When shit hits the fan

I did not plan to write something like this right now, and I am still supposed to working on my next post about Satanism and all that, but something happened recently that hit somewhat close to home, and I have reflected on it, as well as the reaction and possible ramifications.

As I’m sure you know, there was a terrorist attack on an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in which 22 people were killed, including children who have been subject to horrific injuries. It was a suicide attack carried out by a 22 year old man named Salman Abedi, and the possibility that he was operating as part of a wider terror plot rather than as a lone wolf is seriously being considered. I have two people who I work with who are from Manchester who have been talking about it yesterday, and I’m sure have contacted their relatives to see if everything is OK. As of today, the terror threat level in the UK has been raised to Critical, meaning that more terrorist attacks are expected to occur very soon. The country is putting itself on high alert, and there’s talk of troops being sent to patrol the streets as though this country has turned into fucking Israel!

And what did we do immediately following the Manchester attack? The usual. We cry, we mourn, we change our Facebook profiles and whatnot, pretend that they will not divide us, preach about diversity and inclusion, and then Muslims come out and pretend that they are the real victims, not the people that Islamic radicals blew to smithereens. Oh and don’t forget the Sadiq Khan message: terrorism is just like the weather now, “part and parcel of living in a big city”, just the bread and butter of the modern world. I can’t be the only one who’s had enough here.

Oh, and the Metropolitan Police have decided that any rabble-rousers who aren’t going on about peace and unity and all that bullshit and instead speak against Islam can be investigated for “Islamophobic hate speech”. Isn’t that just the cherry on top of the shit sundae?

Lots of terrorist attacks have happened in my day, not just in the UK but also the Western world, Europe in particular, and in my opinion too many. And every time it feels like the same cycle. For over 20 years, we in the West have tried dealing with this shit by either creating borderline police/surveillance states to diminish the civil liberties of their own people, we go to wars with Middle Eastern countries and then we try playing nice and needlessly shielding all Muslims and their shitty religion from criticism when most of us are mad at the terrorists rather than all Muslims, going so far as to discuss race where the issue does not belong (and both extremes seem to forget that Islam is not a race). None of this changes the problem. We strip away liberty, we cause destruction and then we bend over backwards to a force that wants us dead and our values defiled, all for nothing. And one someone comes up with a different solution, any at all. They are dismissed as xenophobic. The simple idea of controlled immigration is automatically deemed racist, because they believe that opposing immigration can only be based on hate. The idea that we should be tackling Islamist ideology is seen as “Islamophobic”, and racist, because people stupidly confuse Islam to be a racial group, rather than a religious one. The idea of promoting integration, promoting your own societal values and looking out for the interests of your own country is automatically, without context, denounced as fascistic, funny enough by people who don’t seem to know what actual fascism is.

And this whole spell that we should all just live with it is odious. Terrorism is treated like it’s a natural disaster, something that always has been and always will be with us. But that is madness! Terrorism isn’t something that occurs normally as part of civilized society. It is the product of the will to kill innocents on the part of violent individuals, in many cases an ideology that demands the radical and violent overthrow of a given social structure in favor of a typically authoritarian or totalitarian worldview and an array of societal ills that contribute to the growth of terrorism. You can’t just say this is a normal thing and an inevitable course of modern life that we can’t hope to solve. Sure, we will never be able to *completely* eliminate all terrorism from society at large, but to suggest that we shouldn’t even try and instead just live with it as though you would live with heavy rain and thunderstorms is not just defeatist, it’s also callous. We’ve tried carrying on as things were before, and I don’t think things are getting better. Not that such a thing ever happens when you decide to ignore a problem. And don’t give me any bullshit that this is some kind of blowback to the West, when terrorists kill lots of people in the Middle East just that no one notices, and right now the Philippines is in a state of martial law because of an Islamic terror group taking over a city in the country. What the hell did the Philippines do to deserve getting attacked by Islamists I wonder!

