Terror Attacks in Europe

My guess it was not gang related as the age of the victims was well over 18.

And yes, that comment alone now makes me a member of the Arrse investigation team of armchair experts, but hey ho.

Rather ironic bit below from the ES.

The bus is a specially commissioned double decker which has the ‘Spirit of London’ written on it in memory of the passengers killed on a bus in the 7/7 terror attacks.

View attachment 610990


This might be an extreme right wing attack. Watch this space.

On a spirit of London bus, now that is proper remembering
 

TamH70

MIA
Stand down, lads. I've double-checked, and none of the victims are MP's.

Thank God; for a moment there I was worried...

Phew! Had me going there for a second. It's not as if some important people were attacked. Just normal civilians. Who if the more screamy elements of the Houses of Parliament get their way will have even less protection from being attacked than they already do.
 
Rather ironic bit below from the ES.

The bus is a specially commissioned double decker which has the ‘Spirit of London’ written on it in memory of the passengers killed on a bus in the 7/7 terror attacks.

View attachment 610990


This might be an extreme right wing attack. Watch this space.

Says it all about the state of our capital city under Labour Party Mayors.
 
Gavin Mortimer writes an interesting piece in the Speccy on the subject:


Unfortunately, you may have to join their list to read the complete article.

Herewith an unformatted ctrl+P:

In the summer of 2020 the French Senate published a report on the ‘Development of Islamist Radicalisation and the means of combatting it.’ It was a wide-ranging review which included contributions from academics, writers, Muslim associations and politicians. Among those interviewed by the commission were the ex-security advisor Alexandre del Valle, Zineb El Rhazoui, a former columnist for Charlie Hebdo and Hugo Micheron, a doctor in political science, and the author of a 2020 book entitled The French Jihadism.
The French Jihadism should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the nature of the threat posed by Islamic extremism – not just in France but across the West. Micheron interviewed 80 jihadists serving time for terror offences in French prisons. In most cases they explained their journey from disenchantment or delinquency to Islamism, and how it gave them purpose, motivation and fellowship. Above all, it imbued in the jihadists a hatred of western Society, a contempt shared by British, Belgian, Norwegian and all European extremists.
When Micheron was interviewed by the Senate he talked about Mohamed Merah, who in 2012 carried out the first deadly Islamist terror attack in France for 17 years. He shot dead seven people, including three Jewish children in a Toulouse school-yard, before he was killed in a shoot-out. ‘The police considered him, wrongly, as a lone wolf, but rather he was the product of ten years of Salafisation in the suburbs of Toulouse,’ Micheron explained to the Senate. ‘Merah was not a lone wolf: his act was perfectly understood by other Salafists, without links to Toulouse, like Larossi Abballa.’ In 2016 Abballa stabbed to death a couple in front of their three-year-old son in a Parisian suburb.
Micheron’s remarks were echoed by another expert, the author and Sorbonne professor Bernard Rougier, who told the Senate:


The foreword to Micheron’s book was written by Gilles Kepel, France’s leading authority on Islamism, whose first book on the subject, The Banlieues of Islam: birth of a religion in France, was published in 1987.
Shortly after the twin attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in January 2015, he was asked if the perpetrators were lone wolves. ‘The lone wolf theory is an idiocy,’ he retorted. ‘It’s deployed by pseudo-academics and journalists who follow the news but who don’t study and don’t know the reality of the [Islamic] texts and the actions of the jihadists. It’s a pure fantasy that has never existed. There are individuals who act alone or in pairs but they are part of a network, they have been inspired.’
For a decade France has been on the frontline of the Islamist war on Europe, and for that reason it has a more profound understanding of the scale of the challenge. They have learned that the lone wolf narrative is convenient but delusional; that only the eradication of the ecosystems that nurture the likes of Mohamed Merah, Larossi Abballa and Abdoullakh Anzorov, the teenager killer of the schoolteacher Samuel Paty, will bring the barbarism to an end.
Britain is a significant way behind France in its comprehension of Islamic extremism, and the appalling death of Sir David Amess may reveal yet again the inability – or the unwillingness – to confront this grim reality. The newspapers this morning are full of ‘lone wolf’ descriptions. The ‘UK faces wave of “lone wolf terror attacks from bedroom radicals”’ is just one such headline.
Many in Britain can no longer bring themselves to even utter the word ‘Islam’ so, to paraphrase Kepel, they deploy idiocy. France has now armed itself intellectually for the fight, but Britain is still running scared.



