Extremism

Government to establish ‘Commission for Countering Extremism’ – Be afraid. Be very afraid

“A commission for countering extremism will be established to support the government in stamping out extremist ideology in all its forms, both across society and on the internet, so it is denied a safe space to spread,” the Queen announced in her speech this week to the assembled Commons and Lords and the State Opening of Parliament. And following the recent spate of terrorist atrocities in Manchester and across London, there is manifest virtue in the proposal. But there is also danger. Everyone knows that the real problem is Islamic extremism (aka Islamism), but for every 50 of those attacks we seem to get deflected by the odd ‘neo-Nazi’ stabbing of an MP to death, or a ‘right wing’ ploughing of a white van into a crowd of Muslims. It’s all extremism, so there must be absolute equivalence. Hence the government’s focus is not on Islamic extremism, but on extremist ideology “in all its forms”. That’s nice and equitable; less Islamophobic and prejudiced.

Remember this?

Alastair Campbell extremist tweet

Alastair Campbell, former head of communications at No.10 (so by no means naive on the use of social media), tweeted this in the wake of the London Bridge attack, straight after a speech delivered by Theresa May in which she said Britain is too tolerant of Islamist ideology. His message was clear: Brexit and Jihad are derived from the same fount of extremism; supporters of both are extremists, if not terrorists; a mass political movement for democracy and sovereignty is no different from murderous suicide bombers and machete-wielding fanatics. If a newspaper thinks differently from Alastair Campbell on the subject of Brexit, it is jihadist.

He deleted this two hours later, saying: “Previous tweet deleted. Agreed it was over the top. But was genuinely angry at Mrs May’s speech which was highly political and ill judged.”

So his rage clouded his judgment.

He isn’t alone, of course:

Ashdown Brexit Brownshirts

Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, believes that Brexit-supporting Conservatives are basically Nazis, and there ought to be no place for such right-wing extremism in our tolerant, respectful liberal democracy. Lord Ashdown has not repented of this tweet: he meant it and still means it. If you think differently from him, you are murdering six million Jews.

Intelligent and thoughtful ‘right-wing’ journalists and authors such as Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips are routinely demonised by the ‘love must overcome hate’ community. Speaking on the BBC, Miqdaad Versi, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, called Murray a ‘hate preacher’ who should not be allowed to speak in public; there is no place for such Islamophobe extremists on the BBC. The BBC then went on to interview Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission. He, too, called Murray (along with Maajid Nawaz) a ‘hate preacher’ who must be silenced. Neither was in the studio to defend themselves against the defamation: Murray was given no right of reply.

The BBC subsequently apologised for the slander.

But in the hours, days or weeks and months between an allegation of extremism and the retraction (or tortuous libel action through the courts), the smear of ‘hate preacher’ and ‘far-right extremist’ has been trumpeted by Mehdi Hasan and RT’d around the world thousands of times. The sharing caring left is attempting to shut down all rational analysis of the most pressing disputes of the age. You can be pro-LGBT rights, pro-drug decriminalisation, pro-women’s rights, pro-minority rights and classically liberal on pretty much everything, but if you feel that immigration is too high or there’s a problem within Islam, you’re a xenophobe and Islamophobe. And if you dare articulate your views publicly, you’re a right-wing supremacist hate preacher and extremist.

And the government is intent on stamping out extremist ideology in all its forms.

Yet the Christian vocation is to be radical for Jesus: all true Christians are extremists, for the gospel of Christ is extreme; the wages of sin is offensive.

Theresa May has form which ought to concern us greatly, from her proposed Investigatory Powers Bill to her impulse to establish a National Register of Faith Leaders. The state orthodoxy of ‘British values‘ is likely to form the basis of the definitional touchstone by which extremist ideology is discerned, and so anything that is judged to be ‘intolerant’ or ‘disrespectful’ becomes extremist, no matter how peaceful and moderate the author or speaker may be.

Some mosques and madrassas are clearly a problem, but to mitigate allegations of Islamophobia Sunday schools must also be inspected, and any which teach that marriage is between a man and a woman will be judged extremist and shut down, for this is as bad as jihad. Churches which exercise discrimination “veiled as religious conservatism” are manifestly anti-equalities and so extremist and will be shut down. If you think abortion is murder, you’re misogynist and extremist. If you think homosexuality is a sin, you’re a homophobe and extremist. If you think Jesus is the only path to salvation, you’re a bigot and extremist. If you think Islam needs to address Islamism, you’re racist and extremist. The zeitgeist is tolerance, respect, salvific multifaith ecumenism and moral relativity. If you transgress this new infallible orthodoxy, someone somewhere will shriek ‘hate’, the police will descend, interrogate the offender and log the ‘hate crime’ with zeal. It is happening already.

One man’s incisive reasoning is another woman’s ‘hate’. One man’s extremism is another man’s orthodox belief. Subjectivity reigns: perception is all. You cannot both stamp out extremist ideology in all its forms and sustain freedom of religion: one must give way to the other. The path is set. It is time to put on the whole armour of God.

  • You can be pro-LGBT rights, pro-drug decriminalisation, pro-women’s rights, pro-minority rights and classically liberal on pretty much everything, but if you feel that immigration is too high or there’s a problem within Islam, you’re a xenophobe and Islamophobe

    In essence, it has been decided to do away with white Christian nations. Everything that held them together—from racial and religious homogeneity to patriotism and the traditional family—is bad and everything that weakens them—such as mass immigration, Islam and the promotion of homosexuality—is good. It cannot have escaped Your Grace’s notice which side your own party has taken.

    • Yes the unmentioned problem here is the British Government’s own extremism. Mass immigration, population replacement, open borders, denial of the existence or value of your own culture and people, gay marriage, suppression of dissent, suppression of criticism of Islam… we now live under the most extremist regime we have ever experienced, one apparently bent on cultural suicide.

      • Albert

        More extreme than the Tudors?

        • Or Cromwell?

          • Albert

            Possible, but he was less successful and less far-reaching. England was already Protestant by then, but the Tudors introduced foreign religion, imposed it, and somehow got away with the idea that this is what Englishness is all about. you only have to look at our architecture to see it isn’t.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Christianity is obviously a foreign religion unless you live in Israel. In a way it is a foreign religion wherever you live because it originated not in the Holy Land but in Heaven.

          • Manfarang

            It originated in the Roman Empire.

          • Royinsouthwest

            No, as I said it has its origins in Heaven. The existence of the Roman Empire with its good transport links, two widely understood languages in Greek and Latin, a form of law and order in most parts, helped it to spread.

          • Manfarang

            The Mandate of Heaven

          • betteroffoutofit

            “Render unto Caesar. . . ” So that’s OK, then. NOTHING is Caesar’s; everything is God’s.

          • Albert

            Far point, but I don’t think that the arrival of Catholicism was accompanied by a propaganda campaign to suggest that England hadn’t always been pagan.