I think we need to come up with far better solutions than the kind we have offered for the problem, and we need to figure something out soon. Because the longer people keep seeing nothing change, and being told that nothing ought to change, eventually we’ll reach a point where they’ll say “we’re not gonna take it anymore”.

Je suis sick of this shit

So I imagine you might already know what happened recently, but yesterday a terrorist killed four people outside of Parliament before being shot by police officers, after which Westminster went into lock-down for the day. At first the attacker was identified as a radical Islamic preacher named Abu Izzadeen by the likes of Channel 4 and The Independent, but it emerged that he is currently in prison serving a two year sentence for attempting to illegally leave the UK, contravening the Terrorism Act of 2006. Today, however, the attacker has been identified as Khalid Masood, who apparently had a string of convictions for non-terrorism related offences and had been under investigation by the state over concerns of violent extremism, and eight more people have been arrested after the attack. It was a small attack, but it does seem to be a case of terrorism that may be tied to radical Islam.

Oh, and just today someone tried to run over a crowd of people in Antwerp, Belgium, with his car. The suspect has apparently been identified as a man named Mohammad R, a Tunisian national. And as both these things happen, we are only a year removed from the bombing that occurred in Brussels.

I am so tired of this. I’m so tired of seeing more terrorism happen and it seems there’s a Muslim radical or radicals behind it. And every time it happens I’m fed up with the tiresome virtue signal that comes in the form of the prayers from those who think that’s supposed to make it all better. People have prayed for Paris, for San Bernandino, Brussels, Orlando, Nice, Munich, Ansbach and Berlin and what in nebulous fuck did it accomplish? Nothing. They’ve changed theirr icons on Facebook or whatever to those flag overlays in solidarity with the country where the attack happened, and nothing happened. And now they’re all praying for London like nothing happened over the last two years. And no matter what, the response we need to see does not manifest itself. There is no conversation about the threat of radical Islam, there is only apologizing for Islam. There is no action taken against terrorist networks, and no rebuking of those who fund terrorism in the Middle East. The powers and that be and the media class sing the same tune, seemingly without end. I know it may sound like a cliche, but it seems to me that madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time.

That’s it. That’s all I have to say on this, for there is not much else to say on the matter.

The Scottish referendum: meh

The past week or so I’ve heard discussion about the possibility of Scotland having a second referendum on its independence from the United Kingdom, and today I have just learned that Scotland intends to carry out this referendum some time between 2018 and 2019. And you know what I think? Go ahead.

Yes, go ahead. If Scotland wants to pursue self-determination as its own country independent from the UK, even if it causes a major shake-up, then so be it.

Don’t think I don’t know what this is all about. It’s patently obvious, at least to me, that this is the SNP trying to get Scotland into the European Union separate from the rest of the UK because almost all of the Scots voted to Remain. That they chose to stay a member of the UK in 2014, thus staying as British citizens and therefore voting in the EU referendum as British citizens, appears to be irrelevant in this at least for Scots who want to secede from the UK.

And to be honest this is actually what bothers me, not the premise of Scottish independence in and of itself. Essentially Scotland’s plan is to secede from an existing national power and become its own nation-state, only to try and integrate into a larger supra-national political/economic union. One that is run by elite bureaucrats whose power cannot be affected by a democratic vote. That just seems like a damned farce to me. What’s the point? And from what I understand, the Scots won’t be automatically granted EU membership if they secede. They will have to apply to become an EU member state. And that’s assuming they’ll be accepted by the European Union at all.

Now this is just a hunch on my part, but I have a suspicion that the European Union isn’t interested in Scotland as a standalone nation. To me, a United Kingdom is too valuable for the European Union for them to take in only separate parts. Why do you think the EU leaders pursued the punitive measures that it did in response to the Brexit vote? Because they were about to lose a member state that they considered to be an important benefactor, whose separation from the union may well have inspired a succession of populist triumph across the rest of Europe and undermine the stability of the project as a whole. Beyond that, I suspect that a United Kingdom is simply of greater economic value to the European Union than Scotland, which has been hit with a major oil crisis in recent years.

