Tag Archive for consequences

An Argument For Guns

Guns stop beheadings

Guns stop beheadings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last week an Islamist terrorist beheaded a woman at a food products factory in Oklahoma. He attempted to behead a second woman but was stopped when he was shot by the owner of the factory.

The liberal media and authorities are falling over themselves to portray the incident as a case of “workplace violence”. Given that the murderer was a recent convert to Islam and chose the ISIS terrorist group’s method of choice for the execution, that is a hugely implausible attempt at political correctness. Absolute nonsense, but that is a separate debate.

It’s just one more example of how guns in the hands of good guys save lives.

On another continent, guns saved my parents’ lives in a terrorist ambush. The knowledge that I had guns and would use them prevented our farm-house being overrun and my wife and I being severely assaulted or murdered in the Zimbabwe farm invasions.

If that beheading incident had taken place in Canada, the second victim would have had no chance. Gun laws here would have prevented the owner carrying a weapon or having one close to hand in a workplace.

In the unlikely event that the owner did manage to get his gun out of a locked gun safe, remove the trigger lock, get ammunition from a separate secure place and load the magazine in time to shoot the murderer, he would almost certainly have been charged with a number of firearm offences.

The West’s tolerance of demands for special treatment by immigrant minorities and tolerance of their disregard for local customs and laws is going to have serious consequences. I hope I am wrong, but I fear more incidents like the Oklahoma beheading.

Canada’s gun laws have left law-abiding citizens emasculated, unable to defend themselves and exposed to persecution by big government should they attempt to exert the most basic human rights of all. The right to life and to protect one’s family.

 

peter-wright

Why # won’t free Nigerian schoolgirls

 hashtag

 

Creative Commons License Dan Moyle via Compfight

A month ago, 300 schoolgirls were abducted by Islamic terrorists in Northern Nigeria. Their school was destroyed

The Nigerian government made almost no effort to find and release them.

For three weeks there was little reaction from world leaders, few comments in traditional or social media. A deafening silence from feminist groups and all those crusaders for “equal rights” who attack opponents of politically correct causes – same-sex marriage, for example, with such fervour.

More girls were abducted, some escaped and returned home. More attacks from Bakar Haram.

Videos of the girls, now in Islamic dress, were recorded with demands for captured terrorists to be freed in exchange for the girls release.

Angry and frustrated at the lack of response by the Nigerian government, families of the captured girls start protesting and demanding action.

Information released by external organisations suggests that the Nigerian government had been warned of an imminent attack on the school.

It is alleged that the warning was taken so seriously by some teachers that their own children were removed from the school.

Almost a month after the abduction, the outside world woke up and took action.

What did it do? Several nations sent token forces of “advisors” to help the Nigerian forces. Surveillance planes have been offered.

A new secret weapon was announced by the First Lady of the USA.

The hashtag.

Now we see the leaders of the former super powers and other countries, agonising over the fate of the schoolgirls.

What a pathetic spectacle.

I have great sympathy for the abducted girls and their families, but hashtag bearing First Ladies, tweets, placards and pontificating presidents are not going to get the girls back.

Only resolute action can do that.

 

That means capable, determined men on the ground with the skill and will to hunt the terrorists down and shoot them.

But there is no one to do it.

The Nigerian government has proved itself incapable of stopping Bakar Haram.

Western governments have no stomach for armed conflict in Africa.

Neighbouring African states have neither the ability nor interest to take on Bakar Haram.

The seeds of this abduction and much of the misery affecting the ordinary people in Africa were sown many decades ago. Not when Africa was colonised as liberals are so ready to suggest.

Africa was a violent and brutal continent centuries before the first Europeans arrived.

The real problems started after a few decades of explosive population growth thanks to the introduction of Western systems of hygiene, medical care, education and food production.

After introducing these systems, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, by the late 1950s and 1960s, the former colonial powers were abandoning their former colonies with indecent haste.