          • Anton

            Catholicism arrived in 597AD with Augustine of Canterbury. There was already a Christian church in much of the British Isles.

          • Albert

            Catholicism arrived when Christianity arrived. You don’t think Alban thought he was a Protestant do you?

          • Anton

            I don’t think he thought he was a Roman Catholic either!

          • Albert

            He thought he was both.

          • Anton

            Not with capital letters.

          • Albert

            Well I don’t know, depends what you mean.

          • Anton

            He thought he was a Christian. He would never have used catholic and orthodox as nouns to describe himself, but only adjectives.

          • Albert

            How do you know and what makes you so sure that isn’t how we take the term?

          • Anton

            Because he considered that there were no alternatives.

          • Albert

            How fortunate.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Yes … the Romans brought it. They adduced literacy for administrative purposes, and Christians ran the schools.

          • Anton

            Plenty of foreign architecture around, much of it the legacy of ancient Greece.

            Christianity is a foreign religion everywhere but Israel !

          • betteroffoutofit

            Right! Multi-cultural it is 🙂

          • Granted. The very idea of a Church of England is peculiar too, given the Church is Universal.

            “Fisher and More (went) to their deaths for freedom of religion, and for the rights of the individual against those of the over-mighty state, victims of Tudor totalitarianism …”

            http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/06/22/thomas-more-and-john-fisher-two-saints-who-died-for-the-integrity-of-the-catholic-church/

          • Anton

            Fisher undoubtedly did, and has my respect. Thomas More can be debated. Your critique of the Church ‘of’ England would apply also to Eastern Orthodox churches (Greek, Russian etc), of course.

          • betteroffoutofit

            What “foreign religion”? We’d been chafing against RCism since the 1300s at least (cf. Chaucer, Langland, Wyclif and the Lollards). And, of course, they’d had their probs with us during (and before) the 11th century, or Papacito Alexander II wouldn’t have had grounds for backing Billie Bastard.

          • Albert

            What “foreign religion”?

            Protestantism is a Franco-German import.

            We’d been chafing against RCism since the 1300s at least (cf. Chaucer, Langland, Wyclif and the Lollards).

            Just because there are a variety of complaints against Catholicism, doesn’t mean that England wanted to overthrow the faith. The veneer of victors’ history has well and truly been undermined by real evidence. After all, faithful Catholics complain about Catholic leadership now. It doesn’t mean all Catholics are chafing against the Church.

          • betteroffoutofit

            1. “Protestantism is a Franco-German import” – I dispute that as stated above. In some senses, you could say that Anglo-Saxon establishment of RC-ism was also – simply because Anglo-Saxon kings did it. According to Bede, Aethelbert (AD560-616) accepted Gregory’s Augustine because he (Aethelbert) wanted to please his “Frankish wife” (Bede I.25). The other biggie, of course, was that the Anglian kings wanted the literacy so as to establish a written law code. Indeed, Aethelbert produced a law code in English (Bede II.5), the only surviving copy of which is in the twelfth-century Textus Roffensis, the oldest known document in English*. But you see, they adapted that code to English purposes: not vice versa. That’s what the Tudors did too.

            2. We didn’t overthrow the Faith. We protested against it’s misuse and sought to reform it. That’s why Cranmer’s original work is based on RC-ism, and why the Bibles remain based on Jerome (and other ancient MSS).

            What we did reject was government by foreign powers.

            ______________________________
            **The text, Rochester Cathedral Library, MS A.3.5, was still in Kent County Record Office, Maidstone, in 1991

          • Albert

            1. I’m being slightly facetious of course about the foreignness – though at the time it was clearly foreign and plainly alien to the English culture. If you want to make the same point about the arrival of Catholicism in 6th Century, I have no objection to that – although I would point out that England did not exist at the time and my complaint against the Tudors was their deliberate air-brushing of English history to suit themselves. The fact that Catholic laws are adapted locally is not evidence of chafing against Catholicism – it is evidence that local variation is not chafing against Catholicism, since local variation is legitimate.

            We didn’t overthrow the Faith.

            Yes you did.

            What we did reject was government by foreign powers.

            But for the Church, the state is a foreign power. Just look at the royal supremacy and the logic of it. In his own words:

            Cranmer: “Every king in his own realm and dominion is supreme head, and so he was supreme head of the church of Christ in England.”

            Martin: “Is this always true, and was it ever so in Christ’s church?”

            Cranmer: “It was so”.

            Martin: “Then what say you by Nero … Was he head of Christ’s church?”

            Cranmer: “Nero was Peter’s head.”

            Martin: “Then he that beheaded the heads of the church, and crucified the apostles, was head of Christ’s church … by your newfound understanding of God’s Word!”

            The only question to ask is which is more important to you, your English nationalism or your Christianity.

          • Anton

            Cranmer – dare I say it on this blog – was wrong in his inference that “Every king in his own realm and dominion is supreme head, and so he was supreme head of the church of Christ in England.”

            Christ was clear that where Caesar’s realm overlaps with the kingdom of heaven, the latter is more authoritative.

          • Albert

            Quite. Of all the ideas to come out of the Protestant Reformation, the Royal Supremacy is among the least biblical – and there’s stiff opposition for that title!

          • Anton

            Yes, hierarchy is nasty stuff.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Thank you so much for the permission to mention some of the Christian founders of England!

            Æðelbryht (-berht) was King of Kent; the Christianity he helped introduce was an important root in what would become England, and it would help develop English language/literacy as we know it (or rather, have known it).

            As for the Tudors – let’s not forget that they descended in part from (Norman) John of Gaunt’s illegitimate line. The other part of their heritage was Welsh. However, this is not the time and place to argue the details of their contribution to English history, particularly as we stand on opposing sides of the argument.
            _______________________
            “We didn’t overthrow the Faith.”
            “Yes you did.”
            “No we didn’t” — Henry became Head of the Church in England, and we retained our Faith on our own terms.
            Just because you want foreign potentates to tell you how to believe and think doesn’t mean that I have to want it too.

            In fact, I posit that as rather an important point to make on this thread and in this situation.
            We should not waste an eternity on arguing about whether or not I can be a Christian if I refuse to kowtow to an alien Papacito — when the immediate problem is how to recoup British sovereignty from the euSSR and the Mozzies. Both of those are the Enemy: they declare themselves Anti-Christian.

            Deliberately or otherwise, you’re playing into that Enemy’s never-ending tactic of “Divide and Conquer.” On my Christianity, I submit myself to Christ’s Judgement – not yours . . . .

            So can we please just get on and deal with the Enemy?

          • Albert

            Thank you so much for permission to mention some of the Christian founders of England!

            What on earth are you talking about?

            You did overthrow the faith (or part of it), because Protestantism is a human innovation.

            You may want foreign potentates to take everything from all Britons, and to tell you how to believe and think; that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t mean that I have to want it too.