Its interesting to note that the French are taking steps to try & sort out this radicalisation ... France to close six mosques and disband associations suspected of radicalism

snip "France has taken steps to close six mosques and disband a number of associations suspected of promoting radical Islamist propaganda.
Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin told Le Figaro newspaper that a third of the 89 places of worship "suspected of being radical" had been investigated since November 2020.
The six to be shut down are spread over five departments across France.
Darmanin stressed that French security services had bolstered their surveillance in recent years as part of the country's fight against Islamic "separatism".
 
Same here so I'm done for now .
Im still up for it a don't see why the threads can't be combined
Screenshot_20211021-092102_1.png

Remember tolerance has nine lives.
Respect.
 
Its interesting to note that the French are taking steps to try & sort out this radicalisation ... France to close six mosques and disband associations suspected of radicalism

snip "France has taken steps to close six mosques and disband a number of associations suspected of promoting radical Islamist propaganda.
Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin told Le Figaro newspaper that a third of the 89 places of worship "suspected of being radical" had been investigated since November 2020.
The six to be shut down are spread over five departments across France.
Darmanin stressed that French security services had bolstered their surveillance in recent years as part of the country's fight against Islamic "separatism".

This is fantastic news.

We could do the same - if only our own Parliament would debate the elephant in the room they would realise the similar issues we have in our own country that we could and should address.

Sadly the Leftwaffe have ensured that any debate of Islam is instantly shut down with claims of 'Islamophobia" - that made up word created by those on the Left to stifle any conversation.
 

endure

GCM
Its interesting to note that the French are taking steps to try & sort out this radicalisation ... France to close six mosques and disband associations suspected of radicalism

snip "France has taken steps to close six mosques and disband a number of associations suspected of promoting radical Islamist propaganda.
Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin told Le Figaro newspaper that a third of the 89 places of worship "suspected of being radical" had been investigated since November 2020.
The six to be shut down are spread over five departments across France.
Darmanin stressed that French security services had bolstered their surveillance in recent years as part of the country's fight against Islamic "separatism".
Be careful what you wish for. If we go down the same path the next thing you know we'll all be walking around in berets, carrying strings of onions and smoking Gauloises...
 
Be careful what you wish for. If we go down the same path the next thing you know we'll all be walking around in berets, carrying strings of onions and smoking Gaulosies...

Arguably a worthy price for ridding our country of those who continue to murder and maim in the name of their religion.
 
This is fantastic news.

We could do the same - if only our own Parliament would debate the elephant in the room they would realise the similar issues we have in our own country that we could and should address.

Sadly the Leftwaffe have ensured that any debate of Islam is instantly shut down with claims of 'Islamophobia" - that made up word created by those on the Left to stifle any conversation.

My first post on this thread, so usual caveat that I hope this is new, and not already posted . . .

Editorial: Why can’t they just say ‘Islamism’? On Friday a serving MP, David Amess, was stabbed to death in a suspected Islamist terrorist attack. And yet his colleagues are not prepared even to discuss the threat posed by this poisonous ideology. Instead, they are lining up to complain about members of the public calling them names on Twitter.

As Brendan O’Neill reminds us today on spiked, politicians have contorted themselves in recent years to avoid mentioning the i-word. It was the same story after Reading, London Bridge, Manchester and every other Islamist atrocity. The ideology that has inspired the murder of 40 innocent people on British soil in the past five years alone remains nameless to our political leaders.

This obfuscation has been even more grotesque in the wake of Amess’s killing. Instead of facing up to the specific hateful ideology that the police suspect fuelled this alleged murder, politicians have spoken of a more generalised ‘culture of hate’. This, Brendan argues, points the finger at the masses, at you and me. Apparently MPs would rather blame us for this barbaric killing than have the more difficult conversation that we desperately need to have . . . .



Published by: Brendan O'Neill, chief political writer, SP!KED, on 19 October 2021.

