No change on the Melanie front
Jeff in England writes:
Again, Melanie Phillips should either come out for stopping Muslims coming into the UK or find something else to write about. This sort of writing really is tiresome.
These articles warning about the dangers of Islam and/or certain ‘extremist’ Muslims are useless: by now, everyone knows these are the sort of scenarios which will occur when you let Muslims into the UK as we have done and are still doing.
Melanie is addicted to warning people about this and even more addicted to NOT offering any sort of solution to the problem.YAWN….
LA replies:
The Phillips article concerns the release from prison of the major al Qaeda figure abu Qatada and the quashing of the conviction of the “lyrical terrorist” Samina Malik. Here’s the way the article begins:
Once again England’s judiciary has shown that when it comes to defending this country against jihadi terrorism it is unfortunately living on another planet. Not one but two judgments yesterday beggar belief. In fairness, the decision to release abu Qatada was all but inevitable given the earlier decision by the Court of Appeal to reverse the ruling by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that he should be deported to Jordan to face trial there for further terrorist offences. Although the Home Secretary has applied for leave to appeal that decision to the House of Lords, as things stand at present abu Qatada is not to be deported from Britain—and not to be prosecuted either, there apparently being (amazing as it may seem) no evidence with which to charge him in this country of any offences, despite his being al Qaeda’s top man in Europe and the fulcrum of many European terrorist conspiracies. As a result, the court decided that there were no grounds under immigration law to continue to keep him locked up. So now he is out on bail under virtual house arrest, at some staggering cost to the public purse which is having to fork out for the cost of his house, welfare benefits for his family and the large number of police officers required to ensure that he adheres to the unprecedented restrictions placed upon him through his bail conditions.
The whole thing is mad beyond belief; but the root of the problem was Britain’s decision to admit Muslim immigrants into the country, an immigration that started in the 1950s and has been accelerating ever since. Given the fact that Islam is incompatible with any non-Muslim society, given the command to wage jihad against non-Muslims that is at the core of the Islamic religion, and given the extreme notions of equality and tolerance prevalent in Britain, it was inevitable that once Muslims were present in Britain in significant numbers, two results would follow: (1) Britain would find itself with a domestic jihadist population consisting of an activist core and a large periphery of sympathizers opposed to the very existence of Britain and seeking its destruction; and (2) the British state and society would be helpless to do anything about this….
Wow. Then I woke up.
Note: This is not necessary for regular VFR readers, but given the inability of a portion of the modern reading public to grasp the fact that they are reading a parody unless they are explicitly informed that this is the case, please understand that the second paragraph of Phillips’ article quoted above, starting at the words, “Britain’s decision to admit Muslim immigrants,” is a parody written by me.
- end of initial entry -
Terry Morris writes:
Jeff wrote:
Melanie is addicted to warning people about this and even more addicted to NOT offering any sort of solution to the problem.YAWN….
I beg to differ with Jeff. Melanie’s second paragraph offers, implicitly, the best and only real solution to the Muslim problem in the West. Indeed, in this article Melanie almost reads like a carbon copy of Auster. Oh, wait … never mind. ;-)
LA to Terry Morris:
Good one. Thanks.
Mr. Morris replies:
Actually your parody had me going for a minute, even though the title is a dead giveaway, even though I’ve read about Melanie Phillips enough at VFR to know the difference.
I must be one of those people you describe in your explanation below the article. But you know what they say “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
LA replies:
But, in fairness, while the title and Jeff’s comment would indicate otherwise, the reader is given no immediate hint that the Phillips text is going to turn into a parody right in the middle.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 19, 2008 02:03 AM | Send