Tired and Emotional

It can only get worse

Month: August, 2006

Ruth Kelly & The Commission on Integration and Cohesion

Ruth Kelly

On 24 August, 2006, Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly launched the new Commission on Integration and Cohesion, her speech follows, along with some of my thoughts.

Welcome — and thanks to all of you who have come here today to launch the Commission on Integration and Cohesion.

I want to start by saying that I believe that Britain’s diversity is a huge asset to our country — economically, culturally and socially.

The familiar Left-wing mantra that, if stated often enough, we are expected to believe? After five decades of mass immigration is there not proof of the magnitude of the benefit to our country, or is conclusive proof still lacking? Just by saying it often enough doesn’t mean it’s true.

Immigration has helped transform our economy, supporting growth and boosting productivity. London’s strength as a financial centre — as I am keenly aware from my time at the Treasury — was driven by the acknowledgement across the developed world that Britain was open to new people, to new ideas and to new products.

The oft-repeated justification for mass immigration: the economic benefits. Where’s the proof? According to Professor Rowthorn of Cambridge University the benefits of lage-scale immigration are ‘either close to zero, or negative’. In 2004, along with Professor Coleman of Oxford University, he wrote a paper published in Population and Development Review entitled The Economic Effects of Immigration into the United Kingdom, the conclusion being, ‘the economic consequences of large-scale immigration are mostly minor, negative, or transient, that the interests of more vulnerable sections of the domestic population may well be damaged, and that any economic benefits are unlikely to bear comparison with immigration’s probable substantial and permanent demographic and environmental impact’.

London’s strength as a financial centre is not due to mass immigration, the free-flow of capital through trading and financial services is responsible. Any immigration related to this is not of the nature or magnitude that this country has experienced. The vast majority of immigrants to Britain have not been educated bankers, accountants, commercial or corporate lawyers, or financial dealers. What may be true for London’s financial centre is not true for our country overall.

Immigration has helped enrich our cultural life, with the capital’s diversity now commonly acknowledged to be one of its key attractions. A weekend spent at the Notting Hill Carnival or exploring Brick Lane are attracting tourists and residents alike.

I’m not sure about Brick Lane attracting tourists. Ms Kelly is presumably talking about the same Brick Lane where, earlier this year, local businessmen led by Abdus Salique — a shop owner, restaurateur and member of the local Labour Party — warned that a film company was not welcome to shoot scenes for the film Brick Lane. The younger generation of the community were described as ‘hostile and very militant’, a state of affairs that Britain is having to get used to. Brick Lane seems to be welcoming only to residents of a certain religious and ethnic disposition and I doubt it is an attractive tourist destination.

As for the Notting Hill Carnival, — described as ‘hell for residents’ — one only has to remember the riot of 1976 due to police enforcing the Law, along with problems with street crime in subsequent carnivals, noise, rubbish, and public urination in dustbins. Not, I think, the best advert for cultural enrichment. The cost of policing the 2005 Notting Hill Carnival was estimated at £4,726,485.

And migrant workers have been vital to supporting our public services, providing critical staff to our hospitals and schools, as well as other essential services. As the Prime Minister has said: “far from always or even mainly being a drain on our health and education systems, they are often the very people delivering them”.

And following on from the mythical economic benefits we have the ‘vital jobs’ argument. The question that needs asking is why are indigenous workers not taking up such jobs? The answer is obvious, pay and conditions are not attractive enough so low-wage immigrants are brought in. This keeps down costs but marginalises the low-skilled working class who have to compete with immigrants, their choice being unemployment and surviving on welfare or low pay. The very communities within society that the Labour Party are supposed to represent are being damaged by Labour’s policies of mass immigration. If mass immigration was not allowed, then pay and conditions would have to improve until sufficient numbers of indigenous workers found them sufficiently attractive to fill the vacant posts.

And I believe that we should celebrate and clearly articulate the benefits that migration and diversity have brought — but while celebrating that diversity we should also recognise that the landscape is changing, changing rapidly. And we should not shy away from asking — and trying to respond to — some of the more difficult questions that arise.