The hate that dare not speak its name.

Britain is in the grip of a pathological unwillingness to talk about radical Islam.


In the days since the horrific murder of Sir David Amess, Britain seems to have gone mad. Here was a good, much-loved politician allegedly slain by a young man who is currently being held under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of possibly being motivated by the Islamist ideology. And what are we talking about? Tweets. Online anonymity. The rude things members of the public say to politicians. The need to ‘be nice’. It feels increasingly unhinged. It feels like a displacement activity of epic proportions. A possible act of Islamic terrorism takes place, and the chattering classes gab about how horrible Twitterstorms are. What is going on?


It feels like the political class is gaslighting the nation. Reading the newspapers has become an entirely disorienting experience. ‘PM faces calls for “David’s law” to halt online abuse’ screams the front page of today’s Guardian. What does this mean? Was Amess subjected to online abuse? There’s no suggestion he was. So why are we talking about this? Why would a man allegedly murdered by someone who the police suspect had radical Islamist beliefs need to be memorialised with a law against saying stupid things online? The disconnect between what seems to have happened in Leigh-on-Sea and the questions and concerns now dominating political discourse is confusingly vast. It’s hard to make sense of it.

It really does feel like gaslighting. The public is subtly, cynically being encouraged to forget what we know, so far, about what happened to Amess and instead to focus on other things entirely. We’re being made to question our own grip on reality. Our eyes and ears tell us a possible religious extremist allegedly killed a politician and devout Catholic, and yet the political class tells us the real problem is mean tweets and public ridicule of MPs. Jess Phillips, with her staggering skill of making everything about herself, wrote a piece about Amess and included in it some of the instances of ‘demonisation’ she has faced. For example, some social-media users say Ms Phillips is ‘part of some establishment coup against the people’. What is this? How did we go from a suspected Islamic terror attack to an MP complaining about being called a member of the establishment?


A cloud of obfuscation covers the country. Consider yesterday’s discussion in the Commons. It was unnerving in its unreality. Yes, some fine tributes were paid to Amess, and who didn’t let out a cheer when Boris Johnson announced that Southend-on-Sea would be granted city status, something Amess campaigned for throughout his parliamentary career. And yet there was an elephant in the chamber. A great, stonking beast whose presence MPs refused to acknowledge as they instead told stories of personal abuse or called for a tightening of the laws governing what can be said online. The beast’s name? It’s that political-religious ideology that begins with the letter ‘i’. Are we allowed to name it out loud? Judging by its absence from political discussion over the past four days, it seems not.

There has long been a reluctance to grapple with the reality of Islamic radicalism, of course. What is striking this time is that the Tories seem to be as invested in this campaign of Islamist denialism as the left is. So Tory MP Mark Francois has put himself to the forefront of the efforts to honour Amess’s memory by toughening up the Online Safety Bill and renaming it ‘David’s law’. Online hate must be tackled, everyone cries, as if there is some kind of mystical link between an anonymous loser on Twitter calling Mark Francois a cnut and the existence of a radical religious ideology that has claimed the lives of scores of Britons in recent years, and might possibly have claimed the life of David Amess, too. Reality disappears in a puff of political opportunism and reality-avoidance.


It is undeniable now that Britain is in the grip of a pathological unwillingness to confront the problem of radical Islam. Even before this most recent suspected act of Islamist violence, the opinion-forming set regularly engaged in moral contortionism to try to avoid mentioning the i-word. Remember the fury in response to then UKIP leader Paul Nuttall’s use of the phrase ‘Islamist extremist’ in the wake of the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017? One is reminded, too, of Morrissey’s quip in response to Manchester mayor Andy Burnham’s description of the Manchester bomber as an extremist: ‘An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?’ An entire lexicon of condemnation has been created to police and punish too keen a concern about Islamic fundamentalism. ‘Islamophobic’ is the preferred reprimand used by those who want to shush anyone who raises awkward questions about the homegrown religious extremists who have visited so much horror on our fellow citizens.

