MR VAZ GOES TO BELMARSH

WHAT ON EARTH WERE a group of MPs doing visiting Belmarsh Prison to seek the opinions of old ‘Hooky’, Abu Hamza?

            The group of MPs were members of the home affairs committee, seeking information about internet extremism, and among their number was committee chairman Keith Vaz.       It appears they proved politeness itself to this messenger of hate, referring to him as ‘Mr’ Abu Hamza. This is the man who has told his supporters that the killing of a none Muslim is acceptable.

            I wonder if they shook his hoo… sorry that would be in bad taste even in reference to this creature. But I do wonder how these politicians came up with the idea for the visit; a visit which, even if  they deemed it justifiable on grounds of research, they must surely have thought of the anger their cosy little interview would have – especially among those victims of Islamic terrorism. The father of one such victim, Graham Foulkes, hit the nail on the head when he was quoted in today’s Daily Mail as saying: ‘The worrying thing is that as a result Hamza will tell his followers. “Look, they are taking me seriously”.’

            Hamza will indeed use this somewhat cordial meeting with our lawmakers as a means of self-promotion, and an example to British Muslims of how seriously he is taken as a prophet and spokesman for jihad against the West among our country’s MPs.

            There was no credible reason for these members of the home affairs committee to indulge Abu Hamza in the way they did. If they needed him to help secure the release of a British citizen from captivity by the Taliban in Afghanistan, then at least such a visit would have been plausibly, if not morally justifiable.

            But to seek his opinion on anything short of the above example, amounts to nothing more than self-aggrandisement of the kind Mr Vaz is familiar with, but has, in this instance, proven distasteful to millions.

AN ENQUIRY INTO extremism on the internet is of not sufficient importance to merit such a visit to such a man as Abu Hamza. I wonder if it was all done to court the outrage of the Daily Mail, instead of adding to our knowledge of extremism on the internet?

            Perhaps Mr Vaz has felt himself somewhat ignored as late, and sought to bring himself once more to our attention? If so he has been successful with his ambition.

            These MPs must know how opposed the British public are to this man and his views, as well as their visit to Belmarsh to seek them out: they must also know how much he is justifiably loathed by the same public. Yet they ignore this and set out, no doubt with a halo of martyrdom above their heads, to greet and sit at the feet of ‘Hooky’.

            I do not know whether there are parliamentary procedures that such an action has fallen foul of, but if not, there should be. Their visit has been a disgrace; there was nothing humanitarian or anything vital to this nation’s security that demanded such an act.

            If our prisons are allowing such people as Hamza free access to the internet to preach their hate, then prison governors must be ordered to stop any such automatic right to the internet. Even if, no doubt, Hooky’s lawyers would appeal  to the to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

            All Muslims in all of our prisons must be refused internet access, so the propagation of extremism from such a source can be stopped and the ECHR ignored.  If such action, is deemed unfair, then so be it. Is it not after all the aim of the home affairs committee to find ways of removing extremist content from the internet?

            So why go to Belmarsh or any other prison? If there are preachers of hate such as Hamza in our prisons with internet access, then stop it; it does not need to become part of a home office committee report into extremism; and the same goes for any other extremist preaching filtered out from our prisons via the internet.

CONSIDERING THE BROADER picture however; extremist views are part of the democratic nature of the internet as well as society. Which means that free citizens that are not serving a prison sentence for acts of extremism as decreed by the law of the land, should have every right to speak as they feel and to be challenged by their opponents. If this is not democracy, I do not know what is.

            The internet needs little regulation as far as public opinion is concerned; especially by politicians. Leave the internet to its own devices. As long as every citizen has access, they can challenge each other; and if they fall foul of the law they can be, in extremis, sent to prison; from which they forgo the pleasure of internet access.

            Internet extremism is part of  its innate democratic function. A parliamentary committee need not have ventured into these waters in the first place regarding prison extremists; which leads me in my natural cynicism of politicians, to believe that there was some other motive for such a procedure.

           

THAT MOTIVE has been eluded to above, and I have little to add for fear of court action. But when our politicians form their various committees, they should balance their committees’ needs for public enlightenment with the opinions of the people who elected them.

            The home affairs committee has acted with little merit in this case. They have sought to interview, perhaps the most loathsome of people as far as the general public are concerned. In doing so they have discredited their function as members of a parliamentary committee.

            The home affairs committee has, in this case, overstepped, if not their responsibility, then the boundaries of taste, as the general public sees it. Mr Foulkes rather than Mr Vaz has emerged as the spokesman of the popular will on this issue.