Jihad Watch

[fuzzy]

Yes in a way. The trouble with the media manipulation and downplaying the scale of chaos is that the response will come later than it should, and will be more extreme than the moral response we would wish for. Just as a dam breaks when the strain is too much, and we know what follows.

[adam2]

Meanwhile in Russia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40985561

Motive unknown, but it has a jihadi look about it. The attack on random people in the street rather than targeting a personal or business enemy suggests holy war, but we shall see.

[kenneal - lagger]

The trouble is that a more extreme response is what the terrorists are looking for and will provoke even more attacks rather than wiping them out. We just have to sit back and take it and educate/re-educate a generation. When I say sit back I don't mean that we can't go after the perpetrators and especially the instigators but we must do so with regard to our own moral values.

[kenneal - lagger]

Meanwhile in Russia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40985561.......

The TASS news agency quoted local police as saying the man may have been suffering from mental illness.

Isn't any one who carries out such attacks suffering some sort of mental illness just as someone who accumulates vast sums of money is suffering from a mental illness. And, yes, I do equate the two.

[Little John]

The trouble is that a more extreme response is what the terrorists are looking for and will provoke even more attacks rather than wiping them out. We just have to sit back and take it and educate/re-educate a generation. When I say sit back I don't mean that we can't go after the perpetrators and especially the instigators but we must do so with regard to our own moral values.

No, it's too late for that. In any event, it is just defeatist to suggest little can be done. That is to say, certain things can be done to minimise the risks to our populations and, secondly, to the extent that a certain degree of risk will always remain, it will be far more tolerable for our populations if they know that everything that could be done has been done.

The next question, I am guessing, is what are these things that could be done? So, here is a list of the top of my head:

* All Mosques must be subjected to regular inspections to ascertain they are not acting as hothouses for Islamic extremism. to the extent that any of them are, they are closed down immediately and the state takes immediate possession of them with no compensation.
* A total ban on all extreme Islamic dress codes in public that hide the face.
* No public funding whatsoever for any Islamic cultural activities in this country
* A ban on all overseas funding of Islamic activities in this country where the funding country is on a list of countries identified as being extremist (see also below on immigration)
* A complete stamping out of all sharia quasi-judicial systems in this country
* A near total ban on immigration from countries that are clearly identifiable as having a relatively high level of Islamic extremism in its culture

Now, following the implementation of such policies, many Muslims will very likely be ill at ease, certainly initially. But, will live with it because they will calculate that the benefits of living in this country outweigh any perceived cultural disadvantages. For some, however, such cultural restrictions will be seen as intolerable and they may decide to emigrate to a more culturally conducive country. In which, case, good. Finally, a small minority will become violent as a response. In which case, also good. This will cause them to become both more visible and will force the remaining majority to distance themselves from them. All of which makes it easier to round them up.

In short, secularism in public life in this country must be ruthlessly enforced and, to the extent that religion must impinge on any of it, it is solely Christianity of a Northern European sensibility since that is our historical tradition. Though, speaking personally, I am not even comfortable with that. In other words, public life, for people of a fundamentalist Islamic bent who are unwilling to separate the public from the private space, should be made completely intolerable in this country

Things can be done.

We just need to have the will.

[kenneal - lagger]

I would agree that it should not be accepted that people can go round with their faces covered but that then impinges on people like anti capitalist demonstrators who wear face masks on occasion and motor cyclists. You could end up with the burka being replaced with motor cycle helmets!

Much of the anti women culture which we see in this country which is laid on Islam is, in fact, not Islamic at all but common across the whole of the Indian sub-continent among Hindus and Moslems alike.

I also agree that the secular culture of this country must be stressed and enforced. I hope that it is stressed in the cultural lessons which immigrants get before they are given citizenship. I also think that, like Norway, people should only gain citizenship when they can show a good command of the English language (although that might preclude some natives if they were tested).

One thing which must be adhered to though is the tolerance upon which we usually pride ourselves.

[Little John]

I would agree that it should not be accepted that people can go round with their faces covered but that then impinges on people like anti capitalist demonstrators who wear face masks on occasion and motor cyclists. You could end up with the burka being replaced with motor cycle helmets!

Ken, you can't be seriously suggesting that it is beyond the whit of legislators to fashion a law that gives enough leeway to enforcers to use their common sense

Much of the anti women culture which we see in this country which is laid on Islam is, in fact, not Islamic at all but common across the whole of the Indian sub-continent among Hindus and Moslems alike.

This may be true. Though, I am bound to observe we do not hear repeated instances of Sikh or Hindu rape gangs specifically targeting vulnerable working class white girls do we. But, in any event, no problem then. Most Asian Muslims (or other Asian groups) won't have a problem with it... right? But, those that do will self identify and this is all to the good since we need to identify them

I also agree that the secular culture of this country must be stressed and enforced. I hope that it is stressed in the cultural lessons which immigrants get before they are given citizenship. I also think that, like Norway, people should only gain citizenship when they can show a good command of the English language (although that might preclude some natives if they were tested).

Secularism in public life needs more than "stressing". It needs to be enforced. By that I do not mean ridiculous infringements of liberty like making Christian bakers bake wedding cakes for gay people. But, I do mean in terms of general decorum and dress codes. This should be the least that is expected in public life and people who cannot conform to those very low level cultural expectations in the public arena need to be vigorously encouraged to reconsider their citizenship

One thing which must be adhered to though is the tolerance upon which we usually pride ourselves.

Tolerance of what? What does that actually mean Ken?