In the wake of the Amess atrocity, all the talk among the political class has been about a ‘culture of hate’. There is a supposedly amorphous, free-floating hatred, akin to evil, I guess, that seeps from computer screens into people’s hearts and minds, polluting our souls and provoking unacceptable and even violent behaviour. We need to push back against this idea. It is entirely Orwellian. First, because it distracts our attention from real and dangerous forms of hateful thinking – such as radical Islam, for example – in favour of making us believe hate is a general, rife problem. It discourages reality-based, constructive discussion about the specific ideologies that contain genuinely evil components, and instead tells us hate is all around us – in your neighbours, some of your friends, Brexit voters, white men. The ‘culture of hate’ ideology fosters suspicion of the masses, of ourselves, while virtually criminalising serious collective efforts to tackle true hate.


And secondly, because it nurtures a new authoritarianism. The political elite’s war on ‘hate’ is, at root, an assault on freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Witness how left politicians describe everything from gender-critical feminism to Christian opposition to same-sex marriage as ‘bigotry’, confirming that extent to which perfectly legitmate moral viewpoints can be demonised through association with the ‘culture of hate’. Or witness how leading Tory politicians want to tighten the rules on what can and cannot be said online, ostensibly to tackle ‘hate’, but really to chill the apparently problematic openness of the traditionally unpoliced internet. The phrase ‘hate speech’ now plays the same role as ‘thoughtcrime’ in Nineteen Eighty-Four – it’s an all-encompassing reprimand, as liable to punish political provocation and intellectual dissent as it is to capture genuine expressions of racist or violent intent.

Stop talking about Islamic extremism and start focusing on the hatred in yourself and your communities – this, in essence, is what the political establishment is saying to us. For how much longer are we going to put up with this? With this besmirching of the public, the vast majority of whom are good people, and this curbing of free, frank discussion about those among us who are not good people? We should refuse to tolerate this gaslighting. Our rulers may be vacating the realm of reality, but it’s still where the rest of us live.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show.

Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy


Note: I have maintained the SP!KED formatting, of occasional double-spacing between some paragraphs, the purpose, significance, of which still eludes me :( .
 
Last edited:
Once more for the hard of hearing: it is not islamist, nor radical, it's islam.
You either follow all of it, or none of it. Like pregnancy or membership of the Waffen SS, you can't be " a bit".
Invariably after such attacks the media wheel out claimants that it's a religion of peace. Yes, but only on its own terms, which are accept islam and pay tax, or die.
3 nanoseconds later another muslim will be online denouncing the first one, and round we go.
Fannying about pretending that only a tiny minority are radical is pointless, democracies need to destroy the whole belief, by remorselessly educating muslims that they've been conned into believing nonsense.
 

Tyk

LE
Once more for the hard of hearing: it is not islamist, nor radical, it's islam.
You either follow all of it, or none of it. Like pregnancy or membership of the Waffen SS, you can't be " a bit".
Invariably after such attacks the media wheel out claimants that it's a religion of peace. Yes, but only on its own terms, which are accept islam and pay tax, or die.
3 nanoseconds later another muslim will be online denouncing the first one, and round we go.
Fannying about pretending that only a tiny minority are radical is pointless, democracies need to destroy the whole belief, by remorselessly educating muslims that they've been conned into believing nonsense.

Which of course will never happen and any politician who even considered sticking their head over that parapet would be shouted down, disowned by their party and immediately accused of racism and various "phobias".
 

endure

GCM
Once more for the hard of hearing: it is not islamist, nor radical, it's islam.
You either follow all of it, or none of it. Like pregnancy or membership of the Waffen SS, you can't be " a bit".
Invariably after such attacks the media wheel out claimants that it's a religion of peace. Yes, but only on its own
You need to tell that to the Muslim bloke I worked with who used to go down the pub and have a few beers with the rest of us.
 
My first post on this thread, so usual caveat that I hope this is new, and not already posted . . .

Editorial: Why can’t they just say ‘Islamism’? On Friday a serving MP, David Amess, was stabbed to death in a suspected Islamist terrorist attack. And yet his colleagues are not prepared even to discuss the threat posed by this poisonous ideology. Instead, they are lining up to complain about members of the public calling them names on Twitter.

