1. There's a certain type of political thinking which likes everything to be nice and luvvy-duvvy and everyone tolerant of everyone else until someone differs from them and then they turn nasty and want that person banned, excluded, legislated against, prosecuted and incarcerated, on the grounds of breaking some new law they've managed to get in place in the past few years.
If they've had any success in doing this, they become emboldened and it becomes like a narcotic until finally they set up regular weekly meetings to look for someone else to legislate against this week. Education is infested with such as these.
These people can get knotted.
2. There's a certain type of thinking which is hyper-sensitive to buzz words so that if I attack someone for his stupid comments, this is fine as long as he's a heterosexual, male WASP but the instant the person attacked turns out to be feminist, homosexual, black or Muslim, the attack is automatically labelled sexist, anti-gay, racist or anti-Muslim, when it had zero to do with that and everything to do with the shoddy argument or behaviour in the first place.
This person hides behind and invokes the group association and says anything he damn well likes, knowing he can thereby vilify and label the detractor and send him to Coventry [sorry to those from that fine city].
These people in N2 can also get knotted.
3. There's a certain type of thinking which makes no distinction between the individual and the group. One Romani kills an Italian woman so all Romanis are labelled and by association – all Romanians too.
Works the other way as well. Evil nutters like Al Qaeda and Deobanda spread their poison and all Muslims get labelled. Most Muslims I know are not like that.
But the religion itself is most certainly open to that interpretation and nasty groups, generally male but not exclusively, operate under the Muslim banner and these are people whom most Muslims would disown, e.g. at Beslan.
To answer that Christians kill each other in Ireland is transferring the argument from what the text condones to what the perpetrator does.
The woolly-headed thinking which equates faith with its devotees makes no distinction between the hard working immigrant who comes over to improve his lot and work hard to get there – and a clear nutter who is using a scriptural text as a pretext for violence.
Harder to do that with Christianity – can you find a New Testament text which exhorts violence? This is completely different to a group calling itself something and carrying out violence in its name.
This latter type can get knotted.
4. There is also a mealy-mouthed, malcontented, ne'er-do-well group-think among many groups of many orientations and causes which is forever playing the martyr and trying to either push an alien culture and alien ways of treating everyday affairs onto the majority.
A spin-off of this behaviour is that they form ghettos and then proceed to dictate to the indigenous population. They set up their own schools which preach values opposite to those of the host country.
In my book, this behaviour is right out. The standard reply that Christian schools should also be banned in Britain is total bunkum because Christianity is the religion of tradition in Britain and the Commonwealth and providing the teaching doesn't incite either violence or sexual exploitation [both punishable in any country in which the government is secular], then it is not out of line with the country's antecedents.
And that's the test. A secular test with no -isms attached and here it is in summary:
a. violence;
b. sexual exploitation;
c. values contrary to those embraced on the statute books over the last century, [before that are some pretty draconian ones] ...
So if the person who entered Italy and killed that woman made it into the country already because of the lax immigration laws, then he should get due process in regular courts, as an individual and if found guilty – sent to St Helena or similar. Elba perhaps.
Or a new one. Australia already has such an island – it's in Westernport Bay but I've forgotten its name.
Plus one more thing:
d. this applies to immigrants or visitors. Natives would follow standard due process, as laid down pre-Blair.
Now of course this deportation to an island has historical horror attached to it. Transportation to Australia in the 1780s and 90s springs to mind plus Guantanamo and similar. We're actually trying to stop the government building these internment camps, not shifting them offshore but there is a difference.
We want
no internment camps for any British nationals on any grounds other than a-c above and even for immigrants and visitors there should be due process, not summary arrest. We're between a rock and a hard place here.
Do nothing and put a blanket ban on the government arresting anyone at all and crims run free. Allow it for some and it's the thin edge of the wedge. But on the grounds quoted above and no others, it might work if a non-treasonable government were in power.
As long as we have a traitor to Britain currently in power in Westminster, well, nothing can really be achieved.
In response to this:
