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

Wednesday, 25 November 2015

People who place themselves on our anti-terrorist radar must expect closer scrutiny by the State.

As I pointed out in my previous post, when it comes to dealing with domestic terrorism we are far too timid in our approach to those who would do us harm.  Britain it seems has learned that lesson and has adopted the strategy that I recommended.  Scotland Yard’s anti-terror Chief Mark Rowley:

'Clearly the ambition is to prevent attacks.' Setting out the scale of the counter-terror challenge in the UK, he said: 'We have been making an arrest a day over the last year or so, which is approaching twice what it would have been three or four years ago.

'I put those in two broad baskets: a third of those arrests are using counter-terrorism powers; we are prosecuting people, whether it's a plot or whether it's having terrorist training or disseminating material. 'Those are the people more advanced in the development of their terrorist intentions.

'The other two-thirds are more disruptive. We are using crime powers, prosecuting them for fraud, sexual offending - anything we can use to disrupt their conduct. 'These are people who are extremists who are generally migrating towards terrorism and rather than waiting to the last minute, anything we can do to disrupt them is important.'


Rather than tiptoe around these people, make it clear that not only do we know who they are, and their intentions, but also more importantly we are prepared to make their lives difficult at every turn.  As Mark Rowley says, let’s do anything we can to disrupt their conduct, including prosecuting them for all we can find, from expired warrant of fitness’s, to full Inland Revenue investigations going back seven years.

If they want the full benefits of New Zealand citizenship, then they must expect to face the same scrutiny that in theory every citizen faces.   Just as some property developers attract the attention of Inland Revenue by their actions, then why not jihadists and supporters by their actions?

Far be it from me to recommend a program of State funded harassment of Islamic jihadists living in New Zealand, I’m simply suggesting that people who place themselves on our anti-terrorist radar must expect their lives to undergo closer scrutiny by the State. 

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

We are not going to defeat this ideological menace in NZ through surveillance alone.

In Stuff today John Key provides us with another reality check when it comes to Islamic terrorist threats in New Zealand:

Several of the New Zealanders under 24-hour surveillance for links to Islamic State want to commit a terrorist attack on Kiwis, says the Prime Minister. About 40 people are being monitored in New Zealand for their ties to Isis but the most threatening are under constant watch, which means they're unlikely to be able to get anywhere near executing a terrorist attack, said John Key.

This raises the question of ‘who is a New Zealander’?  Is holding a NZ passport sufficient?  If people living in New Zealand holding a NZ passport are actively seeking to kill other Kiwis in the name of a foreign terrorist entity, why should they retain the right of NZ citizenship?  Don’t their loyalties lie elsewhere?

"There's no question about what their motivations are and that's the tragedy of the Isis story is that you get some very dysfunctional people, for want of a better term, who want to associate themselves with Isis," he told Radio NZ.

Yes, they are dysfunctional in the context of our worldview, but not in theirs.

While several of those being monitored are "threatening individuals" Key said people should have confidence in the fact they're under constant supervision.

Australia estimates that it costs $8.0 million a year to monitor just ONE suspected terrorist 7/24.  I imagine our costs are about the same. Prime Minister Key doesn’t tell us how many of those 40 individuals ‘under surveillance’ require 7/24 monitoring; let’s assume it’s only 10% or four of them.  That’s over $30 million dollars per annum taxpayers are spending to protect themselves from four people.

Perhaps it’s time to pause for a moment and ask ‘is there a better way’?  If we have enough evidence concerning these individuals to spend circa $8m per annum defending ourselves from each of them, then surely we have a case for internment until this ‘war on terror’ is over?  That would cost just a fraction of the amount presently being spent, and actually keep us safe in ways that surveillance will not.

"My concern always is not about the people we know about but the ones we don't know about and that's what we've seen in Paris with the tragedies there."

But we do know where to look for them, and what ‘communities’ require surveillance don’t we?  Is it time to ask the obvious question one more time – do we want to grow the size of these communities in New Zealand, so that we ultimately end up like Paris and Brussels, or would that question be considered too impolite?

He said while some Kiwis are actively raising money for Isis they hadn't been charged "because it's not clear cut when you get to court".
Key said stories changed and the advice he received was that there had to be "absolute firm evidence before taking them to court".

No one wants to live in a police state, but I fear we are erring too much on the side of political correctness with these people and tip toeing around them lest we cause offence and end up with a Muslim community increasing its narrative of victimhood.

First of all, where does this fund raising take place, at the local Mosque perhaps? 

