Combating Terrorism
The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, makes some sensible points in his regular column for The Telegraph about the need to take practical steps to combat the new breed of terrorists operating under the banner of ISIL, formerly known as ISIS or IS.
But he could not resist having a kick in passing at the former Labour prime minister Tony Blair, as if Boris and most of the current crop of Westminster MPs bear no responsibility for their decision to vote in the House of Commons in favour of the American led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Ironically the present Coalition Government abandoned the control orders introduced by the last Labour Government and Boris's first and final thoughts about "Do nothing now, and the terror will lap at our own front door" could just as easily been written by Tony Blair himself.
Now the idea of taking away people's right to UK citizenship sounds interesting, but what would be the practical effect of such a policy? Presumably it would prevent an individual sanctioned in this way from travelling abroad which would be a good thing, potentially at least.
Would it also prevent such individuals from living off the welfare state while they preach a message of hate and religious intolerance? If so, that could be a sensible policy too, as it would stop people like Anjem Choudary from making mugs of us all with his fondness for claiming 'Jihadseeker's Allowance'.
Now the idea of taking away people's right to UK citizenship sounds interesting, but what would be the practical effect of such a policy? Presumably it would prevent an individual sanctioned in this way from travelling abroad which would be a good thing, potentially at least.
Would it also prevent such individuals from living off the welfare state while they preach a message of hate and religious intolerance? If so, that could be a sensible policy too, as it would stop people like Anjem Choudary from making mugs of us all with his fondness for claiming 'Jihadseeker's Allowance'.
As the problem of Isil worsens by the day, it is surely time to bring back control orders
An image grab taken from a propaganda video uploaded today by jihadist group ISIL allegedly shows ISIL militants gathering at an undisclosed location in Iraq's Nineveh province
By Boris Johnson - The Telegraph
Let’s assume he is indeed who he sounds like – another deluded British-born jihadi. I am afraid I have listened, on the Telegraph website, to the voice of the man who claims to be the killer of James Foley, and there seems little doubt that he grew up in this country. He was probably born in our wonderful NHS. He was schooled in our broadly excellent education system. He and his family have very likely spent their lives, like the rest of us, cushioned by our welfare state. And this is how he chooses to pay back the gift of nurture – by engaging in terrorism, declaring his allegiance to a novel barbarian state, and publicly beheading an entirely innocent journalist.
Young men such as this killer are famously told that if they die in “battle” they will be welcomed in heaven by the sexual ministrations of 72 virgins. Many of them believe it – even though scholars have suggested that the reference to “black-eyed virgins” is in fact a promise of 72 raisins. I suspect most of us don’t give a monkey’s what happens to this prat in heaven, whether he meets virgins or raisins – we just want someone to come along with a bunker-buster and effect an introduction as fast as possible. We care less about the weird theology, and more about the state of the Earth as we know it, and here, alas, the boasts of the killer are not entirely without substance.
We are going to have to make up our minds very quickly about this “caliphate”: how we will respond to the irruption of a new and hellish country on the map, and how we deal with these Brits who go off and fight in its name. These Isil wackos now control an area the size of Great Britain, considerable oil reserves, a population of about six million, some industry, and a military capability said to be second in the region only to Israel. To take them on will not be easy, and I can see all the arguments for doing little or nothing – letting “history” take its course.
No one could claim that previous Western operations have been crowned with success. It is now pretty obvious to everyone (except the bonkers Tony Blair) that things were made much worse, not better, by the removal of Saddam Hussein. How can we be sure of doing better this time? To take on Isil would probably need a vast and coordinated series of American strikes by drones and other missiles, coupled with a lot of effort from special forces. Does Washington have the will? Do we?
We would have to hope that this time, at least, we could guarantee that the regime in Iraq would follow a path of statesmanship and pluralism, and not mindless sectarianism. We would have to ensure, in other words, that we bring in the disaffected Sunnis who have currently attached themselves to the terrorists. We would have to recognise that even if we did not explicitly side with Assad – which Philip Hammond has rightly ruled out – an intervention against Isil might work to the advantage of the Syrian ruler and Hizbollah. It would be hard to bash one side without boosting the other.
