What do we do about....

28 May 2013

...'the enemy within'?

By which I refer to what have been dubbed the 'hate preachers' who set out to pervert young minds to the Jihadist cause.

There were suggestions over the weekend of more laws to stop them getting the publicity they so desire.   The appalling way the BBC allowed apologists for murder air-time, being cited as the reason.  New laws something like the gagging laws placed on IRA spokesmen at the height of the troubles' were suggested.

There is no doubt at all that there is a real problem with these people but is this the right thing to do?

I suspect not.

The IRA gagging orders were ineffective and acted as a recruiting sergeant for them.   To give the Islamists crazies the same kind of recruitment boost would be madness.

Better that they are challenged openly by other decent muslim clerics on our screens and be shown up for what they are.  Pure evil.  Driving them deeper underground claiming some kind of persecuted status will boost their cause.

Then, of course, the worse of them like that hook-handed monster pictured need to be kicked out of the country regardless of what happens to them there.

• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i agree - let them show themselves for what they are on television, it's the mosques and religious schools that need clamping down on and support given where need be to stop infiltration by head cases.
• Guest 710 wrote:
  I wonder how many reasons there may be to justify killing people, and to whose satisfaction is such reasoning assessed?
  In this case, as I understand it, the statement, "You're going to lose. Its only you versus many."* was part of the 'justification'.
  Have we reached the point when the drive to be Hammer rather than Nail is our greatest ambition?
  *
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2013/may/24/us-drone-debate
  
  I see that Parliament is ahead of the game...
  "Summary of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14**
  To make provision about anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder, including provision about recovery of possession of dwelling houses; to make provision amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Extradition Act 2003; to make provision about firearms and about forced marriage; to make provision about the police, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Serious Fraud Office; to make provision about criminal justice and court fees; and for connected purposes."
  This matters here, as it appears it matters pretty much everywhere...
  A letter in today's press, from Reg Barlow (Chairman, Naturist Action Group) throws some light...
  "The antisocial behaviour, crime and policing bill is currently working its way through the House of Commons and receives its second reading on 10 June. It is our contention that this bill, as drafted, is flawed and will lead to a host of unintended consequences.
  
  Our first cause for concern is section 1 (2), which defines antisocial behaviour as "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". With such a broad definition, it is tantamount to making everything illegal. At a time when police services are looking to utilise their resources effectively, this bill seems to be counterproductive as it is inviting those in dispute to seek the intervention of frontline police officers. The bill, however, does not just deal with events that have happened – as long as someone believes the potential for misbehaviour is there, he or she can seek a police officer's assistance.
  
  Our other cause for concern is section 1 (3), which provides the courts with the power to: "grant [an] injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour". Without any kind of definition, this will lead to magistrates – and in the first instance police officers and PCSOs – making decisions on what they personally deem unacceptable behaviour. It is our contention that the provisions of the bill have the potential to be misapplied, if not abused, just because the person in the dock has a different belief...."
  which concludes with a quote from Edmund Burke (1780) that "bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny"
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/may/27/antisocial-behaviour-bill-threat-naturists
  
  **
  http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/antisocialbehaviourcrimeandpolicingbill.html
• Guest 696 wrote:
  Barry, I doubt you understand what the term Jihad means.
  If you think Muslim clerics will stand up and confront Jihad in Britain, then you are frightfully mistaken.
• Guest 696 wrote:
  Furthermore, you might find that the Jihadis and W. Hague are singing from the same hymn sheet.
• Guest 655 wrote:
  Only in your imagination Alexander.