Leaving millions of people at the mercy of inept, corrupt and brutal dictators like Mobutu in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) and a succession of military officers installed in armed coups in Nigeria. Similar examples, ranging from madmen like Idi Amin of Uganda to inept social meddlers like Nyerere of Tanzania had equally devastating effects on most of the continent.

The only two countries to buck the trend, maintain law and order, grow their economies and increase living standards substantially, were South Africa and Rhodesia.

Why the difference? Because these were the only two countries on the continent to resist one-man-one-vote, retain efficient, relatively incorruptible governments. Effective administrative systems kept the economy expanding despite, sanctions, terrorist wars and for South Africa, floods of illegal immigrants escaping the harsh reality of life in independent Africa.

There was however a huge problem.

The government of the only two successful countries on the continent were exclusively white.

That was unacceptable to those  who had already ruined their own countries and to weak Western leaders more interested in appeasing murderous dictators than the well-being of millions of people of all races on the southern tip of the continent.

Rhodesia and the old efficient, viable, South Africa are gone, sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Replaced by the corrupt and economic basket case of Zimbabwe and an ANC controlled South Africa heading down the same slope.

In the most recent version of violent transfer of power on the continent, it is Bakar Haram, and other terrorist groups, Islamic or not, taking advantage of ineffective governments to seize control of vast areas of Africa with their campaigns of terror.

Until the unfortunate residents of countries like Nigeria have governments that can govern effectively, the problem is not going away.

Now is the time for the West to get tough with those governments, cut off all aid, funding, assistance until the governments show some responsibility. Exercise the same rabid tenacity to stop African rulers squandering revenues or stashing funds in tax havens as the authorities do to law-abiding Western citizens taking advantage of legal loopholes.

Only then should material assistance to fight terrorism be given. Weapons and equipment sent now will almost certainly find their way into Bakar Haram’s arsenals to be used to capture more schoolgirls and kill thousands more innocent people.

That will be infinitely more effective than hashtags.

peter-wright

 

 

 

 

Aggravating racism by poking a stick in a festering sore.

Bandage it, don't  poke it with a stick

Bandage it, don’t poke it with a stick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does North America have such an unhelpful and unhealthy attitude to racism?

The reaction to the comments by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Stirling’s comments goes beyond ludicrous.

His comments, if they were correctly quoted, were not the most sensible considering many of his team and fans are black. They may have upset many people, but on the long list of serious problems in the world today, no reasonable person can rate them near the top.

However, they were made in a private conversation. One that was not intended to be made public.

For a country that claims to be against racism and for freedom of speech, the escalation of this incident and the resulting punishment of Mr. Stirling borders on the insane.

As a victim of far more serious racism than a derogatory comment in a private conversation, I am appalled at both the hysteria that this incident has generated and the reverse discrimination visited on Mr. Stirling.

For the record, my father was murdered, my mother crippled for life.  Later, I was thrown in a police cell while my farm and all my assets were illegally taken from me by the Zimbabwe government. All because we were white. That is the sort of racism every one should be concerned about.

Do I blame all black people for that? Of course not.

The most irresponsible and malicious actors in this sad saga are the person who “leaked” the conversation to the media, the media channel that publicised it and all those in both public and private office who have used it to make themselves look good.

Here’s why:

It was a private conversation.

Who among us can honestly say that they have never made a derogatory comment about a group of people in a private conversation. I cannot and I don’t think many others can.

How many times do we hear criticism of Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Bankers, Oil executives, the Rich, the poor, the homeless, Southerners, Newfies, Italians, Germans, Russians or any other nationality?

What about criticism of religions, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists? Or sports teams, the police, the military?

As a former white resident of Southern Africa, now living in North America, I frequently have to ignore allegations of my obviously “terrible attitude to, and treatment of, black people”.

I know that these comments are made from ignorance by people who have no idea of the real situation in my former countries and who have been subjected to anti South African and anti Rhodesian propaganda for most of their lives.

While I may not like the comments, I understand that people are as free to make them as I am to publish my opinions and Donald Stirling is to express his in a private conversation.

The comments were not illegal

At the time of writing there has been no indication that the comments broke any laws.

