Sunday, January 11, 2015

TIME FOR A JIHAD AGAINST JIHADISTS

This post is written against a backdrop of the warning by Andrew Parker,
Director General of Britain's domestic spy agency M15, that Al Qaeda militants are planning an attack on the West aimed at inflicting mass causalities on transport systems and/or iconic targets.   Disregard that at your peril.

No-one but no-one (except for the terminally stupid) should now fail to understand that Islamic terrorism poses a major threat to western civilization as we know it.   The massacre of 160 school children in Pakistan; the Ottawa, Sydney and Paris attacks ...  the list lengthens ... tomorrow a place near you.  So, what's to be done?   We have two choices.   We can be either proactive or reactive in facing the threat.   Choose reactive in the knowledge that you are in effect surrendering the initiative to the enemy.  It's a choice but its no choice. Rather, it's a recipe for disaster.   It will come back to bite with a vengeance with much hand wringing after the event.

I repeat what I've said in previous posts.   Recent events point to the need for a paradigm shift in the way we tackle the threat posed by Jihadists who implicitly believe that killing westerners is a one-way ticket to paradise. And if anyone sincerely believes that here in New Zealand we are somehow immune from a home-grown threat then more pity them as doubly terminally stupid.

Where the Government has reason to believe that there exists person(s) who have been radicalized to the point where they pose a distinct threat to society then I believe it has a duty of care to have those persons quarantined from society.     There are legal precedents for this.    In the jurisdiction I have some working knowledge of the 'precautionary approach' has been endorsed by the judgement of the Court of Appeal in My Noodle vs the Queenstown-Lakes District Council [2009] NZCA 564.   Take that one step further.   In the criminal jurisdiction, Section 82 of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides for 'preventative detention' to "protect the community from those who pose a significant and ongoing threat to the safety of its members".   Marry the two together and you have a proactive way forward.

How might this happen.    One way might be by Order in Council made under the Royal Prerogative (i.e not backed by legislation) and providing for the Attorney General, on being satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for the incarceration of such persons, to issue a direction to this effect.   You might go so far as to argue that Habeas corpus should not apply in such instances.   On balance this may be a step too far.  I remain open minded on this point.

Eddie the Con has challenged me to name those persons likely to be involved.    Obviously I can't simply because I'm not privy to that information.    But our intelligence agencies do have a reported list comprising 40+ names. That to my mind reflects the scale of the problem.    But be very clear.   I am not talking about the wholesale and indiscriminate rounding up of individuals.   It's only those deemed to pose a real risk to society.

I fully expect to be criticised by the liberal effete.  For them protecting the 'rights' of the wannabee terrorist is more important than ensuring society is protected from them.    That criticism is, for me, water off a ducks back.



18 comments:

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Yes Vet.

The effete left will have no other recourse but to go and infest Kiwiblog.

Once you have rounded up and interned the forty bad guys, you'll need to go after their enablers and encouragers. Those who incite them to violence.

Edward the Confessor said...

Getting you abuse in early I see.

"No-one but no-one (except for the terminally stupid) should now fail to understand that Islamic terrorism poses a major threat to western civilization as we know it. "

Get fucking real. You have a very very low opinion of western civilisation if you seriously believe that. Only a terminally stupid person would think something so terminally stupid. Maybe we shold ban the swimming in the sea as that has caused infinitely more deaths in NZ this summer than the scary mooooslims. Talk about a threat to civilisation!

Adolf doesn't want to just intern the forty so called baddies. He wants all Muslims interned and/or deported. Remember, Adolf?

The Veteran said...

EtC ... thank you for your totally reasoned response to my post not. No attempt to dissect but then I didn't expect you to do so either so I'm not disappointed.

BTW ... a word to the wise (shoudn't be doing this I know) but I showed your comment regarding 'mooooslims' (repeated above) to a Muslim friend of mine. His reaction ... to some extremists this might be seen as insulting their religion ... the moooo bit. So perhaps you need to keep a low profile for a bit least ..... just trying to be helpful.

Edward the Confessor said...

"a word to the wise (shoudn't be doing this I know) but I showed your comment regarding 'mooooslims' (repeated above) to a Muslim friend of mine. His reaction ... to some extremists this might be seen as insulting their religion ... the moooo bit. So perhaps you need to keep a low profile for a bit least ..... just trying to be helpful."

Ooooohhh, now you've done it as well! Better hide underneath your bed for a spell. Get real. The degree of paranoia you're showing is quite disturbing.

Barry said...

I agree that islamic terrorism poses a major threat to Western civilisation.

Edward the Confessor said...

What about drownings, Barry? Or snakes?

The Veteran said...

EtC ... your dismissal of the slaughter of those 160 innocent school kids in Pakistan plus all else is the really disturbing thing. Clearly you are wedded to that Clark woman dictum that we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment.

