#violence

Is Tommy Robinson in the minority with a #2 rank book on Amazon?

IMG_0711.PNG

There is no moral equivalence to be drawn here with this latest attack outside Finsbury mosque in London. Innocent people were mown down by a van driven by someone filled with rage and hate. Social media is already screaming “bigot, racist, terrorist, anti-Muslim, radical” but there is a much bigger point not being addressed. The social boiling point is being reached much more rapidly than the media will admit.  Tommy Robinson was accused across social media for inspiring anti-Muslim rhetoric and fueling this person to commit the crime. His tweets matched his long standing convictions and predictions. Perhaps everyone who has bought Tommy’s book “Enemy of the State”  (ranked #2 book on Amazon UK, #131 in Canada and #2375 in America & now $350 on paperback) could be a risk of commiting such acts if that is the generalization. Of course it is nonsense. By the measure of the sales success perhaps his views maybe more mainstream than the negative ‘extreme’ moniker that is often hurled at him.

Could it be argued that a growing number of people are growing sick and tired of random jihadi attacks and see this book as a guide on how the government isn’t  handling the problem? That was not a intended to be a fact checking laced comment rather pointing out that many people potentially share his supposed ‘patriotic’ view as demonstrated by the commerciality of his writing. This is no longer a pure jihadi problem but one that is now likely to become tit-for-tat terrorism which carries far more negative connotations.

Think beyond the all too common propensity to push prejudices by lashing out on social media with little thought to trying to understand the full arguments of alternative views. Do we take a book review from apologists as fact when most of those have probably never read his book cover to cover? I am reading it because I want to form my own judgement rather than rely on others’ bias. He has strong views but no better way than self vetting. I’ve read Mein Kampf in what must be the most appalling book ever written – grammatically and content-wise. For one whose family escaped the deaths camps of Poland, trying to understand the ravings of Hitler brought added perspective to the horror although some might conclude reading it is an endorsement. It is not.

Innocents are dead or injured in this attack on Fisnbury Park Mosque. If indeed Tommy has a minority view, most people wouldn’t buy his book. Are all the people that buy it racist? Even if one thinks they are then even more reason to say that the government’s current pandering to political correctness won’t solve these hate fueled events whether radical jihadis or right (left?) wing nutters. Do violent video games incite massacres? Are all ‘Brexiters’ a carbon copy of the man who murdered Labour politician Jo Cox days before the referendum?  Do we need to bring in Islamophobic legislation like Canada (Bill M-103) to shut down people expressing concern? No, No and No. Current policy approaches are having the opposite effect as this attack proves.

At the time of the Manchester bombing I warned that vigilantism would be an ugly side effect of endless political correctness. Coincidentally Robinson suggested similar views about the rise of vigilantes after that post in a vlog. Wasting a lot of time on what  motivated the driver to commit such a terrible crime is not necessary. It is obvious. It is a revenge attack. This is highly likely to be a person screaming out for something to be done about a problem he obviously doesn’t think is being handled properly by elected officials. He probably viewed himself as a vigilante even if that title might be an overreach in this instance.  This in no way defends his despicable actions. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter was often used by IRA sympathisers. Still it doesn’t in anyway condone killing or maiming innocents, no matter what ideology, faith, race or background they come from. It is plain awful. The majority of people would agree with that view.

Revenge attacks and reprisals only exacerbate a rapidly deteriorating relationship. However trying to say the perpetrator proves that not all such attacks are driven by radical Islam doesn’t address the core of the problem. The majority of good people (note a deliberate statement not to go down the identity politics line) want an end to innocent deaths at the hands of extremists but if free speech and the ability to tackle radicalism (wherever it lies) aren’t openly addressed these events will sadly continue. It should be totally in the interests of the majority of ‘good’ Muslims (I detest that phraseology) to want to stop radicals from collectivising their faith with what they perceive is the wrong interpretation. Common sense would say they are the most important link in the chain to weed out those who want to kill in the name of Allah. They need to be front and centre of the debate.

What the UK government (and other governments) have created is a monster of their own making. Candles, flowers, lit monuments, avatars, expressions of sympathy and ‘love conquers hate’ posts dodge the need to have a serious debate on the problem. Now we have seen first hand a real openly targeted revenge attack in the UK, people need less sanctimonious posturing on social media and focus their energies on truly understanding what is at stake. That is to ditch the liberal hand-wringing and have an open debate on the problem. Robinson’s book isn’t selling in the volumes it is by chance. Politicians should pay attention to this trend. It is not about arguing about whether he is right or wrong but noting the simmering underbelly of a growing number of people fed up with inaction. This is the end of the beginning not the beginning of the end.

4 things that struck me including lightning that attacked the wrong Bolt

IMG_9130.JPG

4 things struck me this week about the depths we are allowing our society to plunge to. Reading much of the social media feeds it seems more people are prepared to defend the indefensible. That people are happy for the state to put forward bills that take away more freedoms, some who complain at the correct application of asylum policy and some willing to resort to physical violence on those who merely express free speech because they can’t win the debate in the marketplace for open debate.

1) All week we have been subject to the news in the aftermath of the London terror attack. If anything the tide seems to be shifting toward those that are wanting a more heavy handed response. The argument that the majority are peaceful Muslims is a reason to go soft on the violent minority is preposterous. Yet politicians including Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten, think words like “Islamic” are mutually exclusive alongside “extremist” or “terrorist.”