I currently see two potential outcomes of a Scottish secession: if they succeed in leaving the UK and in entering the European Union, then it will be a farce; Scotland will have gained independence only to hand some of its power to the European Union – and make no mistake, the EU is very much on the path towards becoming its own supranational empire, with its own army, and its own central bank. If they succeed in  leaving the UK and fail to become an EU member state, then it will still be a farce, for Scotland will have pursued its independence only to fail – essentially they’ll have done all that for nothing, and that’s important because I don’t believe for a minute that, in this instance, Scotland is interested solely in its own independence.

But then there’s the elephant in the room that is the SNP itself. If Scotland becomes indepenedent, then barring a Scottish general election afterwards I presume that the new nation-state of Scotland would be governed by the SNP. That’s a little worrying because I suspect that the SNP has an authoritarian bent, an example being their advocacy of the named persons scheme which requires that children have a state-appointed guardians intefering with their lives on a regular basis, and another being Alex Salmond’s desire to “ban all Donald Trumps”, and then there’s the super ID database they proposed a while back. So needless to say, I worry that an independent Scotland won’t actually be freer at all, and may become more authoritarian instead.

Other than that, I don’t feel compelled in any way to oppose the Scottish referendum ultimately, or its outcome. Either way they vote, then bully for them. If they’re doing this because of Brexit, then I am willing to accept an independent Scotland and/or potentially a divided United Kingdom as the price to pay for us leaving the EU (not least because that was my vote).

Oh, and if the British government or whoever does decide to rename the UK if Scotland successfully secedes, then whatever you do don’t call it England! I have a funny feeling that it might just piss off Wales.

Dear Sarah Vine and Mared Parry: You’re both fools

I’ve been made aware of an article on a youth news website called The Tab, the title of which is “‘Today’s young women’ can do as they please, Sarah Vine”, which seems to be a response to an article by Sarah Vine on The Daily Mail, everyone’s favorite conservative-leaning newspaper. I’ve chosen to highlight the two articles so that I can illustrate two sides of what seems to be two clashing sets of cultural/social views, both of which I find to be wanting.

First, let’s talk about Sarah Vine’s article. I’m honestly not sure if fear-mongering is the appropriate word. Vine introduces her article by talking about the effect of New Year’s Eve drunkenness on our public health service. To be fair, this is a valid point. We in the UK have a National Health Service, a publicly funded healthcare service established by the government – in other words, propped up by the taxpayer. According to the NHS, misuse of alcohol costs the service £3.5 billion each year. So it is indeed quite costly for our healthcare system. She goes on to say that the images of drunken revelers that plaster her very article paint a picture of a Britain that is in the grip of a binge-drinking culture. At this point I should point out that, according to the Office of National Statistics, binge drinking is actually down, not up. Between 2005 and 2013, the number of binge drinking adults has decreased from 29% to 18%. I don’t know where Vine gets the idea that we live in a binge drinking culture – other than, perhaps, the same place that today’s feminists get the idea that we live in a rape culture. She also seems to lament how, in her opinion, it’s women who seem to get drunk the most. I haven’t found anything to corroborate her point, because none of the statistics I’ve found seem to say anything about the gender of the people getting drunk.

So after some moral porn about women getting drunk, we come to a rather peculiar point:

And you know the worst of it? When they regain consciousness the next day, long after the street cleaners have washed away the vomit and other unmentionables, long after the St John Ambulance crews have packed up and gone home, long after the last Jagerbombs have been necked and the empties put out for recycling, they won’t be embarrassed or ashamed.

They won’t wince at the mortifying humiliation of it all, the ghastly, dehumanising shambles; they won’t be filled with remorse or self-loathing.

They’ll just congratulate themselves on a great night out, hoot with laughter at the state they got themselves in, maybe even share their snaps on social media, swap hangover horror stories with friends. It makes me want to weep.

