Gary Monro’s blog

I understand from news reports today (not had the opportunity to delve deeper) that MI5 - the domestic security service - has suggested our liberties may need curtailing in order to fight off the terrorist threat.

The more I think about this ‘civil liberties versus the need to defend ourselves’ issue the less I seem to know.

Clearly, the ideals of the liberal democratic society and all its attendent freedoms were not created with the existence of murderous and evil jihadists in mind. Relatively open and free societies like Great Britain’s are created on the basis that the people living in them will be like the average Anglo-Saxon, with similar values, a broadly comparable outlook on life, similar ideas on ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and so on. A certain, general mind-set is assumed.

Enter those who do not share this mind-set.

If we allow the actions of the murderous to dictate our own next steps then they are, effectively, pulling our strings. They themselves succeed in restricting our liberty.

If we don’t take necessary action against them then they kill some of us.

The dilemma, in my mind, is that of we take the necessary steps to effectively curtail terrorists’ activities we give up some of our basic liberties. To avoid tyrannical government this simply cannot be allowed. But if we don’t do whatever’s necessary to stop them killing us then our liberties are still impaired, except in a different way. We live in a kind of fear instead and are occasionally maimed or killed. Are we to carry on spilling our blood in order to constantly emphasise our liberty?

Actually, the only answer to the whole conundrum is to not allow foreigners into the UK in the first place - and, probably, to have an isolationist foreign policy. But the first isn’t desirable and the second isn’t practical. And both require a time-machine to implement.

So what should we do?

From the BBC:

The housing charity, Shelter, conducted a survey that revealed that living in a safe neighbourhood and being able to afford housing costs are more important to people than owning a property. According to Shelter:

If the government really wants to meet people’s housing aspirations, it should focus public money on helping them to live in a decent, secure home in a neighbourhood where they feel safe, rather than encouraging them to chase the property dream.

I’ve lived on housing estates and I’ve lived in private houses. I know which I prefer.

Isn’t the reason that people want to own - rather than rent - is because they’re aware that living amongst other owners puts them in the environment most conducive to their aspirations to feeling safe whereas living in rented housing - particularly on council housing estates - is one of the least safe options?

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has published his list of unacceptable behaviours which will result in deportation of those foreigners found to be at odds with them.

We know, of course, from the July 7 and July 21 bomb events that at least some of the most murderous people in our midst are actually British traitors. Quite possibly some of their support network, mentors, suppliers and financiers will also be British.

They may have received inspiration - from British citizens - in a manner that might not have broken the law but which was in breach of Mr Clarke’s list of unacceptable behaviours.

What do we do with those particular people?

Part of the dilemma we face now is this: on the one hand we want the freedoms of thought, dissent, demonstration and argument that we spilled centuries of blood to obtain. On the other hand, we have a mutli-ethnic community which, while mainly respectful of the British way, includes those who are contemptuous of everything that freedom really is. They are not the kind of people that we British envisaged when we thought of ideas of freedom.

Do we give up the freedoms? Because, let’s face it, we can’t easily deal with the traitors in our midst without taking a turn for the authoritarian.

Or do we imprison those British citizens who would, had they been foreigners, been deported using current legislation?

If the burden of proof for deportation is lower than for standard UK criminal cases - which it may be and, perhaps, should be - then how do we reconcile imprisoning British citizens for unproven crimes with the desire to avoid an overbearing state?

Think also of situations where the laws we’re clamouring for could be used against us.

What if The Falklands were successfully over-run by Argentina? (Not possible, I know, but for the sake of argument, imagine it). A weak British government works out a ‘compromise’ and does not seek to liberate the island. Over the years the islanders are forced to accept their lot and even take part in local elections to select their preferred governor. The ownership of the island seems settled.

But I, a freeborn Englishman, rant and rave about the situation of British comrades under foreign occupation and exhort them to fight their rulers, resist the occupation and to kill them where possible. Am I encouraging terrorism? Are the British people fighting back against tyranny rebels, resistance fighters or terrorists? The authorities there will certainly call them terrorists and demand the British government punish me. If we’re not careful, the British government will be able to.

