Big European marches 'against racism' are a good sign. But how are we defining 'racism'?

There have been, and will be tomorrow, huge marches in Europe in protest at the killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and the other victims who were caught in the crossfire of this hideous crime against free speech and democracy.

This is a good thing. A great thing. About time, I'd suggest, that we woke up to the threat and the clear problem that we face from extremists across Europe. People, in their hundreds of thousands are effectively marching to say 'we will not be defeated by this kind of atrocity: we stand behind free speech, democracy and our way of life'.

It is being depicted in many media outlets including the BBC and Reuters as an anti racism protest.

And I agree with the sentiment; I am vehemently anti racism in all its forms - racism, as I'm sure you're aware, being defined as:

Utter and highly dangerous nonsense I'm sure you'll agree.

But the question is: Are these protests really about racism? In 2015. When, in Europe, we have neighbours, friends, colleagues, sporting heroes from every kind of racial background? People who we value, respect, love, enjoy spending time with? People whose background, culture, humour, cuisine have enriched our lives?

These protests are not about race, much less racism; they're about standing together as members of a civilised society against those who would wish to do us harm, who want to threaten us into doing, and believing in, things that we do not want to do or believe in.

It is a protest against the tactics being deployed by people who want to force us into a different way of life through violence and threat. People who disagree with - and are no doubt jealous of - our relatively free society. People, broadly speaking, who have very little themselves and therefore nothing to lose by trying to harm, threaten and control other people who are better off than themselves, presumably with the objective of bettering themselves, not by valid, legal means but by taking from others (which is what their upbringing, mired in corruption, has taught them is the only way - or at least the best and easiest way).

We in 'the West' must accept some significant responsibility for the creation of this situation but it seems to me that it ultimately comes down to the selfish and utterly corrupt behaviour of their leaders and governments some of whom, in the Middle East, enjoy levels of wealth and luxury that would make Solomon blush, whilst their citizens live in abject poverty.

These protests, then, are against the terror and threat that is currently being led, worldwide, by Radical Islam. So our 'enemy' has a name at least. It is Radical Islam.

These protests are against Radical Islam which is threatening the lives and lifestyles of people around the globe. And not just threatening them, but actually murdering people.

This blog is not about whether the second of those two words would suffice on its own in my description of the threat (Islam). I have blogged about that before and my view is that we need to investigate whether that is the case. I fervently hope it is not.

My concern is that the term 'racist' is often levelled at people who suggest that Islam and it's followers who are called Muslims are part of the problem. Even though Islam is not a race at all but a religious grouping, the derogatory term has become, thanks to our Politically Correct indoctrination process in recent years, a quick and efficient way to stifle honest debate: brand someone 'racist' and the argument is effectively over.

My further concern is that the media and our politicians are using this ruse yet again, in order to de-fuse the situation and effectively pull the wool over our eyes again.

The hint behind the 'anti racism marches' theme, is that the marches are against anyone who questions Islam. That questioning the clear cause of the problem we face (which is Radical Islam remember) is racist and that these hundreds of thousands of people share that view.

This is clearly nonsense. The marchers are sending a message that the perpetrators of these atrocities are evil and will never win. Not that those who oppose them are 'racist'.

The media and in particular our politicians continue to deny that there is any sort of co-ordinated, Radical Islam agenda and that the perpetrators in Sydney, Peshawar, Canada and France are all 'lone wolf' events.

And in their coverage of these marches, whose message couldn't be clearer, the media is also seeking to deny that there is actually a problem.

Makes you wonder whose side they're on?

Just going back to the definition of 'racism' in which one group considers another to be inferior, the current beliefs espoused by Radical Islam (where non-believers are considered to be 'kuffers or third class human beings) seem to me to be much closer to being 'Racism' than anything else in the world today.

Maybe the 'anti racism' protesters are right, even if they don't quite understand why they are.

Thanks for reading.