Second, why not charge them even if there is some uncertainty if the courts will find in favour of the State?  Put them through the process, get them spending their money on lawyers defending themselves, have them facing the TV camera’s every day on their way into court, let New Zealanders see who these people are.

Is it time we began to apply some pressure to a community that harbours individuals who represent a clear and present threat to public safety?

One thing is certain; we are not going to defeat this ideological menace through surveillance alone.  Failure to be more pro-active will one day mean that just like Paris someone will slip through the radar and New Zealanders will die at the hands of these jihadists. 


The Sun reports that 1 in 5 British Muslims have some sympathy for those who have traveled from the UK to fight in Syria.  Amongst Muslims 18-34 years, the percentage increases to 1 in 4.

No reason to think NZ would be any different.

Monday, 23 November 2015

At what point does Britain declare their culture is dead and the Jihadists have won?

The Daily Mail reports Archbishop Justin Welby ‘doubted God’ following the recent jihadist attacks in Paris.  Apparently he was left asking ‘why the attacks happened, and where God was when the militants struck’.

I have long known that the Anglican Communion was in bad shape, but when its primate still doesn’t understand Islamic jihad, and his theology allows him to doubt God when it takes place, then it’s time for him to move on.  He is demonstrably ill equipped to lead the church through the days ahead.

No offence intended.

Speaking of offence, the same article reports a decision by Britain's major cinema chains to ban the screening of a film in which Justin Welby and members of the public recite the Lord’s Prayer – because they say it could be offensive to movie-goers.

Odeon, Cineworld and Vue have refused to show the one-minute film the Church of England planned to run in cinemas across the UK before the new Star Wars blockbuster, which opens a week before Christmas.  The film is rated acceptable for viewers of any age.

But it’s not explicit sexual content or gratuitous violence that the commercial cinema chains fear will offend patrons, it is the public expression of the Christian faith.

To put this into context, the ‘one-minute film’ is an advertisement for Christianity in the lead up to Christmas.

Self-censorship generated through fear of Islam continues to expand throughout Britain.  Just as Newspapers refuse to print cartoons displaying the prophet Mohammed, and Subway drops pork and bacon from their menus, Cinemas now reject advertising promoting the Christian faith.

At what point does Britain declare their culture is dead and the Jihadists have won?

Saturday, 21 November 2015

Has Susan Devoy asked herself why some people, religions and cultures are offended by expressions of Christianity?

What does ‘Human Rights’ Commissioner Susan Devoy and ISIS leader Al Baghdadi share in common?  You could be forgiven for thinking it is an apparent desire to remove all traces of Christianity from their dominion.

Al Baghdadi through decapitation, Susan Devoy by decree.

The Herald reports a leading Auckland migrant settlement agency is avoiding the word Christmas, and will be talking about ‘happy holidays’ and ‘seasons greetings’ instead.  Dame Susan, the agencies patron is supportive of this decision saying it is aimed at being ‘more inclusive’.

Except that it’s not being more inclusive is it? 

Christianity and all references to the birth of Jesus, which is the very reason for the holiday, are being expunged from the agency just as ruthlessly as an ISIS raid on a Syrian Christian village.

While Baghdadi slaughters Christians, Devoy and the agency of which she is a patron must content themselves with the eradication of their memory, at least for now. 

The dreadful irony is that it is predominantly nations whose culture has been formed by a once robust Christianity that are prepared to take Muslim refugees and migrants.  Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, whose constitution, culture and ethos are informed by the Islamic sectarian intolerance that has created these refugees in the first place, refuse to help.

One of the reasons that the recent Paris attacks occurred, and that Britain has 3,000 domestic terrorists ready to do them harm, is their abject failure to integrate Muslim immigrants into their culture.

But what will they integrate into when we have politically correct multiculturalists like Susan Devoy and her agencies systematically cleansing all traces of the faith that shaped and formed our culture from our institutions?

How will immigrants know that it is better to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ (Luke 6:31) than it is to ‘kill the idolaters wherever you find them’ (9:5) unless our cultural markers, our festivals and holiday’s point to the faith that informs this narrative?

Has Susan Devoy stopped to ask herself why some people, religions and cultures are offended by expressions of Christianity?  Has she entertained the possibility that the fault may lie with them and not with us?  Could it be that they are the ones who need to change not us?

The implicit assumption in Devoy’s narrative is that it is only white liberals from western cultures who are capable of bigotry and intolerance.

