Rants and Raves

Opinion, commentary, reviews of books, movies, cultural trends, and raising kids in this day and age.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

When deadly force is a duty

Dumb moments in journalism

If you go here:


you'll find a Dutch website* with a video of British press interview with a raghead (observe the gutra on said head) about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, speaking in a good solid English working-class accent - the accent I associate with the salt of the earth, saying:

"...in Islam, the punishment for anyone who insults the prophet (Arabic phrase which means "peace be upon him,") — is capital punishment. He should take the lesson from Theo van Gogh and others who've faced the punishment."

The journalist (not on-camera, only his microphone appears) then breaks in to ask, "Is that (unclear) be construed as a threat?"

Is the Pope Catholic? Does the bear shit in the woods?

After which the interviewee goes on to elaborate that, while he wouldn't necessarily be the one to carry it out, short answer: yes.

Well, perhaps the fellow was just double-checking. Perhaps it was an example of English reserve. And perhaps the excerpt wasn't long enough to show how he undoubtedly had penetrating questions about how could the interview subject expect full rights of citizenship and rely on the hospitality of a free society, and yet demand the right to annul those very freedoms which made that country such an attractive destination for immigrants?

Now go on and listen to the speaker with the megaphone express his hatred for democracy in every country in Europe, and "this dog Wilders."

"Islam will dominate... So no matter where he runs... Islam will come, and it will conquer... Islam will enter the house of every person in this world...We will see the European crusaders destroyed..."

You get the drift.

And, this takes place outside the Houses of Parliament, the "Mother of Parliaments."

Interviewer asks, "So you consider this a victory today, that you've prevented him from speaking?"

I vote clueless.

Listen a little longer and you'll hear another speaker loudly trumpeting his invitation to Geert Wilders to come out and be murdered by the mob. And moreover, expressing his indignation that the British police won't allow them to come in and get him.

I don't know about you, but it's my strong impression that these fellows mean what they say. (How's that for English-style understatement?)

I suppose some fellow-libertarians (those not members of the "libertarians with cojones" caucus) are going to call me names again for this, but there are times when a government of free men must be willing to shed the blood of its citizens.

This is one of them. That mob of savages should have been read the Riot Act**, ordered to disperse, and if they didn't they should have been treated to mass volley fire.

You don't like tyrannical government supressing free speech? So do you think the tyranny of a bloodthirsty mob is an improvement?

Now that I've stuck my foot in it, let me think of a few other occasions when I saw government clearly failing in its duty to use deadly force.

For those preparing angry comments calling me a racist, try this on for size.

A few years back, a mob in a German town besieged a hostel for immigrants. In the course of the riot, the mob set fire to the place and burned to death several Turkish women and children.

The police pretty much stood by wringing their hands.

Their clear duty was again, order the mob to disperse and give them a "first, second, third warning..." followed by volley fire. Then form a skirmish line, sweep through town and shoot/bayonet anyone carrying an incindiary.

Case three, requiring more subtlety.

A while back I saw a news video of English soccer hooligans in a stadium with two tiers of seating. The upper tier was quite high above the lower tiers.

The lager louts were ripping up the wooden seating and throwing it onto the heads of the spectators below.

From that height, throwing heavy objects onto a crowd is attempted murder.

Obviously, volley fire is not an appropriate response in crowded conditions. Snipers are.

"If you are not prepared to use violence to defend civilization, you must be prepared to accept barbarism."
--Thomas Sowell

*To show you something about education in the Netherlands, the web site text is in Dutch, but the video is of course in English, but with no translation or subtitles. The Dutch audience is just assumed to understand English.

**From Wikipedia: The Riot Act[1] (1713) (1 Geo.1 St.2 c.5) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain which authorised local authorities to declare any group of more than twelve people to be unlawfully assembled, and thus have to disperse or face punitive action. The Act, whose long title was "An act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters", came into force on 1 August 1715, and remained on the statute books until 1973.

No longer on the statute books. Pity, it's kind of classy.

"Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!"

Point being, you get a warning. Von Hayek pointed out years ago that one of the essential qualities of the laws of a free society is not that they always make perfect sense, or be perfectly just (if there is any such thing this side of heaven,) but that they be consistent. You've got to know from day to day what to expect from the law.


  • At 3:53 PM, Blogger Ted Amadeus said…

    It's only "free speech" til the long knives, Molitov coctails or whatever armaments come out of the crowd's cloak pockets.
    At that point, it's time to pull a Mayor Richard Daily and "shoot to kill" (It's well beyond it in Wahhabi-infested Western Europe). Pat Condell is outraged that his country will not stand up to the invaders, but that's what leftist authoritarianism does: Licenses and engineers the destruction and subversion of a nation from the inside out. We won't discuss the depth and breadth of willful human stupidity necessary for allegedly reasonable leaders to tamely and abjectly hand their nation over to inbred fanatics and rabid savages...You already have ample evidence.
    Geert Wilders reminds me of Daniel Hannon: One of the few remaining voices of sanity on the European continent.

  • At 3:59 AM, Blogger Jim Sullivan said…

    There's a reason why Tamara K. from Books Bikes and Boomsticks calls it "The Country that Used to be Great Britian".

    And I've encountered those libertarians that you speak of. Those that slavishly follow the "Non-Aggression Principle". The biggest problem being that there are times where you must be prepared to hit, shoot or strike first. Better to be the last one standing than rest on my "moral laurels".

    By the way, Steve, thanks for stopping by with the Congratulations. I just happened to check my e-mail yesterday but these past months I've often gone 2 months without turning the computer on.

    Aaah, parenthood. Now, I see what everyone meant!

  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Steve said…

    I had an exchange with Marc "Animal MacYoung (see nononsenseselfdefence.com)
    after my second child was born.

    He asked, "You getting any sleep?"

    I replied, "Our first started sleeping the night through at age 3 months - but this one isn't having any of that."

    He commented, "That's what's called, 'a known problem.' ;)"

  • At 3:11 AM, Blogger legion59 said…

    Case 4, the student riots all over the UK in protest of the rising tuition fees, these jumped up hooligans were seen throwing fire extinguishers at police and trashing their vehicles, hurling petrol bombs and vandalising the future kings car! What did the police do? Zip, nada, nothing! At the very least they could of used water canons or the fogger which is used in Canada to blast large quantities of CS gas into rioting crowds, if these methods did not work then lethal force should be used especially when one of these muppets threw a fire extinguisher from the top of a building which if it had of hit someone it would of been a murder charge!


Post a Comment

<< Home