I have not seen any reason to celebrate so far, the benefits are illusory and diversity is leading to the fracturing of society into enclosed communities with their own values antithetical to the majority and resisting any integration. According to Trevor Phillips, chair of the Commission For Racial Equality, the ‘anything goes‘ multiculturism’ so beloved of the Left ‘leads to deeper division and inequality’ and that this country is sleepwalking to segregation. Who is to blame? The very politicians who allow mass immigration and lecture us on tolerance, diversity and the benefits of multi-culturism.

I believe it is time now to engage in a new and honest debate about integration and cohesion in the UK. If we are to have an effective, progressive response to these issues, then we must be honest about the challenges we face and be prepared to meet these head on with renewed energy and impetus.

Does that mean that the debates of the past were dishonest? Why have we not had ‘a new and honest debate’ in the past? Until now, discussion of immigration and its consequences has been suppressed by the Left with anyone trying to discuss the issues automatically being labelled racist. How kind of our politicians to now allow us a debate, especially when things are going bad. The correct time for such a debate would have been at the start, before significant immigration had occurred.

Thirty years on from the Race Relations Act and the Commission for Racial Equality, the context of today’s society arguably poses some of the most complex questions we have ever faced as a nation.

The reality is that not one but three race relation acts have been passed since 1965 with an amending act in 2000. Along with the multiple legislation has come quangos, commissions and the whole panoply of monitoring and outreach, diversity and equality workers — a veritable industry — but we still have ‘complex questions’ to solve. Countries that have not allowed such mass immigration that Britian has had to endure does not require such legislation, support non-productive public bodies, associated workers and have ‘complex problems’ to solve.

Patterns of immigration to Britain are becoming more complex. Our new residents are not the Windrush generation. They are more diverse, coming from countries ranging from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from South Africa to Somalia.

The only reason immigration is ‘complex’ is because successive governments have allowed it to become so. A country that has control over its borders and a clear policy on immigration is able to face the challenges of increasing pressure from immigration.

And one of the outcomes of that complexity — and increased global interconnectedness — is that global tensions are being reflected on the streets of local communities. New migrants protect the fierce loyalties developed in war-torn parts of Europe. Muslims feel the reverberations from the Middle East. Wider global trends have an impact. Some new migrants will put down roots. Some will move on, and find other work or return to their families.

As time passes, the challenges of integration become more apparent to those who have settled here. Second and third generation immigrants can face a struggle. Not to adapt to life in the UK — but to reconcile their own values and beliefs with those of their parents and grandparents. Young people may be seen as Pakistani on the streets of Burnley, but many feel out of place and “British” when they visit Pakistan.

The reality of the ‘complexity’ is that Britain has enclaves of unintegrated immigrants that identify more with their countries of origin than with Britain, the results of which we are currently suffering.

And for some communities in particular, we need to acknowledge that life in Britain has started to feel markedly different since the attacks on 9/11 in New York and on 7/7 in London — even more so since the events of two weeks ago.

And as this complex picture evolves, there are white Britons who do not feel comfortable with change. They see the shops and restaurants in their town centres changing. They see their neighbourhoods becoming more diverse. Detached from the benefits of those changes, they begin to believe the stories about ethnic minorities getting special treatment, and to develop a resentment, a sense of grievance.

‘White Britons’? Ms Kelly makes the indigenous majority sound like a band of immigrants imported from some goat-herding province of Pakistan! According to the Office for National Statistics the white population accounts for 92·1% of the total population of the United Kingdom.

As for not feeling comfortable with the change occurring within Britain, it’s nothing new. What’s new is that politicians have finally deigned to recognise the reality. Consider, for instance, white flight; that unspoken but very real response of the British to significant settlement of immigrants in local communities. Although Lipton and Power (2001) have recently identified white flight in a report entitled Minority Ethnic Groups in Britain, this response of the British to immigration was reported to the Home Office as early as 1957 but it was just ignored for as long as possible, just like the opinions and concerns of the majority British population. Now, due to certain religious and ethnic groups destroying multi-culturism from within, politicians are finally recognising the real concerns and problems.

The issues become a catalyst for a debate about who we are and what we are as a country. About what it means to live in a town where the faces you see on the way to the supermarket have changed and may be constantly changing.