Donald Stirling is a wealthy man who may be quite happy to sell his team for the $600 to $700 million it is reported to be worth. It’s poetic justice that he will realise a huge profit on his original $12 million investment if he does sell the team.

It would be supremely ironic if he chose to disband the team, but I doubt if anybody would walk away from that sort of money.

Will he go on the counter attack and sue who ever he can? Again much as I would like to see it, I think the deck is stacked against him.

Unethical manipulation of an owners association

If the man has not committed a crime, it is entirely unethical for the NBA to exert pressure on the owners association to expel him. It is also wrong for him to be expelled from the association and banned for life while he legally owns a team.

This treatment establishes a dangerous precedent akin to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in the 1930’s. Then it started with smashing shop windows. Now it’s by banning an owner from enjoying free use of his assets.

It establishes other dangerous precedents, underhand methods for sabotaging successful teams, alienating sponsors and supporters, crippling them financially.

It gives unsuccessful businesses the ability to raise charges of racism to unfairly eliminate competitors in the knowledge that even if the charges are completely unfounded, the media will ensure that damage is done.

Other than the reversed shirt incident, it does not appear that any team members have expressed their disapproval by walking away from the team. Their outrage is not sufficient to jeopardise lucrative contracts.

What would the NBA do if the team expressed solidarity with the owner and demanded that he continue as owner?

The USA trumpets the virtues of the free market system. The market should decide Donald Stirling’s fate, not the self-righteous advocates of totalitarianism that seek to control the thoughts and comments of a nation.

The end of free speech

It is an unacceptable use of thought and speech control, the same mob rule mentality that hounded Brendan Eich from his job a few weeks ago has struck another victim.

Who will be next, will it be you because you said something that a politician or someone in the media did not like?

Why this attitude is unhealthy

When a child comes to his or her mother with a minor scratch, she treats it with the appropriate amount of first aid and leaves it to nature and time to heal.

She does not poke it with a stick to make it much worse and then call the media to show the festering wound to the nation.

That’s what the over hyped reaction to incidents like this does, turn a minor scratch into a festering sore.

Like minor scratches, incidents like these should be left alone for time and nature to heal, not used to provoke racial tension and victimize people.

Why should incidents like this provoke such over-reaction? More hysteria than in some countries with histories of interracial conflict?

Is it lingering guilt over slavery? Or guilt over the almost total annihilation of the indigenous populations of North America and their reduction to powerless minorities? Or the success of the politically correct liberal left in dividing the moderate majority and stifling any opinion other than its own.

Be aware, you could be the next victim.

peter-wright

 

 

 

mage courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Vanishing American Middle Class

 

Is the American Dream in Ruins?

Is the American Dream in Ruins?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The American Middle Class is no longer the world’s wealthiest, it has been caught by Canada. Many other nations are catching up.

This alarming situation is shown in the results of surveys over the last 35 years, for more details here is a link to an article on The Upshot – New York Times of 22 April 2014.

As predictably as night follows day, this catastrophe is being blamed on rising “Income Inequality” in the USA. Claims that the “American Dream” is in ruins. I have written before, that except in a true communist society, income inequality is a natural and desirable condition.

Comparing the lifestyle of the third generation Kim in North Korea with the miserable existence of most of that country’s citizens shows that “income inequality” is alive and well under that and every other, brand of communism tried so far.

It is self-evident that unless every person in a society or nation, was restricted to the same government imposed income, equality of income would be impossible.

If two or more amounts or measures of anything are not identical, they are by definition not equal. Therefore inequality must exist, not only in incomes, but in size of houses, cost of cars, physical prowess and the length of each of our lives.

If the socialist ideal of income equality is unattainable, why does the liberal left keep on promoting it?

Because “income inequality” has far more guilt inducing emotion attached to it than the various other descriptions of varying income levels.

Income Disparity is the correct term to describe the range of incomes earned by people at various levels of; economic activity, success or failure, in a free enterprise society.

That is not to suggest that a wide range of income disparity should not be of concern. Huge, real or perceived differences between the haves and have-nots are the powder-kegs of revolution.