Are you kidding me? You mean you have nothing to say about the inevitable hangovers that these people got on New Year’s Day? If your description of the binge drinking on New Year’s Eve is anything to go by, it ought to be a bitch of a hangover. The dehydration, the headaches, the feeling of irritation and the sensitivity to the light of day must be quite profound in those people in such an event. At the very least, they’ll have that to regret. But what Vine doesn’t appear to understand is that such regret doesn’t last forever. Why should it? I mean sure, people behave disgracefully when they get drunk, even more so when they binge drink, but it’s no reason to constantly weep over having spent the night getting drunk. Also, it’s New Year’s Eve. I kind of expect people to get themselves drunk. I don’t like the idea of people getting drunk, but I can see why people would revel in such a way to mark the end of the old year and the beginning of the new. And, as a student, I can tell you that people sharing drinking and hangover stories is pretty normal, and I’m sure it’s entertaining in some way. The only thing I actually find to be truly degenerate is sharing the snaps on social media.

There’s not much more for me to say about this article because most of it is still moral pornography on her part. There is her claim that the number of alcohol related deaths in women is currently 2,838, up from 1,334. There’s no source to this claim, so I feel inclined to point out that according to the Office of National Statistics, men are more likely to die from alcohol related deaths than women, at a rate of 19.5 deaths per 100,000 males compared to 9.6 deaths per 100,000 females. I don’t understand why she cries about women being uniquely at risk from binge-drinking culture other than what I can only assume is the kind of gynocentric virtue-signalling classically associated with social conservatism.

Now, let’s move on to Mared Parry. And right from the beginning I take umbrage with her perspective. The sub-headline of the article makes the assertion that girls who get themselves blind drunk and behave disgracefully as a result are an inspiration.

What is this bullshit!? Binge drinking isn’t something to be proud of! I’ll grant that getting drunk can be excused once in a while, but it’s not necessarily a positive thing to do. But it seems that Parry is here to tell us that the opposite is the case. She thinks that Vines’ typical “think of the women” virtue-signalling article amounts to telling women that they should be ashamed to be alive, which strikes me as saying that getting wasted is somehow the epitome of life itself. And trust me: she glamorizes binge drinking, to the point that she is capable of unironically declaring pictures of people being drunk to “masterpieces”. And I’m sure they are masterpieces to anyone who is completely devoid of the ability to appreciate actual fine art (and I don’t mean the nonsense I see in the fine art department at my university). She claims to agree with Vine that binge drinking, on the whole, is awful, whilst simultaneously glossing over what literally is binge drinking on the grounds that “it’s just women having a good time”. To me you just don’t go from “binge drinking floozies are an inspiration to women everywhere” to “yes, binge drinking is generally awful” without sounding hypocritical. In fact, she is actually less concerned about Vine drumming up hysteria about binge drinking culture and more concerned with the fact that Vine is a woman writing an article about women getting drunk. I sense the virtue-signalling is just as strong in Parry as it is in Vine. And as for her complaint about young men not being shamed for getting drunk? Who gives a shit other than Suzanne Moore in The Guardian? I can think of a better reason for pictures of women getting piss drunk lathering the papers than “sexist media”. You know what that is? It sells papers, particularly to an audience that might be more conservative as is probably the case in The Daily Mail. It’s more moral pornography than sexism, and I can see it from space. You’d have to be ignorant not to.

I can see how Parry just jumped on the Vine’s “post-feminist society” line by accusing of her of – drum roll, dramatic silence – internalized misogyny. From that accusation alone you can glance that aside from this being vapid apologia for binge drinking, it’s also feminist bullshit. Oh and don’t forget to accuse “sniffling, shaming, middle-aged journalists in general” assuming that the mainstream media is dominated by conservative pearl-clutchers while completely ignoring the pearl-clutchers on the left, who do the same thing only from an opposite perspective. And again, I love how she says “no one should be getting drunk to the point of incontinence”, whilst at the very beginning of the article praising binge-drinking women as inspirations. Is there any consistency at all to this bullshit? While I do ultimately agree that getting drunk is kind of inevitable and isn’t necessarily evil, there’s not much you can say to support the idea that it’s a good thing other than “YOLO” – the mating call of every social media-addled imbecile who sees little more to his/her life than his/her own incontinence and vapidity.

