The media spin continues about Steve Moxon continues. Thanks to Richard Allan MP's weblog for pointing out that:
"Incidentally his comments were not in an email as has been reported but are openly published on the Panorama website here and here. Interesting to note how comments on such sites (including blogs) can now be brought out if you have an easily searchable name..."
This theme will be elaborated on in a forthcoming Privacy Polemic article.
Below are the words attributed to Steve Moxon on the Panorama website, rather than the soundbite edited quotations from "emails" as reported on the TV and in the print media.
N.B. the BBC website search engine does not find these Panorama references, using the search term "Steve Moxon" in either the "results from BBC news" or the "results from rest of the BBC" sections, but does find one of them in the "results from the Web" search tab.
Mr Moxon's analysis or opinions about Middle Eastern terrorism, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th 2001 attacks (when many commentators and politicians were demanding revenge on the Taleban and Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan) may or may not be wrong, but they do not disqualify him as a genuine whistleblower with regard to the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate's shenanigans.
Comments on Britain on the Brink broadcast on Sunday 30 September 2001
"Islam IS inextricably tied up with the main thrust of global terrorism through the Wahhabi sect (see Steven Schwartz). Nowhere on any BBC coverage except for a brief reference on PM has this major fact b een revealed, let alone debated. You are a public service broadcaster. Fundamentalist Muslims of this sect are here in Britain, and we don't know how many of the 1-2 million illegal immigrants are also of this "faith". People need urgently to know about this, and you seem actively to be preventing them from finding this out.
Comment on Koran and Country broadcast Sunday 14 October 2001
"The widespread immorality of not just Wahhabis but other fundamentalists and even other more 'moderate' Muslims in taking the view that, in effect, any Muslim is above any culpability and any non-Muslim is by association guilty, is a position which would disgrace a medieval mind. It is totally unacceptable if expressed in Pakistan let alone in Britain. That it is totally unacceptable must be consistently communicated in blunt terms and those who express it charged with incitement and if convicted imprisoned.
Historicism -- supposed inevitability --- was the hallmark of Marxism and why Stalin was always going to be a bigger problem than Hitler. Now we face historicism in the guise of Islam. Few things are surer than that religion in any form will fade, but Islamic fanaticism is unlike communism in that its adherents are not faced with the possibility of the creed being disproved. Marxist-Leninism fell because of the demonstrable unworkability of state communism in every one of its examples, but a religious creed is not disprovable by any outcome of unpracticality. For this reason, just as Stalin was worse than Hitler, so the mullahs of the Wahhabi sect are worse than Stalin. So if ever there was a time to face down the stupid voices of appeasement it is surely now.
The war we have been forced to join and will be forced to continue indefinitely is still worse for the fanaticism not of an elite of party workers but the entire output of Pakistan's madrasas and other Islamic schools producing a grassroots in various countries. Historicism helps to make Islamic student fervour contagious, risking a critical mass to overturn regimes which can then turn into Khymer Rouge style Year Zeros. That a majority of Muslims prefer Islam in the abstract than as a Sharia law state, and want modern living standards, would count for nothing. Most Cambodians did not want Pol Pot but even when the population did not share the creed of the rulers a despotic regime ruled for many years. An international alliance of Islamic Year Zeros feverishly exporting death to "infidel" and non-fundamentalist Muslim alike, by Kamizakes literally in their millions, eventually will have to be silenced by nuclear weapons.
There is no chance of appealing to actual Koranic teaching because this has already been completely overturned for the past 200 years by the Wahhabi sect. Steven Schwartz has focused on this worldwide deep heresy originating in Saudi Arabia as the core problem, citing the sect's routine massacring of Muslim men women and children throughout its 200 year history, let alone its attitude to "infidels".
To try and solve Middle Eastern problems is marginal and to a fanatical Muslim is just further meddling. Even to bow to Bin Laden's demand to leave the Arabian lands is irrelevant: it is not just "infidel" people or where they live but the very ideas -- not even of liberal democracy but of the most basic tolerance to anything other than Wahhabi Islam -- that is itself anathema warranting sentence of mass murder.
The rubicon has already been crossed from civil liberty fears over the rights to have and to express ideas to the clearcut incitement to mass indiscriminate murder. British domiciled imams and other people who preach this clear evil (a word that is appropriately used in the religious context) must be imprisoned (and not simply deported). The ante could hardly be more upped already. David Blunkett cannot pass off gross incitement as merely silly rhetoric. To bring in laws making criticism of Islam an offence is deeply offensive because all religion is anything but objective and the only rational response to it is criticism. If such a law would in practice be applied to Wahhabism -- on the grounds that it directly contradicts the Koran -- then there would be some value to it.