18 Feb

First catch your murderer…then let him go

When capital punishment was abolished in Britain in 1965, to the public’s great displeasure, we were assured that convicted murderers would be given life sentences and that “life would mean life.” But last year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that life sentences must provide for appeal and review and now our own Court of Appeal is about to pronounce on whether this shall be so or not. The ECHR is of the opinion that whole life sentences without the possibility of review or appeal are inhumane and infringe the murderers’ human rights.

This is a subversive opinion announced by a Court notorious for its subversion of the moral order, and therefore of abrogating the very principle of justice it was created to uphold. There are no rights in wrongs. One who commits murder thereby places himself outside the usual social framework of rights. He is correctly described as an outlaw. Moreover, it is not society which makes him into an outlaw, but entirely his own doing by means of his crime. A convicted murderer must, If there is no death penalty, expect to have his freedom removed for the remainder of his days. This is just, and we know directly and intuitively that it is just. Try considering the alternative expressed as a simple proposition: “Killers should go free.” It is patently absurd. In effect it involves declaring that the murderer should not be punished but rewarded for his crime by being granted his freedom.

None of this is merely hypothetical. Between 2000 and 2010, thirty convicted murderers were freed and killed again. There have been a further five such atrocities in the last four years alone.

And it is not the murderer alone who bears responsibility for these deaths: the authorities who grant him his release are responsible too. The problem is that here we have a perverted notion of what responsibility means, as the Court which would free a murderer does so out of a perceived responsibility concerning the murderer’s rights: but this involves having no responsibility concerning the lives of those he is freed to kill.

Thus the social morality of the ECHR is a precise inversion of rational ethics and it amounts to the satanic principle: “Evil, be thou my good.” 

31 Jan

Dying by euphemism

This morning the BBC reported as follows: “Certain communities in Britain are not reporting honour killings to the police.” Which, being interpreted, means, “Some Muslims murder members of their own families.” I confess, I had the impression that, disquieting as this fact is, the number of murders was very few. But police forces have revealed the tally: 2823 murders – sorry, honour killings – in Britain. And there I was – and I imagine many others believed as I did – thinking these appalling crimes were few and far between perpetrated by, to use the cliche, “the occasional bad apple.” But how many bad apples do we count before we discard the whole barrel?

The wickedness is compounded by the fact that these thousands of known murders are not only not reported to the police, but the murderers are being celebrated within the…do we call it “community” or “ghetto”? Not that there is any excuse for unlawful killing, but perhaps we should pause to ask what it is that the victims are doing to deserve – and that’s not the right word either – to be bumped off? The victims are mainly young Muslim girls who have committed the heinous crime of finding a non-Muslim boyfriend.

It is at times like this that I recall former Archbishop Rowan Williams’ suggestion that it would be nice to run a little sharia in our country alongside the traditional British legal system.

What I’d like to know is why the whole country is not in uproar against this scandalous disgrace? First of all because the media choose not to give prominence to the issue. And why not? Imagine the outcry if indigenous white middle class families in the stockbroker belt were slaughtering their offspring on anything approaching this scale. But the principal reason why prominence is not given to this widespread evil is because our rulers and the mass media have conspired in a decision that the overwhelming necessity is that the population at large must not on any account criticise Muslims. There is even a formal term coined to describe such criticism or disapproval: Islamophobia.

Now a phobia is defined as an irrational fear. But there’s nothing irrational about fearing the presence in our country of a minority of perverted religionists who murder the innocent and then rejoice that in so doing they are obeying the will of God.