            I don’t want foreign potentates, but by being part of the Church, I recognise, as Pentecost demonstrates, that I am part of something bigger than my own country and culture.

            Deliberately or otherwise, you’re playing into that Enemy’s never-ending tactic of “Divide and Conquer.”

            Errrr….division and Protestantism go together like three sides of a triangle.

            On my Christianity, however, I submit myself to Christ’s Judgement – not yours . . . .

            As do I.

        • There does seem something unprecedentedly extreme about denying the existence of your own people and engineering their replacement with a bizarre and ungovernable patchwork of the nations.

          • Albert

            The denial of English history and culture was exactly what went on in the English Reformation. At a time in which Christendom was being attacked by Islam, Englishmen became so detached from the Christendom that everyone had taken for granted for a millennium, that they started trading with the Ottomans – such was the re-writing of their own history.

          • Anton

            And Francis I of France cut a deal with the Ottomans against the Holy Roman Emperor.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Yes. And, of course, we fought off the Spaniards as well ….

          • Anton

            We governed such a patchwork pretty well in the 19th century, but there not here.

        • Royinsouthwest

          No doubt you are thinking of “Bloody” Mary Tudor?

          • Albert

            I was thinking of the re-writing of English history, in which Horrid Henry and Bloody Bess are the main culprits.

      • @ Will Jones—we now live under the most extremist regime we have ever experienced

        Regrettably, the people keep returning extremist/treasonous parties to Westminster. Writing under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus, Trump adviser Mike Anton said last year: ‘We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.’

      • betteroffoutofit

        Yes. Again – re the ‘Opening of Parliament’ this year. Contrary to custom: HM didn’t wear her crown; and I’ve noted some criticism of the hat she wore in its place – which in colour and its use of gold ‘buttons’ resembled/echoed the euSSR’s rag.

        Maybe we shouldn’t criticize. Maybe we should read her message to us as: “Here I am, reading a speech by a government that is run by a foreign power; we are no longer a sovereign nation, and they’re not going to let us take back our own crown and constitution.” “MY/her” government it is not; it is the euSSR’s.

        In further support – note the behaviour of TM and Corbyniski as they processed (mentioned in an earlier post).

    • Lucius

      In 1965, the U.S. first opened the door to mass immigration from non-European, non-First World countries. The U.S. at the that time was a relatively homogeneous country with a strong cultural and governing consensus. Below are predictions of the (non) impacts immigration liberalization would have by its chief proponents. These predictions placated the American people. However, as you will gather, the liberals were absolutely wrong on every point. Indeed, immigration liberalization had precisely the opposite effect of those predicted by its liberal supporters. Now we have growing racial and cultural balkanization and a body politic that has lost any semblance of a governing consensus.

      “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” – Sen. E. Kennedy (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

      “This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the numbers of newcomers permitted to come to America. Indeed, this measure provides for an increase of only a small fraction in permissible immigration.” – Attorney General N. Katzenbach(U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, p.8.)

      “Contrary to the opinions of some of the misinformed, this legislation does not open the floodgates.” – Sen. C. Pell (Congressional Record, Sept. 20, 1965, p. 24480.)

      The present estimate, based upon the best information we can get, is that there might be, say, 8,000 immigrants from India in the next five years … I don’t think we have a particular picture of a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States … There is not a general move toward the United States.” – Sec’y of State D. Rusk (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, p.65.).

      • @ Lucius—Chapter 7 (PDF here) of The Culture of Critique deals with US immigration policy from the 19th century to the demolition of the floodgates. On pp 269-70, a voice from a lost world, Representative William N Vaile speaking in 1924:

        ‘What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.’

        • Lucius

          I am an ethnic “mutt,” like many Americans, primarily Mediterranean and Eastern European, but I have no hesitation in acknowledging that I am a beneficiary of an Anglo-Saxon created system of social institutions and norms. Nor do I want that system to be fundamentally altered. It’s a good thing. When my great grandparents came to the New World, President Theodore Roosevelt was in charge, and under his administration, a “hyphenated” American was anathema. My great grandparents concurred, prohibiting their children from speaking in Old World language and strongly embracing their American identity. But Theodore Roosevelt’s America no longer exists. Instead, it has been replaced by liberal ideas of multi-culturalism, neo-tribalism, and ethnic grievance. A true tragedy.

          • Anton

            Indeed. Mark 3:24: A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

            You are right in calling that system Anglo-Saxon and it might even have less to do with Christianity than many people here suppose. Have you seen the book “How we invented freedom and why it matters” by Daniel Hannan (US title: How the Brits invented freedom and why it matters”)?

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    An excellent article Your Grace – what was it Ronald Reagan said was the most frightening sentence in the English language? Ah yes…”I am from the government and I am here to help you.” This proposed commission has all the makings of a Star Chamber charged with rooting out heresy, the heresy being refusing to conform to the zeitgeist, as you so aptly describe it. Be afraid indeed – Mrs. May was a disappointment – a dangerous disappointment – as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister….well, words fail me. This commission will undoubtedly target society and religions across the board, yet we all know, and the government knows, exactly where the trouble lies.

    • Anton

      “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

  • John

    According to thereligionofpeace.com this holy month of Ramadan has so far yielded the following statistics worldwide:
    Attacks by muslims – 152, causing 1389 deaths
    Attacks by all other religions combined – 0, causing 0 deaths
    Attacks on muslims by non-muslims -1, causing 1 death.
    That’s why islamophobia (lit. fear of Islam) is justified. Law abiding people see it contains a real and present danger, despite constant propaganda in the media stating that the worst form extremism we must tackle is hostility towards Islam.

    • Watchman

      John, the Word “islamopbia” is a misnomer. A phobia is “an irrational fear of a specific object, activity or situation that lead to a compelling desire to avoid it” is how it is defined in my dictionary. Fear of Islam is not irrational, it is a fear based on the reality of how they speak, what they do and the transparency of their ultimate objective.

  • MoofBongo

    “Intelligent and thoughtful”? Melanie Phillips? Snigger.

    • Anton

      You mean she writes pugnaciously and that is not to your taste?

    • Watchman

      I thought people were attracted to opposites!

    • Royinsouthwest

      Eleven years ago Melanie Phillips wrote about the dangers facing Britain, dangers to which the government was wilfully blind. Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within.

      Who was right? Melanie Phillips or her critics such as her former colleagues working for the Guardian?

  • David

    Three factors are most powerful here. Importing millions of those with alien cultures, their refusal to assimilate or even respect the values our society was formed upon and then those laws that are being used to enforce an intolerant form of moral relativism. The commission has the capacity to undermine free speech, democracy and our last vestiges of being a free people.
    If the controlling instinct is given its head, this combination of forces will destroy us. If we cannot debate the most pressing issues of the age then that leaves only two options, to suffer or rebel, and neither are good.
    As Anton urged in his post on the previous article, it is now essential, absolutely necessary, that all people who support tolerance write to their MP. His post gives useful guidelines for this.

