Tag Archives: 7/7

Political Islam has been at the heart of British politics for the last decade, in a slightly dissimilar way than it has been in America. The key problem lies in the fact that since the 1950’s, British immigration policy has not, and proudly, does not have any pre-requisites towards cultural assimilation. With multiculturalism in mind, it has never stipulated that immigrants wishing to implant themselves in the country need follow British culture, typical British Judeo-Christian values or embrace Western liberalism (liberalism in the cultural sense–dress codes, marriages, entertainment, etc– not the political wing). All it asks is that immigrants abide by the British law of the land. The trouble is that this law is archaic, outdated and completely inequipped for the issues of the 21st Century. The law-making system in Britain is even more archaic, largely unrepresentative of public opinion (more representative of public mood) and full of terribly old loopholes. So when an enormous majority of the world’s Eastern population, who have lived and procreated in Britain anonymously for the last 50 years, decide that as Conservative Muslims, their identification with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran override their British allegiances, we have a problem.

Two things were at the heart of the British elections this year: immigration and the recession. One simple, but rather racist-sounding solution that many think but few say is “Well why don’t you just send them home if they’re trying to start a British Islamic Revolution? If they don’t like The West and only want to Islamify it, then surely….go back home to the East?” Well, the reason it isn’t that simple is because the one thing that British-born Islamic extremists like Mohamed Sidique Khan (7/7 bomber) and Mr & Mrs Ali next door have in common is this: rights. Resident immigrants who’ve become nationals and generations of British-born Easterners, all have as much right to remain in the country as Mr & Mrs Barnsworth across the road do. So “kicking them out” is not a terribly realistic answer to that.

If Britain refuses to become a completely secular state like neighbouring France (tolerating NO displays of religion), then the only way to stem the Islamification of Britain is the difficult way:

a) Put a cap on immigration. PM Cameron proposed this earlier this year. Set a limit on how many people can come through the border every year….and ACTUALLY reinforce it.

b) Reform immigration laws. Create multiple tests which must be passed at a certain percentile, measuring one’s “connection” and somewhat “acceptance” of the root characteristics of Britain as a country: tests on culture, religion, values, liberalism. Holland currently has an immigration video depicting typical Dutch life, which all new immigrants must watch in order to help them decide if this is the life they want; because this is the life they will get, no ifs, ands or buts i.e  “If you like what you see, come in and assimilate with it, if not, there are other places you can go and live.”

c) Reform the “citizenship by marriage” pathway. Denmark currently has a reform which states that for the inconvenience of marrying a foreigner, a Danish-born Dane and his foreign-born wife must have 28 years of “connection” to Denmark between them.

d) WRITE a British constitution. Like it’s American counterpart, the British Constitution should only depict Britishness at the root formation of the entire British Isles. Set the thing in stone as a preventative measure against country-wide Sharia law.

The trouble with policing Britain’s nation-wide Islamic protests is the lack of authority our police have had for decades. In comparison to America and even some of our European neighbours, the police have very limited powers in Britain. Patrolling without firearms; an absence of military conduct on duty and a comparatively casual attitude toward standard operating procedure, have remarkably weakened the impact of the police’s presence in Britain. The age-old image of British police fraternizing with the public whilst on duty is still carried out today; you see it in Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park’s Speaker’s Corner, Parliament Square and at the Notting Hill Carnival, every single year.

Bringing me back to the need for reforming our archaic British law–this rather ”bohemian” policing is no foundation for keeping order in an ideologically violent 21st century Britain. Even at a foundational level, our sentences are far too soft; an offence punishable by imprisonment in the US, is often ‘punished’ with 100-300 hours community service in Britain, or some other ‘slap on the wrist’. If Britain’s criminals are being handled poorly to start with, there’s very little chance of an extremist being arrested for threatening to convert the Queen to Islam.

The police are only permitted to enforce whatever attitude the State adopts; of late, a softly-softly, politically-correct approach. It’s not duty in Britain, as it is in Iran, for the police to arrest people for ‘voicing’ their beliefs in public, because since the 1900’s, Britain has and still considers itself immune to radicalization. Up until now, talk of ‘revolution by ideology’ in the form of political protest was never really a ‘realistic’ threat for the British police, particularly because the State never considered it so. It was in Germany, which is why the Nazi one-armed salute is still an arrestable offence in Germany today. But if the British government are still dilly-dallying in deciding which Western ideological weapon would be the most effective against Political Islam, the only thing the British police can use to defend the country in the meantime, are their bare hands. And you can imagine how effective that’s been over the last 10 years. No, the police are just as worried as the rest of Britain because, they too, have been nannied out of being allowed to use their own initiative.