[boisdevie]

Tolerance. For decades we in the UK seem to have been incredibly tolerant whilst other cultures are not tolerant at all. I for one don't think we should tolerate the oppression of women, FGM, sharia etc. But we do, but quietly.

We should stop being so bloody tolerant and realise that in this country we are harbouring a large religious group who have no wish to integrate with us, despise our tolerance of things like homosexuality and a significant proportion would not even report a terrorist.

I feel extremely angry over this and the mainstream media and mainstream politicians seem to feel that just one more chorus of kumbaya, just one more vigil, just a few more candles and it'll all be fine. They are betraying us.

[Little John]

Yes

[kenneal - lagger]

LJ, you're beginning to sound like one of those ultra right protesters.

While I do have my suspicions about some of the tenets of Islam, I also have some suspicions about the way that the Christian Right in the US look at their world (it's not a world that I see!). I am, as this post will probably show, confused to an extent in what I see as the tolerance of the the UK culture. My version of tolerance is based on my version UK culture and I, probably like you, believe that anyone coming to this country should subscribe to that culture because it is what makes this country attractive to so many would be immigrants. The toleration of many versions of "our" culture is what makes the UK what it is!

I don't like the Moslem veil but I am quite happy for Moslem women, any women for that matter, to cover their hair or to wear neck to foot apparel; we men do that most of the time. In the 70s my wife made several maxi dresses, as they were then called, with a hood in which I thought she looked very fetching. She also looked equally fetching in mini skirts and a bikini!

I think it is the height of bad manners to cover your face and it is insulting to men to say that they can't control themselves at the sight of a female form. It annoys me intensely when people wear sunglasses and don't remove them when talking to me. When we listen to people we "listen" to their facial expressions as well so to cover the face, or part of it, inhibits a full understanding of what someone is actually saying. A full veil and body cover also conveys a lack of trust in others which puts me on edge straight away and leads me to discriminate against that person. Whose fault is that discrimination?

While I recognise the right of the homosexual community to their way of life I can see that some people also have the right to reject that way of life if it doesn't accord with their beliefs. I have sympathies with churches which say that marriage is the joining together of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. I have no problem with the state providing the structure of a civil marriage for all.

We allow for religious slaughter of animals so should we allow religious groups, Moslem and Christian, to have their own beliefs on homosexuality? The same goes for what some people see as child murder and others see as abortion. Should we force our beliefs on others, not an easy task as can be seen in Northern Ireland, or should we say that the State allows it but the individual can take it of leave it? It is ironic that in the Indian sub continent before we British arrived there was widespread tolerance of homosexuality and transsexualism but "British" values have since prevailed!

And no, we shouldn't tolerate the oppression of women, FGM and the cutting off of the hands of thieves but there are some aspects of Sharia, like the way to lawyer free divorce, that we cold certainly look at and learn from.

I'm will not apologise for such a muddled post because it illustrates how difficult it is to define our UK culture and what it means to so many different people. It also shows, I think, how difficult it is to make laws to define what is and is not acceptable in the UK.

[Little John]

LJ, you're beginning to sound like one of those ultra right protesters.....

I am a socialist

I couldn't give a shit about the colour of someone's skin

I am not a Christian

Explain to me again how I remind you of those "ultra-right" protesters?

[kenneal - lagger]

LJ, you're beginning to sound like one of those ultra right protesters.....

I am a socialist

I couldn't give a shit about the colour of someone's skin

I am not a Christian

Explain to me again how I remind you of those "ultra-right" protesters?

Here's how

Tolerance. For decades we in the UK seem to have been incredibly tolerant whilst other cultures are not tolerant at all. I for one don't think we should tolerate the oppression of women, FGM, sharia etc. But we do, but quietly.

We should stop being so bloody tolerant and realise that in this country we are harbouring a large religious group who have no wish to integrate with us, despise our tolerance of things like homosexuality and a significant proportion would not even report a terrorist.

I feel extremely angry over this and the mainstream media and mainstream politicians seem to feel that just one more chorus of kumbaya, just one more vigil, just a few more candles and it'll all be fine. They are betraying us.

Yes

[Little John]

And in what way does that indicate "far-right" protesting tendencies?

To break it down:

For decades we in the UK seem to have been incredibly tolerant whilst other cultures are not tolerant at all. I for one don't think we should tolerate the oppression of women, FGM, sharia etc. But we do, but quietly....

Is there any of that you would call untrue?

...We should stop being so bloody tolerant and realise that in this country we are harbouring a large religious group who have no wish to integrate with us, despise our tolerance of things like homosexuality and a significant proportion would not even report a terrorist....

Do you disagree that there is a large number of people from the British Muslim diaspora who have singularly failed to integrate?

...I feel extremely angry over this and the mainstream media and mainstream politicians seem to feel that just one more chorus of kumbaya, just one more vigil, just a few more candles and it'll all be fine. They are betraying us....

Do you think another candlelit "vigil" will help Ken?

[boisdevie]

While I recognise the right of the homosexual community to their way of life I can see that some people also have the right to reject that way of life if it doesn't accord with their beliefs.

People can agree or disagree with homosexuality and that's fine. But a significant proportion of the Muslim community would like to go much further and make it illegal. That's a massive difference and shows just how intolerant they are. If that makes me some kind of racist or 'supremacist' or any other 'ist' you like the sound of then fine.

[fuzzy]

I have a copy of the koran in english - audiobook. This came from a genuine 5 a day carpet kisser . Just for the record, he was painfully friendly, cheerful, diplomatic etc.

Basically the book says, in English, that he wants me dead. The rule is recinders of faith first, non religious next, then other faiths. This is not ambiguous, and it repeats it a lot. mp3 copies could be supplied.