I don’t have time for a long comment, and am only 1,000 words into chapter 2 of my novel. But no one in the LA has commented on the Woolwich murder.
This has key implications for liberty, not least because it is argued that the government’s snoopers’ charter proposal is a good idea in order to combat Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism in our country is a powerful confirmation of John Stuart Mill’s view (in chapter 16 of On Representative Government: read the section starting “free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities”) that free institutions are impossible in a culturally divided society. Cultural conflict encourages state control.
Take for example the freedom to bear arms, one of our traditional freedoms. If we had it, one of us could have gunned down the extremists and saved the soldier’s life. As it is, all most English people would do when confronted with the sight of a soldier being beheaded in the streets is to cower behind the net curtains.
As we deliberately import cultural conflict, we need to right to defend ourselves more, not less, but, by the same token, the authorities become more, not less, opposed to allowing us to arm ourselves. Even the police took 20 minutes to arrive, probably conducting a lengthy health and safety review before dispatching anyone. What is the army for if soldiers in barracks 2 miles away cannot be instantly dispatched to deal with people like this in our streets?
Then the other aspect is free speech. The media and politicians are mainly concerned to prevent comment on the Woolwich beheading. The Daily Telegraph has closed all comments on articles on this crime–the DT seems convinced that anyone who thinks the beheading means we should revisit the issue of mass immigration from Third World countries is a swivel-eyed loon–and politicians assert that Islam is a religion of peace.
Whether Islam is a religion of peace or not–this statement is a gross distortion of the truth–the key issue for libertarians is our freedom of speech. Today we found the police deployed to contain a small demonstration by the English Defence League. Why should the police try to prevent this? A peaceful demonstration must always be permitted and given sufficient territory in which to march and make its point. I am concerned that the style of policing of such events is intended to create set-piece confrontations with the EDL, and thus to rework the issue into a problem of English extremism, not Islamic extremism.
It is quite false to state that libertarians should support immigration. Immigration=state power. Open your eyes and see what is happening, and you will realise that the state likes the fragmenting effect of immigration on the population. Cameron paid tribute to the soldier killed today–but his words were disingenuous. If they were true, he would have stopped immigration from Muslim countries already.
Are we meant to believe these people are our fellow countrymen? They are only here as material for the enlargement of the state and the growth of bureaucratic power. I would have felt humiliated to be there and be unable to do anything to rescue the soldier. I am disgusted with anyone who thinks the main problem here is the possibility that English people may draw negative conclusions about immigration and multi-culturalism from this.