It is ludicrous to compare Anjem Choudary, who
promotes the most extreme form of Sharia law which denies entire segments of
the population their basic human rights, to human rights champions such as
Gandhi and Mandela.” The Clarion Project
THE BBC'S HOME AFFAIR'S EDITOR Mark Easton has put side by
side the Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary with Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson
Mandela. He did so in order to induce in us sympathy for the right of free
speech and to oppose Theresa May's plans to tackle those with extremist views.
Whether it is Easton's function as a BBC employee to do so is another matter;
and for those who will say he never mentioned the home secretary by name are
being pedantic as it is only to her he could have referred given his comments, coupled
with her announcement. If Easton continues to confuse reporting with polemic,
then he should join the rest of us on the blogosphere and finally give up his
BBC ghost.
Easton is, as the entire liberal assemblage
believes themselves, an overlord of free speech, its defender and protector:
all but he and his co-confederates that represent the BBC establishment and its
employees have the wisdom of rational argument they believe trumps what they
perceive to be the bigotry, racism, and the many adopted liberal phobia's they
torment their critics with on the Right.
What
Easton has done, is to besmirch two great liberators and align them with the
repellent Choudary in whatever fashion he meant it. So let us see whether the
comparison holds up.
First
of all Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist, thought by the British at the time to be
an extremist. He was thought of as such, not because he wanted to be rid of
homosexuals by enticing them into honey pot traps and then throwing of the tallest
building they could find like ISIS is doing – Mr Choudary would applaud such
behaviour. All Ghandi wanted was what the British eventually gave him - his
country back.
Nelson
Mandela would not subject women to the treatment of Choudary Islam (the true
Islam); Mandela would not make women cover the whole of the face and bodies,
because they aroused the sexual frustration in Muslim men. And neither followed
a religion that tolerated the sexual abuse of none Muslim women and mere girls
in Rotherham, Rochdale and many other UK cities where sexually frustrated
Muslim men were allowed to prey, without any comeback, on young white females
as they left the school gate because the authorities feared the racist tag.
Both
Gandhi and Mandela only wanted one thing, the liberation of their respective
nations. They were not driven out of their heads by the Islamic or any other
religious faith as those young ISIS fighters are by the likes of the preaching's
of Choudary. How many young men and girls have been enticed by Choudary to
their deaths in Syria? Does this aspect of such behaviour change Mark Easton's
liberal certainties?
Of
course not: let us see what Choudary himself has to say about this comparison
in his 'defence' by Easton; "The comparison with
Mandela & Ghandi are false, they are kufaar
[1]heading to hellfire
whilst I am a Muslim."
The weakness in Theresa May's
policy, is that she is revisiting an already failed policy of ASBO'S to try and
control the uncontrollable. It will not work. The government has no effective
armament against our inner enemies from the Muslim world, unless that is; they
use all the power available to them in a manner that may prove objectionable to
the human rights lobby.
I
WILL LIVE SIDE BY SIDE with any individual from whatever corner of the world he
or she comes; providing the numbers are restricted and my indigenous culture
has to be conformed to. I am not racist. It is about numbers and the survival
above all other cultures of my own, as the indigenous one. Multiculturalism is
a liberal fad that has hopefully seen its day, and unless it is given up by the
liberal elite, will lead to much bloodshed in the future.
Mark Easton's alignment of
Choudary with Mandela and Ghandi is like aligning matter and anti-matter.
Choudary's human impulses such as they are, are based upon protecting Islam at
all costs. Other faiths matter little, only Mohammed matters. Easton does not
understand this impulse of Choudary and his followers. Choudary despises Easton
for his weak liberal sentiment – which is all it is. It is to be despised as
weakness. Easton seeks the preservation of free speech, as a liberal, at all
cost, even to democracy itself even when such an attitude invites the enemies
of free speech to destroy it.
Democracy embraces free speech;
but it is a luxury to be protected at all cost; which it seems Easton does not
understand. Easton thinks that people the world over are capable of his own
liberal humanitarian impulses. They are not, but they still believe in
democracy and free speech. But they do not support, as Easton appears to do
those who wish to destroy it.
CHOUDARY
wishes to destroy it, and this in itself should be enough to persuade a
democrat like Mark Easton to reconsider – but it will not. Mark Easton will
continue to speak up for Choudary and his ilk, believing himself a rector of
the free speech covenant that will eventually destroy the very concept he
believes in.
People like Easton, who believe
in reason to confront their anti-democratic opponents, are like the Christians
who were forced to enter the Coliseum to become the prey of lions. Easton may
or not be an atheist, but all of his liberal kind fall back upon the passive
resistance of Christianity, as did those Christians sent to the lions.
CHOUDARY
is a popular Islamist leader who helps orchestrates ISIS recruitment in Europe.
The case against him by the Western intelligence service is that he uses his
notoriety to radicalise young Muslims throughout Europe to join Jihad.
Many young men and women may
have joined the cause he entices them into only to be killed in Syria, Iraq or
any other part of the Middle East that he seeks to recruit them to. Yet Easton
still submits his liberal case. I do not know whether Mark Easton has a wife
and children; but if he does I doubt if his liberal conscience would extend to
his own children being recruited to join ISIS via the teachings of Choudary.
Mark Easton believes himself, as
all liberals do, that the rational mind overcomes all. This is not t to say
that mind that opposes such thinking is irrational. It is not. The mind that
opposes the liberal conscience does not lack a conscience - merely naivety.
Choudary is no Mandela or Gandhi, or deserves to be compared with them
in the same breath Mark Easton does – it is the liberal conscience that allows
the likes of Choudary to flourish. The same conscience Easton himself follows
and thinks is the very anchor of democracy – it is not. Democracy cannot find
such an anchorage unless it fully dispenses with naivety.