    • Anton

      An update is above.

  • vsscoles

    The islamists have almost achieved their stated aim of imposing a blasphemy law in the UK preventing any comment or criticism, however reasonable and well reasoned, of their beliefs.

  • alternative_perspective

    I’m not so worried, there’ll be upsides for mission. Undoubtedly Guardian types will demand the pre-vetting of sermons before they’re preached, at which point the CoE will fall over themselves to help and the whole liberal establishment will discover there’s not a jot of doctrine within the vast bulk of the CoE to worry about. In fact, they’ll discover it is such a cosy, liberal establishment that there really is no excuse for staying away.

    I fully expect Polly Toynbee to become a partaker in the blessed sacrament of the eternal, mother spirit and proclaim her new found liberation from every minarets and gurdwara. Even Linus will find a home, within the Church of the Inner Sanctum of Eternal Mystery. It is all looking up. All we need do then is instruct the educational establishment to go out to the roads and country lanes and compel all to come in, so that our house will be full, and if they don’t we just refer them to the inquisition. All WILL BE SAVED!

  • IanCad

    “The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” so wrote Thomas Jefferson, and it remains yet a truth that should be be etched in stone.
    Tyrants are those who suffer no reproof, are oblivious to any truth that threatens their collective mind-set, and will invariably resort to compulsion to enforce their religious perversions.
    Patriots are those who defend our rights of old. We seek justice, liberty and wisdom. We believe each individual is a child of God, unique in his creation as an irreplaceable soul; given liberty of thought and – with sufficient freedom – that of action. We are not termites or ants or sardines, although the leftist mind considers us so.
    I’ve been on this blog for several years; Today’s OP is reason enough.

    • David

      Splendid Ian !

      • IanCad

        Most kind of you David. Thank you.

  • Miqdaad Versi, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, called Murray a ‘hate preacher’ who should not be allowed to speak in public

    The inevitable consequence of being branded an enemy of Islam: ‘I’m afraid for security reasons I can no longer give advance notice of speaking engagements.’

  • Anton

    Here is an improved version of what I put on the preceding thread.

    On Sunday I shall be speaking the first three paragraphs below in church and passing round handouts of the remainder. Would Christian readers please write to their MP about the terms and composition of the new anti-extremism Commission, as follows:

    From the Queen’s speech: “Counter-terrorism strategy will be reviewed and a new Commission will work to stamp out extremist ideology in all its forms.”

    Unless Islam is singled out by name, this means that we shall be bracketed with it and face the harsh measures designed to prevent radicalisation in mosques and madrassas. We can expect government monitoring of church websites, of sermons, severe limits on what can be said, church membership lists to be lodged with the authorities, Sunday school closures etc.

    Please write to your MP at the House of Commons (London SW1A 0AA). It is known that if an MP receives five or more non-identically phrased letters on a given subject then it is taken seriously and the MP is likely to act on the requests made. Letters are taken more seriously than emails. You can make the following points and ask the following questions:

    * Given that Islamic terrorists have been responsible for all recent major atrocities in the UK and followers of other religions have been responsible for none, will the Commission explicitly differentiate between Islam and other religions – Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism? Why should followers of these other faiths face the same sanctions?

    * What specific measures will be taken to ensure that Sunday schools, Holiday Bible clubs and Christian camps, and church youth clubs, will not be caught up in anti-radicalisation measures intended to prevent terrorism that is not perpetrated by Christians? We would have no confidence in unbacked assurances that these are not the Commission’s target in view of the regular use of the Public Order Act to silence Christian street preachers while Muslim street preachers are never targeted.

    * What is meant by the word “extremism”? Will it be taken to mean strong commitment to a religious text regardless of whether that text calls for peace or violence in relations with others? Should such a distinction not be made?

    * Will the Commission take note that the Quran specifically calls for jihad against unbelievers and that the interpretation of the word Jihad by the Islamic prophet Muhammad was a violent one? (Meaning “holy war” rather than “spiritual effort” – jihad is frequently associated in the Quran with Qatala, meaning fight to kill.)

    * While noting that many Muslims prefer to live by the peaceable verses in the Quran, will the Commission take the view that Islam is a political movement as much as a religious movement in view of the call to violent jihad, and will the Commission urge the government to categorise and treat Islam as political? If not, why not?

    * The Commission must not let itself be hijacked by Muslims claiming that Islam is peace when Islamic terrorism is the reason for the Commission’s existence and Islam’s scriptures call for violence. What will the make-up of the Commission be? Would it not be better to have ex-Muslims serve on it in view of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, dissembling in furtherance of Islam?

    * Will the Commission inform itself about the Quran based not only on the words of Muslims but also on the words of well-informed ex-Muslims? If not, why not?

    • Lucius

      Anton, I admire you taking your words to the Church-going public.

      • Anton

        I am grateful to His Grace for making it possible.

        • Lucius

          “So make up your mind not to worry beforehand how to defend yourselves. For I will give you speech and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.” (Luke 21:14-15). God be with you friend.

    • Manfarang

      The dissident republicans are a political movement. Does that lessen their violence?

  • len

    One can imagine the headline;
    ‘Religious extremists are the scourge of our nicely ordered, liberal, secular humanist society.’

    Sounds reasonable ?.Well, it will do to most of the public sickened and horrified by the outrages by Islamic extremists.
    I suppose in the interests of ‘fairness and political correctness’ bible believing Christians also are to be labelled as ‘extremist ‘for their views and put on a par with those who are murdering helpless members of society.
    The wheel has turned full circle and Christians are to be persecuted for their beliefs not only by Islamists but by the authorities as well now.
    This will certainly sort out the true believers from cultural Christians.

    • John

      The beast and the false prophet are a team. Always have been, always will be.

  • Albert

    I think we probably need to calm down a bit. While we need vigilance and action sometimes, it’s not going to be easy for Mrs May to get anything through this Parliament. And for her to do so, she must rely on those people in Northern Ireland who are constantly called terrible religious bigots and homophobes. I don’t expect they’ll be any happier with the state interfering with religious freedom than we are.

    • Dreadnaught

      Religious freedom does not extend to being wilfully blind to the violence all over the world by Muslims citing as their justification, Islamic texts and history.

      • Albert

        Hang on. My point was about whether terrible things were about to be done to my local Sunday School, not whether violent people are going to be held to account. One only needs to put it like that to see the irrationality of any government action that moves from “We must stop violent Islamic extremism” to “Therefore, we must regulate Sunday Schools in the local CofE.”

        • Anton

          That is not the government’s logic. Unless checked, they will refuse to distinguish between the “clear and present danger” of Islam and the harmlessness of contemporary Christianity, because secularism takes all religions to be equivalent, and then the police will selectively enforce the new regulations on Christians because they understand English but not Urdu and because Christians are less likely to respond with a challenge to public order. The outcome would be exactly the same as if the government were running according to the logic you suggest.