Speaking of inconsistency, Parry claims that she isn’t angered by these articles whilst at the beginning she claims that reading Vine’s article made her red with anger. That seems like cognitive dissonance to me. And if there’s no point to reading articles like that, why are you triggered enough by the article to even write a response? If all you think it does is make you laugh, then, again, why did you say it made you red with anger? This whole article was garbage, through and through.

And the reason I’m saying this, the reason I’m even talking about this, is because I want to talk about how detestable it is to declare binge drinking as anything to be celebrated, while also calling out the other side. One side whips up a regular hysteria about Britain being under the spell of binge drinking culture, which they seem to do every year if you’ve been paying attention, while the other takes the same angle and fucking celebrates it whilst half-assedly pretending not to. In other words, one is emblematic of finger-wagging social conservatism, and the other is brainless YOLO culture.

Sarah Vine, we are not trapped in the grips of the kind of binge drinking that you and your paper seem to think we are to the point that we need to be saved by good old Christian values. So get over your tired virtue-signalling act, you dollar store prohibitionist.

Mared Parry, being drunk may be normal, but binge drinking is not the greatest thing in the world and being drunk is not inspirational. So stop pretending that women who get blind drink are positive role models, you ditzy, hypocritical, overly permissive hack.

A picture of a scene of drunkenness in Swansea from a Daily Mail article from two years ago, when they said the same thing about 2014.

A picture of a scene of drunkenness in Swansea from a Daily Mail article from two years ago, when they said the same thing about 2014.


Sarah Vine’s article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4080750/Pictures-make-weep-today-s-young-women-SARAH-VINE-British-society-grip-binge-drinking-culture.html

Mared Parry’s article: http://thetab.com/uk/2017/01/03/todays-young-women-can-please-sarah-vine-29021?utm_source=transactional&utm_campaign=recommendednext&utm_medium=popular

Left-wing nationalists? In MY county?

Recently I have been out in town in my local area, and I have seen a few of these posters:

At first glance, I thought this was the announcement of the beginning of some kind of Nazi-esque far-left and racial nationalist organization because I thought the eagle and that rune, which resembled the kind of runes you usually see associated with far-right organizations, and this created the impression that they might have vague ties to fascism. But when I looked up the movement I found that it turns out that they aren’t some kind of left-wing fascist movement, but they are socialist nationalists (no, not national socialists; just bear with me for a moment).

According to their website the movement is known as Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr, which is Welsh for “The Great Unrest” (which seems to be a reference to a series of demonstrations, strikes and civil unrest that occurred in the UK around the time of World War 1), and they describe themselves revolutionary socialists (apparently as opposed to reform socialists) who are interested in Welsh independence, which would of course mean that they want Wales to break from the union. They appear to be a very recent movement, but their blog suggests that they’ve been around for at least three years.

I didn’t realize this at first, but the eagle you see on the poster is actually the White Eagle of Snowdon, which they believe is a symbol of Welsh resistance to imperialism. That rune is a representation of that eagle, and it is also known by its Welsh name Yr Eryr Wen. Other symbols tied to the movement include the Red Pitchfork, which is they consider to be a symbol of their rural land campaigns, and the Scotch Cattle, which they consider to be a symbol of their commitment to a supposed class struggle in Wales. I’ll be honest – you know you’re in for a good time when they talk about how committed they are to the idea of class conflict.

They also seem to have flags with the number 1831 on it, and I’m not entirely sure what that means.

