All Contents of Site – Index
Brown Stuff
- “VERY LATEST on TONY BLAIR”
- Blair – “I did what I thought was right” – Blair’s retirement announcement
- A Leaders Deathbed Confession?
Click to see more links to pages at the site
View Blair video on March 20th 2003 – Iraq Invasion
Comment at end of page
Preface to this post below:
“A Call To Arms”
Reading this through again I thought I should clarify something about my use of the above eye-catching phrase since I didn’t refer to it in the body of the article. There is a question mark after the title of this posting because I don’t actually accept that the Prime Minister is making a “call to arms” – just a call to sit up and take notice, and for those of us nearest the problem to DO something constructive in the way of putting a stop to increasing tensions. The last thing I’d want to do is to suggest that anyone in a position of authority is fomenting unrest. I put unrest in the category of – ‘let’s sort it out sensibly’ rather than ‘let’s meet it with head-on aggression’. If it’s a warning of the dangers of failing to tackle this problem and government’s impotence to act as it feels it should, well, that’s responsible government. That’s what I believe it to be.
Sunday 3rd June, 2007
BROWN: “I’m tough on terrorists too!”
Not to be outdone by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown is now saying that he too will get tough with terror laws, including having another go at extending the 28 days detention period, possibly up to the 90 days that brought Blair’s first parliamentary defeat (in 8 years.) So, will Labour backbenchers take it better from Brown? I wonder.
The use of ‘intercept’ (phone tapping) evidence is also under review. Blair backed down on this due to pressure from the security services. But it seems to be popular in the country. Now that Brown will have the ears of the security services will he too back down? With power comes knowledge and responsibility.
But how long will we have to wait until Brown’s review groups report back on their findings? Months?
With the growing threats we may not have time to wait. Go for it now, Mr Blair, and challenge your party to defeat you again.
Implement YOUR changes, and let the chancellor set up his own review bodies to look into phone tapping in his own time.
As your spokesman said recently – “the prime minister is the prime minister”. Let’s see if now that Brown has signaled his compliance with your proposals, Labour will still bury its collective head in the sand.
Monday 28th May, 2007
BLAIR – SHACKLED?
Is Tony Blair demob happy? Well he’s not happy; that’s clear.
I don’t know if the title of his Sunday Times article was his – “shackled in war on terror” – or that of the Sunday Times. If it was Mr Blair’s choice of words I think it’s time we sat up and took notice. If the government REALLY feels it is “shackled” I want to know why and by whom. And last week John Reid talked about working with their hands tied behind their backs.
The judiciary, as well as opposition MPs took a hammering from Mr Blair in his Sunday Times article, so they, as well as parts of or interpretation of the Human Rights Act itself seem to be accused of doing their worst to thwart government progress on the issue of tackling terrorism.
This is NOT good enough. I don’t care what you think of Mr Blair – whichever Prime Minister is in place I want them to feel they have the power to lead the government and country to a secure place. Evidently Mr Blair does not feel this at the moment.
This call to wake up and recognise what is happening around us is something I imagine he has mulled over long and hard. I’m not even a politician and I decided against publishing something along these line I wrote about ten days ago. (It’s in my drafts folder right now, not daring to show its face!)
AFRAID TO TELL IT ‘LIKE IT IS’
Because have NO doubt, due in no small part to the protestations of the liberal left, we have got ourselves into the position where we can no longer “tell it like it is”.
So why should we in this country be afraid to say what is glaringly obvious – that Islamo-fascism is on the rise in our towns and cities and we are all but impotent to do anything much about it? Why?
And why can’t we admit that WE have stripped our police of basic policing powers and confused the judges who don’t quite understand that the pull between human rights and British statute law should be a no-contest in these circumstances?
- Why?
- Political correctness? Yes, that’s one reason.
- Reluctance to admit that our high liberal ideals don’t work against this kind of invisible enemy and subtle ‘silent’ war? Yes.
- The recognition that British multiculturalism has misfired? Yes, too.
- A lack of clarity as to whether EU laws or EU-inspired laws should hold sway over dynamic domestic needs? Yes.
- The fear of the judiciary becoming an arm of government? Yes.
- The erosion of civil liberties? Yes.
- The horror at the thought of a “police state”? Yes.
- The fear that the very act of ‘saying’ there is a problem might cause civil unrest? Yes. Absolutely.
