Geert Wilders

I can’t help thinking that Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation has slightly misunderstood the idea behind the prohibition on inciting religious violence and its interface with concepts of freedom of speech. While acknowledging that British ideas about the latter mean that Geert Wilders should not be banned from entering the UK because of his views about Islam, Mr Shafiq has apparently stated that while Mr Wilders is here:

“…he has got to be monitored so that he doesn’t say anything to incite religious violence. If you start attacking somebody’s faith in the way that he has, they could react violently.”

I think the idea is that people should be banned from inciting others to physically attack people based upon those people’s religion. Not that people should be banned from saying anything about religion that might induce the religious to get offended and beat them up.

Times article on the story here.

Labels: news, UK politics, war on terror

War on Terror

There has been an important watershed in the War on Terror with the conviction of Bartholomew J. ‘Bart’ Simpson, who has been found guilty of 25 sample counts of terrorist offences across various states of the USA, for which Mr Simpson has been given 25 life sentences. Prior to the long trial that ended in his conviction yesterday, Mr Simpson had freely admitted that he was accustomed to “terrorising people, wherever I go”. After a short deliberation his defence based upon lack of intention was unanimously rejected by the jury. One count of fixing test scores to get the best scores was allowed to remain on file.

Labels: TV, war on terror

Free speech

Having seen the news footage of the Royal Anglians being jeered on their homecoming parade this week, I was moved to give a few quid to the Royal Anglian Regiment Benevolent Charity. 10 of the Regiment killed in Afganistan, 2 in Iraq.

Labels: news, war on terror

New weapon

One of the most striking images of the Islamic fundamentalist threat is that of the suicide bomber, going into battle against us in our places of work, entertainment or on our public transport networks such as the tube with dynamite–laden vest, fanatical zeal reinforced by the promise of virgins in paradise. I was therefore interested to see posters on the tube recently suggesting that we might have found a terrifying weapon with which to strike back — a suicide vest compared to which the power of mere explosive is as the bite of a gnat to a mauling from a salt water crocodile:

show/hide poster

The wearer will presumably infiltrate into the dark places where terrorists gather, before triggering the device and deploying Kerry Katona with devastating consequences to all within range.

Labels: london, war on terror

FBI read .foXinternet?

According to this, the FBI has developed a Terrorbusters logo. Remember this?

Labels: war on terror

Are Mervyn King and the MPC in fact terrorists?

Part of my reaction to Islamic terrorists threatening to blow and/or actually blowing things and people up is the same as my reaction to the Bank of England threatening to put and/or actually putting interest rates up:

what the hell do you people actually want me/us to do?

Labels: economics, UK politics, war on terror

More fuss over Salman Rushdie, this time in a speech by Religious Affairs Minister Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq before the Pakistan Parliament, following the offer of a knighthood to Rushdie:

“The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and withdraws the ‘Sir’ title”.

Isn’t that more or less saying:

“The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. Funnily enough, I now confirm, as Religious Affairs Minister in a country where the dominant political force is Islam, that my own views at least are extremist and that I support terrorist acts”.

These guys are so far on another planet with their moral compass it is unbelievable. Let’s get this straight: the bestowing by an irrelevant historical figurehead of a pointless honorific title on a bloke who eighteen years ago wrote something about a bloke, whom I believe received instructions 1,500 years ago from a supreme supernatural being who created the universe, smoking weed, which I find personally insulting, means that it would now be right for people to attempt to blow other people, and themselves, up, unless the British government apologises and arranges for the grant of the pointless honorific title to be revoked.

Er, taxi for Mr Ijaz ul-Haq?

Labels: UK politics, war on terror

This is pretty disturbing shit as well, on the old interference with personal liberty in a supposedly free country tip. It details the Control Order restrictions “including a 12–hour home curfew, no Internet access and a ban on visits from anyone who has not been approved by the Home Office” that have been imposed for the last two years upon some guy who has never been tried or convicted of anything but is apparently a terrorist. Unsurprisingly, his lawyers are contending that the restrictions are a breach of his human rights.

Whatever John Reid says about how nanny knows best and how we need protecting from terrible things that for reasons of national security he can’t tell us about, I cannot help feeling uncomfortable that there are now crimes to which the usual rules of habeas corpus do not fully apply. Still, the Law Lords stopped the Government from detaining this geezer in Belmarsh without trial after three and a half years, so maybe they’ll step in here and restore the time–honoured position in relation to house arrest also.

Labels: law, news, war on terror

Like, woah

There are apparently some new requirements coming in if you want to visit the US from Britain. But something in this story in the Guardian totally shocked me.

“Britons already have their credit card details and email accounts inspected by the American authorities following a deal between the EU and the Department of Homeland Security. Now passengers face having all their credit card transactions traced when using one to book a flight. And travellers giving an email address to an airline will be open to having all messages they send and receive from that address scrutinised”.

So US authorities are already permitted to inspect credit card details and email accounts for anyone visiting the US from Britain, pursuant to a deal done with the EU, and now just dealing with an airline by email means that US authorities can inspect all messages to and from that address and if you pay by card they can review all transactions on your account?! Sorry for all the emphasis, but holy shit. Did I miss the memo on this? Isn’t that, like, a bit of an invasion of privacy if there’s, say, no actual evidence whatsoever that you might have done anything wrong?

Labels: law, news, war on terror