The extremists of Bet Shemesh and the Islamists have a lot in common

Every time there is a terror attack or attempted terror attack by Islamic extremists in the UK, you can be sure that a self-proclaimed spokesman (usually from the Muslim Council of Britain) will pop up to give the usual statement: "We condemn this violence, but...."

"But... these were extremists, not real Muslims".

"But... these only represent a tiny minority of Muslims".

"But... these attacks are used by Islamaphobes to tar all Muslims with the same brush".

"But... if Muslims weren't provoked, these attacks wouldn't occur".

Now look at Agudat Yisrael's statement on what is going on Bet Shemesh. Notice the parallel?

Sometimes all you should do is issue a condemnation. Period. There is nothing more to say.

Unfortunately, Haredi extremists and Islamists have a lot in common. The extremists may be small minorities, but they are incubated by apologists from the wider community.

The sort of drivel the Guardian excels at

Whenever there's a major terror plot in the news involving Islamists, you can be sure the Guardian will publish an article from some ignoramus telling us that "Islam is a religion of peace" or that "the fanatics aren't real Muslims" etc.. This week we were entertained by Lauren Booth who recently converted to Islam. She tells us:

So let's all just take a deep breath and I'll give you a glimpse into the other world of Islam in the 21st century. Of course, we cannot discount the appalling way women are mistreated by men in many cities and cultures, both with and without an Islamic population. Women who are being abused by male relatives are being abused by men, not God. Much of the practices and laws in "Islamic" countries have deviated from (or are totally unrelated) to the origins of Islam. Instead practices are based on cultural or traditional (and yes, male-orientated) customs that have been injected into these societies. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive by law. This rule is an invention of the Saudi monarchy, our government's close ally in the arms and oil trade.

What utter drivel. Presumably, you can explain away just about every terror atrocity and religious injustice throughout history as being related to local culture. How convenient.

I often wonder what the (mainly) godless readership of the Guardian makes of all this? Whilst many readers will regard Islamism as proof of how primitive religion is, there seems to be a much larger group who believe that "celebrating diversity" trumps everything. Personally I prefer the former to the latter. At least they're not hypocrites.

The British don't iike people who are successful

Much has been said about Tom Daley, the olympic swimmer, who was forced to change schools after the constant bullying he received at his local school.

According to Tom Daley, the problem doesn't lie with the bullies, but with the comprehensive school system:

"...According to this dogma, no one must be allowed to succeed unless that success is shared equally by all. Because all must win prizes, none must win prizes. Tall poppies will be culled..."

Unfortunately, our comprehensive school system is just part of a deeper malaise. The British simply don't like people who are successful. Why do you think so many Brits emigrate to Australia, Canada and the States?

Amusing video of Noah and his Ark

As this week is Parshat Noach, I thought you would enjoy watching the following video

Sink schools and the social divide

If you haven't seen it already, I would strongly recommend watching the documentary by John Humphreys: "Unequal Opportunities" which is all about the huge gulf between rich and poor kids when it comes to education. You can watch on BBC iPlayer.

Most of the programme was a rant about "the middle classes" who send their kids to independent schools, spend thousands on private tutors, and bus their kids to the best state schools miles away whilst everyone else has to languish at the local comprehensive. (can you blame them when there is no decent local state school available?)

But the best and most inspiring part of the documentary was the fact that he visited several high performing schools that were:

1. Based in poor areas with poor pupils
   
2. Had a mixed intake of kids from various countries and communities
3. Were in a delapidated premises

And despite all that, the schools performed well because of

1. strong leadership from the head
2. good teachers
3. strict discipline

It just goes to show that whether you're rich or poor, middle class or working class, give kids the right school environment and they can succeed in life. Throwing all the money in the world at schools (as Labour did) makes little difference. Britain seems to suffer from a "can't do" culture, a mindset that finds every excuse under the sun to explain under performing schools. It's very simple: we need to and we can raise the standards of our schools that serve the poorest kids. We also need to recognise that it's perfectly fair and normal for parents to have the power to choose the best schools for their kids. We just need to make sure that the poorest parents also have that choice.

I just hope Michael Gove's free schools experiment succeeds in raising standards, because Labour have tried just about everything else and with the exception of Academies, nothing else has worked so far.

Opposition parties have a habit of picking the wrong leaders

When the Tories went into opposition after their historic defeat in 1997, they picked William Hague as leader. His election was a disaster with the Tories winning only 1 seat in the 2001 general election. Following their ejection by the electorate in 1979, the Labour party elected Michael Foot as leader. He went on the lead the Labour party to one of their worst defeats in the 1983 general election.

Notice a pattern here? Governing parties that are pushed into opposition tend to learn the wrong lessons of their election defeat. They take the electorate for granted and retreat into their own idealogical comfort zone. They get into a mindset that the electorate somehow got it all wrong and will eventually mend their ways and vote for them again. They find it very hard to absorb the fact that maybe their policies were wrong.

And so it is with Ed Miliband. The new Labour leader refuses to recognise that his party tested the theory of tax and spend to destruction and that we now have a massive deficit that is entirely Labour's fault. He is happy to dance to the tune of his union paymasters rather than appeal to the electorate as a whole. Labour never warmed to the new Labour project. It begrudgingly went along with Tony Blair because they were hungry for power after nearly two decades in opposition. The lesson they are now drawing from their election defeat is that the party was too Blairite (have they ever asked themselves why Blair won them three elections?).

Although my political sympathies are broadly centre right (I don't feel a strong affiliation to any political party), I'm sorry that David Milliband wasn't elected. Governing parties need a strong opposition to keep them on their toes, otherwise they get lazy and complacent (as Labour did when the Tories were in opposition). David Milliband understands the need to win over middle class voters and would have given the coalition government a run for its money. Under Ed Milliband, Labour runs the risk of slipping into insignificance just as the Tories did.

Britain needs its own First Ammendment

The whole Terry Jones saga is another timely reminder that Britain needs its own first ammendment. Whilst British Liberals were quick to condemn Americans for their "Islamaphobia" (how does a Pastor with a few dozen followers represent Americans?), they seemed unable to appreciate that unlike Britain, the US authorities were powerless to prevent the Pastor from carrying out his threat.

Unless someone can prove that you're placing someone in physical danger, the first ammendment gives you the freedom to express yourself in pretty much any way you want. That's why Americans are free to burn US flags (despite repeated attempts to ban the practice). And there's nothing to prevent a Muslim American from burning a pile of New testaments. Provided they belong to you, that's your right. In the US, people have the right to be offensive and make "hate speeches". That's why Louis Farrakhan has the right to call Judaism a "gutter religion" and Westboro Church has the right to say that "God hates gays".

Americans will go to bizzare lengths to defend their "freedom of expression". A few years back, a senator was caught carrying out a lewd act in an airport lavatory and his lawyers tried to claim his behaviour was protected by the first ammendment.

When it comes to freedom of expression, the US is Liberal in a way that Britain could never be. In the UK, we regard being "Liberal" as banning people from saying anything that could be construed as islamaphobic, homophobic, or offensive to a minority group (provided they're not Jews). But if you're a true Liberal, the right to be offensive (and sometimes hateful) is something you should be protecting. What kind of totalitarian society are we living in when the State decides what can and can't be said?