          • Albert

            I’m not defending the Government, I’m just wondering if things are as bad as the OP suggests.

          • bluedog

            We’ll know how bad things are when we see the composition of the commission. The odds would be short on the head being a Muslim. One can envisage the recently retired head of religion at the BBC being drafted as commissioner.

        • Dreadnaught

          I didn’t see any mention of ‘terrible things being done in Sunday schools’ in the article. You have injected the hyperbolic interpretation that will no doubt give cause common concern to those Muslims who will make the moral equivalence argument if they alone are monitored.
          Not too much to ask is it, for you to go along with the proposal if you are at all concerned with the war that is being waged against us from the enemy within?

          • Albert

            I can only assume you haven’t read the article or perhaps my post. You are attributing all sort of things to me here. To be clear, the state should not be interfering with Sunday Schools, it should be interfering with terrorists instead. I would be staggered to learn that you disagree with that.

    • Manfarang

      And of course Northern Ireland is no stranger to terrorism.

    • Watchman

      It could be those people from Northern Island who have the deciding vote and I would sooner trust them than a Prime Minister whose voting record is distinctly lib/left/secular. If people see her as Christian they must think we’re all a pushover.

      • Albert

        There is something that commends the DUP: the kind of people who don’t like them.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Oh, but they do! Just glance at the ‘Parliament Opening’ vid – the bit where Corbyn and May are processing together – laughing, joking, having a lovely time. It’s as if they’re saying: “We’re making total fools of them all; it’s so much fun.”

    • David

      Good point about the DUP Albert. But to protect freedom eternal vigilance is needed. As we’ve already lost freedoms I don’t think His Grace is being OTT.

  • Watchman

    Today’s Gatestone article is very apt
    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10561/youtube-terrorists

  • Anton

    To secular people: Do you actually want to live under Sharia Law?

    • Manfarang

      Most Muslims live under legal systems influenced by civil or common law.
      For example Pakistani law is based upon the legal system of British India; thus ultimately on the common law of England and Wales.

      • Royinsouthwest

        It is the ones who want Sharia law in the West that are the problem.

        • Manfarang

          Common law and civil law will remain the bedrock of western legal systems.

          • Anton

            The bedrock is under genuine challenge in a generation’s time and that is where I came in.

          • Manfarang

            I would check out the law regarding section orders if I were you.

          • Anton

            I would desist from irrelevant comments if I were you.

          • Manfarang

            In my youth I remember an old worker telling me it is important to see things in life in the right perspective.

      • Lucius

        Clearly, you’ve never spent much time in Pakistan. I can assure you whatever resemblance its legal system has to the British legal system is mere veneer. An old relic from a colonial past without modern force or effect in any meaningful sense.

        • Manfarang

          The law of contract looks pretty familiar.

          • Lucius

            The Mexican Constitution was virtually identical to the U.S. Constitution. Guess what? Mexico is not the U.S. Corruption and backroom deals are a way of life, regardless of some ink written on old paper by Mexican lawmakers. Pakistan is not much different.

          • Manfarang

            You mean they have weak legal systems.

          • Lucius

            What I mean is that when you try to analogize the Pakistani legal system with the British legal system, I believe you are making an apples and oranges comparison in substance, even if in form the two systems may share some similarities (originating from Pakistan’s time as a colonial possession).

          • Manfarang

            Indeed there are similarities from the time of the Raj. I am no fan of cricket but I believe the Pakistanis play by the same rules.

          • Lucius

            Go start a business (or just live) in Pakistan. I am sure you will give me a glowing report of its equitable and judicious system of law. 🙂

          • Manfarang

            I am sure the lawyers will become involved in this new Commission

          • Anton

            One of the achievements of the Raj!

          • Manfarang

            Irrelevant according to Lucius.

          • bluedog

            Pakistan has been an epicentre in the corruption of cricket matches.

          • Anton

            Yes, but we started it! In the 18th century cricket was played between teams raised by aristocrats and gambling on it was rife, as consequently was bribery. Viewed from this lofty historical perspective, the entire corinthian golden age of cricket was an aberration and the widespread allegations of corruption in the present century are simply a reversion to cricket’s true origins.

            Yours cynically…

          • bluedog

            One of the most corrupt according to family legend, and we were there, is the revered WG Grace.

          • Anton

            I don’t think there was much corruption based on match-fixing or betting on individual events within the game in his era. The dirty trick in that time was shamateurism and WG was in the vanguard of it.

          • Watchman

            I think the corruption seemed to be centred round the gentlemen, not the players.

          • Anton

            Quite so. Players were paid above the table and so-called gentlemen below it.

          • betteroffoutofit

            “Corruption and backroom deals are a way of life” . . . wait. You think that’s not true in Vespucci-Land — or in what used to be Great Britain?

            Awake . . . someone needs to fling a stone and put the stars [of the euSSR] to flight!

          • Lucius

            There are degrees of corruption man. Be sensible. Corruption, as that term is commonly understood, is dramatically more pervasive in Pakistan then Great Britain.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Well maybe the “common understanding” needs to sharpen up a bit. Among other things, its adherents might learn how hypocrisy works, and even how to be a bit more perceptive about the real and larger world (gender included).

          • betteroffoutofit

            Oh – and one more thing. In addition ot the new levels of corruption, to see Britain and London exhibiting streets like those in the earlier-dubbed “3rd world” is a terrible thing. “Lilies that fester” is the nicest response one can muster:

            They that have power to hurt and will do none,
            That do not do the thing they most do show,
            Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
            Unmoved, cold and to temptation slow;

            They rightly do inherit heaven’s graces
            And husband nature’s riches from expense;
            They are the lords and owners of their faces,
            Others but stewards of their excellence.

            The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet,
            Though to itself it only live and die,
            But if that flower with base infection meet,
            The basest weed outbraves his dignity:

            For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
            Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds. (Shakespeare, W; Sonnet 94)

          • Anton

            Some of the corruption in Pakistan would be agreed there, if exposed, to be corrupt. But some – specifically, using your position to preferentially advance the interests of your family – is simply not regarded as corrupt there, but the social norm. Perhaps it is fairer to say that nepotism makes society more badly run than to say it is corruption.

    • Sarky

      Seriously?? Do you honestly think that will happen??
      Sorry but that’s the worse kind of scaremongering.

      • Lucius

        Exactly! It could never happen. It’s about as likely as the Church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia), the greatest Church in all of Christendom, being converted into a mosque! Ha! Like that would ever happen! Wait …..

        • Sarky

          And its like that mosque being converted into a museum! Ha! Like that would ever happen! Wait…

          • Anton

            Istanbul has a great future, if you read Revelation 18 – my best guess for the capital city of the world sometime in the future. Napoleon thought so too.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            That happened in “The Canopy of Time” by Brian Aldiss.

            The book spoke of a Self-Perpetuating War, and the way Happy Jack and friends are locked in combat with assorted Protestants reminds me of that.