I realise my example is overblown but it illustrates the point, I hope. I believe we should be relentless in our pursuit of the evil in our midst. But we must use some imagination to see where ideas we think will help in our efforts against terror will actually run contrary to our desire for freedom of thought, deed and speech. I don’t have the answers - just some of the questions.

We must ask ourselves these questions though because a mistake made now may not reveal itself until it is too late for us to rectify….

An excellent piece in today’s Daily Telegraph entitled Ten urgent steps to make Britain safer

I support particularly the first point (see below). The fairly unique point about the Islamic terrorism in Britain is that it was carried out not by foreign imports but by people born in our hospitals, educated in our schools, who walk our streets and breathe our air.

Yet they regard us - not themselves but the rest of us - as aliens, foreigners. This must partly be due to the weak sense of identity we, the British, have of ourselves. New Labour, Tony Blair and the general leftist attempt to make us ashamed of our history, our achievements, our dynamism, our courage and inventiveness have combined to create a flaccid, ignorant, weak nation that has nothing to nail its colours to - indeed, outside of the occasional international football match it has no colours to nail - and little self-respect in terms of nation and history.

It is little wonder that if we at best are indifferent to ourselves and, at worst, despise ourselves, then anybody with an alternative culture to Britishness might just go for the alternative. Instead of using foreign-born murderers - as must happen when planning outrages for New York or Madrid - plotters can rely on home-grown, British citizens to do the job against their fellow countrymen.

We can rail at violent Isalm all we like. In many ways though we nurtured this poison in our midst when we decided to embrace multi-culturalism and reject Great Britain.

Here are the Telegraph’s 10 points. The headings seem a bit tame but the text that accompanies each is very sensible and well worth reading. Click here to read the entire article.

1. Confidently assert British values

2. Exclude foreign undesirables

3. Repeal the Human Rights Act

4. Crackdown on propaganda

5. Intercept evidence admissable in court

6. Visible police presence

7. Sensible policing

8. Expectation for Muslims to join the police and security forces

9. Effective border controls

10. Increased detention facilities

That nice Yusuf al-Qaradawi is coming back to England. The man who regards suicide attacks as “the highest form of Jihad” spent time as Red Ken’s special guest last year, upsetting all sorts of people. This year he’s coming to Manchester for a conference.

The Americans have already banned him from their country. Apart from their refusal to see suicide attacks as the highest form of Jihad they’re miffed about his ‘cyber jihad’ against their computers - which, incidentally, they believe was initiated from computers in the UK. Anyway, we’re not at all worried by people who hold violent, hateful or racist views - we’ve been hosting them for years.

So will Charles Clarke let this man into our country or won’t he? From The Telegraph:

Last Friday the Home Office outlined proposals aimed at restraining militants by making it a crime to glorify or condone terrorism. Ministers said that would cover statements suggesting that suicide bombers were martyrs.

Okay, so al-Qaradawi fits the bill. He’ll be banned, right? After all, he said about suicide bombings in Israel on Newsnight last year:

“It is not suicide; it is martyrdom in the name of God. I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an indication of the justice of Allah almighty. Allah is just.

“Through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak what the strong do not possess and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs as the Palestinians do.”

Has Mohammed Shafiq, of the Ramadhan Foundation, which organised the event, thoroughly checked out al-Qaradawi to make sure he’s not going to be an embarrassment to Muslims - especially at a time like this?

“He is a moderate and he says that what he has said has been taken out of context and we take his word on that. He is a respected figure in the Muslim community and that is why he has been invited: to help promote cultural and religious diversity.”

That’ll be a ‘no’ then.

The problem with many of these foreign Muslims is that they can sound very reasonable in some areas and then totally potty in others. Hence, al-Qaradawi’s condemnation of the 9/11 bombings was emphatic. Yet they don’t square with other views he holds - including these I picked from his own web-site, Islam Online.

I originally posted some of this information in a comment on Samizdata when one of its correspondents hinted I was over-stating the case when I described some of al-Qaradawi’s views as scary. Actually, I think his views are obscene - I was just trying to be nice. To read them click (more…)

Some Muslims are concerned that the content of their holy book might breach the religious hatred law when it comes into force. This concern may have been initiated by Boris Johnson’s question in Parliament recently. I’m quoting directly from a Muslim forum that you can find here (the subject is, ‘Quoting Koran Could Be Illegal Under Proposed UK Bill’). The person who posted the comment quotes from CNS News.com.