A debate that politicians such as Ms Kelly has tried to suppress for too long.

I believe this is why we have moved from a period of uniform consensus on the value of multiculturalism, to one where we can encourage that debate by questioning whether it is encouraging separateness.

There has never been a uniform consensus on immigration or multi-culturism within this country, just that the dissenting voices have been derided or ignored.

Trevor Phillips and others have put forward these points of view. These are difficult questions and it is important that we don’t shy away from them.

And until recently Trevor Phillips et al. have been expressing opinions completely opposed to those they now promote: the modern-day Vicars of Bray.

In our attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture, have we ended up with some communities living in isolation of each other, with no common bonds between them?

Why the question mark for what is fact?

I think we face the clear possibility that we are experiencing diversity no longer as a country, but as a set of local communities. Each experiencing changes in a different way, with some being affected more than others.

What a surprise! We are no longer experiencing diversity as a country because it is so divisive.

It is on this ground that this Commission can add most value. It is not, and must not be, a talking shop. It is a practical exercise which will look at what actually works for communities on the ground. It will act as a catalyst for change, by ensuring that, not only do we know what works, but that we are able to share this information and “scale up” those things that really make a difference.

Perish the thought that a Commission set up by this government could ever just become a talking shop, it’s not like that’s happened before.

The Commission has a new and more complex set of challenges to address. It will need to think about both people, and place. About established communities, and those that have yet to develop a resilience to change.

It is our responsibility to make sure that the Commission can engage with the latest and most innovative policy interventions. And that it can build on the best examples of local areas where community cohesion is working.

It will also look at how we can encourage local authorities and community organization to play a greater role in ensuring new migrants better integrate into our communities and fill labour market shortages. For example, increasing the availability of English teaching, mapping where local jobs exist, ensuring that migrants are able to develop a sense of belonging, with shared values and local understanding, as we underline their responsibility to integrate and contribute to the local community.

There are already communities rising up to tackle these issues and equipping themselves for the changes they face.

There are school twinning programmes, and sporting events across the country that focus on children mixing at an early age. Local communities are developing Charters of Values, or local Citizens’ Days, that aim to develop a sense of belonging in multicultural towns and cities. And there are community-led projects springing up in communities facing cohesion challenges that focus on mediation and conflict resolution — learning from the best international practice.

And there are more specialised projects such as the work in Bradford aimed at developing a citizenship curriculum for Madrassas. Or examples of private sector organisations getting involved in cohesion by running mentoring schemes for people of all ethnic and faith backgrounds.

What we need to do is to consolidate these pockets of good practice and spread the lessons learnt much further. Then we can begin to develop a more consistent national picture.

Bingo! Sorry, I got so bored with the New Labour management spiel I was playing Bullshit Bingo and got a full card.

Finally, there are questions about the debate itself. It will have considerably more value if we can be open and honest about the challenges we face. We must not be censored by political correctness, and we must not tiptoe around important issues.

For example, it is clear that we need a controlled, well managed system of immigration that has clear rules and integrity to counter exploitation from the far right. I agree with the Home Secretary: it is not racist to discuss immigration and asylum. There are challenging, legitimate issues we need to talk about and debate. That debate, however, must be based on fact, not myth. How do we establish the necessary trust and maturity to allow this?

It is also clear that our ideas and policies should not be based on special treatment for minority ethnic or faith communities. That would only exacerbate division rather than help build cohesion. And as a society we have to have the confidence to say no to certain suggestions from particular ethnic groups.

Fine words, but actions will speak louder; I won’t be holding my breath.

But at the same time, to make sure everyone can be treated equally, there are some programmes that will need to treat groups differently. We must, again, be unafraid to say this plainly when it is plainly the pragmatic truth. Which is why the cross-Government race and cohesion strategy ‘Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society’ is so critical.

It was too good to last.

And I also want to see a clear understanding that although fundamental rights must be equal for everyone, with rights come responsibilities. Even within a framework of mutual tolerance, I believe that there are non-negotiable rules, understood by all groups, both new and established. We must be clear and unafraid to say that we expect these will be shared and followed by all who live here.

Is this the rare case of a politician developing some common sense?