All these considerations are being actively weighed now, in London and Washington – and above all the imperative of not committing to “boots on the ground”. No option looks very appealing, to put it mildly; and yet doing nothing is surely the worst of all. If we let Isil get their way, then we will be acquiescing, first, in a gigantic and violent change in international borders. Next, we will be allowing a new and hideous regime to be born: a country where black-flag waving jihadis compete to show they have the most bigoted and reactionary understanding of their religion by persecuting women, Jews, Christians, gays, Yazidis and Shi’ites. The place would be a giant training ground for terrorists and wannabe jihadis. We need to try to close it down now, before it gets worse.
We also need to be far more effective in preventing British and other foreigners from getting out there (I am interested to see how many Belgians are there); and the Turks need to shut that border. We need to make it crystal clear that you will be arrested if you go out to Syria or Iraq without a good reason. At present the police are finding it very difficult to stop people from simply flying out via Germany, crossing the border, doing their ghastly jihadi tourism, and coming back. The police can and do interview the returnees, but it is hard to press charges without evidence. The law needs a swift and minor change so that there is a “rebuttable presumption” that all those visiting war areas without notifying the authorities have done so for a terrorist purpose.
There are perhaps five or six hundred Britons currently out there – overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, young men. If and when there is a real attempt to take on Isil, they may come back in a hurry and in a group. Some of them will present more of a risk than others, but the evidence seems to be that most of the jokers – such as those portrayed in the satirical film Four Lions – have already come home. It is the harder nuts that are staying longer. When they come back, they will need surveillance at the very least, and we must look again at our system of monitoring these people.
The Lib Dems will oppose the return of control orders; but even Nick Clegg would surely accept that times have changed. If we have to bring back control orders for some of the more serious risks, we should do so immediately. And unless they come back – and if they continue to give allegiance to a terrorist state – then absolutely we should take away their citizenship.
All this will be difficult, but the problem has got worse fast, and it could get worse still. What is the point of having a defence budget if we don’t at least try to prevent the establishment of a terrorist “caliphate” that is profoundly hostile to civilised values? Do nothing now, and the tide of terror will eventually lap at our own front door.
Dark Ages Debate (21 December 2013)
I am not a religious person in anyway, but I have lots of family and friends who do possess religious beliefs - so live and let live, I say.
My only 'red line' with religion is that it should be kept separate from the state and be denied the power to control people's lives - as it has in Christian countries down the ages (until relatively recently) and as Islam does in certain Muslim countries, where religious and other secular minorities continue to be persecuted ruthlessly.
So more the more discussion the better as far as I'm concerned - because Anjem Choudary and his ilk have been hiding in the dark all the years, as far as the wider public is concerned, and its high time their views were challenged by the mainstream media - and not just by the Daily Mail.
Anjem Choudary declined to condemn killers of soldier Lee Rigby during debate on Radio 4 show
By Josh Halliday - The Guardian
Anjem Choudary, former leader of the proscribed group al-Muhajiroun. Photograph: Sean Dempsey/PA
The BBC is under fire for inviting the radical cleric Anjem Choudary on to a Radio 4 Today programme debate about the murder of the soldier Lee Rigby.
The corporation was accused of lending a platform to a "hateful extremist" when it featured Choudary alongside Lord Carlile in a discussion about radicalisation, following the conviction on Thursday of Rigby's killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale.
The debate triggered strong criticism on Twitter, including from the Independent columnist Owen Jones, who said: "Why do media keep giving a platform to Anjem Choudary, a hateful extremist who doesn't speak for British Muslims, other than to troll us?"
The Jewish Chronicle editor, Stephen Pollard, said: "Really, what is the point of giving an attention-seeking maniac like Choudary the one thing he wants – attention?"
The BBC has faced criticism in the past for inviting Choudary, a former leader of the proscribed group al-Muhajiroun, on to its topical discussion programmes.
Both Adebolajo, 29, and Adebowale, 22, had ties to al-Muhajiroun and were frequently seen at its demonstrations in London. Adebowale was seen at a al-Muhajiroun-linked demonstration outside the US embassy as recently as September 2012.
The Metropolitan police has said it monitors Choudary's public comments for potential breaches of the law.
When asked by the Today presenter John Humphrys whether he condemned the killings, Choudary said: "I think that to talk about condemnation or to talk about how we feel is not the most important question now, and I'm not going to go down that road. I think that what is important is to learn lessons from what has taken place.