As Brendan O’Neill reminds us today on spiked, politicians have contorted themselves in recent years to avoid mentioning the i-word. It was the same story after Reading, London Bridge, Manchester and every other Islamist atrocity. The ideology that has inspired the murder of 40 innocent people on British soil in the past five years alone remains nameless to our political leaders.

This obfuscation has been even more grotesque in the wake of Amess’s killing. Instead of facing up to the specific hateful ideology that the police suspect fuelled this alleged murder, politicians have spoken of a more generalised ‘culture of hate’. This, Brendan argues, points the finger at the masses, at you and me. Apparently MPs would rather blame us for this barbaric killing than have the more difficult conversation that we desperately need to have . . . .



Published by: Brendan O'Neill, chief political writer, SP!KED, on 19 October 2021.

The hate that dare not speak its name.

Britain is in the grip of a pathological unwillingness to talk about radical Islam.


In the days since the horrific murder of Sir David Amess, Britain seems to have gone mad. Here was a good, much-loved politician allegedly slain by a young man who is currently being held under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of possibly being motivated by the Islamist ideology. And what are we talking about? Tweets. Online anonymity. The rude things members of the public say to politicians. The need to ‘be nice’. It feels increasingly unhinged. It feels like a displacement activity of epic proportions. A possible act of Islamic terrorism takes place, and the chattering classes gab about how horrible Twitterstorms are. What is going on?


It feels like the political class is gaslighting the nation. Reading the newspapers has become an entirely disorienting experience. ‘PM faces calls for “David’s law” to halt online abuse’ screams the front page of today’s Guardian. What does this mean? Was Amess subjected to online abuse? There’s no suggestion he was. So why are we talking about this? Why would a man allegedly murdered by someone who the police suspect had radical Islamist beliefs need to be memorialised with a law against saying stupid things online? The disconnect between what seems to have happened in Leigh-on-Sea and the questions and concerns now dominating political discourse is confusingly vast. It’s hard to make sense of it.

It really does feel like gaslighting. The public is subtly, cynically being encouraged to forget what we know, so far, about what happened to Amess and instead to focus on other things entirely. We’re being made to question our own grip on reality. Our eyes and ears tell us a possible religious extremist allegedly killed a politician and devout Catholic, and yet the political class tells us the real problem is mean tweets and public ridicule of MPs. Jess Phillips, with her staggering skill of making everything about herself, wrote a piece about Amess and included in it some of the instances of ‘demonisation’ she has faced. For example, some social-media users say Ms Phillips is ‘part of some establishment coup against the people’. What is this? How did we go from a suspected Islamic terror attack to an MP complaining about being called a member of the establishment?


A cloud of obfuscation covers the country. Consider yesterday’s discussion in the Commons. It was unnerving in its unreality. Yes, some fine tributes were paid to Amess, and who didn’t let out a cheer when Boris Johnson announced that Southend-on-Sea would be granted city status, something Amess campaigned for throughout his parliamentary career. And yet there was an elephant in the chamber. A great, stonking beast whose presence MPs refused to acknowledge as they instead told stories of personal abuse or called for a tightening of the laws governing what can be said online. The beast’s name? It’s that political-religious ideology that begins with the letter ‘i’. Are we allowed to name it out loud? Judging by its absence from political discussion over the past four days, it seems not.

There has long been a reluctance to grapple with the reality of Islamic radicalism, of course. What is striking this time is that the Tories seem to be as invested in this campaign of Islamist denialism as the left is. So Tory MP Mark Francois has put himself to the forefront of the efforts to honour Amess’s memory by toughening up the Online Safety Bill and renaming it ‘David’s law’. Online hate must be tackled, everyone cries, as if there is some kind of mystical link between an anonymous loser on Twitter calling Mark Francois a **** and the existence of a radical religious ideology that has claimed the lives of scores of Britons in recent years, and might possibly have claimed the life of David Amess, too. Reality disappears in a puff of political opportunism and reality-avoidance.