Like it or not, these are all questions that will shape our society and our public debates more and more in the coming years.

As they should have been allowed to do so from the 1950s onwards.

And we start with some positive signs. Not only the readiness of Commissioners to engage with this body — for which I am grateful. And not only the ideas that are already flowing in from local communities who want their projects to be considered as part of its work.

But evidence at a national level, via the regular Government Citizenship Survey, which consistently shows that people who live in the most ethnically diverse areas are the ones that have the most positive perceptions of ethnic minorities. It seems that those who are the most frightened about change are those that have been least exposed to it.

Integration and cohesion are not states but processes. They need to be worked at, built up and nurtured. We need to ensure that we are encouraging interaction between communities, and enabling people off all backgrounds to participate in wider society and institutions.

Back to Bullshit Bingo.

So, integration and cohesion are not issues just for people from ethnic minorities. Those who seek to cause conflict and tension in our communities must be marginalised by the responsible majority. That means everyone is involved. We need to recognise that there remains more that binds us together than pulls us apart.

What if the ‘responsible majority’ want no more mass immigration? It looks like Ms Kelly is going to introduce the Chairman of this new Commission, with all she’s said above I’m sure it will be someone from the majority population of this country.

I’m now going to hand over to Darra [Singh], who has important local experience to bring to the Commission. I look forward to reading his recommendations.

Predictable.

The British Muslim ‘Problem’

Abu Hamza Leading Prayers Outside Finsbury Park Mosque

Stephen Schwartz, Executive Director of The Center for Islamic Pluralism and himself a Muslim, wrote an article published in the Spectator last week:

Simply put, a million or more Sunnis of Pakistani background, who comprise the main element among British Asian Muslims, also include the largest contingent of radical Muslims in Europe. Their jihadist sympathies embody an imported ideology, organised through mosques and other religious institutions, rather than a ‘homegrown’ phenomenon, as the cliché would have it.

On the role of Islamic clerics, he writes:

Imported Muslim clerics are the basis of the threat. Islam in the UK is overwhelmingly influenced by imams and other religious officials born in Pakistan and trained in that country or in Saudi Arabia. Pakistani Sunni mosques in Britain are major centres for jihadist preaching, finance, incitement and recruitment.

He describes the British Government’s response to this threat as follows:

Unfortunately, the Blair government, notwithstanding its support for the US administration of George W. Bush, seems to be completely paralysed when dealing with this matter.

The article is informative and worth a read and, whilst reading, remember this problem is self-inflicted through the policy of allowing mass immigration and exacerbated by multi-culturism.

Islamophobia or Common Sense?

Twin Towers

Earlier this month, the ConservativeHome website published a Leftie Lexicon written by Inigo Wilson that lampooned the favourite ‘buzzwords’ of the Left in Britain. Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, certain Muslims took exception to this entry:

Islamophobic — anyone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work.

Palestinians — archetype ‘victims’ no matter how many teenagers they murder in bars and fast food outlets. Never responsible for anything they do — or done in their name — because of ‘root causes’ or ‘legitimate grievances’.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee — a rather nasty Muslim pressure group — complained to his employer Orange and Mr Wilson was subsequently suspended pending an ‘investigation’. The hypocrisy of Orange can be seen when one realises that Orange sponsors the free-speech group Index on Censorship. Mr Wilson made two mistakes, the first was to blog under his own name and the second was to express what most are thinking in Britain — Lefties and multi-culturists excepted — but are too afraid to say.

Earlier this week, passengers refused to board, and some who had boarded walked off, a flight from Malaga to Manchester because of two ‘suspicious-looking’ men. These two men were described ‘to be of Asian or Middle Eastern appearance’, in plain English the passengers were worried that they were Muslim and thus more likely to be terrorists. The flight departed without the two men, undoubtedly to the great relief of the passengers and crew.

Muslims and Leftie multi-culturists will claim both these examples demonstrate Islamophobia, in reality they are just common sense.