The problem both of the vanishing middle class and income disparity becomes one of relativity.

A member of the middle class in North America living reasonably well but by no means considered wealthy, may feel justified in complaining about a CEO of a major corporation receiving a salary and bonus package amounting to millions of dollars.

However that same unhappy North American cannot accept that compared to a labourer in a third world country earning perhaps $3 a day, he or she is wealthy beyond that person’s wildest dreams.

While our comfortable middle class North American or European calls for an income cap on CEOs he conveniently ignores the fact that many sports and entertainment celebrities’ earnings are at obscenely high levels.

That same middle class critic of “the rich” would resist any attempt to cap his or her earnings.

The relative numbers of unskilled immigrants in a society will affect each countries’ range of incomes and position on the scale of middle class wealth. That alone is a factor in Canada’s favour over the USA. Geography, climate and recently, under a Conservative government, a stricter immigration policy, making it a less desirable destination for poor, unskilled immigrants, legal or illegal.

The way to reduce the extremes of income disparity is to help, encourage, provoke, entice or plain push those at the bottom of the range to move up. Not reduce every one else to the level of the lowest.

There will always be ultra rich and there will always be very poor people, it’s been the same throughout history and there are parallels in nature.

Artificially trying to narrow the gap with income restraints, excessive taxation or other policies aimed at the higher income earners will only cause them to take their higher earning abilities elsewhere.

Along with their ability to create jobs and opportunities for those who want to rise up the income gradient by their own efforts.

peter-wright

 

 

image courtesy of sattva / freedigitalphotos.net

The Ukrainian Government’s Dilemma

Brian via Compfight

elexorien sword of vaelen

Those who live by the sword die by the sword

The interim government in Ukraine is becoming acutely aware of the saying derived from the biblical parable in The Gospel of Mathew, verse 26:52.

“Those who live by the sword, die by the sword”.

It’s ironic that the new government’s successful installation in Kiev, has encouraged the pro Russian activists in cities in the East of the country to use the same strategy.

A strategy of widespread resistance using tactics of roadblocks in the streets and illegal occupation of government buildings.

In a post on 25 February Ukraine, Peaceful Protest or Mob Rule, I pointed out the dangers of mob rule.

It appears that those dangers are now coming back to haunt the new government.

The same factors are now almost certainly hindering the West’s ability to effectively respond to the Russian annexation of Crimea and fomenting of demands for autonomy in Eastern Ukraine.

While most reasonable supporters of democracy will approve of the ousting of former President Yanukovich, the means by which it was achieved were anything but democratic.

It’s somewhat illogical to celebrate mob rule in one part of the country and then condemn the same actions in another.

The new government is now becoming painfully aware of the consequences of its takeover as it contemplates its options in the East.

There were calls for the former president and some of his officials to be tried for war crimes because some protesters were shot.

Is that why the new government is so scared of using force to evict the illegal occupiers of government buildings in Eastern towns?

It is a real predicament, use too much force resulting in casualties, alienate the pro-Russian population, risk accusations of war crimes, invite an invasion by Russian troops.

Don’t use force and see an increasing number of Eastern towns and regions become lawless, controlled by mobs and ripe for annexation by Russia.

Governments have to govern, as distasteful as it may be, the government in Ukraine must take resolute action to regain control of the whole country quickly.

The alternative is a partitioned Ukraine and increased risk of Russian sponsored agitation in other countries which were formerly part of the USSR.

The big question is why the new government did not take immediate steps to bolster the security at its buildings and defence of cities in the East as soon as the Russian activities in Crimea commenced.

Was it concern over the loyalty of its troops?  Was it the naivety of a new government? Was it inexperienced leadership?

 

peter-wright

 

 

 

Dangerous moves on the Ukrainian chess board

Killer QueenCreative Commons License aussiegall via Compfight

Back in September 2013, in this post, I suggested that Russia’s President Putin had acted like a Chess Master to out manoeuvre the Western powers in Syria.

