Syria and Beyond

When the media started wetting itself over the disappearance of Asif Malik and his family, my reaction was mixed between “meh so let them go, if that’s what they want” and vague concern that, actually, where people go is no damned business of the state anyway.

On the one hand, if Malik – a known Islamoloon – and his family want to piss off to Syria,  well, why stand in their way? They are enemies of the state and we don’t want them here if that is so.

Now they’ve been arrested.

A British couple travelling with their four children have been arrested in Turkey, according to unconfirmed reports, a day after police expressed fears they were heading for Syria.

For what? What crime have they committed?

Police said Malik had previously expressed a wish to live in a Muslim country.

So that’s a crime, now, is it? If Muslims want to migrate to a Muslim country, this becomes an arrestable offence? Fuck me, we should be actively encouraging those with Malik’s  outlook to go and not come back. If he wants to go live in a war-torn Islamic shit-hole, let him. Nay, pay for  his  one-way ticket and wave goodbye. But he has not committed a criminal offence and yet he has been arrested for not committing a criminal offence. Now, I find that deeply worrying. More worrying than anything the Islamofascists could do to us.

12 Comments

  1. Exactly so. If they really want to go they’ll be no great loss.

    The phrase “And don’t let the door hit you on your way out.” has a great deal of synergy in this instance.

  2. I couldn’t give a toss if half a million of the sods want to bugger off to the arse end of bedlam, so long as it’s a one way deal only, cheerio.

    Arrested though.

    Wouldn’t surprise me at all in the not so distant future we might be sat in an English town cafe one morning reading the paper stuffing a bloody good helping of egg’n’bacon down the neck when peak capped jackbooted euromilitia come through the door demanding to see papers in their best impression of herr flick.

  3. As I have said before, I think that all Moslems should go to fight Jihad. I wish them well, and an early achievement of their ultimate goal, Martyrdom.

  4. The police seem to be protecting him from himself. It can’t be that they’re worried about what he might learn or do there, because we’ve already let a couple of hundred back in after they’ve had a stint over there, no problem. So what these people might do once they return isn’t a biggie. Weird.

  5. The articles I’ve read all mention that the police were brought in by relatives and / or friends, and there’s more than a hint of “Think of the children!” behind this.

    Had the two parents decided to leave their children with friends or relatives in the UK, I’d have no problem with their travelling to Syria, but they didn’t: they took their four children with them. Their parents presumably felt that a war-torn country is a perfectly good place to raise their children.

    I can therefore understand why the police might consider their actions are valid as they are preventing child abuse. On the other hand, there’s the argument that separating the children from their parents can itself be a cause of serious mental distress; this is something that needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

    It’s not easy to work out where the lines should be drawn between societal interference and parental responsibility, and those lines change over time even within the same culture. But there must, I think, be a role for the state in dealing with such issues. The trick, as always, is to get the balance right.

    • The “think of the children” argument is that it is straying into pre-crime territory. So, I repeat my question from above; what crime has been committed?

      • Had it just been the two adults, I would be firmly on your side. It’s their decision to bring their children along for the ride that turned a black and white case into a murky grey one. The family’s relatives were clearly playing the child abuse card here, I think. It’ll be interesting to see how the judiciary reacts.

        “Think of the children” may be a cliché, but there is a reason why it exists. However, I suspect there’s another facet to this story…

        New Labour shat a tsunami of ill-conceived legal diarrhoea into the system over their tenure—so much so that BBC 4 even ran a (surprisingly good) three-part documentary* that ended with a lawyer ranting about how there were now _too many_ laws. Not something you’d ever expect to hear from someone in that profession. The upshot of which is that ignorance of the law is now common even among the legal and judicial professions, not just among politicians and laypeople. I.e. sometimes, the people in the silly wigs are only slightly more cognisant of the finer details of some of the laws they’re dealing with than the laypeople in the jury. The police forces aren’t trained lawyers, but they have to make snap decisions based on what they _think_ the laws require of them, but with so many badly written laws added to the books, it’s not fair to expect them to get it right every time either.

        The current political climate also means anything that smacks of potential child abuse is going to be investigated, even if it turns out to be a mistake. “Operation Yewtree” is going to grind on for years, so there’s an entire management tier deliberately erring on the side of caution now and obsessing over crimes like child abuse. Given the kicking they get when they fail to do this, I can’t say I blame them. After all, Blair and his henchmen were voted in repeatedly by an even more ignorant electorate. If this is what the electorate want, the police are obliged to provide it.

        The British government has also repeatedly proven itself inept, incompetent, and too prone to knee-jerk reactions rather than careful planning. Until I see hard evidence to the contrary, I’m not sure this is _intentional_ statism, so much as institutionalised knee-jerking and arse-covering.

        Not that this excuses anything, but it certainly explains a lot.

        Anyway, I’m sure I had a point to make, but I’ve completely forgotten why I came in here.

        * (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPo6e4GT-co – broadcast by the BBC a couple of years ago, if memory serves. It’s mostly a piece about the history of the UK’s legal system. The rant is near the end of episode 3.)

        • On the other hand…

          When you’re fighting a war, it’s usually a good idea not to give the enemy more combatants if you can prevent it. We used in intern entire ethnic groups in camps during such actions back in the day. In this “politically correct” age, you can’t do that any more as it tends to smack of racism. (Or something ending in “-ism” at any rate.)

          If the government were to attempt to intern every follower of Islam in the UK, not only would there be nowhere big enough to put them all, but it’s unlikely to look good during an election year.

          (There’s also the small matter that, technically, the UK isn’t officially “at war” with anybody.)

          Bah! Enough of this. Time for my dried frog pills. Sanity sucks.

  6. Yea, I went through similar thoughts as this (non) story unfolded. It’s quite impressive how the fat controllers have kept this “existential threat” evolving so as to remove even the most precious freedoms of free people.

  7. I’m confused here what have the kids got to do with it. They want to emigrate for a better future for themselves and their kids and did so. When we do we take our kids no matter where we emigrate too. Except maybe OZ. Those koalas look to cuddly to be wild animals. It’s a trap. Think of the children when you emigrate to Oz and leave them behind in a third world hell hole.

    So not only are we letting every Abdul, Mohammed and Iqbal come here we won’t let the fuckers go back if they want to leave. It’s a trap I tell you.

Comments are closed.