- Added to that the fact that our uncertainties over Iraq has led some, the press more so than the voters I would suggest, to distrust the politicians whose FIRST duty, we should remember, is the defence of our nation and people.
CREEPING, INSIDIOUS TACTICS
We need to recognise that without the primary protection of the people and the country from sudden OR creeping attack there is no future for debate over cosy domestic policies. The insidious behaviour of the tiny minority – repeat tiny minority, whose aims are cultural and political domination has the perfect breeding ground here or in any western European country, where we have been lulled into believing that our civilising influences are obviously so high-minded that they are beyond question or adaptation to suit circumstances.
This is our arrogance beyond belief in its consequence if not intent.
CIVIL LIBERTIES NOT WRITTEN IN STONE
We proclaim that our hard-won civil liberties and human rights are written in stone. RUBBISH. The strength of their power should be how flexible we make these rights for OUR benefit as well as for the benefit of every downtrodden, disenfranchised minority. How facile our thinking has become; how narrow, how short-sighted. How wrong!
[Picture: “Cut here!”]
And as Mr Blair indicated in his article below, we are cutting our own throats by getting the whole thing a**e backwards. Can you BELIEVE Lord Hoffmann’s judgement in 2004?
In December 2004 the anti-terror laws which the UK government had enacted following 9/11 were struck down by the courts. In his judgment Lord Hoffmann said there was –
“a greater risk to Britain through the abrogation of the foreign suspect’s civil liberties than through terrorism.”
WHAT?
To me that sounds like a political judgement. Let me see if I’ve got this right:
To revoke a foreign suspect’s civil liberties is a greater risk to Britain than allowing them to practise terrorism?
Surely I am misinterpreting?
If so, please explain to me what the Good Lord meant.
No wonder Mr Blair has come to blows with the judiciary over the years. He and his government are charged with the defence of our country, not the line-splitting, mealy-mouthing of legal brains who will NOT face the consequence of failing to defeat terrorism. If it is the fault of the government by enacting the Human Rights Act – well, they’ve learned their lesson. Now Mr Blair and Mr Reid are willing to admit that and suspend its wider implications. We should be grateful for that, not terrified.
We have to have the strength of our convictions to stand up to threatening forces, both within and outside our country, in whichever guise they present themselves, and however small in numbers they are. It’s often been said, and it’s no less true for that, that THEY only have to be lucky once. We need to be ahead of them ALL the time.
Hopefully such repealing of civil liberties such as abrogating the Human Rights Act or parts thereof will be temporary. But if not, so what? We complain often about the heavy hand of human rights legislation favouring those it was, presumably, not meant to help. Ask anyone down the pub!
BLAIR’S MOTIVES
Putting on my devil’s advocate hat, here are some of the arguments against Tony Blair and John Reid, mostly ‘ulterior’ of course!
1 Detract From Iraq?
The outgoing Prime Minister is accused by some of raising the stakes in order to detract our attention from Iraq. What? Why would he do that? It wouldn’t work anyway, given the anti-war, anti-Blair liberal press. It would have the opposite effect.
2 Hang Onto Power?
Any change in police powers would take months to enact – probably September at the earliest. So Blair is not trying to hang onto power as he will be gone by then.
3 Causing Civil Unrest?
Er … VERY unlikely! Even the ‘evil’ Mr Blair would not seek to ’cause unrest’ just to bring out the validity of his argument. Dissenters might argue that civil unrest at home might re-ignite support for continuing our presence in Iraq. If so, that would benefit Brown more than Blair, as he could always say he was reacting to the effect of Blair’s anti-terror policies and the public response. He wouldn’t then have to think too hard in the short term about who to please – the Left of Labour or George Bush!
4 Tying the Hands of His Successor?
Since all Gordon Brown needs do is decide that Blair and Reid’s new police powers are a step too far, his parliamentary majority will carry him through a vote to repeal anything Blair brings in before June 27th.
5 Putting Brown on the line on this issue and Iraq?
Certainly the chancellor will have to let us know what he intends to do about both Iraq and the growing Islamo-fascist threats inside this country. He has got off lightly so far. Labour leadership hustings are mostly about social issues and the ‘date for departing Iraq.’ The latter has been uncomfortable for him, and his responses do not clarify his position. He is possibly genuinely undecided. His party has a stronger pull on him than they had on Blair, and they have great expectations of a speedy withdrawal. Blair knows that would be disastrous. It will be interesting to see how well Brown copes when and if he sees the rightness of Blair’s approach.