A British lawmaker says reading excerpts from the Koran that advocate harsh treatment for Christians, Jews and unbelievers would violate a religious hatred bill currently before parliament.

“If this bill makes any sense at all, it must mean banning the reading, in public or private, of a great many passages of the Koran itself,” Conservative MP Boris Johnson said.

Mr Johnson read out several chapters from the Qur’an regarding the treatment of non-believers, including this from Sura 22:19:

“As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.”

Well that doesn’t leave me with much to look forward to then.

Johnson said while the Koran was not “unique in its hostility to other creeds,” he challenged a government minister to explain “why and how you think the repetition of those words in a public or a private place does not amount to an incitement to religious hatred of exactly the kind this bill is supposed to ban.”

As a non-believer I’m absolutely buggered either way but I’ve always thought that, if I were truly a believer then I wouldn’t worry a hoot about what other people said about my relgion because I’d have god on my side and the critics wouldn’t. Mr Johnson puts it a bit more eloquently:

“If a religion is worth believing it ought to be strong enough, frankly, to withstand the most scurrilous and monstrous attacks and, if a religion is worth believing in, those assaults should diminish the critics and not the religion itself,” he said.

There’s also a mention of comic Rowan Atkinson’s opposition to the law:

“Mr. Bean” actor Rowan Atkinson has voiced reservations that a politician “subject to the political agendas of the day” should hold such discretionary powers.

The government may see it as desirable at some point “to prosecute a few writers or journalists or playwrights in their desire to ingratiate themselves with a particular religious community,” he said this week.

Well, my friend, the whole bill’s the result of Blair wanting to ingratiate himself with the Muslim community after upsetting them with his Iraq adventure.

But then, zooming along to The Muslim Weekly ( 8-14 June edition, under the ‘MCB News’ tab), we find that, in fact, Muslims’ fears that the more fiery parts of their religion will fall foul of the legislation are unfounded. A delegation of Muslim scholars and leaders met with Home Office Minister Paul Goggins to seek clarification.

The Minister assured the Muslim community that there was nothing in the bill that would prevent scholars from delivering their sermons or from reciting from the Qu’ran and ahadith. The Minister reiterated that what the bill would do is criminalise incitement to religious hatred against individuals.

Now this worries the heck out of me. And it makes me a bit cross too. I recognise myself as being one of the targets of the verse quoted by Boris Johnson (above). Those lines are hateful. If you change the word ‘unbeliever’ to ‘atheist’ or ‘Christian’ or ‘Jew’ or ‘Black’ or ‘Jamaican’ or ‘Welshman’ you have a very clear idea of who the speaker is referring to. The word ‘unbeliever’ is actually an umbrella term for all the above.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie [one of the delegation] stated that he was at eased that matters that had caused some obfuscation in the community had been cleared.

‘We’re happy that the Home Office has agreed to consult the faith communities when preparing the guidelines to the bill. Muslim scholars may proceed uninhibited in the performance of their duties’, he said. The delegation made suggestions to the minister to that it may be preferable to totally exempt the holy text, which will include the Qu’ran and the hadiths from the remit of the Act.

(Emphasis mine).

But doesn’t this need to exempt their religious texts from the legislation amount to an admission by these Muslims that at least some small part of their holy text is hateful? How on earth can this delegation demand that the rest of us not be hateful while requesting special exemptions so that they themselves can be hateful?

I don’t know if I’m the last person to spot this - I usually am - but this is a very serious problem with a bill that is already pretty seriously flawed. If I put Boris Johnson’s points next to The Muslim Weekly’s article I’m left with the uncomfortable feeling that, more than just creating legislation for a particular group of target voters to be used against the rest of us (which is bad enough) we find that the beneficiaries of this law are being assured by a government minister that they will not have to obey it themselves.

How on earth this will foster peace, respect and goodwill amongst British people I do not know. This legislation divides us neatly into two camps: Muslim and non-Muslim. Islam already does that - it has The House of Islam and The House of War. Which is pretty charming in itself. But now, when more than ever we need peace and unity between all British people, the Labour government is helping those divisions along! Can you imagine what the British National Party (BNP - far right party, anti-Muslim, not always the gentlest of souls) will make of this?

