THE WAR ON TERROR

In her statement following the latest act of Islamist terrorism in England, Theresa May pointed out that the police had managed to shoot all three of the terrorists dead within eight minutes of the start of the attacks. Even so seven people were killed and another forty-eight were hospitalized due to their wounds, some of which were very serious. The attackers had randomly attacked people with knives and had tried to slit people's throats.

As previously, May paid tribute to the police and emergency services. She praised the courage of those members of the general public who had 'defended themselves and others from the attackers', and that, naturally, 'our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and with their friends, families and loved ones'.

May pointed out that this was the third terrorist attack in Britain in the last three months, and also revealed that the 'intelligence agencies and police had disrupted five credible plots since the Westminster attack in March'. In other words only around 60% of terrorist activities were foiled. The other 40% continued.

May acknowledged that 'terrorism breeds terrorism', with the terrorists copying one another. Therefore, she said, 'Things need to change' in 'four important ways'. First there was a need to defeat the 'evil ideology of Islamist extremism' which is 'a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth', and which rejected 'Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights' as being 'incompatible with the religion of Islam'. May said this 'will only be defeated' by 'turning people's minds away from this violence' and convincing them that 'pluralistic, British values are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate'.

Second, May said that there was a need 'to work with allied, democratic governments' to 'reach international agreements' to 'regulate cyberspace' to thwart the extremism. There was a need to 'reduce the risks of extremism online' at home. The flaw in this globalist response is obvious; as if the internet is the sole preserve of 'allied, democratic governments'.

         

Third, the internet 'safe spaces' were also accompanied such places in 'the real world'. May therefore believed that we need more 'military action to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria', and also a need to be 'far more robust in identifying and stamping out' extremism in Britain 'across the public sector and across society'. She believed that this would 'require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations', but that the whole country needed to 'come together to take on this extremism', and that 'we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom'.

Fourth, May said there should be a review of the 'counter-terrorism strategy' to keep pace with the changing nature of the terrorist threat. This might entail more powers for the police and security services, and possible stiffer prison sentences for 'even apparently less serious offences'.

May said that 'enough is enough' and that 'when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism, things need to change'. She concluded that 'As a country, our response must be as it has always been when we have been confronted by violence. We must come together, we must pull together, and united we will take on and defeat our enemies.'  

The English Rights Campaign is unimpressed. Despite the superficial appearance of a recognition of the need for change, what the four proposals involve is more of the same. The tolerance of Islamist extremism will continue under the May Government.

The first proposal, once again, is an assertion that what is needed is the defeat of a 'perversion of Islam' by somehow convincing those who might be supposedly radicalized that they should prefer British values; that is that they should accept the laws of infidels to the word of Allah. This is a cop out. The historical fact, and the fact of the creed of Islam, is that there is a sizeable minority of Muslims who believe in killing those they regard as infidels. Islam is a supremacist creed. It has been spread historically by war and conquest. The extremists, who interpret the creed of Islam literally, will not be convinced that Western democracy is preferable. We have not been troubled in the past by such people because they were in their own countries and not in the West. But now, the British government, as well as other countries across the West, is positively seeking out new Muslim immigrants to bring in. It is the policy of mass immigration that is responsible for the terrorism and the May Government has absolutely no intention of ending that policy.

The second proposal is a globalist response, coupled with a restatement of a long-standing determination to monitor and control the internet. The concept of people being radicalized on the internet presumes that those people are victims who have been led astray by others, and therefore are not responsible for their own actions. This ignores that the extremist strand of Islam is inherent.

The third proposal is a restatement of a commitment to take military action in the Middle East, as well as an assertion that there are 'separated, segregated communities' which need to be integrated. This supposed call for integration is a deviation from a particular interpretation of muliticulturalism, but as the English Rights Campaign has pointed out repeatedly (for example, The English Rights Campaign item dated the 5^th October 2005), this is merely a policy for more anti-English ethnic cleansing in England. This is a perversion itself.

The fourth proposal was a predictable call for more powers for the police and security services and stiffer sentences.

At no stage did May commit to discontinue the Royal Navy's people smuggling activities in the Mediterranean. Nor was there any commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act or to withdraw from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, despite the harm caused by these two instruments. There was no commitment to secure Britain's borders against illegal immigrants or jihadists, or end the policy of mass immigration. The immigrants, legal or not, will continue to flood in. Underlying the May response was a total failure to acknowledge that we cannot reform Islam, nor is it our responsibility to do so. The immigrant communities, in particular the Muslim communities, have not assimilated, and those immigrants who are hostile towards our society should be ejected. Those who are violent in any sense should certainly be thrown out at once.

It is not the case that we have to keep politely asking the Islamists to stop their hostility and violence, and that it is only when we have persuaded them to be nice to us that peace will be restored. History shows that it is impossible for radical Islam to coexist peacefully with other cultures.