“A bad worker blames his tools,” my mother used to tell me. And bad leaders, it seems, blame the consequences of their bad policies on tools. A case in point is London mayor Sadiq Khan’s proposal to ban cars in certain areas of his city after Tuesday morning’s suspected Houses of Parliament terrorist attack.
In that incident, 29-year-old Sudanese Muslim immigrant Salih Khater injured three people after he crashed his vehicle into cyclists and pedestrians and then into the barriers lining the Houses of Parliament. So, of course, the solution is to ban cars. As Politico reports:
[Mayor] Khan told BBC radio that making certain areas only available to pedestrians would provide more safety to both citizens and buildings in the surrounding area. But he also said the city would need to ensure people “don’t lose one important thing about our democracy: People having an access to parliamentarians, people being able to lobby parliament and being able to come and visit parliament.”
“I think there would be lots of challenges if we would do the whole square. It is a thoroughfare for cars, vehicles and commercial deliveries going through London,” he said. “So it’s possible to have a designed solution … in keeping our buildings and people as safe as we can do. And also not losing what is so wonderful about our city that is a vibrant democracy, people can walk around safely.”
Actually, what would provide even more safety to people is to ban people. I mean, people won’t be hurt by people if there are no people around.
In reality, Khan doesn’t have to worry about losing the “wonderful” opportunity to walk around safely in London. It has already been lost. Earlier this year the city surpassed NYC in homicides for the first time in two centuries, the result of a crime wave that prompted a British doctor to describe the metropolis as being like an “Afghan war zone.”
This is despite the U.K.’s strict gun-control laws, which, since they, amazingly, didn’t eliminate sin, have been followed by knife control. (As the Federalist put it, in London, “guns don't kill people, knives do.” Having said this, gun crime recently increased 42 percent in London, too.) In fact, earlier this year Mayor Khan announced a knife crackdown and tweeted, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife.”
I don’t know. Ever hear of a picnic?
Khan continued, “Anyone who does [carry] will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.”
Interestingly, the U.K. has also been the scene of 2,000 acid attacks in less than three years, with 15 a week occurring in London alone. And, writes the Express, “There is speculation that gangs are turning to acid over knives or guns as possession is so hard to monitor.” Britain’s solution? Propose limiting sulphuric acid purchases and banning the sale of corrosive substances to minors.
Of course, it’s thoroughly “racist” to point out (even though “Muslim” isn’t a race) that this crime wave correlates with the huge influx of Islamic migrants into the U.K., that knife attacks may be increasing because using cutting instruments (i.e., swords, knives) for violence is proscribed in the Koran, and that acid attacks are a thing in parts of the Muslim world.
As FrontPage Mag’s Daniel Greenfield relates, Britain now has one of the world’s highest acid-attack rates, with these assaults most prevalent in Muslim heavy neighborhoods. “There were 84 acid attacks in what has been dubbed ‘The Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets,’” writes Greenfield. “Also, entirely by coincidence, [Muslim] Bangladesh has the highest rate of acid attacks in the world,” he continues. “But if anyone suggests that these two statistics are related, the Met police will investigate them for hate crimes.”
That’s no joke, either. While fewer than five percent of robberies in London are solved, “hate speech” violations are still prioritized, with arrests for such up in some U.K. areas 900 percent since 2014. In fact, there’s talk of sending flashy British politician Boris Johnson in for “diversity training” after he made negative comments about the Islamic face veil.
There’s no word, however, on whether he’ll be allowed to drive a car.