Someone Hit Fast Forward.

I am still trying to address the issue of the Military Tribunals needed to process ISIL members captured by the SDF.

Unfortunately Britain is still in the grips of its Brexit saga. With emergency addresses to the nation and sudden news flashes this making for a very unstable working environment.

The short version though is that the international coalition, Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) will act as the convening authority. The legal entity under which the tribunals will be held.

They are to take the form of Special Court Martials with the power to impose the death penalty. Under military exigency rules.

The exigency coming from the unusual circumstances where CJTFOIR operate within Syria without permission of the Syrian government. Yet are not there to fight the Syrian government.

That shorthand should be perfectly understood by anyone who has served with NATO forces. Far from being uncharted territory there is actually a users manual to deal with exactly this type of situation.

If that shorthand doesn't immediately make sense to you. Well, that should explain to you why it's going to take me a little while to explain it in more detail.

Once you've got through the mechanics of how to structure the tribunals you've then got the issue of what to do with the children of captured ISIL members.

A problem we have here is that one of the crimes ISIL stand accused of is over the use of child soldiers. Those under the age of 15 years.

This means that the tribunals could well find themselves trying children. Between the common age of criminal responsibility of around 10 years and the age of adulthood, 15 years.

If you find that shocking, imagine how it feels to have to kill a 12 year old soldier.

For that small group of youths it almost goes without saying that their punishments will be served in their native countries. As always the youth justice system is focused far more on rehabilitation that punishment and deterrent.

Then there is the issue of what to do with those beneath the age of criminal responsibility who have not committed any specific act of violence. Again this is far from uncharted territory.

One sign that western politics has slipped into unreality was the response to US President Trump border separation policy. This saw people demand to know; "What sort of society separates parents from their children?!"

The answer to that is pretty much every civilised society, on a daily basis.

I would expect that this group are treated in the exact same way to any other children whose parents can't care for them. Due to the fact they are either awaiting trial or are serving a sentence having been convicted.

That is to say they are taken into the care of their native government/state.

Normally what happens then is the state looks to see if there are any relatives who would make a suitable guardian for the child. If one can be found then the child is put into the care of that guardian.

This is where the children of ISIL members pose a particular problem. Although there may be a variety of reasons the parents of ISIL members have not done a good job of protecting children under their care from extremist influences.

While I don't want to prejudice any cases by getting into specifics I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting putting more children under the care of Shamima Begum's family. There it's more of a question of being concerned with any children who are already under the care of that particular family.

As with most things involved in fighting ISIL Russia is already well ahead of the CJTFOIR nations on this issue. They have already repatriated hundreds of the children of ISIL members. What Russia has tended to do is place those children under the guardianship of grandparents and other close relatives.

Here though Russia has something of an advantage. The overwhelming majority of families it's dealing with come from regions such as Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan etc.

These are all Muslim majority societies. There being Muslim is not some exotic novelty, it is the norm. These societies have also recently gone through violent Islamist insurgencies. As a result they are very good at identifying what is and what isn't extremist beliefs and making sure they're not given traction within society.

US and European societies don't have this depth of understanding of Islam. Therefore lack this, almost muscle memory, needed to identify and isolate extremists.

For example the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain can trace their ideological roots back to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Even if they're British born and only converted in adulthood. I've heard many native Arabic speakers complaining about the Urdu speaking Mosques.

Many Pakistan and Bangladeshi Muslim, particularly the ones who migrated to Britain practice a form of Deobandi Islam. This is very similar to the extreme of Wahabbist Islam which Saudi Arabia is famous for.

To the point that many Deobandis describe themselves as Wahabbists because it's easier than explaining the differences to people who have to ask.

So what is considered mainstream, moderate Islam in Britain is actually considered extreme, headbanging Islam in much of the Muslim world.

A prime example of this would be the child sexual exploitation gangs in the British cities of Rotherham and Rochdale.

Local police and Labour Party politicians were so enamoured by this exotic mystery known as Islam they thought it would be racist to stop adult men raping and selling little girls.

When the scandal broke the reaction from much of the Muslim world, including places like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), was much the same as the reaction up and down Britain; "What. The. Actual. F*ck?!" 

These 1001 Arabian Nights fantasies progressives and liberals harbour about Muslims have been called into sharp focus by the recent mass shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand.

In response to those shootings New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seems to have become fixated on two things.

It is worth pointing out that fixating on things at the expense of everything else is a common symptom of traumatic stress. If it's not taken in hand it can rapidly develop into traumatic stress disorder.

The first thing Prime Minister Ardern has become fixated on is banning guns. She has become particularly fixated on banning them faster than Australia banned guns.

In 2014 Australia introduced new immigration which saw foreign criminals deported. In the vast majority of cases this means New Zealanders. An issue which clearly still rankles, given Prime Minister Ardern's February 22nd (22/2/19) comments.

The other thing that Prime Minister Ardern seems to have fixated on are the exotic mourning rituals that this strange group known as the Muslims have brought with them from outer space.

One important element of mourning to Muslims is that burial must happen quickly. I think the rule is at or before the second sunrise after death.

At the time of the Prophet this was just sensible advice. In a hot, desert country like modern day Saudi Arabia after about 24 hours a decomposing corpse is going to start posing a very serious health hazard to the living.