[Brown and Blair at Blair’s last Queen’s Speech, November 2006]
But still, WE don’t know. This is the man who will be running our country in a month’s time!
What a situation. We KNEW exactly where Blair stood on Iraq and terrorism when we voted him in at the last election. Brown has been a closed book, only uttering platitudes. To be generous it may have something to do with the perception of loyalty (hah!) to the PM. And he and Mr Blair might, just might, have broken the habits of the last ten years and agreed that Blair should raise this before he leaves office. Easier for him, than for Brown. But whatever, Brown is going to find the premiership a much more disconcerting place to be than, perhaps, he presently expects.
Greater police powers might well increase the citing of Iraq as the source of all that is wrong here at home. The argument being that if we and the USA hadn’t embarked upon the Iraq invasion, everything would have just been hunky-dory! Well, Mr Blair is prepared to put up with that. He’s heard most of it already.
And I for one don’t buy it, anyway.
WAR ON TERRORISM
I have always thought the ‘phrase ‘war against terrorism’ was a bit unfortunate – as by its very nature we can’t win against an unseen and often unknown enemy. But it’s difficult to know WHAT to call it.
And would Mr Blair REALLY want to be leaving under a cloud this big and black if he could avoid it? After all, he could have just kept quiet about it all and let Mr Brown sort it out, couldn’t he?
Those whose logic explains the murderous exploits of insurgents on their own people as being OUR doing are beyond common sense. They twist all they can find tightly around the Prime Minister’s neck.
And today Spanish police have arrested people accused of recruiting for terrorism. It doesn’t only happen here – it IS international terrorism.
CALL A STATE OF EMERGENCY, MR REID
And while we’re being blunt here, I would not mind one bit if the Home Secretary called a state of emergency. It might get some people away from their comfort blankets and down to the local fundamentalist training rooms to confront the problems. Those in whose communities terrorism breeds and grows – THEY are the ones who MUST take control of the situation. No excuses about Iraq fomenting terrorism. We will accept NO EXCUSES!
We forget that the security services here at home are presently pursuing dozens of cases of suspected terrorism.The cases are slow to come to court, precisely because our justice system is a lumbering instrument demanding heavy burdens of proof, unnecessary in many countries.
And the UK is considered by many as a training ground for international terrorism. Why? Why do you think such people come here in the first place?
Because they look on us as fools for allowing them liberty in our land. These islands make a secure base from which to bounce off to most of the rest of the western world. And WE are at fault for not admitting that WE ARE AT FAULT.
Here follows Mr Blair’s article in yesterday’s Sunday Times May 27, 2007:
Blair: shackled in war on terror
The Sunday Times, 27th May 2007
Tony Blair
The absconding of three people on control orders because of suspicion of their involvement in terrorism has, once again, thrown into sharp relief the debate about terrorism and civil liberty. Within the next few weeks we will publish new proposals on anti-terror laws. Our aim is to reach a consensus across the main political parties.
But at the heart of these new proposals will lie the same debate: the balance between protecting the safety of the public and the rights of the individual suspected of being involved with terrorism.
First let us clear away some of the absurd criticism of the police and security service over the three individuals who absconded.
After September 11, 2001, in common with many other nations, we passed new antiterror laws. In the aftermath of such an outrage it was relatively easy to do. We gave ourselves the ability, in exceptional circumstances, to detain foreign nationals who we believed were plotting terrorism but against whom there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. It was an important power. They were, of course, free to leave Britain. But we wouldn’t let them be free here. The ability to detain foreign nationals gave our services the ability to focus even more resources on the surveillance of British nationals who were a threat. It also sent out a strong signal of intent.
In December 2004 these laws were struck down by the courts. In his famous judgment Lord Hoffmann said there was a greater risk to Britain through the abrogation of the foreign suspect’s civil liberties than through terrorism.
So we were forced to opt for the much milder remedy of control orders, applicable to both foreign and British nationals. These do not involve detention. They impose some limits on the individual’s freedom. They are better than nothing and have utility – because otherwise the individuals would have to be subject to even more intensive surveillance.
They were, however, much weaker than we wanted, perpetually diluted by opposition amendments, constantly attacked on civil liberty grounds.
In addition, after September 11, and again after July 7, we have tried continually to deport foreign nationals who were either engaged in or inciting extremism. Again and again in court judgments we were forced to keep them here. The important point is that although of the hundreds we keep under surveillance, many are UK citizens – as with these three individuals – many are not and in any event their influence and the ideas they import from abroad have a significant and radicalising effect. And, of course, we lost the crucial vote on 90 days’ precharge detention, despite offering a week-by-week court hearing throughout the 90 days.