Seems he learned from that success and has again played the more decisive opening moves. This time in the Ukraine, a bigger chessboard and a game with much higher stakes.

As offensive as his action in moving thousands of troops into the Crimea overnight is to our Western Democratic sensibilities, he has an element of legality on his side.

The government under President Yanukovich as bad as it appeared, was the elected government. It was overthrown by a violent revolution, police and protesters were killed, property damaged, buildings occupied and public officials prevented from doing their jobs.

Our Western leaders loudly condemn, and sometimes take action against, coup leaders in other countries – when we do not approve of them. It seems we have a selective morality when it comes to approving of, or condemning revolutions.

How then can we complain when Russia chooses to side with what to them is a beleaguered minority, deprived of their elected government by an uprising and fearful for their safety?

Not that I am supporting Russia’s invasion of the Crimea. Far from it, I am just suggesting that the situation is a little more complicated than most people believe.

Will Putin put troops into the rest of the Ukraine? That may well depend on his assessment of the “consequences” that British Foreign Minister William Hague threatens.

While I suspect that Russia will not be aggressive enough to launch a takeover of the whole country, it would not be surprising if they did attempt to annexe those parts of Eastern Ukraine with majority Russian speaking populations.

It looks like the Crimean peninsula is lost, a result that may eventually prevent further problems for the new government in Kiev. A Russian move into Eastern Ukraine would create more serious problems both for the country itself and other countries in Europe.

Depending on their assessment of the West’s likely reaction, Putin could well put troops around the Russian speaking cities in Eastern Ukraine temporarily to extract concessions from both the new Ukrainian government and the West.

Those concessions could include higher prices for Russian natural gas supplied to the Ukraine and beyond, removal of the threat of sanctions proposed by the USA and even more favourable consideration of Russian interests in unrelated sources of disagreement like Syria.

For now the Russian Chess Master has the West in check, will it be checkmate when more Ukrainian cities have been lost like pawns? Or will the West be bold enough to protect the Queen of Kiev and the rest of the pieces not yet lost?

My bet is that right now it’s too close to call. My gut instinct tells me that this game would have played out differently if Presidents John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had still been leaders of their countries.

More recently, if either President Bush had been in power, Russia’s opening moves may have been less provocative.

I do not believe that the West will, or should, get into a war with Russia, the potential cost is too high, the outcome unlikely to improve the situation for the people of Ukraine.

However the Russian action is a clear indication that the USA is no longer seen as the only world superpower, the balance of power is steadily shifting Eastwards and Russia desperately wants to improve its standing in the ranks of nations that carry weight.

Interesting times ahead.

 

peter-wright

Obama or Putin – Who is the Syrian Chess Master?

Check, please.

 

Alex Eylar via Compfight

My comments in my previous post about Syria were uncannily accurate, within hours of hitting the publish button, the British Parliament voted against any UK involvement in military action against Syria.

I do not for a moment believe my post influenced a single vote, nor do I claim any special powers of foresight. My crystal ball is no better than any one else’s.

It seemed to me that most of the world, including a substantial majority of Americans were against any direct involvement. Only three major players wanting to send in the planes and missiles, the USA and French administrations and the Syrian opposition including those elements sympathetic to our enemies in Afghanistan.

I am certainly not a pacifist, having served in the military defending my country against terrorism, I have no wish to repeat the experience myself or see younger generations exposed to similar dangers. War, declared or otherwise is bad, but sometimes necessary to defend our or our allies sovereignty and freedom.

As I stated in my previous post, this is not one of those situations. More evidence to support non-involvement came in BBC coverage this week of the pleas from Christians in Maaloula, Syria for the West not to support the opposition. The jihadist fringe of which is attacking them and destroying their churches. It appears the Christians are volunteering to support the Syrian government forces defending them.

Which brings us to the events of the past week and the question of which President is the better chess player, Obama or Putin? Russians have long been masters at formulating strategic chess moves, both on the chess board and on the world stage.

Did Putin have the idea of putting Syria’s chemical weapons under UN control up his sleeve at the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, but wait for the American President to make a few more moves?

