About Me

My Photo
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin

Friday, 6 May 2016

Professor Jackson urges caution in sentencing Muslims convicted of Terror offences.

It didn’t take long for the media to find those who urge caution in the sentencing of Muslims convicted of terrorist offences here in New Zealand. Professor Richard Jackson, deputy director of the National Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago, said overseas evidence suggested that a heavy-handed response to expressions of anti-Western sentiment or young people exploring radical ideas could be detrimental.


"There is evidence that that does contribute to further radicalisation. It creates the sense that Muslims are unfairly targeted, because there have been cases where right-wing extremists, or Christian extremists, don't get that same type of treatment, they're treated much more leniently”.

I have asked Professor Jackson for examples of ‘Christian extremists’ who have been treated ‘much more leniently’.  I will publish the details in his reply should he provide them.

Professor Jackson also warned it was important media took great care in reporting the case responsibly, as it could cause xenophobia and also add to radicalisation as Muslim fears that the West hated them seemed to be confirmed.

"It is a bit worrying, because to be honest the media has not been that responsible in reporting on these types of issues...and [it] contributes to that broader social anxiety.

There is a strong well-spring of public opinion out there that Muslims, as a group of people, are inherently dangerous and this will confirm that and lead to more calls to restrict immigration and perhaps expel people from the country."

It is hard to fathom how the public may have gained that impression that Muslims can be ‘inherently dangerous’, especially when senior politicians and the main stream media have done their level best to sanitize everything about Islam for years following 9/11 and to deny that terrorist attacks had ‘anything to do with Islam’.  Finally, only after the obvious brutality of ISIS were they forced to adjust their narrative, and then not all of them.  But, apparently we have nothing to fear but fear itself.  If we stopped talking about Muslim extremism the issue would simply go away and we could go back to life as it was prior to 9/11.

Perhaps if we stopped reporting on ISIS completely, and simply ignored the activities of their local supporters they would throw down their weapons in disgust and all go home.  Listen, it’s no more ridiculous than Bono suggesting we mock ISIS with humour and defeat them that way.

Friends this is the level of public discourse we get from our highly paid indentured university academics on the subject of Islamic terrorism.  Tread carefully, we may make matters worse.

How could they possibly be worse than they are in the world at present, and how would ‘doing nothing’ or very little in response to terrorist activity be an effective counter measure?

Why wouldn’t sane people call for the expulsion of radicalized Muslims from our country?  Why wouldn’t we restrict the numbers we allow in through immigration, or do we like much of Europe’s political elite secretly harbour a death wish? A latent desire to see our culture destroyed at the hands of barbarians? 

You know we deserve it.

Such loathing and self-hatred is standard fare amongst so many of the liberal left.  We must pay for the sins of colonialization, and defeat at the hands of Islamic jihadists is justifiable retribution.

Professor Jackson and his kind are about as useful as the Iraqi army at the defense of Mosul. They look the part, but you wouldn’t want to rely upon them concerning matters of national security.
  

Welcome first conviction for Islamic radicalism in New Zealand.

It took a while, but eventually the authorities stirred themselves into action regarding the growing fondness for violent jihad amongst some members of our Muslim community.    Both Stuff and The Herald reports the arrest of two men, and the first conviction for one of them regarding the possession of objectionable Islamic State material.  It apparently included videos of beheadings and the like.


Somewhat surprisingly for someone who has embraced the ‘religion of peace’, the offender was also charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest.  The second defendant has yet to appear before the courts, on what are apparently more serious charges.

It’s not clear how the police were led to these perpetrators, perhaps through the efforts of the SIS, however there has been a considerable time delay between the PM advising us of 50 such individuals on the terrorist watch list, and these two arrests.  Could more have been done sooner?

One wonders if the men arrested are New Zealand citizens or have dual citizenship.  If that is the situation, then a case should be made for sending these men back home to their nation of origin.  As our Government appears to be in love with the idea of bringing more Muslims into New Zealand, either by means of the UNHCR or normal immigration processes, the very least they can do is send back those who represent a clear risk to public safety. You would think that the majority of peaceful Muslims would also welcome such a move.

If there is one thing that deserves zero tolerance it is violent jihad in all its forms.  Whether it be expressed on video’s, advocated during Friday sermons, or distributed through literature, zero tolerance is the only option. Britain and Europe have been reluctant to bring prosecutions in this regard, and look at the mess they now have on their hands. 

These arrests are a promising first step against a backdrop of inaction from our own authorities. 

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

Andrew Becroft new Children’s Commissioner.

Anne Tolley is to be congratulated on the appointment of Judge Andrew Becroft as the new Children’s Commissioner.  I’m usually pretty skeptical about the value of these roles.  The previous Commissioner Dr. Russell Wills was a disaster.  He was fixated about child poverty, and could only see more Government spending on social policy as the solution – Parental irresponsibility didn’t feature significantly in his equations.



Thankfully Andrew Becroft is cut from a different cloth and is considerably more grounded in the world as it is, not as we might like it to be.  His role as Principal Youth Court Judge will have enabled him to obtain a very good grasp of the issues facing children whose family background is often appallingly dysfunctional.

It’s the kind of dysfunction that more Government money simply cannot fix, and indeed often worsens the problem by rewarding the wrong behaviours.


It would be too much to expect miracles of Judge Becroft, but a little common sense will make a refreshing change.


Same country, different worlds.

I have been following columnist Rod Dreher’s expose on all things transgender this year, including the new bathroom policy at Target Stores in the USA where people of all ‘genders’ can use any bathroom they choose, regardless of the sign on the door.  

That’s assuming they still have signs on the doors.