By failing to confront immigrant communities with their own prejudices and historical hatreds, and by insisting that it is we, the host communities that must change, Devoy and her ilk actively increase the possibility of future conflict they apparently seek to avoid.

Do we really want to affirm without question the cultural and religious identity of an immigrant community that looks like those found in Paris, London, or even parts of Sydney?

Immigrant communities that Susan Devoy would prefer we didn’t offend with any mention of Christmas.

Friday, 20 November 2015

Having repudiated Christianity, will Europe be overtaken by an alien religious narrative?

Once we admit there is a link between Islam and terrorism, as British Prime Minister David Cameron has begun to do, then what?

If you are the Prime Minister of New Zealand, where we have approximately 40 Muslims on the SIS terrorist watch list it may mean one thing.  However if you are David Cameron where as the UK Express reports there are 3,000 Muslim extremists who are willing to carry out attacks in Britain, it may mean something else.

The number of extremists has grown by over 50% in Britain since 2007 when there were 2,000 suspects under surveillance.  All this growth, despite a decade of community outreach programs, state funding of anti-radicalisation initiatives, and assurances from Imam’s that they eschew violent jihad.

These are depressing statistics.  

It’s not just the thousands of violent jihadists who are willing to do harm, it is the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Britain who, while not willing to engage in violence themselves, provide theological, moral and financial support for jihadists who are.

It’s difficult to see how countries like Britain, France, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and very soon Germany, who have allowed large parallel Muslim societies to develop, many of whom are concentrated in the poorer suburbs and cities, can successfully navigate their way through this.

It’s not just the poverty and unemployment, it’s the narrative of victimhood played out daily in these suburbs and all too often reinforced by Imam’s Friday sermons.  All of this has combined to create a climate of resentment and even hatred for their host culture.  Compound this with resentment over the west’s involvement in the Middle East and you have a very toxic mix indeed.

The surprise is not that the Paris terrorist attacks happened; it’s that so few have taken place.

The events of Paris make it clear that we cannot surveillance our way out of this problem.  In addition, an informed public is less willing to treat each bloody atrocity as a ‘one off’ random event, unconnected to Islam and just coincidently perpetrated by Muslims.

Our politicians are increasingly being forced to pursue a fine line between expressing support for the significant majority of Muslims who genuinely reject violence, and taking meaningful punitive measures against those who embrace it.

Their task is not helped however by a Muslim community that despite its protestations to the contrary appears all too willing to give succor and shelter to those whose intentions are less honourable.  Why do they do this?

There are several reasons why there is not a wholesale ‘outing’ of the jihadists living in Britain, and attending mosques in New Zealand.  Chief amongst them are as follows:

      Isis is doing nothing their Prophet Mohammad didn’t do before them.  This makes it difficult for Imam's to critique the jihadists, when violent jihad is exampled by the life, teaching and acts of Mohammad.

       In the same way the Koran and Hadith also provide theological support for violent jihad.  This is why the Islamic scholars of Egypt are not prepared to call ISIS heretics. 

       What Imam is going to risk denouncing those in his congregation who are predisposed to violence when he knows they are supported by a substantial minority of his people?

       What Imam who has been preaching a narrative of victimhood and oppression of Muslims by the west is going to deliver up members of his congregation to the oppressors?  That isn’t going to happen.

If these problems appear insurmountable then you now understand why western politicians have been reluctant to acknowledge them.  Once admitted, as David Cameron has done, then not unreasonably the public expects action of some kind beyond basic surveillance, community outreach and an assortment of other 'feel good' State funded programs.

While the answers may be difficult to find, there are some actions that would appear to exacerbate rather than ease the problem.  Ongoing immigration from Middle Eastern and other Muslim countries might just be one of them.  However, for reasons best known to themselves, politicians appear unable or unwilling to connect those dots, and Muslim migration continues unabated.

On this basis it would appear that Britain and the Europe at least are heading into a century where religion rather than secularism is going to dominate the headlines.

We would do well therefore to brush up on both our Islamic and Christian theology so that we might better understand the options and the challenges that lie before us.  Least you think this absurd, we know that people with a religious faith, be it Muslims or believing Christians tend to have many more children than their secular counterparts who either have no children at all, or limit themselves to one or at most two.

Demographics alone will dictate that the 21st century is ultimately going to belong to those of religious faith.  The question is which one?

I have long suggested that secular pluralism is not a destination but a transition point in our cultural change.  It would be a tragedy indeed if Britain and Europe, having repudiated their Christian heritage found themselves overtaken by an historically alien and often violent religious narrative.

