Further proof of the Tories sloughing off extremists and attracting a younger, hipper, just plain nicer crowd: top choice on ‘Webcameron’ is another contribution from the Truthers. Meanwhile, Iain Dale – a Tory A-Lister remember - continues his flirtation with Trutherism.
Let’s leave aside Dale’s absurd point that only some of the 84 BBC interviews were softball city – other than to ask if can we have some kind of hint in future if it’s going to an interview or a meeting of Sob Sisters Anonymous ? Ditto, let’s state that, yes, for the sake of argument, the suspect is totally innocent of these specific charges. Well, call me old-fashioned, but refraining from sawing off heads should not – in and off itself - qualify someone for a soft-focus interview with the BBC. To put it another way, I wonder what Dale’s reaction would be if the BBC offered this kind of kid gloves questioning to a guy ranting about gays. Of course, Abu Bakr probably doesn’t go a whole bundle on hanging out with all the boys, but that’s kind of the point: we aren’t actually told anything about him. The nuance fanatics at Al Beeb are running the story with nary a hint of context or background.
I believe the phrase that pays is ‘hoist by your own petard’. The BBC has been pushing the line that the vast majority of peaceful Muslims are terrified by the thought that they could be arrested at the drop of a hat by racist police picking names out of the phone book. Whatever could have given them that idea ? Well, how about a broadcaster which allows a suspect in a terrorism case to rant and rave without any kind of context whatsoever ?
Instinct tells me that Abu Bakr has left quite a paper trail. No, that alone isn’t grounds for arrest, but neither does that mean the Left is justified in presenting him as some kind of everyman martyr to the Nu Gestapo.
But what really sticks in the throat is Dale’s characterisation of the debate as between ‘civil libertarians and authoritarians’. Really ? Personally, I’m thinking the authoritarians might be the ones lining up with Marxists and Islamofascists. On the other hand, the anti-dhimmi camp stretches from Nick Cohen to the hard Right (also known as ‘real Conservatives’). If we’re seeking to impose some kind of sinister hidden agenda, it must be a doozy to get all these folks on board. Well, you know, either that or we just want to win the war.
That’s irony number one right there. The ‘authoritarians’ turn out not to want to impose any particular agenda after all. Meanwhile, the ‘civil liberties’ crowd worships at the altar of unelected and unaccountable power, insisting that each and every effusion from the moonbat-infested fever swamps of the courts be treated as the new Magna Carta, even in the teeth of overwhelming public opposition.
Are there real ‘authoritarians’ seeking to use the war to chip away at important liberties ? Probably, but here’s irony number two: in insisting on a Stalingrad strategy whereby even the most obnoxious examples of judicial overreach are defended to the last man and the last round, these ‘civil libertarians’ make it easier for real authoritarians to argue for throwing out any number of babies with the junk jurisprudence bathwater.
Let’s leave aside Dale’s absurd point that only some of the 84 BBC interviews were softball city – other than to ask if can we have some kind of hint in future if it’s going to an interview or a meeting of Sob Sisters Anonymous ? Ditto, let’s state that, yes, for the sake of argument, the suspect is totally innocent of these specific charges. Well, call me old-fashioned, but refraining from sawing off heads should not – in and off itself - qualify someone for a soft-focus interview with the BBC. To put it another way, I wonder what Dale’s reaction would be if the BBC offered this kind of kid gloves questioning to a guy ranting about gays. Of course, Abu Bakr probably doesn’t go a whole bundle on hanging out with all the boys, but that’s kind of the point: we aren’t actually told anything about him. The nuance fanatics at Al Beeb are running the story with nary a hint of context or background.
I believe the phrase that pays is ‘hoist by your own petard’. The BBC has been pushing the line that the vast majority of peaceful Muslims are terrified by the thought that they could be arrested at the drop of a hat by racist police picking names out of the phone book. Whatever could have given them that idea ? Well, how about a broadcaster which allows a suspect in a terrorism case to rant and rave without any kind of context whatsoever ?
Instinct tells me that Abu Bakr has left quite a paper trail. No, that alone isn’t grounds for arrest, but neither does that mean the Left is justified in presenting him as some kind of everyman martyr to the Nu Gestapo.
But what really sticks in the throat is Dale’s characterisation of the debate as between ‘civil libertarians and authoritarians’. Really ? Personally, I’m thinking the authoritarians might be the ones lining up with Marxists and Islamofascists. On the other hand, the anti-dhimmi camp stretches from Nick Cohen to the hard Right (also known as ‘real Conservatives’). If we’re seeking to impose some kind of sinister hidden agenda, it must be a doozy to get all these folks on board. Well, you know, either that or we just want to win the war.
That’s irony number one right there. The ‘authoritarians’ turn out not to want to impose any particular agenda after all. Meanwhile, the ‘civil liberties’ crowd worships at the altar of unelected and unaccountable power, insisting that each and every effusion from the moonbat-infested fever swamps of the courts be treated as the new Magna Carta, even in the teeth of overwhelming public opposition.
Are there real ‘authoritarians’ seeking to use the war to chip away at important liberties ? Probably, but here’s irony number two: in insisting on a Stalingrad strategy whereby even the most obnoxious examples of judicial overreach are defended to the last man and the last round, these ‘civil libertarians’ make it easier for real authoritarians to argue for throwing out any number of babies with the junk jurisprudence bathwater.
No comments:
Post a Comment