They also seem to be opposed to the European Union, which frankly is something I think we can agree on. In fact they consider themselves to be part of the left-wing Brexit movement, or Lexit (I hope that doesn’t get confusing when or if Luxembourg decides to have its own referendum on the EU). I suspect their opposition to the EU is tied to their apparent nationalism and their opposition to imperialism, or at least what they see as imperialism – they may view the European Union as an imperialist institution, and to be fair I wouldn’t blame them for thinking that.

There’s not much information out there, at least that I can find, about this Welsh Socialist Republican Congress that they are planning. When I looked up “welsh socialist republican”,  I get results for something called the Welsh Socialist Republican Movement, and older left-wing Welsh nationalist movement that started in 1980 and apparently did not last very long. They seemed to be disillusioned with the Plaid Cymru party, which they saw as being uncommitted to the nationalism, socialism and republicanism that they were supposed to uphold. Beyond that, I know little of the movement. Given that Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr are planning a “Welsh Socialist Republican” congress, it seems to me that they me that they might be trying to revive the original movement, or something to that effect. There are apparently pre-congress meetings to be held this month in Carmarthen, Wrexham and Merthyr. I don’t think I would want to attend those sort of meetings, but if I did want to go it might be a good way of getting more information first-hand considering I actually live not far the area of one of their planned locations for these meetings.

There is something I am worried about with regards to the movement, and it does concern the Yr Eryr En symbol. In researching the symbol I found that it actually has been tied to radical nationalism, and not just specifically left-wing nationalism. There was the Free Wales Army who were a militant Welsh nationalist movement back in the 1960’s. They used the symbol to represent their movement. Apart from that, who else should I find brandishing the symbol other than the Welsh branch of National Front. On one of their flags, that very symbol appears alongside three flag designs.

That’s the flag in question, the rune is on the bottom right corner.

In fact, these are the same people who held a white pride rally in Swansea back in March, and there do exist images of this flag being waved in Swansea.

That both Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr and National Front seem to the use the symbol is surely not entirely coincidental. It doesn’t matter to me that one of them are avowed socialists and the other are far-right white supremacists. Both adopt the symbol for their respective movements, which suggests a commitment to radical and/or possibly authoritarian nationalism, based on the authoritarian values of the supremacy of the state, as is the case in any dictatorship. The kind of nationalism where national identity would be enforced from the top down instead of springing from the bottom up.

Whatever Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr are planning, you can rest assured that I am diametrically opposed to their movement (apart from the fact that they oppose the European Union), mainly because of their advocacy of socialism but also because of what I suspect their brand of left-wing nationalism might entail (not least because of the fact that Scotland is currently controlled by an illiberal left-wing nationalist party). These people want to bring both socialism and Welsh nationalism to the fore of Welsh politics, and I honestly think that doesn’t sound like a very pleasant combination. It also seems to me that, between these guys and the presence of Antifa and Anarchist Action Network, it seems to me that there is a lingering far-left movement in Wales. I really hope these people don’t gain any legitimacy in Welsh politics. They are one of the last things Wales could possibly need.

Haram Month #15 – The rise of the prison terror cult

According to the Telegraph, a disturbing new report reveals that there is a culture of cultural sensitivity towards Muslim prisoners in British prisons, which is leading to a rise in extremism in those prisons. In other words, the police are looking the other way when people are doing something wrong because they happen to be Muslims.

This is exactly how the Rotherham grooming gangs were allowed to continue abusing children for 16 years. This is the kind of thing Tommy Robinson talks about and has warned people about.

And since Anjem Choudary is in prison I have no doubt that, unless he spends his time in solitary confinement, he may yet be one of the self-styled emirs that act like basically cult leaders. Imagine it: a man like Choudary, with a proven history of radicalizing and indoctrinating people in order to get them to commit terrorist acts, prison staff not being able to stop them because of religious sensitivity and then one day the terrorists he radicalizes get released from jail only to commit atrocities guided by the influence of their self-styled emir.

Unless the culture of police being bound to the irrational fear of being labelled a racist simply for exercising their duty changes, we may look forward to significant loss of innocent life. One of these days, we will be unable to escape the price we pay for political correctness.