BTW. No snakes in NZL and drownings are always a concern but again, in your attempt to trivialize matters, you are, innocently I hope, aligning yourself with those who pose a threat to society.

Anonymous said...

Can you please ban Eddie from commenting on this?

Edward the Confessor said...

Yep, the call to ban is strong on the right. You don't like hearing opposition to imprisonment without trial and summary deportation, so best to stick fingers in ears and go lalalalalalala.

And you're trivialising drownings and snake bites, and getting wee bit hysterical. This issue is really bringing out the viciously unpleasant nature of the right, even in those who proclaim moderation.

gravedodger said...

Utter tosh confuser, you have made four comments on The Vet's very well constructed and expressed commentary on what intelligent people throughout the world see as a defined and real threat to all who these demented killers decide on very random and capricious grounds to slaughter as individuals or groups.

Not a single reasoned argument just a mad persons shit, scatter gun attack based on your warped mind.

Calls for your banning from random visitors indicate the supercilious value of your pathetic witterings.

That they remain as evidence of the retarded quality of your trolling behavior does not in anyway diminish The Veteran's great post.
Sex and travel are my only response to Confuser

Tinman said...

Veteran, I both agree and disagree.

To a certain extent the West (including NZ) needs to become proactive, seeking out "jihadists" and removing their threat to society.

We must however retain the things that Western society holds dear, particularly freedom of expression.

Otherwise we have lost and the scum have won.

There is a fantastic scene in Carry On Up The Kyber where, while the Afganis attack the Poms carry on with their dinner party before wandering out to dispatch the natives - successfully of course.

I think this way is best for the West.

Carry on as if nothing unusual is happening. Use current laws against planning and carrying out criminal acts to control the scum.

Show utter contempt for the scum and their supporters.

When (and it will) something nasty happens use the full weight of the law to deal to the scum and their supporters but CHANGE NOTHING BECAUSE OF THE SCUM.

We can do more damage to the scum's cause by demonstrating contempt, even disinterest than by any police-state type reaction as you propose.

I don't rule out stopping immigration etc, I'm talking those already here.

Simply treat "jihadists" as the criminals they are.

The method I propose will not be easy, it will often hurt but I suggest it is the only way we can win.

Psycho Milt said...

I fully expect to be criticised by the liberal effete.

And by anyone who feels a bit dubious about giving the government carte blanche to declare someone a threat and detain them indefinitely without charge or trial. And I sincerely hope us dubious types are an overwhelming majority of NZ citizens, because this isn't the Third World.

The Veteran said...

PM ... you deserve a reasoned response. You will note I said that I was open to the question of challenge. Insofar as Regulation 18B was concerned a detainee could challenge his/her detention by way of an appeal to an Advisory Committee headed by Norman Birkett, the eminent British politician and Silk. The same mechanism could apply here acknowledging that there is plenty of case law as to what constitutes 'reasonable grounds'.

The alternative is to do nothing and hope nothing happens. Obviously some support this option. Clearly I don't.

As for EtC ... his sneering, patronising and arrogant remarks leave me (and I suspect many others) cold. The good news is that he and his mob have been out of power now for six years ... something along the lines of 'we won, you lost, eat that' (not original I know, ack to one Michael Cullen). If Labour is to be judged by the standards set by Eddie the Con we can look to and enjoy another six years at least of their wanderings in the wilderness. Joy.

Psycho Milt said...

You've a lot more faith in the government than I have. Both Labour and National govts have proved enthusiastic selecters of supporters and cronies for supposedly "independent" positions, so I wouldn't expect anything of a government-appointed advisory committee.

The Realist said...

I think Maori Muslims could be a major threat here.

Noel said...

While yah at it how about expanding "radicalizing" to include the gangs.
My bet is when all this has quietened down more kiwis will have had their lives threatened by unknowingly walking through a gang area then from jihadists.

Noel said...

PM said
"You've a lot more faith in the government than I have. Both Labour and National govts have proved enthusiastic selectors of supporters and cronies for supposedly "independent" positions, so I wouldn't expect anything of a government-appointed advisory committee."

Thank you. My sentiments exactly.

The Veteran said...

PM ... not sure you have had too much experience re Govt appoinments but from my perspective and having been appointed to various Boards/Tribunals/Committees by both Labour and National led administrations I am not sure your concerns are factually based.

Most people know/can guess where my political sympathies lie but that did not stop Minister Maharey appointing me and then reappointing me to the MSD Benefits Review Committee where I continue to serve. And I can say with some certainty and knowledge that the current administration also appoints from across the political divide.

My experience is that appointees tend to leave their political prejudices at the door and that most decision making is by consensus. It's probably made a tad easier in the most of your work is backstopped by legislation.

I can understand why you made the comment
but, in my experience and away from the 'glare' of politics, people tend to get on with the job and make decisions based on facts rather than from any ideological bent.