British Multi-Culturism

General Sir Charles Napier

The experiment of mass immigration undertaken in Britain since the 1950s, with the subsequent addition of multi-culturism to this toxic trial, has lead us to our present state of affairs. However, there could have been another form of multi-culturism for our country, as originally practiced by General Sir Charles Napier (1782–1853), Commander-in-Chief in India. A delegation of Hindu locals approached him complaining about the prohibition of Sati — the custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands — and his response was:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

Now that’s the sort of muscular multi-culturism I would not mind being put into practice, especially with all the demands for the introduction of Sharia law within our country.

Muslim Timing

Mark Steyn on top form:

I believe the old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between a New York traffic light changing to green and the first honk of a driver behind you. Today, the definition of a nanosecond is the gap between a Western terrorist incident and the press release of a Muslim lobby group warning of an impending outbreak of Islamophobia.

The Mask Slips

burka.jpg

Yesterday, Muslim leaders met Ruth Kelly to discuss how to combat extremism. The Independent reports:

Muslim leaders have urged Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities, to support Islamic family law in Britain to stop youths joining Islamic extremists.

In other words, let’s adopt Sharia Law within Muslim communities — extremist and fundamentalist by any definition — to curb the rise in fundamentalism! Thus the real motives of Muslim ‘community leaders’ are exposed.

That would be the thin end of a very nasty wedge.

Muslim or British?

One feature of the recent mainstream media’s commentary, and that following last year’s London bombings, is surprise and incomprehension that British-born Muslims should identify so strongly with the travails of Muslims globally — feeling the pain of the Ummah — that they are prepared to take up terrorism. From the Pew Global Attitudes Project — Muslims in Europe:

Religion is central to the identity of European Muslims. With the exception of Muslims in France, they tend to identify themselves primarily as Muslim rather than as British, Spanish, or German. In France, Muslims are split almost evenly on this question. The level of Muslim identification in Britain, Spain, and Germany is similar to that in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Jordan, and even higher than levels in Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia. By contrast the general populations in Western Europe are far more secular in outlook. Roughly six-in-ten in Spain, Germany, and Britain identify primarily with their country rather than their religion, as do more than eight-in-ten in France.

In Britain only 7% of Muslims consider themselves British first while 81% consider themselves Muslim first, this is comparable to Pakistan (8%:87%) and worse than Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia. That means 1.2 million British Muslims consider themselves Muslim first. This is the reason for the growth of Islamic terrorism within our country: based within self-supporting and self-reinforcing enclaves, induced by fundamentalist preachers and appeased by a multi-cultural elite.

It is therefore no surprise to find suicide bombers, who have a closer identification to their fellow Muslims in Iran, Lebanon or Gaza than their neighbours, occurring within our midst.

A Letter to Reject

Two days ago, an advert was placed in The Times newspaper — notably signed by three Members of Parliament, three peers and various Muslim religious groups — calling upon the British Prime Minister to change foreign policy to ‘tackle’ terrorism. The text of the advert follows, with thanks to Western Resistance:

Prime Minister,

As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against those who target civilans with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.

It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.

To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.

We urge the prime minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy.

Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.

Such a move would make us all safer.

Sadiq Khan MP, Shahid Malik MP, Mohammed Sarwar MP, Lord Patel of Blackburn, Lord Ahmed of Rotheram, Baroness Uddin, Association of Muslim Schools, British Muslim Forum, Bolton Mosques Council for Community Care, Confederation of Sunni Mosques, Midlands Council for Nigerian Muslim Organisations, Council of Mosques — London & Southern Counties, Council of Mosques — Tower Hamlets, Da’awatul Islam UK & Eire, Federation of Muslim Organisations (Leicestershire), Federation of Students Islamic Societies (FOSIS), Indian Muslim Federation, Islamic Forum Europe, Islamic Society of Britain, Jama’at Ahle Sunnat UK, Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith UK, Jamiat-e-Ulema Britain, Lancashire Council of Mosques, Muslim Association of Britain, Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Council of Wales, Muslim Doctors and Dentists Associaion, Muslim Parliament, Muslim Solidarity Committee, Muslim Students Society UK & Eire, Muslim Welfare House (London), Muslim Women Society (MWS), Muslim Women’s Association, Northern Ireland Muslim Family Association (NIMFA), Sussex Muslim Society, The Council of European Jamaats, UK Action Committee on Islamic Affars, UK Islamic Mission, UK Turkish Islamic Association, World Federation of KSIMC, World Islamic Misssion, Young Muslim Organisation UK, Young Muslim Sisters (UK), Young Muslims UK

My first reaction was surprise at the number of significant Muslim associations within Britain but with 1.6 million Muslims in this country as of 2001 (Census figures) I shouldn’t have been. MI5 believes up to 400,000 people in Britain are sympathetic to violent ‘jihad’ around the world and that as many as 1,200 — The Enemy Within — are involved in terrorist networks, the vast majority of these are undoubtedly Muslims.