It is undeniable now that Britain is in the grip of a pathological unwillingness to confront the problem of radical Islam. Even before this most recent suspected act of Islamist violence, the opinion-forming set regularly engaged in moral contortionism to try to avoid mentioning the i-word. Remember the fury in response to then UKIP leader Paul Nuttall’s use of the phrase ‘Islamist extremist’ in the wake of the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017? One is reminded, too, of Morrissey’s quip in response to Manchester mayor Andy Burnham’s description of the Manchester bomber as an extremist: ‘An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?’ An entire lexicon of condemnation has been created to police and punish too keen a concern about Islamic fundamentalism. ‘Islamophobic’ is the preferred reprimand used by those who want to shush anyone who raises awkward questions about the homegrown religious extremists who have visited so much horror on our fellow citizens.

In the wake of the Amess atrocity, all the talk among the political class has been about a ‘culture of hate’. There is a supposedly amorphous, free-floating hatred, akin to evil, I guess, that seeps from computer screens into people’s hearts and minds, polluting our souls and provoking unacceptable and even violent behaviour. We need to push back against this idea. It is entirely Orwellian. First, because it distracts our attention from real and dangerous forms of hateful thinking – such as radical Islam, for example – in favour of making us believe hate is a general, rife problem. It discourages reality-based, constructive discussion about the specific ideologies that contain genuinely evil components, and instead tells us hate is all around us – in your neighbours, some of your friends, Brexit voters, white men. The ‘culture of hate’ ideology fosters suspicion of the masses, of ourselves, while virtually criminalising serious collective efforts to tackle true hate.


And secondly, because it nurtures a new authoritarianism. The political elite’s war on ‘hate’ is, at root, an assault on freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Witness how left politicians describe everything from gender-critical feminism to Christian opposition to same-sex marriage as ‘bigotry’, confirming that extent to which perfectly legitmate moral viewpoints can be demonised through association with the ‘culture of hate’. Or witness how leading Tory politicians want to tighten the rules on what can and cannot be said online, ostensibly to tackle ‘hate’, but really to chill the apparently problematic openness of the traditionally unpoliced internet. The phrase ‘hate speech’ now plays the same role as ‘thoughtcrime’ in Nineteen Eighty-Four – it’s an all-encompassing reprimand, as liable to punish political provocation and intellectual dissent as it is to capture genuine expressions of racist or violent intent.

Stop talking about Islamic extremism and start focusing on the hatred in yourself and your communities – this, in essence, is what the political establishment is saying to us. For how much longer are we going to put up with this? With this besmirching of the public, the vast majority of whom are good people, and this curbing of free, frank discussion about those among us who are not good people? We should refuse to tolerate this gaslighting. Our rulers may be vacating the realm of reality, but it’s still where the rest of us live.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show.

Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

safe_image.php

[photo: Getty].


Note: I have maintained the SP!KED formatting, of occasional double-spacing between some paragraphs, the purpose, significance, of which still eludes me :( .


Once again GBNEWS has nailed it, they seem to be the only outlet to dare say it, methinks their studios will become a target for these nutters as "Charlie Hebdo's" offices were in France ...

 
You need to tell that to the Muslim bloke I worked with who used to go down the pub and have a few beers with the rest of us.


Ahh, but he will be in danger from other more extreme members of his religion as this guy was for daring to wish his customers "Happy Easter" ..

 
My first post on this thread, so usual caveat that I hope this is new, and not already posted . . .

Editorial: Why can’t they just say ‘Islamism’? On Friday a serving MP, David Amess, was stabbed to death in a suspected Islamist terrorist attack. And yet his colleagues are not prepared even to discuss the threat posed by this poisonous ideology. Instead, they are lining up to complain about members of the public calling them names on Twitter.

As Brendan O’Neill reminds us today on spiked, politicians have contorted themselves in recent years to avoid mentioning the i-word. It was the same story after Reading, London Bridge, Manchester and every other Islamist atrocity. The ideology that has inspired the murder of 40 innocent people on British soil in the past five years alone remains nameless to our political leaders.

This obfuscation has been even more grotesque in the wake of Amess’s killing. Instead of facing up to the specific hateful ideology that the police suspect fuelled this alleged murder, politicians have spoken of a more generalised ‘culture of hate’. This, Brendan argues, points the finger at the masses, at you and me. Apparently MPs would rather blame us for this barbaric killing than have the more difficult conversation that we desperately need to have . . . .



Published by: Brendan O'Neill, chief political writer, SP!KED, on 19 October 2021.