Haram Month #9 – The convicting of Anjem Choudary

When I heard that Anjem Choudary had been convicted yesterday (or rather it was revealed that he had been convicted last month, it struck me at first as an issue that I have actually had to wrestle with and needed some clarification on.

For those who don’t know who Anjem Choudarey is, he is a notorious British Salafist Muslim preacher and activist known for his advocacy of the implementation of sharia law in the UK and his demonstrations against Western civilization. He, along with Islamist cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad, founded such radical Islamic organizations as Al-Muhajiroun, Al Ghurabaa and Islam4UK, and was a prominent and divisive figure in the Islamic world who made many TV appearances. He was known to have spoken out in support of jihad as an obligation for Muslims to fulfill, and in 2014 he went so far as to pledge allegiance to ISIL and encourage others to do so – the latter of which to lead to him being arrested. He is seen as a hate preacher, and I don’t doubt that many people (especially people who are of a socially conservative disposition) wanted him banned. I also have no doubt there were and still are a lot of Muslims who distance themselves from Choudary and claim this man is an enemy of Islam – to which Choudary would probably respond by saying that it is in fact they who are the enemies of Islam.

What annoyed me was how the much of the mainstream media and Ella Whelan from Spiked looked at Choudary’s conviction and seemed to paint this as a free speech issue – that the man was arrested solely because of inciting and preaching “hate”. Him being a hate preacher, one who spews “bile and hate”, and the prospect of him being “gagged” and “shut up” is the primary focus of it for much of the media, to the point that is makes me think that the man was being convicted solely for hate speech. Don’t get me started on The Independent, which their “free speech has its limits” shit. That mantra almost had me defending Choudary. Ella Whelan from Spiked was just as bad, because on the day Choudary was convicted she talked about how censoring Choudary’s views was a bad thing, and the next day she appeared on a Sky News debate to talk about this from a pro-free speech lens.

But let me tell you what I have come to understand: this is not a free speech issue. Both the people who support freedom of speech and the people who thinking it should be curtailed are looking at the issue the wrong way. From what I have read, Choudary actually has a history of recruiting people and indoctrinating them. He recruited people to fight for Osama bin Laden. Al-Muhajiroun, one of his organizations, had been known to actually radicalize individuals who would then go out to commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist attacks. Examples include the shoe bomber Richard Reid, the dirty bomber Dhiren Barot, the 7/7 bombers, the Transatlantic Bomb plotter and the men who murdered Lee Rigby. Choudary also taught six of the nine men who planned to send mail bombs to various targets, radicalized a young man named Brustroth Ziamani  and he had been in contact with a teenager in Australia who was planning to carry out an attack on Anzac Day last year. To my mind, him protesting and talking about Islamism wasn’t the only thing he was doing. He had indeed been in contact with individuals who would then go on to carry out attacks, and he had been recruiting and helping to radicalize individuals so that they can carry out terrorist attacks and murders in the name of Allah. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that when he contacts potential radicals he is teaching, instructing and radicalizing them giving that he actually supports the spread of Islamism by force. Really, the term “hate preacher” simply doesn’t do him justice, for he was more than that – he was a recruiter. I wish the media would use the term “terror recruiter” or “jihad recruiter” more often than they use the term “hate preacher”.

Put simply, this is not a free speech issue. It’s a terrorism issue. If all Choudary had been doing was organizing protests and appearing on TV to preach his views, I would have no major issue other than with his views. But it’s not as simple as that. He was actively recruiting, radicalizing and training people to fight and wage jihad. So anyone who thinks this is about freedom of speech, whether from a pro or anti perspective, is simply in the wrong. While I do feel that Choudary’s conviction should not be used to justify an increase in censorship no matter how abhorrent your views are, there can be no doubt that Choudary crossed the line by directing people to commit violence let alone encourage support for ISIL. Not to mention the fact that the organization he founded is a jihadist organization with the intent of spreading sharia law through, well, encouraging jihad.