So when there is an outcry about the three absconding, we should remember that consistently over the past few years, and even after July 7, attempts to introduce stronger powers have been knocked back in parliament and in the courts. Indeed recently it was said, again in a court case, that unless the British government could prove that a foreign national suspect would not be at risk of mistreatment in his own country, we were obliged to keep him here.
So the fault is not with our services or, in this instance, with the Home Office. We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first.
I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong. If a foreign national comes here, and may be at risk in his own country, we should treat him well. But if he then abuses our hospitality and threatens us, I feel he should take his chance back in his own home country.
As for British nationals who pose a threat to us, we need to be able to monitor them carefully and limit their activities. It is true that the police and security services can engage in surveillance in any event. But this is incredibly time-consuming and expensive, and even with the huge investment we have made since 2001, they simply cannot do it for all suspects. Over the past five or six years, we have decided as a country that except in the most limited of ways, the threat to our public safety does not justify changing radically the legal basis on which we confront this extremism.
Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgment. This extremism, operating the world over, is not like anything we have faced before. It needs to be confronted with every means at our disposal. Tougher laws in themselves help, but just as crucial is the signal they send out: that Britain is an inhospitable place to practise this extremism.
This is part of a bigger picture, in which a considerable part of media and public opinion continues to blame us for causing the extremism.
I was stopped by someone the other week who said it was not surprising there was so much terrorism in the world when we invaded their countries (meaning Afghanistan and Iraq). No wonder Muslims felt angry.
When he had finished, I said to him: tell me exactly what they feel angry about. We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them with a United Nations-supervised democratic process and the Muslims in both countries get the chance to vote, which incidentally they take in very large numbers. And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims.
What’s more, British troops are risking their lives trying to prevent the killing. Why should anyone feel angry about us? Why aren’t they angry about the people doing the killing? The odd thing about the conversation is that I could tell it was the first time he had even heard the alternative argument.
This extremism can be defeated. But it will be defeated only by recognising that we have not created it; it cannot be negotiated with; pandering to its sense of grievance will only encourage it; and only by confronting it, the methods and the ideas, will we win.
Ends Article by Tony Blair
1 Urge to Iraqis to ‘export jihad’ World Edition of Times Online – 27th May 2007.
3 Reuters Report of Blair’s Increasing of Police Powers
4 Islamist Websites Monitor Project Keep abreast of the issues
5 Open Letter to Ruth Kelly MP, from Iftikhar Ahmad of The London School of Islamics, on 24th May, 2007.
Excerpts from Ahmad’s letter: (warning – breathe deeply)
“According to Ruth Kelly, approved citizenship lessons may be introduced in Muslim schools and supplementary schools to eradicate extremism and violence in Muslim communities. Muslim schools help to strengthen community cohesion, not undermine it. This is the reason why all Teachers Unions do not like to see the rapid growth of Muslim schools after 9/11 and 7/7. According to a world wide survey, Islam was found to have little to do with radicalization or antipathy towards western culture. The war on terror has radicalized Muslims around the world to unprecedented levels of anti-American feeling.
Muslims in Britain are disempowered, disenfranchised, disenchanted, disaffected groups at the margins of economy, society and polity. Identification with Islam is strengthening among young generations of Muslims, both as a reaction to racist hostility as well as a desire to understand Islam. The brutal colonial history, combined with racism which endemic in the host country, this creates an atmosphere of mistrust.
The British Government has continued to create an atmosphere of hatred and fear since 7/7 towards Muslims. Ant-terror laws, indiscriminate arrests of innocent Muslim youths and demonising Muslims that dresses in certain way. It is the mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the Muslim way of life, not the other way round. One can learn hospitality, tolerance and generosity from Muslims.
Islam isn’t the sickness. It is the cure. It is one of liberty and equality. Secularists and followers of other religions regard Islam with something approaching panic. It is wrong to say that Islam has turned Osama bin Laden into a devil. It is the Secularist Western policies have turned Osama and others against the West. The world needs Islam to address the moral issues. America and Europe are wealthy, but they are morally impoverished. Broken families, drugs, booze, youth gangs, crime, neglect of children and the old, the sheer boredom of shopaholicism, terrorism, the inner-cities slums, materialism itself, are all the marks of a global society in decline. Children need to be taught to distinguish between right and wrong.”
