Muslim seminaries we allow the teaching of intolerance, unequal treatment of women, religious rigidity, the banning of music and theatre, and an end to free mixing of the sexes.
So how less than dominant is moderate Islam then? Husain is concerned that UK mosques and government ignorance about them is providing an environment to foster Islamist bigotry.
The Daily Telegraph reported in the weekend that some Muslim schools in the UK teach kids to never befriend Christians and Jews, and ban music, chess and cricket.
Check out this school:
Al-Mu'min Primary School in Bradford is linked to the al-Mu'min journal, which carries material from schoolchildren. Its website teaches that Western culture is "evil", photographs are "an evil practice of the unbelievers", and that "the person who plays chess is like one who dips his hand in the blood of a swine".
But here's a sample of the Ofsted report: "Al-Mumin Primary School provides a good education for its pupils and ensures that they have good attitudes and a very good work ethic... The provision made for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils is outstanding."
According to the local Telegraph and Argus paper in Bradford, the links have been taken down, but the school did not respond to queries. The al-Mu'min website is also down.Of course, I firmly believe private schools can do as they wish, as long as they receive no funding or privileges from the state, but if they are fomenting treason, and promoting bigotry, shouldn't it be transparent? Shouldn't they be subject to scrutiny? After all, if the BNP wanted to set up schools that taught not to associate with non-whites, and promoted an ideology of cultural superiority (and denigration of others), you think that would be tolerated for one moment?