Here are some notes which I produced before the invitation to branches, for suggestions on policy.

People should be able to follow any religion or no religion, provided they are tolerant of others while obeying the law of the land. But how can we sustain that, in the face of those who support the view that “war against infidels is an obligation”?

The other main parties have not confronted the challenge and they have left thousands of terrorists at large without any kind of control orders. Knife and grooming crimes are being ignored for PC reasons, while no-go areas are allowed to continue – because the Law of the Land is not being enforced.

Is UKIP policy going to address those challenges? If so, how might we do that, while not escalating the risk of sectarian civil war? This paper outlines the key issues

The Long Term Threat

This is about the risk from Islamist fundamentalists which could see the erosion of our culture, values and our system of law, moving the UK away from a democratic to a more sectarian style of politics, as we have seen in the Middle East.

To counter that, we will need to be clear that:

a) There is only one Law of the Land,

b) immigration needs to be controlled and

c) there is to be an end to no-go areas.

Past immigrants need time to assimilate fully, before we accept more immigration from countries which spawn extremists.

Short Term Challenges

But the threat of terrorist atrocities remains a real and present danger and we should be addressing that now, while respecting Muslims who have assisted the security services in thwarting or investigating atrocities.

Clearly those security services will need the support of community leaders who will stand up to be counted, whilst giving strong leadership to their next generation. If they do not believe that the security services can protect them from terrorists, then we can expect little help from them. For them to have confidence in that, the security services must be provided with adequate resources for community policing.

If communities have contributed to the thwarting (via the security services) of attempted atrocities then it would make sense not to antagonise them. But we need an idea of how many typically decline to help the security services.

Indeed, we also need a feel for how many in those communities have actively assisted the security services and how many generations is it likely to take, for youngsters to become immune to intimidation by fundamentalists?

In the meantime we should emphasise that UKIP judges UK residents by what they do, not by their background, and is determined to work with proactive community leaders to promote and sustain tolerance while isolating any who promote violence.

The British people will of course want to know that extremists here are truly in the minority, that the security services do have a good measure of the risk, that community leaders are proactive in containing the underlying problem and in supporting the police. Without that, some may seek to take their defence into their own hands, making sectarian civil war more likely. The terrorists would like that.

Above all we must remain determined to see Brexit delivered, regaining control of our borders and to have our own Bill of Rights, without which we cannot apply Control Orders, or deport extremists and defend our people effectively.

So we need all of the help we can get, to remove the UK from ECJ jurisdiction and to confront the enemy within. That would include Muslims who voted for Brexit, even though they may be reluctant to support UKIP.

If the UK can also avoid the temptation to act as world policeman (outside of the UN), then that would more likely limit the number of those who want to harm us. Some take the view that the atrocities owe little to Western military intervention, but that is not what bin Laden told us.

Possible Policy for consideration

a) Police resourcing and powers (including stop and search) need to be restored to facilitate proper neighbourhood policing.

b) Border force capacity to be increased, with stronger powers.

c) Naval patrol capacity to be increased to halt the massive ingress of illegal immigrants, but also to police our fishing zones;

d) Ban any kind of face-covering in public, so that CCTV is an effective law enforcement tool.

e) Train more policemen in the use of firearms, for use in the face of an increased security threat. We should argue for the police to be armed now.

f) Implement control orders, such as tagging, or even house arrest for terrorist suspects.

g) Prepare for permanent deportation of foreign terrorist suspects and illegal immigrants, as soon as we have a UK Bill of Rights.

h) The Law of the Land is to be enforced without fear or favour. No religious considerations warrant exemption; No-Go areas to be ended.

i) Proscribe organisations, which advocate or fail to condemn terrorism, including its most prevalent driver: religious mania;

Further notes

Some UK counties have only a handful of trained armed officers, who have little chance of getting to a terrorist incident fast enough to save lives. We need to rectify that by training more officers as a priority and arming them.

Many policemen may not want to carry guns, because they fear prosecution under the ECHR, if they harm someone by mistake. So we also need to confront the government at every opportunity to prepare a UK Bill of Rights. They avoid talk of that, because they fear that it would frighten the EU “negotiating horses.” But many lives are likely to remain at risk, unless they do.

Political Appetite

While we might agree on the above long term goals, we have to cross a political minefield to get there. As always, it is better to find a way around the minefield rather than go straight across it.

So we may need a progressive approach, concentrating initially on the policies identified above. That is more likely to be in phase with (or just ahead) of “market sentiment”, leaving the BBC behind the curve and hopefully out of business.

Whatever we do we must neutralise those who want to do us harm, which we can’t do without mentioning Islam.

The Country does not have a viable Opposition, with the courage to protect voters from the threat from Islamic extremists.

Does UKIP have the courage to fill that void and how is it going to do that?


Print Friendly, PDF & Email