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
I did warn you to breathe deeply, didn’t I?
I’m almost tempted to say, as I do at times to the British of native ancestry who complain about our ‘loss of civil liberties’ – “well, there’s the airport!”
Want more? Try this from this site: the Middle East Media Research Institute
Excerpt:
The following are some of the recommendations by reformist Arab writers.
Europe Must Change its Lenient Treatment of Muslim Extremists
One of the most salient reactions to the bombings [7/7 London] was censure of Europe, particularly Britain, for its years-long policy of granting safe haven to Muslim extremists, enabling them to spread their ideas in schools, mosques, and the media, and giving them legal protection – in the name of protecting freedom of expression. Saudi intellectual Mashari Al-Dhaydi, columnist for the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote: “The time has come for those who turn a blind eye to notice that the enemies of freedom have, unfortunately, exploited the atmosphere of freedom provided by the European countries, to destroy the foundations of freedom and to strangle any possibility that freedom would be born as a concept, and subsequently as a reality, in Arab and Muslim countries.
“They have used [European] freedom to spread religious fanaticism everywhere. People who disseminate the ideological and political platform of bin Laden …are the greatest enemies of the freedom that the European countries defend…
“Fundamentalist terrorism knows no borders. Whoever thinks he can be comfortable near a wolf and can turn him into a domestic puppy will be astounded when one day it falls upon his flock. A wolf is a wolf, and can be nothing other than itself…”
Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of the Al-Arabiya TV channel and former editor of the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, called for the expulsion of Muslim extremists: “For over 10 years now, I myself and other Arab writers have warned against the dangers of leniency – not tolerance – in handling the extremism that is now spreading like a plague among Muslims in Britain and among those immigrating to Britain.
“We were never understood why British authorities gave safe haven to suspicious characters previously involved in crimes of terrorism. Why would Britain grant asylum to Arabs who have been convicted of political crimes or religious extremism, or even sentenced to death?…
” The battle we face is against the ideology, as opposed to against the terrorists themselves. The terrorist groups make the most of freedom of speech and movement, as reward [their benefactors] by spreading propaganda among neutral individuals and by frightening their opponents.
“Such leniency on behalf of the British government has allowed Arab and Muslim extremists to seek safe haven in Britain, away from their own countries, to the point that the extremists have overcome the moderates…
“The time has come for British authorities to be realistic and resolute regarding extremism, before complete chaos is unleashed onto British society. In the past, we told you: ‘Stop them!’ Today, we tell you: ‘Expel them.'”
In an article in the Saudi daily Al-Jazeerah, columnist Hamad bin Hamad Al-Salami mentioned by name bin Laden supporters residing in Britain who openly expressed their support for Al-Qaeda terrorist operations in the media – for example, on Al-Jazeera TV and in the Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. “Those [who attacked] Saudi Arabia, [the new] Iraq, Egypt, and others have now risen against the country that hosts them and provides them with work and a livelihood. Among them are: [Muhammad] Al-Musa’ari, [Sa’ad] Al-Faqih, Abu Qatada, Abu Al-Muntazar, [Hani] Al-Siba’i, and [Abd Al-Bari] ‘Atwan. They deceive millions when they appear with their robes and tarbooshes, and sometimes with [Islamic] decorations, claiming to possess knowledge in the ethics of Islam…”
Listening Mr Brown?
Links to other posts and pages on this site
Home “VERY LATEST on TONY BLAIR” Blair in USA – “Good”, “Brave”, President? Blair – “I did what I thought was right” – Blair’s retirement announcement Read the full transcript of Tony Blair’s retirement speech 10th May, 2007 A Leaders Deathbed Confession? Prince Harry to Iraq – Yes, yes, yes – No, No! Tony Blair to Iraq – No, No, No – yes, yes! “All Ending In Tears” – Opinion – Brown & Blair “Tony Blair’s Successor – Leadership” – Occasional updates if anything interesting happens. “Thoughts and Opinion on Tony Blair” Political obituaries for Blair. “OK … I give up … sort of!” – Blair’s resignation plans, September 2006 A British Coup – or – How To Kill The Leader and Get Away With It “Be Proud, Tony”– It was the Sun Wot Said It! View Tony Blair Videos View Prime Minister’s Questions from House of Commons
Tags: Afghanistan, Iraq, terrorism call to arms
Tony Blair 
Leave a comment