It was pleasing to see that old clip of Gerry Adams endorsing Jeremy Corbyn re-emerge, just before the acts of carnage were carried out at London Bridge. It reminded us all, should we have needed to be reminded, of Jeremy’s genial relationship with terrorists who murder British citizens (or indeed Israeli citizens).
The question, I suppose, is: will it sway any opinions? You would doubt it, such is the kind of deranged certitude in which the his supporters bask, where everything bad about Mr Corbyn has actually been made up by Boris Johnson, or people like me. Even as the first reports of the atrocity were coming in, Corbyn’s Momentum acolytes were all over social media suggesting that it was an establishment plot to scupper Labour’s chances at the election. Cue lunatics on Twitter talking about Mossad false flags to stop Corbyn winning the general election. Dense and credulous beyond imagining, wrapped up in their conspiracy theories which usually, at the bottom, devolve to Jews — they will still be marching down to the polling booths to support Corbyn on 12 December.
Well beyond all other considerations, this is the reason I could not possibly vote for the man, even if some of those economic proposals attract me: his unapologetic antipathy to everything in Britain’s interests, his identification with murderers in the IRA and Hamas, and with inept, authoritarian tyrants in Cuba and Venezuela. Even, among his closest advisers, with North Korea and Iran. A simple watchword, then: if they hate us and the Jews, they’ve got to be OK. Self–flagellating white guilt mixed with partly digested gobbets of Marxist theory and a generous splash of Cold War radical posturing.
You may remember the infamous video in which Magic Grandpa called the genocidal Islamists Hamas and Hezbollah his ‘friends’. What sometimes got overlooked were his later comments in that film. He said he was right to be talking to them because they were ‘dedicated towards peace’. Hamas’s 1988 charter promised to ‘obliterate’ Israel. And that’s how Corbyn sees them — dedicated to peace.
Meanwhile, I think we can all agree that the rehabilitation programme for Usman Khan fell a little short of what we might have hoped. Our epic benevolence towards these people, our fathomless gullibility that they can be rehabilitated when they are driven by an ideology rather more potent and more uncompromising than our own, has resulted in the deaths of two people.
The liberal rehabilitation crew adored Usman and they loved the little poem he wrote: ‘I write so my words become a soothing light/ I write so I can enter the coldest of hearts/ I write so I can speak to those locked off/ From the world engulfed in the blinding absence of sight/ I write so I can express what I feel is right.’
Usman was having a laugh, big time. Do they understand that now? Has it penetrated? I doubt it very much, because following the attack the usual flaccid shibboleths were flung around, the blandishments and the liberal platitudes. Most egregious is the suggestion, immediately advanced by all the liberals, including the Mayor of London, that this atrocity should not be ‘politicised’. The implication, then, is that having crazed jihadis stab people to death in the centre of our capital is, like a tempest or an earthquake, an act of nature and something which lies beyond the political fray.
Indeed, Sadiq Khan commented after a previous atrocity that this was the kind of thing one had to prepare for in a big vibrant and diverse city like London. (He doesn’t say the same about racism, dangerous cycle routes, gender inequality, but we should brace ourselves for being stabbed to death.) This is imbecilic, of course — the first duty of a government is to protect its citizens from attack by hostile forces and therefore there is a case, given our recent familiarity with the Usmans of this world, that it should be one of the crucial issues of the election. Does indulgence and rehabilitation work, or should we try a different approach?
But in demanding the issue should not be politicised, the liberals are really begging not to be held responsible when, in truth, they are responsible. And so they wish to close down the debate — because, I suspect, they know what the general public feels about this matter. We all like a nice poem or two, but are not wholly convinced that the price worth paying is murder.
The left are very adept at closing down the debate, though. Murders of this kind may be an act of God, they say, but they are certainly not the act of any one specific God and to suggest that they are would be Islamophobic and thus a hate crime. I have written an awful lot about the challenges posed to us by radical Islam: its intractability, its hostility to other creeds and to apostasy and freedom of speech, and to Jews and to women and homosexuals.
There are things about Islam which I see as wholly positive and it is true that I have not written about those perhaps as much as I should — its communitarian aspect, its respect for the family and the elderly, its resistance to the asocial western individualistic ethos, its seriousness, its commitment to charity and the redistribution of wealth, the humility it demands of its adherents. These are all socially admirable qualities which we, as a consequence of our own creed of selfish secularism, have lost.
But those aforementioned challenges still exist and to try to divorce them from Islam is dishonest. It does not matter one bit whether or not I accept that Usman Khan was following a perverted version of Islam. It matters only that he did not accept that he was — and nor do perhaps millions like him, any more than the governments of Islamic states accept that they are perverting the religion when they threaten toexecute apostates and homosexuals and try to wipe Israel off the map.