Now Paul Coggins did respond to the delegation’s request the whole Qu’ran be exempted from the law:

The minister said, it would be difficult to exempt scriptures because there is likelihood that extreme groups like the BNP may use verses of the Qu’ran to incite hatred against the Muslim community. Therefore, the very purpose of the Act would be defeated.

Well, he’s effectively said that imams can quote from the Qu’ran and the ahadith freely so that amounts to a de facto exemption in itself.

But what do his comments about the BNP mean? Is he saying that if he exempts the holy text from the law then the BNP get free reign to quote from it in order to stir up trouble with Muslims? So does he not want to exempt it from the law so that they can’t? Doesn’t that also amount to an admission that there’s stuff in the Qu’ran that is sufficiently fiery that it could be used to stir up hatred?

My head’s spinning… It seems this Muslim delegation and the Home Office Minister recognise there’s hateful verses in the Qu’ran, fully accept it, and just want to make sure it’ll have no effect on Muslims when the law passes.

Wonderful. Just dandy. This is ‘do as I say, not as I do’ on a legislative scale. It’s oppressive, deeply unfair and may very well exacerbate the very divisions that Muslims claim already exists. What laws will they come up with then?

Today Great Britain commemorates the end of World War II.

Her Majesty, the Queen, led all today’s events which included a lunch for war veterans, a fly-past and a service in Westminster Abbey. A Lancaster bomber from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight dropped one million poppies on The Mall in remembrance of the war dead.

Her majesty said,

“An act of remembrance is an act of honour to those who sacrificed all…and to those who had the wisdom to build peace.

“Sadly we cannot claim that the world has been free from war or terror for the last 60 years but in Europe at least we have been faithful to all those who lost their lives in that great struggle.

“It does not surprise me that during the present difficult days for London people took to the example set by those of resilience, humour and sustained courage, often under conditions of great depravation.

“That example and those memories should be kept alive by the younger generation as they in turn strive to keep the peace in our troubled world.

Today isn’t actually an especially historic day as far as the War itself is concerned. The decision was taken to hold it on a Sunday, in July, where families were most able to take part in celebrations (rather than on specific dates such as VE Day or VJ Day).

Many of the veterans attending today’s events are very old and it is unlikely they will ever again honour on such a scale the sacrifices they and their comrades made during the war.

These people fought valiantly for our country. We may never see their likes again. These people didn’t complain about the discomforts of their situation, didn’t demand their ‘rights’ and didn’t seek the easy way out. They dug in and fought and it is because of them, their toughness, their obstinacy in the face of privation and their bloody-minded determination to defeat the Nazis that the rest of us can live in freedom today.

They are the very best of British and we are proud of them.

(more…)

French President Chirac said a country with food like ours shouldn’t be trusted.

I would like to believe that it was that arrogance, reported to the Olympic Committee, that led them to fail in their bid to host the games.

Tough luck Chirac. Have a good 2012.

Well done the British contingent. Whatever else we might think about the games (and the cost) you must have worked like mad people to achieve this.

Congratulations.

Pink Floyd’s album sales went through the roof after Live 8. Sales increased by a jaw-dropping 1,343 per cent at HMV alone.

According to Channel 4 News guitarist David Gilmour said he would not profit from the show.

“Though the main objective has been to raise consciousness and put pressure on the G8 leaders, I will not profit from the concert,” he said.

Can’t argue with that. Whether one thinks the Live 8 approach was right or wrong there’s at least one performer who’s done the decent thing. Then he throws down the gauntlet:

“If other artists feel like donating their extra royalties to charity, perhaps then the record companies could be persuaded to make a similar gesture and that would be a bonus.

I bet that’s really upset a few people. All those who had hoped they could make a few bob on the backs of a cause they knew little - and, I suspect, cared even less - about must be cursing Gilmore’s name.

