Sunday News'n'Views

So British home Secretary Blunkett is to ban an extremist animal rights activist who believes it's okay to kill scientists- so why didn't he ban the Muslim extremist al-Qaradawi who advocates the death of Jews? (“There is No Dialogue between Us and the Jews Except by the Sword and the Rifle”)?

Forces are already at work in Sudan- hunting for Al Qaeda.

Maybe this is why there's so much trouble in Iraq at the moment.

The ACLU is not something I'd normally comment on but the argument they present in this case- not reading the terrorist list- is so monumentally stupid that I couldn't pass it up. The fact that their legal counsel thinks that this is reasonable just staggers me too. What on earth are these people thinking? Why are they pro-terrorist, because that's what they are doing by spouting this nonsense? And why was it a 'reprehensible mistake' to not have in their staff members who support 'totalitarian dictatorship'? Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't they in favour of Civil Liberties?

So, they're for civil liberties but they are also in favour of supporting totalitarian dictatorships and terrorists who threaten the freedom of America? Don't they get that if the Islamic terrorists get their way, there won't be any Civil Liberties left? Unbelievable. Utterly unbelievable.

So Iran has gone back to its nuclear program. France and Germany are threatening more talks and the UN may even throw a hissy fit too. What's John Kerry going to do about this one if he gets elected? Is he going to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or is he going to go with his 'allies' and either;

a. talk about it some more, or

b. talk about it some more?

Those are the only two options his beloved France/Germany and the UN are giving right now and I can't see them changing their tune. Right at the end of the article we come across the UN's tough solution- they'll issue a rebuking statement. I'll bet Tehran is quaking with fear.

If Bush doesn't get back in, it looks like it's up to Israel to take care of this problem.

In another stroke of genius, British Home Secretary Blunkett doesn't seem to want paedophiles locked up where they can do no harm- he wants them out in the community, where they can occasionally take a lie detector test, to ask if they've been near children. In one trial of this it was revealed that a third of the 32 offenders had had unsupervised contact with children. I don't know what's worse- that Blunkett is in favour of testing people who should have been locked up, or that members of the Cabinet are opposed to compulsory testing? When these people committed these crimes they said goodbye to their civil liberties in my book. They are a threat to the most vulnerable section of whatever community they are in- it's even more galling that a failure of a lie detector test will not mean they go back behind bars, but will lead to 'greater monitoring and tagging'.

As a parent this leave me feeling sick to my stomach. The sheer stupidity of this just enrages me. Child sex offenders do not belong in the community where they may commit another crime. They do not deserve a 'second chance', they can never 'repay their debt to society'. Once convicted, if I had my way, they would remain in prison for LIFE. That a government minister would put children at risk in this way just beggars belief.

This, at last, is some good news- MI5 and MI6 are to investigate French corruption with Iraq.

You might think that the US has problems with its porous borders but here we have the government letting in flood of immigrants without any checks and then lying about it. And the guy who blew the whistle has been sacked for, and I kid you not, 'embarrassing ministers'. In other words, he told the truth, a minister lied, got caught out on that lie and was then forced to resign. Shouldn't he be given a promotion instead of being sacked?

Finally, here's a nugget of new information about the war in Iraq and that pesky WMD info- not only did Bush, Congress, the CIA, the UN, Britain, and Russia (to name but a few) believe that Saddam had chemical weapons- so too did the leaders of Jordan and Egypt, as told to them by Saddam Hussein. As General Franks said, what are you supposed to do with information like this?

And what a great ploy to deceive the Iraqi military with an imaginary invasion from the north. I've got nothing but respect for Franks' plan and this just adds to my admiration.