Blogger arrest controversy

Like Steve, I hadn't seen the Lionheart blog before, and having seen it now I have to say I don't like it. The author is a Christian Holy Warrior who manages in most of the posts I have skimmed to extrapolate from the most extreme and grotesque Islamist elements in Britain, as well as from any and every sort of crime that might ever be committed by a Muslim in Britain, to the entirety of the Muslim population.

Under circumstances that have raised eyebrows even from quarters that are generally concerned, as am I, about some aspects of Muslim influence in Britain and about Islamic extremism, he has published a post claiming he is about to be arrested for incitement by the British police.

I think I will have to wait to see how this develops. Supporting a religious extremist is as unpalatable in the case of a Christian as it would be in the case of a Muslim or Sikh. But that doesn't mean such a person should not have their right to free speech defended. It's rather similar to the BNP, Christian Voice or the Muslim Council of Britain: however unpleasant their views might be, all have a right to express them.

In the case of Lionheart, I am hesitant. I will need to look more closely at his posts. If he is guilty of incitement to violence, and from what I have seen so far that might be the case, then this moves from a question of free speech to one of incitement to violence. And that is not a question of freedom but rather one of violence, and not only would I not support him, I would support the prosecution. Take this as an example:

And if they are at war with us which they are, as the facts clearly prove, then can we the British people not let them have a war?

Whose homeland is this, theirs or mine?

In the same post, he goes on to say (emphasis added):

I am not calling for people to march in the streets murdering people, we are civilized people we do not need to, we carry the ‘sword of truth’, that is enough at this moment in time, it is time innocent people woke up to this imminent Islamic threat that surrounds them and their children before it is too late.

Just remember we outnumber Moslems [note - not Islamists] in our Country 20 to 1, we never asked for this, but we sure will rise to the challenge of the 21st Century and repel this foreign Islamic invader that has invaded our shores and is now conducting a Holy War against us.

The Islamic Kingdom would do well to look at their history books and leave our land before it is too late.

In two paragraphs, indeed just in the first one, he moves from saying he is not calling for violence to calling for something I find hard to distinguish from violence.

The fact that this blogger is opposed to extreme Islam, as am I, is not sufficient to gain my support. We should have constitutional protection for free speech in this country, but incitement to violence is and should remain a crime.

I feel that since groups like Al Qaeda have declared war against us, we should reciprocate. But they have also declared war against most Muslims and most Muslim states, and the "we" in the last sentence includes these, my fellow citizens and the targeted citizens of other countries. And I argue this because a "War on Terror" has no clear opponents and no clear end, and therefore fits Orwell's description, in 1984, of the sort of permanent state of emergency that can lead to a permanent erosion of civil liberties. But make no mistake about it: the first and principle victims of Islamists are other Muslims. If a racist Englishman decides to launch an attack on British Muslims in general, he will find me standing on the barricades with those Muslims, opposing him.


UPDATE: Lionheart does seem to be a serious whackjob:

I wonder if the Moslem peer Lord Ahmed was one of the people behind trying to silence me, I did wonder about why he crashed his car and nearly killed himself over Christmas, let that be a lesson to you - 1 Chronicles 16:22 Saying, “Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm.”