Islam, asylum, immigration and Western security
Even basic violations of visa policy would see immigration authorities adopt a tougher, generalised stance against citizens of the offending country. But where Islamic immigration is concerned, even the threat of terrorism won't make Western countries think twice
“Why was ‘hate sheikh’ at large?” ran the Daily Telegraph headline after the recent Islamist outrage in Australia. That’s a reasonable question, given the Muslim hate sheikh’s record of endless troublemaking. No doubt the Sydney police and the court that granted him bail will also be asking the same question.
And what a track record this serial welfarist parasite and hate preacher had. At the time of the Sydney siege, Man Haron Monis, an Iranian refugee, was already facing charges of involvement in the murder of his wife. Yet he was free to walk the streets.
He had also been convicted of sending grossly offensive letters to the families of soldiers who had fought and died in Afghanistan.
But even that conviction didn’t take the self-styled imam off Australia’s streets. His punishment was 300 hours of “community service”. In other words, the his punishment was to “improve the lives” of the same Australian community he detested and would later terrorise.
Considering that he was also facing 40 counts of sexual assault and indecency, one wonders if he committed any of those sexual assaults as part of his “community service”.
Just what did the Australian authorities think they were up against in a man like Haron Monis? Would they have been so lenient with a non-Muslim? Did the police not ask why, given that this hate sheikh clearly despised Australian values and culture, he had not been deported?
After a siege that left two people murdered and a city brought to its knees, at the very least, most Aussies would now want to know why this character had not been banged up and then deported long ago.
But there are even deeper and much more important questions that Australians, and other Western societies need to ask: Why was this Iranian granted asylum in the first place?
Why were the security and welfare of the Australian people put at risk by granting asylum and freedom of movement to an Iranian refugee who clearly posed a security risk? And perhaps the most important question of all: do the rights of asylum seekers trump the security and welfare rights of the host community?
In the Western world today, the right to asylum appears to be based, not on democratic consent (opinion polls show the vast majority of Western people to be against uncontrolled immigration) but on universal legal principles interpreted by a non-elected liberal caste whose opinions are beyond the democratic voice.
After the Sydney siege and the Boston bombings and several intercepted British terrorist plots, that surely has to change. Where there is any risk to the host community, asylum must not be granted. Of course it’s true that the security services do not know if a refugee will become a terrorist or not. But the likelihood of Islamist terrorism is well known.
And, it needs to be remembered, all Western immigration authorities operate on the basis of generalisation. They have no choice. Countries whose citizens violate visa terms significantly more than others are treated differently from countries whose citizens do not.
While most Muslims do not commit acts of terrorism, the statistics on those who hold dangerous anti-Western radical beliefs would suggest caution in any matter to do with Muslim immigration to Western societies.
For example, on the first anniversary of the July 7th London Tube bombings, the Times of London commissioned a poll of British Muslims. Here are the findings:
* 16 percent say that while the Tube bombings may have been wrong, the cause was right.
* 13 percent think that the four men who carried out the bombings should be regarded as martyrs.
* 7 percent agree that suicide attacks on civilians in the UK can be justified in some circumstances, rising to 16 percent for a military target.
As the Canadian journalist Mark Steyn points out: “There are, officially, one million Muslims in London, half of them under twenty-five. If 7 percent think suicide attacks on civilians are justified, that’s 70,000 potential supporters in Britain’s capital city.” (Mark Steyn, America Alone)
And there are other, even more disturbing statistics. A Sunday Telegraph report in 2006 found that 20 percent of British Muslims supported the 7/7 bombers, while 40 percent supported sharia law in the UK. Also, 45 percent of British Muslims believe that 9/11 was an American/ Israeli conspiracy.
For any statistician studying the relevant population group, those statistics would be considered highly significant, particularly after 9/11, and must not be ignored when considering issues of immigration and security.
The Boston marathon bombings, the Australian murder siege and 9/11 all involved Muslim immigrants. Curiously, in all three cases there was no economic imperative for the Muslims being there. In the Boston and Australian cases, their presence was simply the result of an anti-democratic liberal asylum policy.
For those who were murdered and maimed in Sydney, the obvious logic in all this is that if asylum had not been granted to the Iranian Man Haron Monis, there would have been no terrorist attack.
Statistically, Muslim asylum and immigration significantly increase the risk of terrorism. That is the unavoidable conclusion that Western societies, in the security interests of their people, must accept.
After the terror in Sydney, the most important question for Australians must surely be: whose rights came first in granting asylum to the Iranian Horan Monis -- his rights or the right of the Australian people not to be held hostage and murdered?
Vincent Cooper is a regular contributor to The Commentator
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.