Out in rural Afghanistan where the writ of the Taleban still runs – a writ that encompasses the application of Sharia law which the bewildered Primate of All England thinks must become part of the legal framework of England and Wales – the village streets resound to the broad twang of the accents of urban centres of the immigration we have heedlessly allowed over fifty years. Or so they say.
One is not surprised by the report that the RAF routinely hear British voices on enemy radio nets. The poison of Islamic Extremism has been working its way through the veins of the immigrant community for donkey’s years and ill-educated youths sucked into the maw of fundamentalist preachers have been turned traitor by a variety of means (of which the promise of a large number of virgins has always struck me as the most ludicrous until you think how they keep their lady-folk in thrall).
It must be galling for British military personnel engaged in aerial reconnaissance to pick up the voices of home spoken by people holding British citizenship who have been succoured on the hind teat of British Taxpayer’s money from the cradle onwards but who are now doing their best to kill them and our allies.
If we capture them, one is bound to ask why we shy away from indicting them for the offence which they have most obviously committed, namely treason contrary to the Treason Act 1351 which makes it pretty clear that what they are up to is treachery, pure and simple:
………….or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere……..And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty…..
I suspect there are weasels in the Law Officers departments and elsewhere who would shy away from prosecuting for Treason because they fear giving an added status to the offenders which they are loath to accord them.
That is, with respect, misguided. We are undoubtedly at war, whatever the niceties of the language of the UN Charter obliges us diplomatically and legally to call it, against an enemy who refuses to observe the laws and customs of war and who depends, in part, on a core of British traitors who give aid and comfort to those fighting the Armed Forces of The Crown. For that reason alone prosecuting for treason ought to be the first and not the last option.
But it is also the case that we have forgotten so much of that which we used to know of the sub-continent, its customs and traditions. One of these was and is the concept of ‘salt’. Just as salt was an important commodity in the Roman Empire, so it was in the East. In the latter, if you had accepted salt from another, you might not do him any harm lest you become accursed. Oaths were closely associated with the taking of salt and there were specific words for those who were loyal and those who were traitors: ‘Nimak halal’ means ‘true to one’s salt’; ‘nimak-khaver’ was one who was true to his salt, an eater of salt; and ‘nimak haram’ was one who was false to his salt.
These people have eaten our salt and have betrayed us. That is an important and ancient concept which we would do well to foster. If we did so amongst immigrant communities it would be a readily understood concept which might be used to advantage.
Because of the incorporation into our law of the European Convention on Human Rights we have abandoned the penalty which formerly attached to conviction for Treason: death. Whilst I am against the death penalty for murder, I would have no scruples about its return for such people as these whose crime affects and damages not just the State but each and every one of its citizens and is thus the most serious offence known to the law.
There will be the usual bleating about the creation of ‘martyrs’. So be it. This danger is far outweighed by the seriousness of the crime. Would they really be martyrs to the decent Islamist immigrants of Bradford, Birmingham, Dewsbury, and the like, or would they rather be embarrassments to their own families, criminals who brought dishonour and shame at the end of a rope to them and their community. I reckon, boldly perhaps, the latter. They would only be martyrs to fellow-travellers.
When I wrote in July of an opportunity missed to form a Regiment of the British Army composed of loyal Sikh citizens, it was in part a piece of romantic nostalgia but one which would also have had a serious and valuable point to it: what better way could one demonstrate that Sikhs had become loyal subjects than that they should go to war together as do the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and, dare on say it, the English? The concept could easily be extended to the formation of a regiment of Punjabis. As usual a perfectly good idea was killed off by the multiculturalists who have done so much to hinder integration of immigrant communities.
Such regiments would do much to demonstrate that immigrant communities were ‘true to their salt’ and that those who choose the path of treachery in Afghanistan and elsewhere do so without the support of their communities in the UK. And they would be a blow to the damaging cult of multiculturalism, which would be a significant bonus.