In economically developed nations with advanced refrigeration though you tend to find that Muslims are prepared to be a bit more philosophical about that rule. Although after the death of a loved one most people just want to get the funeral over and done with as soon as possible.

Another important element of mourning to Muslims is the belief that the human body continues to feel pain after death. I can't remember the exact quote but I think it's along the lines of breaking the bone of a dead person is the same as breaking the bone of a living person.

At the time of the Prophet, when it was much harder to confirm death, this was very sensible advice. After all you wouldn't want to snap the neck of someone who was only sleeping.

Again this fear of being wrongly dismissed as dead is a common human rather than particularly Muslim fear.

During the Victorian era Cholera epidemics were common. This led to many designs for so-called; "Safety Coffins" to be patented.

The most common involving a bell standing above the grave which could be rung by the person in the coffin. If they weren't dead after all.

This tradition gave rise to a number of phrases which are still in common usage today. Such as; "Saved by the Bell," "Dead Ringer" and; "Graveyard Shift."

Irish Catholics traditionally leave the deceased laying in an open coffin for a week. Just in case they get up again.

Again though you tend to find that Muslims are prepared to be a bit more philosophical about the notion that the body feels pain after death. Particularly Muslim Doctors who know that they've got a lot better at making sure someone is actually dead.

This idea that the body continues to feel pain after death has been a particular problem following the Christchurch shootings.

As it does in many nations New Zealand law requires that autopsies are performed in all cases of sudden or suspicious death. That involves breaking the bones of the dead, something which Muslims are not keen on.

If a suspicious or sudden death leads to a criminal prosecution the accused has an automatic right to have the results of the autopsy reviewed by an expert of their choosing. They also have an automatic right to have a second autopsy performed by an expert of their choosing.

Prime Minister Ardern's fixation on Muslim mourning rituals is starting to cause serious problems for New Zealand's legal system.

In the rush to get the initial autopsies and therefore funerals done as quickly I think every pathologist in New Zealand has been called in to work on the case. This means that it's going to be extremely difficult to find an independent expert to represent the defence.

It seems likely they're going to have to ask for help from Prime Minister Ardern's hated Australia.

Signed, not read.

18:35 on 21/3/19 (UK date).

Edited at around 19:45 on 21/3/19 (UK date) to tidy up & add;

To get around the problem of second autopsies the suspect has only been charged with one count of murder. The other 49 are likely to follow after the funerals.

On the one charged count the suspect has the right for an expert of their choosing to review the results of the initial autopsy. They also have the right to have a second autopsy performed.

Something which can delay the funeral by months if not years. Particularly if the suspect is not only guilty but also extremely spiteful.

If a funeral has already taken place the suspect still has the right for an expert of their choosing to review the results of the initial autopsy. They also have a right to have a second autopsy performed.

However before that they have to convince a Judge there is a legitimate reason to exhume the body. Based on the review of the initial autopsy.

I strongly suspect it will be hard to find such a legitimate reason in this case. After all there seems to be little dispute over the cause of death.

In waiting to charge the other 49 counts authorities in New Zealand are not breaking the law.

So I only hinted at this over the weekend. Not in protest but as a way to deter the virtue signallers from demanding to know why he'd only been charged with the one count.

Authorities in New Zealand are though significantly testing the limits of the law. Therefore there is only so long this can go on for.

In part that's just a matter of principle. The justice system is a mechanism to find truth. Whilst protecting both the victims of crime and those accused of crime.

It is particularly important to protect the rights of unpopular people who are accused of crime. Otherwise we wouldn't waste all that money. Instead we'd just assume the n*gger is guilty, because all n*ggers are guilty and let someone hang him from a tree.

In cases like this it is not only important that justice is done. It is important that justice is seen to be done to the extent that is impossible to argue that it hasn't. Otherwise it just feeds into the conspiracy theories of those who might be inspired to carry out copycat attacks.

In America in the case of Dylann Roof justice was clearly not done. In the case of James Fields justice clearly was not done.

Americans who denied those individuals a fair trial apparently still can't understand why the threat continues to rise. I'm almost convinced they get some perverse pleasure from situations such as this.

Prime Minister Ardern's fixation with the funerals and Muslim mourning rituals seems to have become a national obsession amongst her supporters.

To the point hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have been threatening to descend on Mosques for the upcoming Friday prayers.

As if New Zealand's tiny Muslim community would be helped by having thousands of strangers trampling through their private grief.

So deter this threat New Zealand will be marking the start of Friday prayers by playing the Muslim call to prayer on all TV and radio stations. In a national moment of remembrance.

To those who are convinced they must defend themselves against the Muslim invaders that is going to be a klaxon call to arms.

If that was not bad enough the one person the suspect is formally accused of murdering isn't actually dead.

In order to arrest someone for murder, let alone charge them with the crime you need to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion the victim is actually dead. In this case that reasonable suspicion very clearly does not exist.

The fact that one of the claimed victims is not dead at all is going to fuel conspiracy theories about crisis actors and the entire thing being staged. They should be easy to deny.

What's going to be harder to deny is the fact that, legally speaking, this case is just a kidnapping now.

Prime Minister Ardern has though got her proposed gun ban through. Beating the record set by Australia.

Having spectacularly failed at the basics though it would probably have been better to focus on a visit to occupational health.

Perhaps take another period of leave.

20:30 on 21/3/19 (UK date).