The Intolerance Of Theresa May And We Should All Be Afraid - Roger c.

In the wake of the London Bridge attack, Theresa May has despicably attempted to exploit her address as Prime Minister to distract from her own culpability in the recent attacks and to push the agenda in her election manifesto.

Theresa May used her speech to lay out a 4 point plan for tackling the issue of the attacks Britain is being subjected to and the cornerstone is government (Tory) control of access to the internet. May cites denying attackers a cyber space to coordinate their attacks and to be radicalised but fails to address the matter of denying potential attackers the physical space to plan and carry out attacks that requires correct Police staffing, an issue that May is personally culpable for given her tenure as Home Secretary oversaw 20,000 front line Police cuts, including over 1000 armed Police.

May was warned repeatedly about the cuts. SEE MORE

Views: 47

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of NatCAN to add comments!

Join NatCAN

Comment by joe taylor on June 6, 2017 at 8:23

Thanks for that Steve. I’ve a feeling you would agree with most of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to say in her book ‘Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now’?

Comment by Steve Radford on June 6, 2017 at 0:17

  Well, for once I find myself in agreement with Mr Buckley - although British imperial meddling in the Middle East goes back before WWI. British policy until 1914 was to prop up the tottering (but still despotic) Ottoman Empire, largely as a buffer against the southward expansion of Russian influence (Crimea, the Light Brigade, "We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do..." etc.). Britain also ruled much of North Africa (with the 'veiled Protectorate' in Egypt and the joint Anglo-Egyptian occupation of The Sudan) back in the 19th century - useful for testing out the new Maxim guns on locals armed with swords and spears. Of course the most exploitative and destructive period of British involvement was from 1914 onward and our country bears a huge responsibility for the violence and tyranny endemic across the region now. From enablng the murderous thugs of the Al Saud clan to turn most of the Arabian peninsula into a despotic feudal fiefdom (to this day) and the cowardly and unprincipled withdrawal from Palestine in 1948 (and subsequent military, diplomatic and commercial support for the Apartheid settler state of Israel ever since), our country has done more than almost anyone except the Yanks and Israel to turn the Middle East into the violent hell-hole it is today.

  However, recognising the UK's historical responsibility and our current crimes that have made a bad situation even worse (the illegal invasion of Iraq and the interventions to effect 'regime change' in Libya and Syria, thus hugely exacerbating the violent chaos across the region) does not alter the fact that our own society, deeply flawed though it may be, is under sustained assault by a relatively small but dedicated band of deranged Islamist fanatics and we have no choice but to defend ourselves. And this is where Teresa May's idiotic pronouncements and posturing have to be challenged.

  After the most recent attacks (in Manchester and South London) May waffled on about the threat of "Islamist extremism" - as if we need to ally ourselves with the 'moderate' and 'non-extremist' Islamists to isolate the dangerous fringe elements. This is the kind of drivel that is also spouted by many in the Labour Party (and even in the Revisionist Trots of the SWP who have been allied with various Islamists since 2003). As I get older I find I have less and less patience with the weak and woolly minded idiots who lack the sense or the courage to face up to difficult realities and unpleasant truths. Potentially violent Jihadist murderers may be a tiny minority within the UK's Muslim population, but they are not an isolated fringe. They are the logical extension of a widespread and mainstream current within Islam. British politicians (and priests) who spout on about violent Jihadism being a 'perversion of Islam' are either parroting scripts on subjects they know nothing about or are deliberately lying - and who are they to give religious rulings (fatwas) on what constitutes 'true Islam'?

  We can accept that violent racists are a minority but are nonetheless largely the product of a wider current of racist ideology, and we denounce and condemn all those who adhere to that ideology and seek to exclude them and their ideas from the realm of mainstream politics. Why do we have such a problem in applying the same logic to Islamism? This is a Clerical Fascist political ideology that promotes the forceful (and therefore violent) imposition of religious and theocratic rule at its very heart - or alternatively the sectarian segregation and confessionalisation of society that will inevitably lead to civil strife and bloodshed. Islamism is not a tiny fringe element within Islam but a mainstream movement whose adherents and supporters are present in almost every Mosque. It is also prominent in leading 'moderate' organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, and others.

  Shortly after the mass murders at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, the vile Iqbal Sacranie, a leading figure often consulted by the UK establishment, was interviewed on the BBC's Newsnight. This man made the expected noises about being appalled and condemning the attacks and claiming that it was nothing to do with true Islam, but in the very next breath he went on to demand that people and publications in France (and the UK) be prevented by law and official censorship from publishing or saying anything that 'offended' Muslims or 'insulted' their Prophet. Sacranie used the murder of journalists by fascist gunmen as an implied threat to demand the imposition of Islamist blasphemy laws to prevent people from saying things that he and his co-religionists didn't like. This is part of the Islamist narrative - to demand that our society conforms to their warped notions under threat of more and more murder and terror. They assert that the jihadists are not the problem - it is our unwillingness to give in to their demands that is the cause of the violence.

  Of course Corbyn is quite correct to say that UK foreign policy is part of the problem - so it is. White British racism that alienates many Asians (who are often Muslims) is also part of the problem. But let us not close our eyes to the core issue here. Hindus and Sikhs are also the object of racism and unjust discrimination but we have very few cases of violence or threats from these communities (the Bezhti issue was an unwelcome exception but I suspect that this was 'learned' copycat behaviour). Islam is an all-embracing way of life for many and not just a personal religious belief that they can adhere to in private without imposing it in any way on others. It may have a long and fascinating history but a 'Religion of Peace' it most certainly is not (any more than the pre-Enlightenment Christianity of the Crusades and the wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation were). If we want Muslims to be able to live peacefully alongside everyone else (as we obviously do) then we have to be honest about the need to eradicate Islamism as an ideological force - and one that is supported or acquiesced to by large numbers of people. There are several practical steps that could and should be taken but there is no quick fix. This requires a long term programme that will last generations and as we haven't even made a start yet (in fact many of our policies are in precisely the wrong direction) then the timescale stretches as far as anyone can see. The first task of course is to recognise the problem and stop deluding ourselves with platitudes and meaningless cliches, and Teresa May has shown quite clearly that she is incapable of doing this.

  Some years ago I was a professional proponent of multiculturalism (as a Senior Community Relations Officer in Yorkshire) and I haven't given up on that idea even though my views have developed as our situation has worsened. But our failure as a society to face up to our problems and the half baked (and often corrupt) manner in which our political class has dealt with Community Relations issues has convinced me that we are travelling in the wrong direction. As a lifelong socialist I find it disturbing that a reactionary Tory like Douglas Murray sometimes talks more sense, and is certainly more honest, on issues I feel deeply about than people who are supposed to share my political beliefs and anti-racist background.

Comment by Daniel Buckley on June 5, 2017 at 13:32

 The UK Govt has been funding terrorism in Syria since the beginning of the conflict, under the pretense of supporting moderate opposition and humanitarian aid .There is no moderate opposition, only armed Jihadists, going under ever changing names to hide their true ideologies.

 The UK has been interfering in the Middle East since WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. France and Britain stepped in and carved up the area under the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Israel came about because of the Balfour Declaration in the same period.

The borders that were established were artificial and a cause for conflict ever since

Comment by Daniel Buckley on June 5, 2017 at 12:28

The British Govt has ties to Middle East terrorists going back decades. The Manchester bomber Salman Abedi's father was an agent of Mi6.

Other ways to keep in touch:

© 2018   Created by Freire Institute.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service