Did he then wait a few more days until it became more likely that the vote in congress would go against the use of force? Set him up for checkmate?

Was Putin’s proposal and the timing of it, a major face-saving exercise for President Obama? If so will there be a cost attached and what will it cost? When and how must it be paid?

My money is on the Russians coming out ahead in this game of high stakes chess.

 

peter-wright

 

 

p.s. You might enjoy this post on my other blog about the media bias to reporting trivial and negative news

Cruising the road to Damascus – at any cost.

Royal  Navy Submarine HMS Astute Fires a Tomahawk Cruise Missile (TLAM) During Testing Near the USA UK Ministry of Defence via Compfight

The leaders of the USA, UK and France seem determined to take “surgical” action in Syria, probably by using precisely targeted cruise missiles.

Why?

In the almost 3 years of the Syrian civil war, over 100 000 people have been killed, large areas of the country reduced to rubble, neighbouring countries burdened with huge waves of refugees. Bombings in Lebanon and Iraq may be a direct result of the conflict. The involvement of Hezbollah and Iran in support of the Syrian government is both worrying and a further complication.

But with all that, the Western powers have been reluctant to get involved in what is still a civil war, an internal problem.

Until this week when 350 people were killed in a chemical warfare bombardment blamed on the Syrian government.

As yet, no convincing evidence that government forces were responsible or conclusions on the exact chemical used have been produced.

Russia and China are predictably vetoing any UN resolutions to use force against the Syrian Government, supporting their argument by allegations that it may have been the Syrian opposition attempting to force an “own goal” on the government.

Any escalation in the conflict increases the threat to our two most important allies in the region, Israel and Turkey,  but a chemical attack in Damascus in itself, does not dramatically increase that threat.

As awful and inexcusable the use of chemical weapons may be, and as much as we might regret the loss of hundreds more lives last week, the threat to the West or world peace has not been increased by these events.

Why then do we want to get involved? Have we not learned the lessons from Iraq? When the justification for the invasion was later found to be false. Or Afghanistan, when having quickly defeated the enemy, we attempted the impossible task of installing democracy in an undemocratic part of the world, lengthened our involvement by years at huge cost. That cost measured in hundreds of our soldier’s lives and billions of dollars and pounds of taxpayers hard-earned cash.

Have we forgotten Egypt where by abandoning an ally, and tacitly supporting a revolution, we ended up with a ruler far more dangerous, another coup and now a country in turmoil with a wrecked economy.

Why then are our leaders so determined to get involved in Syria after a comparatively small increase in casualties?

Is it really because the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable? Large scale killing of civilians is surely unacceptable with any type of weapons.

Is there a bigger threat to Israel, Turkey and perhaps Jordan that we are not being told about?

Is Iran about to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike?

Do President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron just want to irritate the Russians and Chinese?

Or is it once again an example of Western arrogance and hypocrisy, trying to impose our standards on people who march to the beat of a very different drummer?

Before this incident, it looked as if the Assad government was gaining control over larger areas of Syria, perhaps turning the tide and winning the war.  It could be argued that the quickest way to reduce the horrendous casualty rate, stop the destruction of infrastructure and reverse the flood of refugees would be to let the government win the war by what ever means it has at its disposal.

After all we justified dropping atomic bombs on Japan as the best way to end WW11 despite the huge loss of life.

I am not an apologist for Assad, I would be happy to see him removed from power and made to pay for his sins, however deciding on who should rule Syria is a matter for the Syrians not us.

We should beware of assisting in his removal and his replacement by a more anti-Western ruler. We don’t need to risk the lives of our troops in another un-winnable war when that war, disastrous as it may be for Syrians, poses little threat to our own security.

What are your thoughts?

 

peter-wright

Did Society Fail The Boston Bombers?

consequences

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did society “fail” the Boston bombers, or did the Boston bombers fail society?

Enough has already been published, said, tweeted, updated or videoed about the Boston Marathon bombing and subsequent events to cause a peak in energy consumption or a newsprint shortage if it had happened a few decades ago.