Dreher’s article also includes a letter from a parent which I reproduce for you below:

I’ve been reading your thoughts on the whole transgender debacle this year and notice that in your threads and the comments it’s all been theoretical for you and your readers, including me. Until today
.
My 14 year-old daughter is on a swim team with the NYC parks department where she practices at one of the public indoor pools. She is one of the older kids, with the youngest teammate a 7 year old. Today she informed us that just as she finished getting dressed after practice, a middle-aged man came out of the showers. He had a towel on so she couldn’t confirm if any surgery had been done (now there’s a conversation I never thought I’d be having with my kid) but besides his very large, breast-less male body type, bald head and mens’ shoes he was putting on, there was no question in her mind that he was a man. And she observed that the younger girls (remember, one’s a 7 year old girl) were staring with concerned expressions.

Everyone keeps going on about school bathrooms where kids are all the same age and how it should be no big deal. Have any of the politicians considered this particular scenario? Are the De Blasios and Clintons of the world going to be able to assure parents that their children will be safe in public locker rooms now? Is Mitchell Silver, the commissioner of the Parks Department, confident that a 7 year-old girl will not be adversely affected by the sight of a naked male stranger while she, too, stands naked and at her most vulnerable?

If this hadn’t hit so close to home I’d be enjoying the delicious irony of the situation. For several fraught moments, one sweaty locker room held the perfect storm of our nation’s treasured oppressed: transgenders, females, children, and even ethnic minorities, as most of the kids are non-white. (Only oppressed college students were missing.)

I anticipate that with the national climate these days, the kids will get thrown under the bus on this and have to do the accommodating. But because of the intolerance regarding any conversation on this topic, I’m completely at a loss as to how to address it.

It sucks to be a parent these days.

I’m sure it does, and if you are a New Zealand parent and think this isn’t coming to a public swimming pool, or school changing room near you, then think again.  The issue of self-defined gender identity is not going away any time soon.  The antiquated notion of binary gender is simply the next mountain of gender oppression that must be cast into the sea.

Just as everyone wanted to sign up for gay marriage on the basis of justice and equality, those very same arguments are being trotted out for the rights of the  transgendered to choose the public changing rooms / bathrooms of their choice.


And, who are you to say they shouldn’t – you bigot!

Friday, 29 April 2016

The anti-Semitic hatred of the left and their Muslim fellow travellers.

The political left, as embodied by the Labour Party, has always tended towards anti-Semitism. Labour’s ethos is pitched to include support for the underdog, for minorities, for the weak and the oppressed.  This has mapped into unquestioned support for the Palestinian cause in its ideological and physical struggle against Israel.


It would be equally reasonable to frame Israel as a minority and underdog in the Middle East.  The only democratic nation state surrounded by hostile Muslim countries, most of whom are fanatically committed to its destruction. 

So why doesn’t Israel qualify as a minority underdog in the minds of the political left?  Largely I suspect because Jews are stereotyped as being wealthy, and we all know that the wealthy oppress the poor and marginalised, but this is only part of the reason. Anti-Semitism is intrinsic to Islam, and validated by its holy texts. As we know, Muslims in the west by a large majority choose to vote Labour.

No surprise then when British Muslim Labour MP, Naz Shah was discovered using social media to express some rather anti-Semitic messages, as a result of which she was forced to resign.

As Douglas Murray reflected in a recent Spectator article regarding Ken Livingston, another rabid anti-Semite:

Of course this is only happening because the Labour party is run by a man who has spent his entire political life in these [anti-Semitic] fever-swamps. Jeremy Corbyn having to suspend Ken Livingstone from the Labour party is a truly impossible divorce – impossible because it makes Corbyn’s position impossible. How can Ken Livingstone be out of the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn be leading it? There is barely a sliver of moonlight between their views on Jews and Israel.

But now everybody is talking about the Jews and Labour’s anti-Semitism problem. Yet they still refuse to get to the point. Because it is not as though anti-Semitism is simply transferred in the water-supply. Of course there are anti-Semitic tendencies in every strain of politics. I could point to a strain within the Conservative tradition. But in the Conservative tradition it is dying. The problem for Labour is that anti-Semitism in their party is a growth industry. And the simple reason for that is a demographic one.

The modern Labour party claims to be an anti-racist movement, but because of demographic changes in the UK in certain areas it has to run on a covertly racist ticket. Try getting elected in Bradford as a Jew or a philo-Semite. And what exactly do people think the voters of Bradford West want? This is a constituency that voted for George Galloway even after everything one needed to know about Galloway was known. It is a constituency which he, while the local MP, declared an ‘Israel-free zone’ and where journalists of Jewish appearance or name were physically assaulted.

Why did that happen? The simple reason is, as Mehdi Hasan once said, that anti-Semitism among Britain’s Muslim communities is ‘routine and commonplace.’ It is, as Mehdi said, the ‘dirty little secret’ of Britain’s Muslims. Numerous polls have shown a glimpse of the same thing. And that, right there, is Labour’s problem: the more Muslims you have, the more anti-Semitism you have.

‘The more Muslims you have, the more anti-Semitism you have.’  Oh the joys of multiculturalism.  It works for nobody, least of all the Jews living in western societies that are becoming increasingly Islamic.

This is what happens when western countries deliberately ignore religion when framing their immigration policies.   As Douglas Murray has pointed out, the more Muslims you have the more anti-Semitism you have, but he could equally have added, more terrorism, female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honour killings and sectarian killings just to name some of the less desirable features of Islam. 

It’s not just Labour who are blind to religion when it comes to immigration.  Our National Party Government is equally as guilty of importing anti-Semites into New Zealand through its immigration and refugee resettlement programs. 

How does importing one group of marginalized people, knowing full well they have the potential to marginalize another group in our communities, make any sense?

Wouldn’t we all be better off without importing these historical hatreds?