          • Anton

            Istanbul as world capital in Aldiss, or a world government? The latter is commonplace in science fiction of the far future. Nothing beats Olaf Staple Gun (sorry, Stapledon) for that in my view. CS Lewis said hie admired Stapledon’s imagination as much as he deplored his worldview.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            It refers to the city of New Union, located on the Bosphorus. It became the capital of Earth. After the Galactic civilization incorporated Earth, it became capital of the Galaxy. The names, however, lost phonetic clarity through successive stories.

          • Anton

            Thank you.

          • bluedog

            Wait and it will revert to being a mosque, but never again a cathedral. As Turkey abandons the legacy of Ataturk there are already voices pushing for its return. Seizing the Hagia Sophia was of course one of the principal objectives of the Turks in May 1453. It would not surprise to read one day on the anniversary of its initial seizure, the muezzin call once again has rung out from the minarets of the Hagia Sophia.

      • Anton

        Check the demographic predictions and check the proportion of a population it has taken to enact a revolution.

        I won’t push it as time is on my side. We may discuss it again in 10 years time. I’d love to be wrong, by the way.

    • MoofBongo

      In the 2011 census 5% of the population were Muslim. They’d have to be right hard to impose Sharia law on the rest of us.

      • Anton

        Do you know what proportion of Bolsheviks comprised the population of Russia in 1917?

  • CliveM

    Be afraid? What of? Surely none of the regular correspondents on this site have any reason too be.

    The very definition of moderation and reasonableness.

    • Chefofsinners

      Indeed. From where I’m standing it’s the liberals who are extremist.

      • CliveM

        Well as most politicians under a certain age are religiously illiterate, the subtly of the mix of religion and politics in Islam will be beyond their comprehension.

        They’ll still feel qualified to legislate though.

    • betteroffoutofit

      “. . . definition of moderation and reasonableness” indeed — but not when viewed through extremist eyes, one suspects!!!!

      Anyway – just try being an undefended white British indigene returning through “British” customs!! They’re all over you – in every sense. Different colours and races get a quick pass.

      • Merchantman

        You too? They are definitely out of control.

      • CliveM

        I do a reasonable amount of foreign travel and have never once been stopped.

    • bluedog

      C’mon Clive. The commission will be stuffed with representatives of every known faith, each with its own barrow to push. The effect will be to confer legitimacy on sects that are demographically insignificant, with one exception. Guess which?

  • Royinsouthwest

    Give the authorities an inch and they will take a mile. We can be sure as night follows day that sooner or later politically correct officials would use the proposed new powers to combat anyone who supports ideas that they disagree with. Never mind defending suicide bombers; just make sure you don’t dare to refuse to bake a “gay wedding cake.”

    How do I know that such powers will be misused? Just look at how the existing anti-terror laws have been applied. Three examples are given below.

    Second council admits using anti-terror surveillance over school places. Daily Telegraph 4 Jul 2008.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2248295/Second-council-admits-using-anti-terror-surveillance-over-school-places.html

    Half of councils use anti-terror laws to spy on ‘bin crimes’. Daily Telegraph 1 Nov 2008.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.html

    Councils using anti-terror laws to spy on dog walkers. Daily Telegraph 24 May 2010.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7756352/Councils-using-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-dog-walkers.html

    • Mike Stallard

      I look forward with confidence to Ofgod with gold, silver and bronze stars for performance measured by a reliable team of liberal experts from various Universities.

      • bluedog

        Why not Gold, Frankinsense and Myrrh?

    • betteroffoutofit

      So millions spent on spying on Brits . . . have they dared to spy on the aliens? Or don’t they bother because the surveillers don’t speak the lingo – at least not all of them do, yet?

      • Anton

        Lizards. Jack is right on that subject.

  • Lucius

    Modern Islamic terrorism (a mere continuation of 1400 years of combat and conflict between Islamic-East and old-Christian, now secular West) has plagued Western countries for decades. But it’s a single angry white man repaying evil with evil that triggers the level of governmental outrage and concern needed to create a commission against “extremism”? The West has abandoned not only its Christian religion, but even its secular reason in favor of madness. Absolute irrational, incomprehensible madness. Fill yourselves with the strength of the Holy Spirit. Ready the catacombs. The Faith may be going back underground for a time.

  • David

    Following Anton’s suggestions my letter to my MP is written, will be proof read tonight and posted tomorrow. I shall also seek to persuade our church “Big Ideas” group to debate the work of the “commission” in some fashion.

  • dannybhoy

    Well, let’s not forget it was extremist Christians who took the Gospel of Jesus Christ across the known world.
    (To the tune of Boney M and Rasputin…the well known Anglican 19th century clergyman……)
    To Africa
    To India
    To the ‘New World’
    To China and all of Asia..
    Then in our own nation it was extremist Christians who set up schools,
    and hospitals,
    trades unions,
    centres of learning for the uneducated working man,
    Homes and schools for street children,
    Help for the poor and destitute,and those enslaved to drink….

    • David

      It was also another religious “extremist”, a devout evangelical Anglican Christian called Wilberforce that ended legal slavery !

      • dannybhoy

        Yes and I suspect we are of an age which knows about the wonderful things that God did through Evangelical Christians from all kinds of social backgrounds.
        My growing concern is that Christians will seen as the ‘enemy of the State and liberal values’.
        Not Islam.
        Christians like us who do not accept gay marriage or gay Christianity or gay anything will be targeted as the enemies of the State and social harmony. Likewise with abortion on demand or gender choice; although Islam and Judaism also oppose these things, it will be us and the Jews who the State will see as the problem.

        • Anton

          The liberals are blinded to the fact that Islam is far harsher on liberalism. Ultimately they are blinded by God in order to bring forward his judgement on the secular liberal way of life, and specifically on the calamity of family breakdown today which makes this way of life non-viable. Don’t blame Islam: enemies do what they are expected to, namely attack.

          • Mike Stallard

            Actually all this has real results.
            Feminism, the school/University/College system, insistence on equal pay for women and, on top of all that, contraception, abortion and LGBT rights have in fact made the birth rate sag as women have abandoned their role as builders of the family. Housework is despised. Children are farmed out to the state. The aim of every woman is supposed to be in a profession to pay off the mortgage and to further her career.
            The result is that many women are no longer there. Mummies are not as important as lawyers/hedge fund managers/ ministers. So that is where women are encouraged to be.
            Low birth rate=gaps. A vacuum.
            And into that vacuum step people who are very, very different in their approach to life. Very different indeed.

          • bluedog

            For once this writer agrees with your post. What you say is entirely accurate. In order to perpetuate ‘economic growth’ the social capital of the family has been consumed and women forced into the work-place for a political objective. Meanwhile, financed by the very same state, those whose society demands that women become mothers are winning the battle for numerical and thus demographic and electoral supremacy.