The hate that dare not speak its name.

Britain is in the grip of a pathological unwillingness to talk about radical Islam.


In the days since the horrific murder of Sir David Amess, Britain seems to have gone mad. Here was a good, much-loved politician allegedly slain by a young man who is currently being held under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of possibly being motivated by the Islamist ideology. And what are we talking about? Tweets. Online anonymity. The rude things members of the public say to politicians. The need to ‘be nice’. It feels increasingly unhinged. It feels like a displacement activity of epic proportions. A possible act of Islamic terrorism takes place, and the chattering classes gab about how horrible Twitterstorms are. What is going on?


It feels like the political class is gaslighting the nation. Reading the newspapers has become an entirely disorienting experience. ‘PM faces calls for “David’s law” to halt online abuse’ screams the front page of today’s Guardian. What does this mean? Was Amess subjected to online abuse? There’s no suggestion he was. So why are we talking about this? Why would a man allegedly murdered by someone who the police suspect had radical Islamist beliefs need to be memorialised with a law against saying stupid things online? The disconnect between what seems to have happened in Leigh-on-Sea and the questions and concerns now dominating political discourse is confusingly vast. It’s hard to make sense of it.

It really does feel like gaslighting. The public is subtly, cynically being encouraged to forget what we know, so far, about what happened to Amess and instead to focus on other things entirely. We’re being made to question our own grip on reality. Our eyes and ears tell us a possible religious extremist allegedly killed a politician and devout Catholic, and yet the political class tells us the real problem is mean tweets and public ridicule of MPs. Jess Phillips, with her staggering skill of making everything about herself, wrote a piece about Amess and included in it some of the instances of ‘demonisation’ she has faced. For example, some social-media users say Ms Phillips is ‘part of some establishment coup against the people’. What is this? How did we go from a suspected Islamic terror attack to an MP complaining about being called a member of the establishment?


A cloud of obfuscation covers the country. Consider yesterday’s discussion in the Commons. It was unnerving in its unreality. Yes, some fine tributes were paid to Amess, and who didn’t let out a cheer when Boris Johnson announced that Southend-on-Sea would be granted city status, something Amess campaigned for throughout his parliamentary career. And yet there was an elephant in the chamber. A great, stonking beast whose presence MPs refused to acknowledge as they instead told stories of personal abuse or called for a tightening of the laws governing what can be said online. The beast’s name? It’s that political-religious ideology that begins with the letter ‘i’. Are we allowed to name it out loud? Judging by its absence from political discussion over the past four days, it seems not.

There has long been a reluctance to grapple with the reality of Islamic radicalism, of course. What is striking this time is that the Tories seem to be as invested in this campaign of Islamist denialism as the left is. So Tory MP Mark Francois has put himself to the forefront of the efforts to honour Amess’s memory by toughening up the Online Safety Bill and renaming it ‘David’s law’. Online hate must be tackled, everyone cries, as if there is some kind of mystical link between an anonymous loser on Twitter calling Mark Francois a **** and the existence of a radical religious ideology that has claimed the lives of scores of Britons in recent years, and might possibly have claimed the life of David Amess, too. Reality disappears in a puff of political opportunism and reality-avoidance.


It is undeniable now that Britain is in the grip of a pathological unwillingness to confront the problem of radical Islam. Even before this most recent suspected act of Islamist violence, the opinion-forming set regularly engaged in moral contortionism to try to avoid mentioning the i-word. Remember the fury in response to then UKIP leader Paul Nuttall’s use of the phrase ‘Islamist extremist’ in the wake of the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017? One is reminded, too, of Morrissey’s quip in response to Manchester mayor Andy Burnham’s description of the Manchester bomber as an extremist: ‘An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?’ An entire lexicon of condemnation has been created to police and punish too keen a concern about Islamic fundamentalism. ‘Islamophobic’ is the preferred reprimand used by those who want to shush anyone who raises awkward questions about the homegrown religious extremists who have visited so much horror on our fellow citizens.