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

Europe and the decline of western civilisation - the big picture.

“Like the Roman Empire in the early 5th century, Europe has allowed its defenses to crumble. As its wealth has grown, so its military prowess has shrunk along with its self-belief. It has grown decadent in its malls and stadiums. At the same time, it has opened its gates to outsiders who have coveted its wealth without renouncing their ancestral faith.”

“Romans before the fall,” wrote Ward-Perkins, “were as certain as we are today that their world would continue for ever substantially unchanged. They were wrong. We would be wise not to repeat their complacency.”

                                                      Niall Ferguson (The Australian)

Several thousand years earlier another writer issued a similar warning to his people.  The parallels with post Christian Europe today are chilling.

For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, that flow out of valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey; a land in which you will eat bread without scarcity, in which you will lack nothing; a land whose stones are iron and out of whose hills you can dig copper.

When you have eaten and are full, then you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land which He has given you. “Beware that you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments, His judgments, and His statutes which I command you today, lest—when you have eaten and are full, and have built beautiful houses and dwell in them; and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and your gold are multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied; when your heart is lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God who brought you out from the house of bondage;  
Then you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gained me this wealth.’

Then it shall be, if you by any means forget the Lord your God, and follow other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish.

Most westerners today world would be shocked to realize how much public recognition was given by our civic leaders to our dependence upon God for our continued liberty and prosperity, as little as 150 years ago.

In 1863 Abraham Lincoln appointed a national day of prayer and fasting and in doing so wrote in part:

“And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”

‘The sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.’

Europe and the secular west has been living off the physical and social capital passed down from former generations who understood the truth of Lincoln’s words, and who both publically and privately acknowledged their dependence upon God.

That’s not to suggest all were Christians, they were not, but the Christian faith provided the Meta narrative that underpinned all of society.  It was the lens through which we understood good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice.  It reminded us of our own weakness and human frailty and our total dependence upon God for life and liberty.

Today much of Europe and the west have become absorbed by wealth, prosperity, leisure and comparative safety.  We have grown wise in our own eyes.  We have removed God from our schools, our institutions and our public discourse.

President Obama is not alone in this, but his initial campaign slogan of ‘Yes we can’ exemplifies the aspirations of a people and a nation who through their pride and self-reliance say: ‘we can do this by our own power and strength’. 

Even following the events of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in London and this year in Paris, no political leader has suggested that our defenses may be compromised because we have rejected Divine protection.  None have called for a day of repentance, prayer and fasting following the example of Abraham Lincoln. Instead they have declared that we will be stronger after these attacks; that our resolve has strengthened, that we will overcome and our values (whatever they may be) will endure.

When it comes to Divine providential care, God has left himself with very few levers to pull in order to get our attention.  He refuses to impose his will upon us, and has left us free to choose our own destiny.  Never the less, he has explained how things work through Scripture, and if we reject his council he tends to leave us to our own devices.

We should not be surprised therefore that we appear overwhelmed by dysfunction at every turn.   The wealth, power and security of the west is being challenged by the followers of a literalist 7th century ideology who care nothing for benefits of our civilization.

One culture has lost its sense of purpose and engagement with the transcendent; the other is prepared to sacrifice its children to the glories of a global caliphate.

You don’t have to be an Old Testament prophet to observe the trajectory of western civilization.  The question is what will it take to effect a turn around? The 21st century has been characterised by our trusting in our own wisdom and strength.  Are we yet ready to admit that it is insufficient for the days in which we live?

Is the Internet really the only source of Muslim radicalisation?

We have long been fed the narrative that Islamic radicalization in the west is happening ‘because of the Internet’.  That young Muslims are being influenced by youtube videos that present a ‘distorted’ version of Islam propagated by ISIS.  While the FBI has nearly 1,000 active terrorist investigations running concurrently in the USA, is it reasonable to lay the blame on the Internet alone?

How is it possible that devout Muslims who regularly attend their local Mosque can be swayed by the violent theology of ISIS, when they are presented with a peaceful theology every week?

Is it possible that local Mosque’s are not the bastions of peaceful coexistence that Susan Devoy and our politicians would like us to believe?  There is clear evidence that the only two New Zealanders who have been killed fighting for the Islamic State were introduced to radical Islam at a Christchurch Mosque.

The Internet was not to blame for the radicalisation of these two men.