        • Watchman

          Danny, don’t be surprised, i find it reassuring that things are so because this sort of scenario sounds exactly what Jesus was taking about when asked about the last day’s
          Matthew 24:9-14 HCSB
          “Then they will hand you over for persecution, and they will kill you. You will be hated by all nations because of My name. Then many will take offense, betray one another and hate one another. Many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. Because lawlessness will multiply, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be delivered. This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed in all the world as a testimony to all nations. And then the end will come.”

          Simply be sure that you are one that endures to the end.

      • Mike Stallard

        William Wilberforce represented the cause in parliament. He was actually dying when slavery was abolished in the British Empire. As friends with William Pitt, the Prime Minister, he spoke wonderfully against slavery in parliament.

        Thomas Clarkson however was the man who united the country against slavery by constant travels, by writing a lot of pamphlets, and most of all by befriending the Quakers who owned the all-important printing press. He had about ten more years of life after the Act.

        “Soapy” Sam Wilberforce, who put up such an appalling case against Charles Darwin, publicised his Dad’s contribution and put Clarkson’s down.

        The (unfair) result is that Clarkson has been written out of history.

  • Chefofsinners

    Every box except the one marked ‘Christian’.

    • Sarky

      Careful, you’ll be put on the ‘evil’ list!!

  • Chefofsinners

    I suggest that we begin a campaign to have His Grace appointed as a member of the Commission for Countering Extremism.

  • Inspector General

    It’s all a game really. Isn’t it. And we are required to play our part. The rules are somewhat simple. The main one is “don’t be obvious”. After that comes “show concern”. That’s a good one. You can do that whether you are for good (Cranmer, the better columnists) or evil (Linus, Lib Dems, adherents to a certain religion that cannot be named, Feminists, Militant Homosexuals, Tattooists). Then we have “avoid the crazed policeman roaming around”. It’s really the heavy hand of (government) authority that comes crushing down. Both sides are wary of the constable. Following that, we have “don’t get too close to the edge”. The edges will scream out. Random words. “Racist” “Homophobe” “Xenophobe” “Brexiteer” “NAZI” “Hater” +

    + Your Inspector really loves this word that has come to the fore of late. (Thanks for that, you brain addled militant buggers on PN. A ‘hater’ being anyone who stands in LGBT’s way or makes light of their diseases, physical and mental). Surely the worst, the very worst that an individual can be is a hater. It betters every other word of contempt. Or sums them, even. Everything someone can accuse of you of (that is, how you differ in opinion from THEM). Rolled into a ball. Covered in flour and baked for twenty minutes. If you are a hater, you are beyond forgiveness. You are damned eternal. Not even our final divine judgement can overturn that ruling.

    • Anton

      It’s like the fatuously named “war on terror”. But what if you hate hate?

      • bluedog

        Then you maybe called a denier.

        • Anton

          I deny that!

          • bluedog

            You would.

  • Anton

    As this is peak hour for reading and commenting, here is an improved version of what I put on the preceding thread.

    On Sunday I shall be speaking the first three paragraphs below in church and passing round handouts of the remainder. Would Christian readers please write to their MP about the terms and composition of the new anti-extremism Commission, as follows:

    From the Queen’s speech: “Counter-terrorism strategy will be reviewed and a new Commission will work to stamp out extremist ideology in all its forms.”

    Unless Islam is singled out by name, this means that we shall be bracketed with it and face the harsh measures designed to prevent radicalisation in mosques and madrassas. Police prefer to enforce laws that are indiscriminate on Christians, as Christians are unlikely to respond with a challenge to public order. We can expect government monitoring of church websites, of sermons, severe limits on what can be said, church membership lists to be lodged with the authorities, Sunday school closures etc.

    Please write to your MP at the House of Commons (London SW1A 0AA). It is known that if an MP receives five or more non-identically phrased letters on a given subject then it is taken seriously and the MP is likely to act on requests made. Letters are taken more seriously than emails, and questions are more useful than statements because they force a response. You can make the following points and ask the following questions:

    * Given that Islamic terrorists have been responsible for all recent major atrocities in the UK and followers of other religions have been responsible for none, will the Commission explicitly differentiate between Islam and other religions – Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism? Why should followers of these other faiths face the same sanctions?

    * What specific measures will be taken to ensure that Sunday schools, Holiday Bible clubs and Christian camps, and church youth clubs, will not be caught up in anti-radicalisation measures intended to prevent terrorism that is not perpetrated by Christians? We would have no confidence in unbacked assurances that these are not the Commission’s target in view of the regular use of the Public Order Act to silence Christian street preachers while Muslim street preachers are hardly ever targeted.

    * What is meant by the word “extremism”? Will it be taken to mean strong commitment to a religious text regardless of whether that text calls for peace or violence in relations with others? Should such a distinction not be made?

    * Will the Commission take note that the Quran specifically calls for jihad against unbelievers and that the interpretation of the word Jihad by the Islamic prophet Muhammad was a violent one? (Meaning “holy war” rather than “spiritual effort” – jihad is frequently associated in the Quran with Qatala, meaning fight to kill.)

    * While noting that many Muslims prefer to live by the peaceable verses in the Quran, will the Commission take the view that Islam is a political movement as much as a religious movement in view of the call to violent jihad, and will the Commission urge the government to categorise and treat Islam as political? If not, why not?

    * The Commission must not let itself be dominated by Muslims claiming that Islam is peace when Islamic terrorism is the reason for the Commission’s existence and Islam’s scriptures call for violence. What will the make-up of the Commission be? Would it not be better to have ex-Muslims serve on it in view of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, dissembling in furtherance of Islam?

    * Will the Commission inform itself about the Quran based not only on the words of Muslims but also on the words of well-informed ex-Muslims? If not, why not?

    • Sarky

      Getting deja vu !!

      • Anton

        Yes, I’ve explained why!

        • Sarky

          Getting deja vu !!

          • Dominic Stockford

            Could you say that again please, I didn’t catch it.

      • Anton

        Yes I’ve explained why!

    • Inspector General

      Anton. You cannot be allowed to broadcast that we British indigenous have something to fear from the police. These fellows, and one has met and drank with a fair number in his time, are the best in the world as policemen. In fact, they are itching to haul in the enemies of this country.

      To give you some excuse, you may be conflating them with police committees. Don’t. The latter mentioned are political horrors, oft comprised of socialists and anarchists and unpleasant ethnics and other scoundrels out to destroy our precious society. What’s more, after the Rochdale scandal, they are now running scared. They have lost their high ground of innocence unless proven guilty. The guilty are now only too apparent, are they not…

      • Anton

        They’re just doing their job, same as most people. I don’t condemn them for it. But they are government employees and they do what government says.

        • Inspector General

          Employed locally. Not government employees at all.

          • Anton

            Employed by local government to enforce the laws of national government.

            When England first gained police forces in the 19th century there was passionate debate about exactly what I am saying now. It’s not about the character of policemen, it’s about their job.