BBC News quotes HMV’s estimation of the album boosts of the top ten performers:

1 Pink Floyd - Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd - 1343%
2 The Who - Then and Now - 863%
3 Annie Lennox - Eurythmics Greatest Hits - 500%
4 Dido - Life For Rent - 412%
5 Razorlight - Up All Night - 335%
6 Robbie Williams - Greatest Hits - 320%
7 Joss Stone - Mind, Body and Soul - 309%
8 Sting - The Very Best of Sting & The Police - 300%
9 Travis - Singles - 268%
10 Madonna - Immaculate Collection - 200%

If anybody reading this gets any information about which stars donated to charity the extra wonga they made from this deal then please add a comment to this post.

Thanks to Jarndyce at Fair Vote Watch for the tip-off…

A profile in today’s Independent of leading Conservative party leader candidate David Davis (’Go Davis!’) relates a tale of how Mr Davis stood up to a gang at school who were attacking another kid, allegedly for being gay.

It seems that, recently, both the gang and the gay kid have been found and the story turns out to be true. Except the gay kid is actually married now which just goes to show you just can’t trust people to be what you think they are. But in these politically correct times I’m sure Mr Davis’ act of selflessness in favour of one of Britain’s exalted minorities will earn him some credit with the ‘floating’ ‘voter’.

He’s had a bit of a rough and tumble of it too. No cosy upbringing for this laddie. The ex-Territorial Army SAS soldier - he joined so he could use the bounty money to pay for his university education - was born to a single mother and lived on a housing estate in Tooting. As The Independent relates:

Mr Davis was a “tough kid” at school with a reputation for “getting into scraps”, said an old schoolmate. He broke his nose five times - three times playing rugby for his school second XV, once in a swimming pool accident, and again in a fight on Clapham Common.

I generally like the things I hear David Davis say so I’m hopeful for him. And, although I actually prefer well-spoken, educated politicians - nothing wrong with a bit of class, you know - his working class roots will deaden the accusation that the Conservative Party is a party that only represents the upper classes.

And, hopefully, his common sense conservatism will encourage our detractors to start voting for us again.

NASA yesterday sent a probe crashing into Tempel 1, a 9 mile wide comet, in a bid to better understand the origins of our universe. NASA’s scientists were ecstatic at the successful collision which took place 83 million miles away from earth. The picture on the right here shows the impact of probe and comet.

The probe - Deep Impact - is about the size of a fridge although the flash it created in its collision with the icy comet was, apparently, visible from earth with the naked eye. Of course, you’d need to know where to look and when - and you could do without the thick cloud cover we’ve been ‘enjoying’ in London the last couple of weeks. But anyway. I guess it’s true we could have seen it - in theory.

According to The Scotsman though not everyone is happy with NASA’a successful operation:

A Russian astrologist, Marina Bai, is suing NASA for £170 million, claiming the Deep Impact mission has changed her horoscope.

“It is obvious that elements of the comet’s orbit, and correspondingly the ephemeris, will change after the explosion, which interferes with my astrology work and distorts my horoscope,” she said.

So how come she didn’t see this coming?

Like some sun-baked third-world country hampered by international debt and home-grown corruption England limps into another water-shortage with the first phases of water restrictions - the traditional hosepipe ban - being widely discussed.

South East Water is the third company already to actually enforce a hose-pipe ban and will probably not be the last. Thames Water may be banning sprinklers.

From The Telegraph:

Despite the mixed weather of the past few weeks, there has been a hidden drought since November. Rainfall has been below average for eight months, making it the fourth driest period since records began in 1892.

The problem is worst in the densely populated South and East, where rivers are at half their normal height for the time of year.

Thames Valley, which supplies eight million people, said a ban by early August was “a distinct possibility”.

Well, now. Is it the ‘hidden drought’ or the increased numbers of people living in England’s south-east and south-west regions?

The 2001 census suggests this may be a contributing factor. Regarding population change the census reveals:

Compared to 1981, the biggest increases were found, not surprisingly, in South East England (+10.4%) and South-West England (12.5%) and East England (+11.0%), whilst the North East (-4.6%) and the North-West (-3.0%) have seen a decline in population.

A spokesman for WaterVoice, the consumer watchdog, hinted at the problems of population growth in these areas:

“But if this sort of thing [hosepipe and sprinkler] is happening now, what will happen when we have 1.1 million more households in the South East? It is an alarm bell for the water industry and regulator, who need to look at the long-term position.”