Australian broadcaster and media commentator Andrew Bolt has provided the following text of a sermon preached by an Imam at a French mosque just hours before the Paris slaughter.  Clearly not all Mosques are seed beds of radicalisation, but should they all get a free pass in the name of multicultural political correctness?  Is what we see at the public relations open days held during Islam awareness week, the whole story?


A Muslim lives in his society, but is expected not to care about what happens in the Islamic world, not to care about the sufferings of his Muslim brethren. A Muslim in our times is expected to be disconnected from his Islamic identity and Muslim brethren. Well, this is inconceivable…

Yet a Muslim is expected to see all that is done to his Muslim brethren around the world and to do nothing. Is this reasonable? Is this reasonable?!…

How can I call myself a Muslim, if I do nothing when I see my Muslim brother suffering injustice? What kind of Islam is this?! ... Animals have rights, but Muslims do not?!…

Have I no rights?! Or perhaps, oh advanced Westerners with your control and your hegemony, you believe that a Muslim is not a human being? This is one of many questions. It is peculiar indeed to see the world up in arms when one person in the West is killed, while the blood of Muslims is shed [non-stop]: the Rohingya people, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Yemen, Egypt, Libya… Muslim blood… Civil wars… Sectarian wars… Russia flexes its muscles in Syria, and uses the most powerful weapons against the Syrian people. 

The Syrian land has become a testing ground. Anyone who has a new weapon or a new ideology that he wants to test takes them to Syria or Iraq. They test not only weapons on us Muslims, but also their theories and their ideologies. When the idea of ‘constructive anarchy’ or ‘creative anarchy’ emerged, it was tested in Iraq. What does ‘creative anarchy’ mean? An anarchy that creates what we want, and tears Iraq to pieces the way we want. They called it ‘constructive anarchy’ or ‘creative anarchy.’ This is the reality of the Muslims today....

I swear by Allah that they want a flag to fly over this mosque. They want it to belong to some country or another. This is what they want. They want national affairs to interfere with our religion. Why? That is the question. What do they want this for? The better to rip us apart. I am not saying that [they want] to keep us in check. Allah be praised, a Muslim does not need anyone to teach him to abide by the law. We heed the law, Allah be praised. Our religion teaches us the law, and we respect the law. But they want to control us so that we won’t awaken from our slumber, because the Muslim is a sleeping giant, and if he awakens, woe betide anyone around, because he will restore glory to humanity. They don’t want the Muslim giant to awaken, and in order to prevent that, they cut off his limbs one by one – a hand here, a leg over there, and the head somewhere else. They do this by means of flags, nationalities, borders, and tribes....

Anyone who hates a Muslim anywhere can affront him, sanction his killing, murder him, curse him, and so on. They even legislate laws as they see fit, and no one prevents this. As long as this has to do with the Muslims, you can legislate whatever law you want....

According to scientific statistics, all the institutions in charge of human rights groups are Zionist.... These groups strive to corrupt society, rather than empowering it and protecting its unity. They strive to fragment society....

We want our children to penetrate the political realm in the West. We want this. We dream of seeing our children become ministers and dignitaries, and even presidents. Why not? We want them to rule France one day, to rule Belgium, Germany, and Britain. Why not? This is possible. But don’t confuse matters. You will never get [your children] there through the means of Islam. No. you must get them there through their [Western] rules, not yours. If you play by your own rules, you will never get there....

Oh Allah, support Islam and the Muslims, humiliate polytheism and the polytheists, and allow the banner of Truth and Islam to fly high. Support your servants, the mujahideen everywhere, oh Lord of Mankind. Oh Allah, grant success to whoever wishes well to Islam and the Muslims, and if anyone wishes evil upon Islam – make it turn against him.

As Andrew Bolt reflects “that lethal victimology, that paranoia, that Jew-hatred.  Is now preached in the heart of the societies that Muslims are told wish to destroy them.”

If Muslims wish to coexist peacefully in pluralistic western democracies, they need to challenge the narrative of victimhood that is even present amongst our Muslim community here in New Zealand.  As I pointed out recently this narrative was all too evident in the statement of 'support' shown to the victims of Paris by our local Muslim leadership:

Likewise, Asif Koya, president of the International Muslim Association of New Zealand, also slammed the tragic news - fearing widespread and indiscriminate recoil on the Islamic community.

"I'm sure Muslim's in France will be affected and I wish them well for the pressure they will come under," Koya said.

As long as Muslim leadership see western society as ‘the problem’ they are not about to integrate with it, or embrace our values.  We need our politicians and leaders to challenge them on this, not simply engage in obsequious pandering and unqualified messages of support.