I am not going to add to it directly, but a comment by a colleague at a social function this week got me thinking.

He was expressing compassion for the victims and all those affected by the bombing and believed that we should also show compassion for the bombers because “society had failed them.”

I disagree, compassion yes, failure no. If any group failed them, it was the Islamists, Jihadists, fundamental or otherwise who recruited and subverted them. Of course they would see the event as a success not a failure.

It is the sign of a good and caring person to show compassion for a murderer as well as his victims, but to blame a violent act of terrorism on society’s failure ignores the fact that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Millions of people come to North America and other developed countries to escape poverty, misery, oppression and brutality in their homelands. The vast majority come because of the better conditions and opportunities, not to replicate the appalling conditions they have fled. Most are law-abiding, hard-working people eternally grateful for a chance at a better life. Some take advantage of loopholes in our welfare system to get a free ride, a small minority become criminals. An even smaller group become terrorists with the intention of furthering their religious or political causes.

I am also a recent immigrant and I have a personal axe to grind in that through both direct hostile action and deliberate inaction, the Western powers forced a terrorist government on my peaceful, economically successful country, Rhodesia. The murder of my father, crippling injuries to my mother and later, illegal theft of my farm are all results of that interference.

To add insult to injury, the same countries pressurised my new country, South Africa, to surrender to another brutal, corrupt, terrorist organisation, the ANC. The disaster in that country is still unfolding.

Despite all that, I am grateful for the safety and opportunities to rebuild my life in Canada. I have chosen to live here and must abide by the laws and customs. I have chosen to fight against policies I dislike and call for change by becoming a citizen, using my privilege of voting for a political party with policies I can support. (a difficult task)

I have those options, if my dislike of the country becomes intolerable, I am free to leave.

Like most reasonable people, I will not manufacture bombs out of pressure cookers, kill innocent bystanders at sporting events and create mayhem in a society that has offered me refuge from a far worse place.

No, I do not believe our society failed the Boston Bombers or any other home-grown terrorists. If any group failed them, it was the fanatics who recruited them. But of course they would see the outcome as a success not a failure. The death of one and capture of the other as justifiable sacrifices in their campaign to return the world to the dark ages.

The two brothers had a choice, if they did not like America, they were free to return to Chechnya, Dagestan or whichever den of Islamic fundamentalism they chose.

It is irritatingly common in our politically correct society to find someone, some group, some event or some external influence to blame for bad behaviour and its consequences.

Bad things do happen to good people, accidents happen. We have a choice, do we accept victim status , use them as an excuse for anti-social, destructive or murderous behaviour? Or do we get on with our lives and use them to demonstrate that we have the resilience to overcome adversity and build better, purposeful lives?

From living most of my life in the third world, I understand why billions of people believe that power is everything, compassion seen as weakness. This is why democracy is having such a difficult time taking root in Africa and elsewhere in societies that have been collections of feudal, tribal chiefdoms for thousands of years.

If the West has failed any immigrants, it has failed them by being too tolerant of attempts to subvert the norms of society to those of the countries from whence they came. “Multiculturalism” is one of the glaring failures, the word itself is an oxymoron.

Just as I must conform to the standards of my new country and abide by its laws, so must every other newcomer from whichever origin. No exceptions, if I or they cannot, then we must leave, not plant bombs in cities.

Ethnic shops and restaurants, areas with a majority of one ethnic origin are one thing. Changing employment rules, tolerating elements of foreign laws, making excuses for the abuse of women and instituting different dress codes for some people something entirely different.

There is a simple solution, conform or leave, no pandering to any immigrant minority groups, settle in Canada and you are Canadian, live permanently in America, American. People can hold on to and celebrate their ethnic, religious or national beliefs. But in any matters that affect other people, laws and established customs, there can be no tolerance for anti-social or worse, behaviour.

That is why I cannot accept that society failed the Boston bombers, the blame lies elsewhere.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Wishing you success.

peter wright

 

 

 

Image courtesy of Idea Go / FreeDigitalPhotos.net