Hmm. Or government could realise that population needs a certain amount of managing and act to spread ours out a bit. It can be done: relocate some government departments, offer tax benefits to companies setting up in areas of lower population density and so on.

One theory as to why the government doesn’t tackle this issue is as follows: most of England’s Conservative Party voters are in the south-east. Better that the area soak up as many such voters as possible in as small an area as possible and leave the rest of the country open for Labour to win. Spreading some of the excess Conservative votes across England might tip the balance in a few key marginals. And Blair wouldn’t want that…

Just heard on the BBC this morning that police are set to patrol Hampstead Royal Free Hospital because of the criminal behaviour there. This is saddening but it’s becoming all the more common now that, in a society that is soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime, our health staff not only have to suffer the stresses of long hours, hard physical work and mental strain but also aggressive language and violent behaviour.

But what really amazed me was the BBC’s assertion that crime in the Royal Free Hospital accounts for one quarter of all Hampstead’s crime.

Even if that’s more a testament to the relative good behaviour of Hampstead’s residents it is quite shocking that so much of the borough’s criminality is concentrated in one hospital. I still fall into the trap of thinking of hospitals as havens, as places of care and safety. I bet there are plenty of health professionals who can put me straight about that….

In The Telegraph today:

The imprisonment rate in England and Wales is the highest of any major country in western Europe, according to figures published today.

It seems we jail 142 people per 100,000 of population while countries like France and Germany jail considerably fewer - 91 and 96 per 100,00 of population respectively.

On the face of it seems that the UK is pretty harsh on its population. It seems even that Mr Blair’s ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ statement has been met with positive action. Well, I find that hard to believe so let’s look a little deeper…

First, the statistic itself is not particularly revealing. To know if 142 people jailed per 100,000 of population is high or low you need to know how much crime’s being committed amongst that population. 142 people per 100, 000 of population in jail is high if there are only 142 crimes per 100, 000 people because it means everybody goes to prison. But if all 100,000 have got their fingers in the till then 142 imprisonments looks pretty paltry.

The more meaningful statistic is the rate of imprisonment per X number of crimes, not per X number of people. It seems we usually measure imprisonment against per 1,000 crimes. That gives us a measure of actual criminality in the society and a corresponding rate of imprisonment in comparison with that.

Which paints a different picture.

Using a graph found on the excellent Civitas blog (with thanks to Blimpish) we can look at some slightly older figures to illustrate the general point.

In 2000, for example, England and Wales together imprisoned 124 people per 100,00o of population. Germany imprisoned just 97 per 100,000.

But if you look at the number of prisoners per 1,000 recorded crimes then both countries imprisoned at the same rate - 12.7 people per 1,000 crimes.

In fact, the UK’s imprisonment rate is quite low compared to the EU average of 17.7 people imprisoned for every 1,000 crimes.

Some countries are prison-crazy. Greece locks ‘em up at the rate of 21.8 people per 1,000 crimes. In Italy it’s 24 people per 1,000 and in Spain - the most severe country in the EU at that time - they must be putting you away for wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area because their imprisonment rate is a whopping 49.1 people per 1,000 crimes.

You know what’s interesting in Spain’s case? A very high rate of imprisonment but a very low rate of crime. At 2,339 crimes per 100,000 people its crime rate is barely one-third of the EU average and is less than a quarter of the UK’s extremely high (50% more than the EU average) crime rate.

Want another? Ireland imprisons like it’s going out of fashion too. At 39.4 jailings per 1,000 crimes they’re the second most severe jailers in the EU (as at the year 2000). Yet at 1,933 crimes per 100,000 people they have the EU’s lowest crime figures.

And so it goes. The general consequences of low imprisonment - as per the UK - is high crime - as per the UK.

Prison isn’t perfect. We don’t do nearly enough to prevent reoffending, we seem not to pay the greatest of attention to educational needs and we possibly aren’t taking seriously enough the appalling backgrounds of some of our prisoners when formulating rehabilitation schemes. So we suffer a very high (approximately 80%) reoffending rate. But criminals in prison can’t commit crime. And those just setting out on a life of crime may well rethink their ambitions after an early and meaningful spell at Her Majesty’s pleasure. The crime and imprisonment figures of the EU seem to suggest that prison does indeed work.