Whether one wants to debate the Quran verse for verse to justify separating these words is irrelevant. When such people scream in crazed tones about “Allah” as they carry out their evil deeds their interpretation is crystal clear. Some truly think that we win acceptance from those supporting caliphates by denying our own identity. Why give up on our culture for those beings who have no interests in enjoying the freedoms we provide much less reciprocating our kindness? Moreover the fate of most jihadists is generally so short they aren’t around long enough to benefit from our weakness.

It’s getting ever more ridiculous too. Countries  like Canada passed M-103 to ban Islamophobia forgoing every opportunity to include other religions by name. Germany now fines people who express concerns on social media over such Islamic extremism. Who could forget the cover up on rapes and sexual assault in Cologne on New Years Eve in 2016? Instead of taking a zero tolerance approach to the problem, honest citizens are gagged and threatened for raising a concerned voice because it is politically more acceptable.

I’ve just been in Victoria where a jihadi, who had terrorist links, murdered someone while on parole the other day. He died in the encounter. Instead of the Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews admitting fault for allowing him to roam the streets he turned the shortcomings of his own state’s legal decision making process into a blame game on the federal government for not dictating more powers over such rulings using the intelligence of ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. Well he has access to all that information and cooperation from these bodies yet still decided to let a jihadi out in general population. For a Premier that relishes government control over almost everything, how ironic that he tries to pass the buck when it is about subjects that may offend his voter base. Lame.

2) Ontario – how can people sit there and accept a law which allows the government to take children away from parents who refuse to accept their child’s gender identity or expression? Perhaps the parents should be tortured for good measure? If any parent was confronted with such a discussion with their kids most would be very concerned and want to be absolutely sure of the reasons behind such a decision. My kids have changes of mind over what they want for dinner. If dealing with sexual identity or expression most parents would naturally want to investigate the facts of why their child would seek to switch genders. It’s not just common sense but hard on parents too. It’s a serious topic. If we’re going to allow children to be able to overrule their parents on such decisions about their body, why not let them vote or drive at age 9? This is not saying they don’t have a voice. Why not suggest family counseling to help parents and children better understand the situation rather than threaten to snatch their kids for non compliance? Totalitarianism anyone?

Don’t forget that no matter what, parents are legally responsible for their kids. They have the stresses when they are sick, when they break bones in a park, come home late without phoning in, not to mention putting them thru schools, pay down a mortgage and so on. I wonder how many of the Ontario lawmakers are parents themselves?

3) I attended a speech given by the Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton earlier this week. Get Up had decided in its infinite wisdom to protest and try to prevent the forum. Instead of allowing others to express different views they wanted to shut it down in fine totalitarian fashion. Dutton gets a lot of rough treatment in the press although he is one of the few conservatives left in the Liberal Party. It’s a tough portfolio because opinions are so divided. His department cancelling the visas of seven Iranians who claimed asylum on grounds their lives were in danger only to be caught flying back to Iran for holidays. Not only did they deliberately lie to the government authorities and Aussie taxpayers they schemed our highly valued citizenship inappropriately. It doesn’t matter what race or ethnicity applicants are, we shouldn’t tolerate those scamming the system. We still have 5,000 asylum seekers who refuse to give up their identity or background. They have a deadline this year to do that but most are still refusing. What do they have to hide? Surely they’ve come here as a safe haven and if they’re truly escaping danger their stories should check out. Otherwise one has to assume they’re here illegitimately. Is this the image of a future model citizen? Is citizenship to be given away like confetti or is it a privilege worth cherishing? Yet all we hear is racist, bigot or worse if we raise any objection, sometimes with violent repercussions. The government has fast tracked the visas of 700 Yazidi women who have seen the males in their households murdered in front of them while they’ve been raped and made sex slaves by their medieval ISIS captors. Women from the Dept of Immigration have volunteered to go to these hot zones to accelerate their evacuation. So for all the flak Dutton cops, where are the feminists and progressives applauding such humanitarianism? They only want to focus on the gripes, red tape and protests to hinder the department’s efficiency to process the needy versus the selfish.

4) Which brings up the final strike. Conservative news columnist and TV presenter Andrew Bolt was physically attacked by leftist protesters yesterday for no other reason than to shut him down. Not only did he admirably defend himself in the unprovoked attack several media outlooks tried to turn it against him, suggesting he was a party to it. I’m sorry but what a slur. First, they were protesting his long held beliefs. I can guarantee you wouldn’t find Andrew Bolt initiating violence much less plotting to attend and disrupt a book signing event of a Marxist author. One he fervently believes in  free speech and secondly wouldn’t waste his time going out of his way to attend it. If these bullies of free speech can’t win an argument in the market place of open debate one has to assume their position is fatally weak to begin with. Having to ambush and spray glitter at a person who has completely fair and defendable positions is frankly pathetic. I dare them to ask to go on his show and debate their positions vs his. They would be forced to turn the glitter gun on themselves to hide their embarrassment one would imagine.

Be thankful we have people like Andrew Bolt not afraid to stand up for their beliefs. That stunt yesterday only makes Andrew Bolt look more right. At the same time all they’ve really done is kick an own goal by drawing even more attention to his number one rated blog, editorials, TV and radio programmess while they’ve attracted the attention of the North Melbourne Police.