"Whether you agree or disagree with what took place, you cannot predict the actions of one individual among a population of 60 million when the government is clearly at war in Muslim countries. I condemn those who have caused what has taken place on the streets of London, and I believe that the cause of this is David Cameron and his foreign policy."
Carlile, the government's former anti-terrorism adviser, told the programme: "Mr Choudary is a demagogue, he doesn't like the United Kingdom, he doesn't believe in democracy. He wouldn't be allowed to say what he has said in almost any other country in the world, including Muslim countries.
"I think he is an outrageously bad influence on young Muslims in this country. I think he offends the law-abiding Muslim community that is proud to be British and I think we now need to hear much more from the Muslim community – particularly from young leaders in the Muslim community – about how they condemn his actions.
Imran Awan, a criminologist and expert on terrorism and extremism, said: "My view is that it's almost like a continuous narrative – I'm not sure if it's to do with piquing their audience – but I think he fuels everything that is anti-British. In a way many people believe he is one of the key links to radicalising young people and, if he is one of those people, it is giving him the oxygen of publicity he so badly craves."
Awan, a lecturer at Birmingham City University, said he felt uncomfortable with Choudary using the collective "we" in his interview. "That I found uncomfortable because it implies he's talking for us, myself as a Muslim and the law-abiding Muslim community. He doesn't speak for myself or the law-abiding Muslim community."
He added: "As a Muslim and as a criminologist the whole idea is trying to counter the extremist narrative and you can genuinely do that – but inviting people like him on the show all you do is give him a platform."
Referring to a separate story about two students who were forced to cover up clothing featuring a cartoon depiction of the prophet Muhammad, the broadcaster Samira Ahmed said on Twitter: "UK's free speech confusion: LSE apologises over clamping down on T-shirts followed by Anjem Choudary happily stirring thing ups few mins later."
A BBC spokeswoman said: "We have given great consideration to our reporting of the Woolwich murder and the subsequent trial, and carried a wide range of views from across the political and religious spectrums. We have a responsibility to both report on the story and try to shed light on why it happened."
"We believe it is important to reflect the fact that such opinions exist and feel that Choudary's comments may offer some insight into how this crime came about. His views were robustly challenged by both the presenter, John Humphrys and by Lord Carlile, the government's former anti-terrorism adviser."
Hate Crimes (21 February 2013)
Every so often the The Mail group of newspapers comes up with a good story - which seem to get ignored by other parts of the press and media.
Maybe it's because The Mail is seldom even-handed or measured - and seems completely obsessed with stories about benefits cheats, immigration and Princess Diana.
But that doesn't mean the newspaper is incapable of locking on to a big story - on something that really matters - when it sees an opportunity.
The other day The Mail reported on a Muslim preacher - Anjem Choudary - whom the paper describes as a 'hate preacher' who pockets £25,000 a year in benefits - while campaigning to bring Shariah law to the UK.
Apparently, Anjem Choudary has been recorded telling his followers to claim benefits as part of their struggle - a 'Jihadseeker's Allowance', if you like - rather than the normal 'Jobseeker's Allowance'.
The Mail goes on to say that Choudary told a small crowd of around 30 fanatics:
"People will say, 'Ah, but you are not working'. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar (non-Muslim).
So we take Jihadseeker's Allowance. You need to get support."
Anjem Choudary went on to say - according to the newspaper - that David Cameron (the British Prime Minister), Barack Obama (the American President) and the leaders of Pakistan and Egypt - should all be killed.
Now presumably all of this is recorded and reported accurately - in which case the evidence should surely be a matter for the police to pursue.
Because it all reminded me of the time - some years ago - when the author Fay Weldon bravely intervened in a TV discussion programme demanding to know why the police were not arresting the former singer Cat Stevens - now known as Yusuf Islam.
The coward Cat was put on the spot but so too was a senior police officer who was sitting at the discussion table with Fay Weldon - who demanded to know why the police didn't get off their backsides and arrest the former pop star for inciting violence - and promoting a hate crime.
To my mind that's exactly what should happen to Anjem Choudary - and just because it's The Mail that's raising the issue shouldn't be an excuse for the rest of the press and media - to look the other way.
Here's a YouTube link to the moment when Fay Weldon stands up for human decency - and a separate clip of Salman Rushdie putting Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) - firmly in his place.
Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens)
Salman Rushdie