I don’t dislike Muslims. I have many Muslim friends, a few Muslim relatives and I love them all equally. Nor am I against multiculturalism; I was born in it. But the “age” of multicultural Britain has come to an end when one culture wants to establish itself over all the others Britain has given free rein to. If we can go down this road it will naturally upset MILLIONS of people. But the reason such action has become necessary is because this is how Britain got itself into this mess in the first place, by pandering to everyone and anyone for years. It is time the country stopped throwing it’s roots and origins into the sea. Britain, with no proper grip on immigration in the first place, became a ripe place for an aggressive ideology such as Political Islam, to grow. If Political Islam is making an aggressive beeline for our crumbling law system, then the best thing that Britain can do is shape up and make an aggressive beeline for Political Islam.


They litter the internet like millions of tiny squares of shredded paper flying through the air. Nobody wants to read yet another blog, article, opinion on the events of 9/11 anymore. But have you ever asked yourself why, exactly, do people feel this way now?

Whenever there is a catastrophe as cataclysmic as the events that marked the 11th September 2001, the aftermath is coloured by an immense humanitarian grace period for mourning. Humanity reflects, absorbs, contemplates, compartmentalises and compresses the impact it has made on the human consciousness. In this lifetime we have witnessed, over the last 100 years, some of the most unthinkable disasters known in history; two world wars, tsunamis, terrorist attacks….we’ve all read the news. And somehow, these things have become part of our personal history despite a large number of us being “non-participants”; everyone remembers where they were when 9/11 happened. We allow each other a period of grieving, some respite from the personal suffering that has inflicted many generations. In this way society is able to move on, having designated a resting place for the trauma in our memories whether or not we have found a way of comprehending what has taken place.

But let’s go a few sentences back to observe the way in which some people respond in retrospect….”we’ve all read the news”. I’m a great supporter of sifting the chaff from the wheat when it comes to information consumption. It appears that the longer we are alive, the greater the hill of instantly disposable information there is being made available to us. Rather a lot of it is, in essence, a garbling mess of inane drivel decorated and embroidered with soundbytes, tags and other such selling points. What we are living in today is a society driven to cynicism, thanks to the energy wasted in the disposing of millions of debates and discussions that are flung our way daily. Living on the Continent, I found this was a problem that few orators were unveiling before the sunken masses. This disaffection is explained by the majority as not “having the time” to contemplate empathizing with a lot of these stories. Why is that? When the family dog dies, empathizing immediately becomes second nature. Its personal impact makes us, human, again. Our “e-culture”, as I choose to refer to it these days, has usurped the organic mechanism we use to develop a personal response to hearing about something. The allegorical grapevine, once the speculation of small communities, is now a manically pulsating network of intertwined live wires, talking, talking, talking, 24 hours a day. When we no longer see the need to form our own opinions based on our own contemplations, we stop thinking for ourselves. And when we stop thinking for ourselves, respect is the first thing to leave the room.

I don’t really need to ask how many of us, when faced with tragic news in the world, turn the page, turn the corner, change the channel or, erm, refresh Facebook. Of course we live in evil times, which you’d only be unaware of if your house was built in zero gravity. But does taking a moment to care about a country other than your own, really equate to re-opening an entire wound to woefully grieve all over again? Is that what a moment of respect -honestly- asks for? Let us think about that for a moment. It is a tragic admission I make, when I count myself in the number of European people who skip past an entire evening’s documentary on survivors of 9/11, or the cause of the trouble in Darfur. This afternoon I did what I’ve heard some Britons say they do because “it’s good for you sometimes.” I challenged myself to watch an entire episode of ‘Inside 9/11’ on the Nat Geo channel, which documented the experiences of ordinary city workers inside the twin towers that morning. And viewing such material in America for the first time, I was left understanding what that “good for you” factor was pointing to. It gave me a fresh understanding of how this catastrophe affected the entire country I was now living in. That yes, there was every right that this affected every living American in the world. When we take a moment to care, to pay respect, we count other humans as our brothers. And it is this factor that releases us into being the conscientious individuals we used to be, back when the world still meant something to us.

Back in 2006 I met up with some old friends in New York’s Manhattan police force after London’s 7/7 terrorist bombing. When I explained the severity of what had happened in my home city, I was shocked to hear the response, “7/7? Ah, everyone wants their own 9/11 these days.” Needless to say, that was the last time I saw them again. Perhaps I have since forgiven these guys for their foolish, thoughtless comments. But if this little story incurs your wrath, your passion, I challenge you to stop and ask yourselves, how desensitized have I become to my own neighbour’s plight? For a few days, filter out the endless stream of opinion and allow yourself to show concern and respect for another country’s affliction. It really isn’t asking for blood. But it might just make you feel human again.