- Attorney-General McClelland may believe a softly-softly politically correct approach will softenÂ the jihadists,Â but nowhere is there any evidence for this.
Fatwa still means murder
It would seem that much of what passes for diplomatic discourse in Australia is based on second-rate academic thinking that owes more to 19th century gentleman-adventurers than to the realities of the 21st century.
The handbook on China talks about “losing face”, when it is obvious from the case involving Rio executive Hu Stern that the mandarins of today are more concerned with losing money, and the handbook on Indonesia might have been written in Bung Sukarno’s era.
Attorney-General McClelland may believe a softly-softly politically correct approach will soften hard-liners or prevent more young men and women from becoming radicalised, but nowhere is there any evidence for this.
Soothing words and another bureaucracy chasing those who call Islamic terrorists for what they are and what they do will not halt the flow of suicidal graduates from the schools in Solo and other parts of Indonesia, let along those waiting for places in the madrassahs of Pakistan.
As for following the UK Home Office guidelines, forget it. If anyone is any doubt they should ask Salman Rushdie. Read the whole thing
Why Can’t We Recognize Islam As Our Enemy?
There was a dialogue between the imam and a member of the audience over whether Shariah or the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land in the United States
Audience member: “Would you get rid of the Constitution for Shariah, yes or no?”
Imam: “Over the Muslim world? Yes, it would be gone.”
Audience Member: And so if the United States was in a Muslim world, the Constitution would be gone?”
Imam: “If the United States was in the Muslim world, the Muslims who are here would be calling and happy to see the Shariah applied, yes we would.”
Audience Member: “And the Constitution gone. That’s all.”
Imam: “Yes, as Muslims they would be long gone.”
Clearly Hizb ut-Tahrir’s is not only is determined to destroy capitalism — it would shred the United States Constitution as well in favor of Shariah law.
Could domestic Communists in the 1950’s have done worse? What has happened to America when we once recognized the threat of Communism but fail to recognize the far worse threat â€“ Islam?
Sigmund, Carl & Alfred:
July 29, 2009
Theodore Dalrymple argues that the police should use their instincts â€“ in other words their prejudices â€“ more, not less, if they are to be more effective in fighting crime.
…The other day I happened to see a fellow-passenger reading an article in a newspaper that I had missed, about the way in which police in Britain have now started searching white people against whom they have no suspicions whatever, simply to balance the racial proportions of people searched in their efforts to prevent terrorism.
I do not know whether the story is true, but as the Americans say, “it listens”: it is perfectly plausible or even likely, because of our obsession with targets and quotas. I admit that I am highly sceptical about how much of the activity carried out in the name of anti-terrorism is genuinely and necessarily connected with that end, but racial quotas can only weaken that connection further…
The pretence that one can approach the world without prejudice is dishonest and absurd. The sleep of prejudice brings forth bureaucratic monsters. It is to go into the world without the faintest idea about where one might find the things one is looking for…
The failure to make the most obvious judgments leads to vicious absurdity. I recall the case of one young man of Indian extraction who was set upon by three young louts with a long history of violence. The young man was thoroughly respectable, as well as being self-evidently mild-mannered; but the three louts accused him of having attacked them first, an accusation so prima facie absurd that one would have thought no one could entertain it for a moment. But, in the name of equity, the police treated it as seriously as the young man’s accusation against them, which was far from absurd. They charged him as well as the three louts; and offered to drop the charges only if he dropped the charges against the three louts.
That is justice in a society that claims to be without prejudice.