It is intellectually dishonest to say Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam

I’ve nearly got to the stage where I don’t want to watch or read anything to do with current affairs ever again. I’m tempted to send televisions, radios, newspapers, magazines, even the whole internet, google and all, the way of Jeremiah’s scroll. Burn the lot of them, for all I care.

Sunday Morning Live, the BBC current affairs programme, is the source of my present discontent. This isn’t a blind prejudice. I don’t have a problem with news and current affairs as a concept. These sorts of programmes can be interesting, educational and sometimes entertaining.

I don’t even support the idea of book burning normally; it’s the response of idiots and barbarians. That was something the Nazis did, if you remember. I’m close, that’s all I’m saying. Not to joining the Nazis. I’m not close to that at all. I mean I’m close to giving up newsy programmes.

When it comes to current affairs, as dished up by the media, the problem is less conceptual and more practical. For some reason I turned the TV on this morning, at a time that might have been better spent in church, and there I found Sunday Morning Live; they were discussing the issue of the day (it’s the issue of our lifetime, actually, but this thought might seem too sensational for some). The issue is, of course, Cliff. No, not really. It’s Islamism – that’s the issue.

No doubt we need to discuss the matter. British citizens are, after all, displaying an unhealthy appetite for beheading infidels (that’s the average Brit, if you were wondering). Some of them also seem oddly keen to travel to crazy parts of the world, such as the thrilling new caliphate presently establishing itself in the countries formerly known as Syria and Iraq. And other British citizens, those who might lack the adventurous spirit of their more ‘militant’ friends but who nevertheless travel in the same direction, are becoming increasingly content to display their contempt for the British way of life. This last point is less news-worthy than the others, for sure, but it is perhaps more important for the survival of British liberal democracy.

I’m obviously not insisting that these people should go to our more seedy resorts to get drunk, fall over their cheep stilettos in the street, spraining their ankles something rotten in the process, and expose their thongs in a manner undignified enough to attract a certain type of photojournalist. I’m not suggesting they develop a gambling habit, either, or that they take illegal drugs just to show how assimilated they are.

But I am suggesting that they make up their minds if they want to live in liberal democratic Britain. If they do, then that’s fine. It would be nice if they just showed a little respect for the country in which they choose to live, which is, incidentally, a country infinitely better than the ones they seem to laud so much. If they do not, then that’s fine too. But go away!

And you don’t, by the way, demonstrate love for country, or even a person, by spending a lifetime trying to change everything about them. That’s not how it works, yet that is what Islamists want to do, even the ones mislabelled as moderates.

The frustration with Sunday Morning Live, however, was a bit more specific. It was the programme’s choice of guest. Free speech is obviously important, and it is not always easy for the BBC to demonstrate a level of ‘balance’ and ‘inclusivity’ in their choice of guests that will satisfy everyone. But the guy they had on the video link was unbelievable.

This guy, Abu Rumaysah, who was referred to as an Islamic activist, sat there justifying the murders going on in the Middle East (opaquely, of course, so as to fool people who want to be fooled). He called for Muslims to travel to the ‘caliphate’ and by implication (opaquely, again) partake in the fighting, the kidnapping and the murder.

This is not an issue of free speech. It is an issue of criminality. Any guilt is, of course, subject to proper criminal proceedings, and he, like anyone else, is innocent until proven guilty. But he is surely worth investigating, isn’t he? Or is he just an idiot we should ignore? But if that’s the case, then why is the BBC giving him airtime?

Part of the problem is British decency. We do not want to make ‘martyrs’ of these people; we do not want to curtail our freedoms to deal with these people; and we do not want to denigrate everything about Islam by clumsily criticising this particular strand of Islam.

It is therefore understandable that Lord Winston, one of the sofa-guests, should wish to say that this is not an Islamic problem. He argued, very thoughtfully, that this is a problem of terrorism and the recruitment of disaffected youth, drawing on examples from Cambodia, China, Kashmir and more. While the second part of this argument is true, the first part is not, and anyone who has not been captured by our fake-liberal zeitgeist knows this. What Lord Winston seems reluctant to admit is that these youths have been captured by a very specific ideology, for very specific purposes – and that is the nature of almost all terrorism: purpose.

Youth will always be with us. Poisonous ideologies will not. Ideologies can be understood, reasoned with and defeated by argument and cultural change. Youth will forever be an enduring part of humanity, unless Lord Winston is aware of some scientific discovery not yet in the public domain. To ignore the relevance of the ideology behind the action, whether it is anarchism, communism or now Islamism, is to doom us to failure in tackling them.

This is intellectual dishonesty. It is understandable why we should wish to avoid unpalatable truths, but it is ultimately self-defeating. It is also, sadly, a malady of modern liberalism, which seems to have disappeared into a deep, dark cave and lost its orientation.

At one time during the programme a little strap line appeared on the screen. It asked ‘What should be done about British Islamic extremists?’ Here’s an idea: arrest them and prosecute them when they break the law; don’t invite them on the BBC. A simple idea, but one most reasonable people in Britain would think appropriate.

Apart from this there were some interesting points of discussion, it’s just that the programme might have benefited from someone who knew the law. We talk about British values quite a lot, but there is only one that is of relevance and that we can all probably agree with – that is to obey the law. We are a law-based society. Let’s recognise that, understand the relevant law and use it.


