Home Bio Photos General Contact

Kevin's Political Philosophy


My approach to my political philosophy is one based on deductions, based on as few basic general assumptions as possible. This is accordance to my overall science based approach of understanding the nature of things. 

Some General Principles

My overall political stance is that of a Liberal. 

The State should be there for the benefit of the people, not the State. 

State regulation should only be used where it is necessary.

The notion that some action may cause harm, is not sufficient, by itself, to produce any consideration whatsoever that such action should be regulated by the State.

Murder (death penalty) by the State is not an acceptable action by the State for any reason.

It is better to let 1000 guilty individuals go free than to punish 1 innocent individual.

Freedom Of Association

There is nothing ethically wrong in promoting one belief system as ethically more valid than another, for example the notion that one political ideology/religion has greater ethical legitimacy than another political ideology/religion. 

For example, this notion has been specifically recognized in the UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006:

"29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practicing their religion or belief system. "

Unfortunately, there is a persistent Political Correctness that undermines the basic freedoms declared here. 

Freedom Of Expression

Q:    "Don't you understand that what you are saying is very offensive?"

A:     "What's your point?

It is impossible to say something that is not offense to al least some person. This means that shutting offensive speech must shut down all speech. period. Thus, the only way to treat everyone equal, is 


At one time, I treated all religions, essentially, the same. That is, a simple delusional belief in a non-existing supreme superman, essentially, a religious meme (mind) virus. I was wrong. 

ISLAM IS NOT A RACE, it is a totalitarian political and religious ideology in the same way way as Marxism and Nazism. Islam has no ethical entitlement to protection from rejection, insult and ridicule just as no other idea has. Islam is not a person. Ethically equating "Islamophobia" to homophobia is fundamentally flawed. Sexual orientation is not a belief system, it is equivalent to height. Throwing gays of buildings isn't,  its due to an (abhorrent) belief system. Main stream media and the justice system persistently panders to Islamic organizations that play "The Race Card", in an effort to achieve desired results by emotional blackmail. For  example:

Norwood v DPP 2003 - Conviction was upheld by the ECHR against Norwood for displaying a poster "Islam out of Britton". Lord Justice Auld declared that "...was racially insulting to Muslims". This is clearly nonsensical. There are red bearded Scotsman that are Muslims. The clear assumption is that, as the BNP are most certainly a racist organization,  LJA unilaterally declared the sign was racist, despite that fact that it clearly wasn't. Suppressing what people say because of the reason that they might say it, is a hallmark of a toleration police state.

So, the UK simply does not have free speech or free expression. Period. Despite The above "Protection Of Freedom" written into one particular law,  the default position in the UK is that the police will arrest and charge anyone that expresses any negative criticism against Islam. They do this, in part, by the technique of declaring every statement that can be considered negative about Islam, as "Racist" and or, likely to incite violence, despite no references to violence being made in any shape or form. All main stream media condones such an attribution.  For example, the metropolitan police defines "Islamophobia" as any criticism of Islam, or indeed, any criticism that refers to Islam as a political ideology, or a religion that is unchanging is declared as "Islamophobic". It makes no difference that what is stated is invariably, true. 

The UK authorities have submitted to Islam. Effectively, there is now a blasphemy law in the UK for Islam. They have made the decision that because exercising rational and factual points about Islam has the very real consequence that some followers of Islam will will cause deadly violence, they shut down the messenger. This apparent short term advantage of submitting to bullies are well known. Consequences of such action can only get worse, much worse. My take on why this state of affairs exists, are several. Second to the obvious first fear of violent retaliation on expressing negatives towards Islam, a key component is clearly the threat that an MP will lose their parliamentary seat in an election. A third reason, is that it is trivially obvious many MPs are simply clueless on what Islam actually is, confusing it with Muslims, and refuse to spend an hour or so on YouTube to find out, e.g. Douglas Murray, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Tommy Robinson. Yeah...


