Hasn't Anjem Choudary got a point?

The latest Newsnight kerfuffle is from giving a guy it called "Anjem Choudary | Extremest Preacher", who refused to 'abhor' Woolwich attack.  (In fact he said "That action, for me, would not be allowed", but for sure he refused to use the word 'abhor'... I'm not quite sure why that word has some kind of magic meaning to him or interviwer Kirsty Wark.)

Choudary's main point, to the extent he was allowed to articulate it, was that the motivation of the attack was "one that not many Muslims can disagree with, because he was talking about British foreign policy, he was saying that many people have been killed abroad...".

As is written very clearly in this blog, I oppose most everything radical Muslim groups they stand for; and I'm no fan of religions in general.  But even I can see where he's coming from.  He's a great lover of Islam and those he sees as his brothers in Islamic countries who are being killed by British invasions of their countries.  I have great emotional connections with Japan and Japanese people, and I'm sure I'd be one of the most dangerous people in Britain if our government decided to wage an illegal, unjustified invasion and war on Japan on a false prospectus, as it did against Iraq.

Britain seems to have this bizarre notion that it can act with impunity in somebody else's country, implement policies which result in pretty much unfathomable numbers of deaths, and then naively expect that this will not have consequences at home.  Why would that be the case?

That said, I haven't understood the motivation for such an attack at this time: the war against Iraq is finished.

And I will finish this blog post with one thought... how many wars and have ever been fought, and how much injustice has ever been perpetrated without a motivation of either religious or political fanaticism?

Labour party set to wreck Gay Marriage Bill

I'm surprised and disappointed about news I'm hearing this evening that the labour party are planning to wreck this week's vote on gay marriage.

It seems to me that David Cameron has been courageous enough to introduce this bill, but the opposition of gay marriage by his parliamentary and grass roots party members just confirm to anybody who ever doubted it that the Conservative party itself hasn't changed... they are still fundamentally and in majority "the nasty party".  It seems like a win:win situation for Labour and the Lib Dems.

But, as if snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Labour seem ready to prevent or delay the bill getting through.  Labour can't enjoy credit for supporting equal marriage rights and then keep it off the statute book... nobody will buy that - it makes you all worse than the bigoted tories: cynical conniving creatures whose belief in justice for gay people is so weak you'd push us under the nearest truck for laughs.

For the record, I support civil partnership for heterosexual couples.  If the Labour party genuinely support it they will bring in legislation to introduce it the moment they regain power.  There's no justification whatsoever to wreck this bill with the dead weight of such an amendment.