And it does’t help when the Prime Minister tells the House of Commons, as he did on Monday 1 September 2014, that the goings on in Syria and Iraq, the putative caliphate, the jihad, the attempt to create a state called the Islamic State and the desire to live under the laws of Islam have nothing to do with Islam.

Specifically he said: ‘And we should be clear that this has nothing to do with Islam.’

It’s clear what he is trying to say, or at least I hope it is: that Islam is not all about the extremism. Well, of course it isn’t. That much is obvious and I’m sure we do not need telling, at least not in this strange arrangement of words.

‘Nothing to do with Islam.’

Only it has. That’s the problem. Refusing to admit this obvious point is making it impossible for non-Muslims and Muslims alike, especially the vast majority of Muslims who want nothing to do with the barbarism of the Islamic State, to deal with the problem.

To solve a problem, first you need to understand the problem. And as far as the little problem of Islamism goes, I’m not sure we get it yet.

How undesirable is Trenton Oldfield?

It seems Trenton Oldfield has successfully appealed against having his visa revoked. He is the Australian thirty-something who took it upon himself to disrupted the 2012 Boat Race in a supposed protest against elitism while failing to notice that Oxbridge is more meritocratic than elitist on account of its really hard exams.

He calls it protest, and still thinks he has the right to do what he did that day. But it was in fact a form of sabotage; it was an attempt, partially successful, to deny freedom to others while at the same time claiming to exercise his freedom to protest. It doesn’t work like that, Trenton, really it doesn’t. It falls into the same category as forcing your way into someone’s office or place of work and denying them the ability to do their work. You don’t exercise your freedom by denying freedom to others who are simply going about their lawful business.

The decision, right or wrong, is a kick in the teeth for Theresa May, the Home Secretary. But what should she do now? What should happen, supposing we agree with her that the narcissistic, selfish little man’s presence in the UK is indeed ‘undesirable?’

He clearly loves Britain. Well, he said he ‘fell in love with London within hours of arriving,’ so one supposes he loves Britain too. The reason, you see, or one of them at least, was that he got the impression ‘there was room for people like me.’ There was room in London for people interested in justice and fairness. Which is nice to hear. Though one can’t help concluding that what he really meant was that he has a special regard for justice and fairness that is otherwise lacking in Britain. But he’s here now, so all is well!

Is it possible, however, that his love for country and olympian self-regard could be used against him? Is it not about time we, Perfidious Albion, lived up to our hard-won reputation? We doubly know he loves Britain because he fought so hard to stay here, despite the country’s inherent and odious elitism. His struggle is all the more impressive because he tells us he wants to raise a family here, too. O what sacrifices he is prepared to make for his love of country!

No, that last bit doesn’t make much sense to me, either, unless he’s like all those other middle-class revolutionaries who love Britain so much they want to move here, live here, enjoy the peace and harmony our rotten people and unjust political system seem to have quite inexplicably produced, and turn us into some utopian fantasy – not unlike Karl Marx and his fellow-travellers, now I think about it.

Anyway, that love he has for our country. How do we make use of it? Well, here’s a suggestion. You may or may not know that our cricketers are finding it hard going in Australia. It’s not clear if this is because Trenton (Old Trenty, as I affectionately like to call him) is right when he says Australia is unnacceptibly racist and they are giving our Yorkies a particularly torrid time because of it, or because the Aussies are just playing better cricket than us at the moment. But it is clear that our cricketers are definitely not finding it easy. How about we tap into Old Trenty’s obvious love of country and call him up to play for England in the next test match?

It is true that he might not survive the experience, considering the reception the Aussie fast bowlers, revved up by Oldfield’s outrageous slander of their country, are likely to give him; or, for that matter, the Aussie public. But he’d be willing to risk it, I’m sure. We know he’s brave: he risked decapitation last year while fighting the Oxbridge elitists. If that’s a just war, then surely fighting the Aussie racists is equally just, even a duty. It is also true that convincing him to play for England might not be entirely straightforward: not because he doesn’t like England, we know he luuurves England, but because he might think selecting a cricketer to play for his country just because he’s the best is a bit elitist. But I’m sure his newfound regard for Blighty would win out.

So far, so good. Now comes the sneaky bit. When the Ashes are over (unfortunately not to English satisfaction, as is the most likely outcome at the time of writing: and now doubly-unfortunately confirmed.) and it is time for the cricketers to come home, Andy Flower mislays the man’s passport.

But don’t worry too much for Old Trenty; he won’t be too inconvenienced – he would already be home.

This is only one option, of course. Another might be to slip him on a different plane to Cooky and the lads: the one going to Syria, perhaps. He might then learn what genuine injustice and unfairness in society looks like.

Ho hum! If only things were that easy. The thing is, I think perhaps he should be allowed to stay. You see, he is in fact married to a British citizen. They have a child, but that’s immaterial. It’s her British citizenship that is key. They could go and live in Australia, despite his ridiculous argument against doing so, but British citizens do have rights – inalienable rights. Genuine spouses should have automatic residency rights in the country of their spouse. That’s basic. It’s a matter of individual liberty over arbitrary state power. If he breaks the law then the law should punish him, but his residency, on balance, and barring extreme misbehaviour, should not be affected. No matter how disagreeable he is. And Trenton – Old Trenty my lad – you are disagreeable.