Is CCTV useless? Not quite.

Some people adhere to a peverse belief that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.

But two-thirds of suicide bombers have been non-Muslims, whether communists in Lebanon, or Hindu extremists in Sri Lanka.

And mainly white middle-class animal rights extremists are those behind bombings of scientists houses.

And we all know how white Irish terrorists attacked us for a long time.

The last white terrorist to have murdered anyone in this country, was caught on, yup, you guessed it, CCTV. David Copeland may have claimed more victims had there been no CCTV in this country.

The Ipswich ripper was stopped from murdering a sixth prostitute by CCTV.

Injury prevention have told us there are far fewer intakes into hospitals for assaults, because police get there much faster.

It is perhaps not the best way of stopping crime (though it is good at it), but it is a good way of prosecuting criminals, tracking infomation faster, and stopping future crimes.

There is such a thing as positive liberty. A smoking ban has seen in other countries, and already in this one, that healthcare costs go down.

But on the DNA database, I am weighing up a swab for many, against a rape for many. I am going with the first option thankyou.

Torture does not enhance liberty. Banning criticism of religion does not enhance liberty.

Interestingly, you don't seem to consider stopping asylum seekers as an ultimate violation of liberty. Despite my views on religion, we should accept Chinese Catholic if they choose to come here. We should have welcomed the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, the Bosnians, the Jews etc.

If we have a foreign policy that helps tyranny, we have a particular responsibility to intake any immigrants forced here by that tyranny. We send approximately a dozen asylum seekers back to their deaths every year. They're not dying of cancer. They're being shot by fascist paramilitaries in Columbia, and killed by Islamists in Somalia etc.

That is a scandal. When the Daily Mail said in 1938 that "the way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring into this country is an outrage", no doubt many of their readers agreed too. No doubt many believed the stories about Jews carrying diseases, exploiting our hospitality and committing evil crimes.

That doesn't stop innuendo against asylum seekers being lies. Most asylum seekers come from Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.

If we're going to allow British banks to have business in Zimbabwe, then we must accept any victims. There are two wars in Afghanistan, one is legitimate, and one is not.

It is precisely because I support the war in Afghanistan, that I am against the war in Iraq. I would've pressed for immediete intervention in Iraq, but provided a more accurate case about Saddam Hussein's thuggery, tyranny, and his real terrorism. But our lack of a multilateral coalition made me be against it-it's a Robin Cook reasoning if you will. In Afghanistan this is not the case, we are building roads, schools, and providing freedom for women. But there is a second war which prevents this from being successful: the war on drugs. I have a suggestion. If we find drugs so distasteful, why not buy the crops to destroy them? But Afghanistan has 60% of its GDP from opium. We cannot build up their other industries, if we suppress their main industry. So we must accept any victims.

I think it is the ultimate violation of liberty to refuse someone like Aung Sun Suu Kyi asylum.

[ Parent ]