This letter is nothing more than a case of a minority within our country — Muslims account for 2.8% of our population — pressurising the government to change its foreign policy, based upon the implicit threat of further terrorist attacks by disaffected British Muslims. This shows a lack of basic understanding: last year the British population in the general election voted the New Labour government back in to power — foreign policy included. While it is entirely appropriate to lobby the government of the day, either directly or via one’s local MP, any intimation that the desired change needs to occur to avoid terrorism must be firmly rejected.

Unfortunately, the British government, both past and present, has to take some reponsibility for the current situation. Mass immigration, along with the policy of multi-culturism has allowed the development of unassimilated and fundamentalist Islamic communities in London, the West Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire. It is within these communities that Islamic preachers such as Omar Bakri Muhammed and Abu Hamza have operated, preaching the fundamentalist Islamic creed to second- and third-generation Pakistani youths. The activities of such preachers were allowed under an unwritten gentleman’s agreement: cause no trouble at home and we’ll allow you to stay and continue to preach. Unfortunately these were no gentlemen.

I expect a significant proprortion of the signatories to this letter are no gentlemen either.

‘Religion of Peace’ Mantra

The last few days have seen less of the ‘Islam is the religion of peace’ mantra than after the London bombings last year, for which one must be grateful. Violence is a common response of devout Muslims to any criticism of Islam — remember those Danish cartoons or the Salman Rushdie fatwa — and the continuing, decades-long clash between Israel, neighbouring Arab states and Palestinian terrorists provides ample self-justification for Muslim suicide bombers to blow themselves up along with a captive audience.

Several years ago, I read a study of cancer cases that were found to be clustering around nuclear installations and one of the conclusions of the paper was, that as radioactive discharges could not have caused the observed number of malignancy cases according to the accepted aetiological model, some other agent must have been the cause of the problem. This conclusion was fine as long as the accepted model was correct, but what if there were double, triple or even higher multiples of malignancy? Either the accepted model was wrong or some other, associated agent might have been implicated.

It’s the same with Muslim terrorism and the ‘religion of peace’ mantra. The mantra is the model that Muslims and the bien pensant multi-culturalists want us to accept, but experience and the increasing incidence of terrorist and potential terrorist outrages are showing us that the ‘accepted model’ of Muslim behaviour is wrong. Muslim suicide bombers and Muslim terrorist groups generally are composed of devout Muslims.

The Language of Terrorism

Dr Imran Wahid

On Newsnight last night — the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme — Kirsty Wark interviewed Dr Imran Wahid, spokesman for the Islamist political party Hizb ut-Tahrir, and Haras Rafiq from the Sufi Muslim Council. Tony Blair had stated in a press conference on 5 August 2005, following the London bombings, that “we will proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahira [sic] and the successor organisation of Al Mujahiroun”, but this nasty, terrorist-supporting party still has free reign in this country.

Last night’s interview was the inevitable discussion into the ‘root causes’ and motivations of ‘British-born’ Muslims planning and committing terrorist atrocities and, while Mr Rafiq seemed to talk a great deal of sense, Dr Wahid did not fail to disappoint. When asked about such motivations Dr Wahid replied with, “…people who use political violence, usually there is a political grievance.”

So terrorism has now been sanitised to become ‘political violence’, denying the horror of violent death through mass murder. Let’s be clear, what’s being alleged is that Muslim terrorists, born in this country, have conspired to take international flights and deliberately detonate bombs, thus murdering hundreds of innocents with each act. That’s the reality of what Dr Wahid, a supporter of Islamic terrorism, describes as ‘political violence’.