Lefties/Government invariably claim that ALL that those that express any negatives at Islam, are really disingenuously expressing negatives at ALL Muslims. The faulty logic driven agenda is all too clear. The reality is, is that the vast majority of those opposed to Islam, are opposed to er... ahmm... Islam, just as the vast majority of Muslims do not bomb people. Lefties//Government simple won't take the trouble to actually find out what Islam is. It is the biggest threat to western democracy and freedom today.


Muhammad was a military commander that led 60 campaigns of conquest during the last years of his life. What Muhammad did as a leader is easily ascertained from a goggle search. WikiIslam.

An "Orthodox" Muslim, by definition, is someone that strictly follows Islam, which is the life and teachings of Muhammad, The Quran and the Hadiths.


Sharia is Islamic Law. It's about stoning to death woman for adultery, non equal rights for woman, death to those that renounce Islam, death to gays and chopping of hands and feet, death to those that criticize or deny Muhammad...the list goes on...


Sharia is not optional for Muslims; it is prescribed for believers Quran  (5:48).  Although Muslims as individuals often decide which parts to follow or ignore, the Quran (33:21) says that it is not fitting for a believer to choose for themselves (i.e., disregard) any matter already decided by Allah.


The ECHR (European Court Of Human Rights) has declared that Sharia is incompatible (repugnant) to Human Rights. 


The European Court of Human Rights determined on July 31, 2001, that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

It stated that:

"Sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it". According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on Sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts."

The Good, Bad and Ugly

If a person cuts his elderly neighbors lawn on Saturdays, delivers meals-on-wheels Tuesdays and Thursdays, is a life guard on Wednesdays and rapes 5 year olds every other Sunday, is that person a good or a bad person? 

Considering the claims of some nice bits in Islam, how many times of cutting your neighbors lawn is required to offset raping a 5 year old every other Thursday? 

The reality though, is that, most of the nice parts of Islam have been abrogated by later er... not so nice parts.

2:106 "Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable.


A fundamental tenet of Islam is for all to submit to the dictates of Islam. It specifically requires the overthrow of any Democracy. It states that its principles are above any other.

Human Rights ethics and law states that freedom of expression is not protected from actions that by its very nature, if allowed, would remove that freedom of expression. This was expressed by the ECHR: 

The ECHR Anual Report 2003, regarding the Refah Partisi (The welfare Party) v Turkey

"...It necessarily followed that a political party whose leaders incited to violence or put forward a policy which failed to respect democracy or which was aimed at the destruction of democracy and the flouting of the rights and freedoms recognised in a democracy, could not lay claim to the Convention’s protection against penalties imposed on those grounds..."

The principle is that basic Human Rights trump any other alleged right. Freedom of Religion, means such freedom is only allowable so far as it does not violate more fundamental freedoms. For example, the right of women to be equal in law, supercedes any religious tenet that she isn't. It is not legitimate to claim that refusing to allow Sharia is a violation of religious freedom, because such a view is fundamentally contrary to basic human rights.


No rational, evaluation of Islam can lead to a conclusion that "Islam Is A Religion of Peace". It is trivial to perform a google search to discover exactly what Islam is and isn't. Typically, erroneous arguments are of the nature of:

Q. Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
A. Only a tiny minority of Muslims desire to bomb non-Muslims.

That answer is a strawman response.


"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man." 
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition." 

The question is about Islam, the political and religious ideology expressed by the Quran, Hadiths and the life of Muhammad. The response to such a question is typical a reference to those that claim to be followers of Islam, i.e. Muslims. 

It is simply irrelevant to the question as to how many of the alleged *followers* of Islam, actually follow the core principles of Islam. Millions of peaceful (alleged) Muslims say nothing about the actual status of Islam. Vast numbers of (alleged) Muslims, unfortunately, clearly have no idea as to the true nature of Islam.  The 1000s of terrorists who have equal validity in their own claims that they are Muslims, as defined by the Quran, Hadiths and the life of Muhammad, do.

Explaining Islam

WikiIslam https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

Former Muslims




Food for thought

Current nominal birth rate of Muslims 3.5

Current nominal birth rate of Indigenous Natives 1.8



© Kevin Aylward 2018

All rights reserved

Website last modified 9th September 2018