In the wake of the Amess atrocity, all the talk among the political class has been about a ‘culture of hate’. There is a supposedly amorphous, free-floating hatred, akin to evil, I guess, that seeps from computer screens into people’s hearts and minds, polluting our souls and provoking unacceptable and even violent behaviour. We need to push back against this idea. It is entirely Orwellian. First, because it distracts our attention from real and dangerous forms of hateful thinking – such as radical Islam, for example – in favour of making us believe hate is a general, rife problem. It discourages reality-based, constructive discussion about the specific ideologies that contain genuinely evil components, and instead tells us hate is all around us – in your neighbours, some of your friends, Brexit voters, white men. The ‘culture of hate’ ideology fosters suspicion of the masses, of ourselves, while virtually criminalising serious collective efforts to tackle true hate.


And secondly, because it nurtures a new authoritarianism. The political elite’s war on ‘hate’ is, at root, an assault on freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Witness how left politicians describe everything from gender-critical feminism to Christian opposition to same-sex marriage as ‘bigotry’, confirming that extent to which perfectly legitmate moral viewpoints can be demonised through association with the ‘culture of hate’. Or witness how leading Tory politicians want to tighten the rules on what can and cannot be said online, ostensibly to tackle ‘hate’, but really to chill the apparently problematic openness of the traditionally unpoliced internet. The phrase ‘hate speech’ now plays the same role as ‘thoughtcrime’ in Nineteen Eighty-Four – it’s an all-encompassing reprimand, as liable to punish political provocation and intellectual dissent as it is to capture genuine expressions of racist or violent intent.

Stop talking about Islamic extremism and start focusing on the hatred in yourself and your communities – this, in essence, is what the political establishment is saying to us. For how much longer are we going to put up with this? With this besmirching of the public, the vast majority of whom are good people, and this curbing of free, frank discussion about those among us who are not good people? We should refuse to tolerate this gaslighting. Our rulers may be vacating the realm of reality, but it’s still where the rest of us live.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show.

Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

safe_image.php

[photo: Getty].


Note: I have maintained the SP!KED formatting, of occasional double-spacing between some paragraphs, the purpose, significance, of which still eludes me :( .

I for one am very glad you did join in this conversation @RCT(V), welcome ,and thanks for drawing our attention to this excellent piece.

Seems the likes of 'you and me' [i.e. pretty much all of us] as indicated by Brendan O'Neill mostly share the same sentiment that this whole Islam thing needs to be confronted by those who "you and me" have elected into Parliament (both Government and the Opposition and every other MP of any party) who seem totally blinkered only to see nasty Tweets posted online 'anonymously'.

It literally seems someone has rolled out the "Social Media is nasty" carpet as soon Sir David Amess was brutally murdered and they are now all stuck on it - even today - MP's are still bleating about Social Media instead of Islam:


I'd argue Ali Harbi Ali doesn't bother too much with Social Media because he operates at a much more sinister level than someone calling an MP a cnut anonymously because the voted for Brexit.

We need to write to our MP's and tell them to stop ignoring the motivation behind all of these attacks - Islam.
 
Once again GBNEWS has nailed it, they seem to be the only outlet to dare say it, methinks their studios will become a target for these nutters as "Charlie Hebdo's" offices were in France ...


One upon a time such a remark would be laughed at, to think that a news outlet would be targeted for reporting current events, however that is now sadly a very sinister reality, and I fear you may be right.

GB News have not been holding any punches regarding this topic, indeed they are an oasis of reality among the chaff.

Like him or loath him, the likes of young Tom Harwood and others who speak up on GB News now face a serious threat in their own country, caused by a religion we have imported, that our elected representatives are failing to address.
 
You need to tell that to the Muslim bloke I worked with who used to go down the pub and have a few beers with the rest of us.
You should give his religion the same treatment he does.

Give it **** all respect and take the piss.
 
I'm not the one constantly posting fantasies of cleansing and revenge.
Yes the classic modern day appeasement argument .
Everyone who doesn't agree with me is Hitler .
People suggesting that some past it gammons on on this forum bitching are likely to commit atrocities like bombing buses /disco's stabbing MP's or torching mosques.
"Arrse jhiadies " (your words )if you will . That is a low ignorant and vile Inflammatory suggestion of the class and style of the BBC or a labour MP .
I assume none of us will .
I am right you (both of you) are Wrong .
 
Top