          • Inspector General

            My dear fellow. The Peelers are drawn from the ranks of US!

          • Anton

            But paid by?

            He who pays the piper…

          • Inspector General

            Now you are just being silly…

          • bluedog

            No, he’s not. The concerns are real and justified. It’s only recently that the police were arresting Christian street preachers for being offensive.

            We can expect Muslim representative bodies, funded by the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, to be highly litigious and aggressive if this new commission comes into existence.

          • Inspector General

            bluedog. There are people in this realm who fear the police. After recent events, be assured it is not us.

          • bluedog

            One does not doubt that individual police are acutely aware of the only source of violence and danger. But the politicians are in denial; they cannot accept that multi-culturalism, in which they all fervently believe, has become the engine of inter-cultural violence.

          • Inspector General

            Don’t be too sure of that. One suspects all politicians have. Even the moderate brown ones with straggly beards. But whether they can admit publicly to their new understanding is the question…

          • Anton

            This assertion came from the Higher Understanding again?

          • bluedog

            The police are not the problem, it’s the lawyers.

            Once the new commission is established it will have a mandate, operating instructions on to what to look for and what type of hatred, intolerance and bigotry to prosecute in the cause of ending extremism. Lawyers will decide what constitutes an offence under the relevant acts, and lawyers will commence prosecution. Those who bring complaints before the commission will be, in the main, backed by ambulance-chasing lawyers.

            One has not the slightest doubt that there will soon be, if there is not already, an Islamic Legal Aid Bureau, funded by Muslim powers, whose objective is the supremacy of Islam. A commission such as that proposed by Mrs May is exactly what the Muslims need to entrench themselves in the institutions of the British state.

          • Martin

            Brazilian electricians?

          • Inspector General

            Don’t vault over ticket barriers. People might get the wrong idea.

          • Martin

            IG

            It was the police who did that, not the deceased Jean Charles.

            And look who we have in charge of the Met now. It seems that incompetence is no bar to success if you are a female homosexual.

  • Rhoda

    Here are some people who changed society for the better in non-violent ways who would probably fall foul of this commission…

    http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/themes/ci/js/vendor/turnjs/samples/magazine/

    including William Wilberforce (slavery), Lord Shaftesbury (social and factory reform), Rosa Parks (segregation) and others.

    • Mike Stallard

      “including William Wilberforce (slavery),”
      William Wilberforce represented the cause in parliament. He was actually dying when slavery was abolished in the British Empire. As friends with William Pitt, the Prime Minister, he spoke wonderfully against slavery in parliament.
      Thomas Clarkson however was the man who united the country against slavery by constant travels, by writing a lot of pamphlets, and most of all by befriending the Quakers who owned the all-important printing press. He had about ten more years of life after the Act.
      “Soapy” Sam Wilberforce, who put up such an appalling case against Charles Darwin, publicised his Dad’s contribution and put Clarkson’s down.
      The (unfair) result is that Clarkson has been written out of history.

      • Anton

        I hadn’t known that the Wilberforce who deservedly lost the Darwin debate with Huxley was a son of the anti-slavery Wilberforce; thank you.

        • IrishNeanderthal

          I have read Adrian Desmond’s two-volume biography of Huxley, and Hooker’s account of the debate differed considerably from that of Huxley, and was much less sensational.

      • Rhoda

        Not completely forgotten; when the Post Office issued stamps in 2007 to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Slave Trade Act 1807, which led to The Abolition the Slave Trade,Thomas Clarkson was one of the six abolitionists depicted on a stamp. The others were, William Wilberforce, Hannah Moore, Granville Sharp, Ignatius Sancho and Olaudah Equino.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Well, the Inspector did write you a reference for the Truro job and one good turn deserves another.

  • Chefofsinners

    There is already a commission for countering extremism. It is called The Great Commission.

    • Anton

      Sorry, the Great Commission is extremist.

      • Chefofsinners

        How?

        • Anton

          It is a prime example of religious extremism, designed to convert people from the religion of their birth and therefore deeply inimical to our glorious multicultural society. You are under arrest.

          • Linus

            Is he really?

            And here was I thinking the Maybot had absolutely no saving graces.

            If she’s willing to crack down on religious froot loops who preach hatred, exclusion and homophobia, then perhaps she might not be a complete dead loss after all.

            Who’s next in her firing line? Fake archbishops running extremist message boards where right-wing whack-jobs are encouraged to spew hatred and venom about every minority under the sun?

            Are they coming to take you all away?

            Quick, ransack your wardrobes for martyr-appropriate apparel. Preferably something floaty and white. Or red à la Marie Stuart if you’re a Catholic. Men could opt for a loincloth, although given the average age on this board, I wonder if that’s a wise idea.

            Rush down to the nearest bramble patch and hastily weave yourself a crown of thorns. Then make sure you’ve set up your webcam so the Terrorist Squad’s raid can be livestreamed onto your Twitter feed and Instagrammed to the world. This is your big chance to score Brownie points in heaven. And if you can bask in the veneration of your fellow zealots while you do it, so much the better.

            I mean, one has to be seen to be a martyr for it to mean something, doesn’t one? If nobody sees your ultimate sacrifice, why bother making it?

          • Anton

            Good morning Linus. Nice to see your cheery face today!

  • not a machine

    mmm so government to stamp on extremism ,this could be fun , could calling for Jeremy Corbyn to be the fuher be extremist ? will your graces long lived blog be pro scribed ? happy jack burned in public by the liberal atheists .
    Meanwhile in Camden people are being evacuated from buildings for 4 weeks into other accommodation , I would have thought , putting on a 24hr fire crew and portable pump connected to hydrant ready, would have been more sensible .
    In Brussels strictly come negotiating , tango not going too well ,Theresa offered a few elegant steps in thought , but mr junker stood on toes , kicked ankles owww “your offer is insufficient” still I suppose Mrs may couldn’t respond and you are the worse 27 hand operated muppet I have ever encounterd. still entant cordial an all that shame clint isn’t in vogue “now did I fire five or six, you feeling lucky punk” or my personal favourite “tell the mayor he can take my badge and use it as 5 point supisitory”.
    mmmm “your offer is inadequate” is suppose well get to use it later on in return exchange….

    Thanks to dead ringers last week had me smiling but tonights I was crying “that’s british sausage”

  • saintmark

    extremism
    noun [ U ] UK ​ /ɪkˈstriː.mɪ.zəm/ US ​ /ɪkˈstriː.mɪ.zəm/
    ​the fact of someone having beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable:

    How many churches fall into this category?

    • Thomas Moon

      If only that were the definition used! That would be unacceptable, but not as bad as the reality:

      extremism
      noun [ U ] UK ​ /ɪkˈstriː.mɪ.zəm/ US ​ /ɪkˈstriː.mɪ.zəm/
      ​the fact of someone having beliefs that most people agree with but are unwilling to express because of the risk of losing their jobs, children and liberty.