Last year, Peter Costello wrote “Alienation” and “disadvantage” simply cannot explain why jihadist Numan Haider tried to kill two Melbourne police officers:
The trouble with explanations like this is that the facts get in the way. The family of Numan Haider left Afghanistan to migrate to Australia. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was a hardline Islamic state. Coming to Australia meant getting away from that.
And Australia was good to the family. They have a very nice house in a good suburb. The children received a good education. The taxpayers of Australia were pretty good to Numan Haider with schooling and services. The family lived in security and freedom — a lot more than Islamic State would ever give to a minority ethnic or religious group....
Deakin University student Tahmid Mirza, a jihadi propagandist and supporter of Islamic State, was quoted in the weekend press explaining why he has rejected this country, a country that gave him a home and an education: “… many Muslims have been harassed, betrayed and in fact lied to by the government and the so-called ‘security’ intelligence.”
In other words, he is a victim… The victims here are not the Yazidis of Northern Iraq facing genocide and extermination. The real victims are those who were taken in by Australia, given a home, healthcare, a free education and subsidised university places… This idea that Australia’s treatment of Muslims is to blame for terrorism is so fanciful you would wonder how anyone could believe it. But it is standard-issue opinion among university academics, ABC journalists and Greens senators. They act on the principle that “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Since they don’t like open liberal Western capitalist society, they feel natural support for those who regard themselves as at war with Western civilisation. The brutality of Islamic State does not seem to worry them nearly so much as the imagined “brutality” of the Australian Government.

Death by Policy: When Government Fails in the Execution of Duty

Ronald Reagan once quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” What began as wry conservative wit has hardened, over decades, into a grim warning. When governments insert themselves into the minutiae of daily life — dictating how buildings are constructed, how fires should be fought, or how citizens should behave in a crisis — the results can be lethal. Nowhere is this clearer than in the avoidable tragedy of Grenfell Tower.

On June 14, 2017, a small kitchen fire in a fourth-floor flat of Grenfell Tower, a 24-storey public housing block in West London, ignited highly combustible aluminium composite cladding installed during a refurbishment. What should have been a containable incident became a towering inferno. Seventy-two people died. Many more were injured. The building’s “stay put” policy — a cornerstone of UK high-rise fire strategy — instructed residents to remain in their flats, trusting in fire-resistant compartmentation to protect them while firefighters tackled the blaze. Fire escapes existed and were functional, yet policy overrode instinct. Residents who followed official advice perished as smoke and flames raced up the exterior, rendering the “fireproof” assumption a deadly lie.

The policy was not born in malice but in bureaucratic hubris: the belief that regulators and planners could engineer perfect safety through rules, materials approvals, and centralized directives. Warnings about the cladding had been ignored. Cost-cutting and regulatory capture played their part. Even the terrorism risk — the fear that evacuations could expose people to secondary attacks — helped entrench the “stay put” doctrine in some contexts. When the assumptions collapsed, so did the lives entrusted to them.

This was not the first time locked-in policy killed the vulnerable. In 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York claimed 146 lives, mostly young immigrant women. Factory owners had locked exit doors to prevent theft and unauthorized breaks. Workers burned or jumped to their deaths. The parallels to Grenfell are haunting: authorities and management, claiming to act in everyone’s interest, removed the most basic escape option — personal agency.

Contrast this with Australia. Similar combustible cladding fires have occurred here — notably the 2014 Lacrosse Apartments blaze in Melbourne, where flames raced up the facade. No one died. Prompt evacuation, effective firefighting, and the absence of a rigid “stay put” lockdown mindset allowed residents to escape. Australian authorities responded with audits, remediation programs like Project Remediate in NSW, and a more pragmatic focus on individual safety over blanket policy. The difference was not superior building stock alone, but a less dogmatic approach to resident behaviour in emergencies.

The same pattern of policy-induced helplessness repeated, writ large, during the COVID-19 crisis. Governments worldwide imposed lockdowns that confined people indoors, often in cramped conditions. Fresh air, sunshine, exercise, and natural vitamin D — long understood to support immune health — were sidelined in favour of masks, mandates, and isolation. The very measures meant to contain spread sometimes amplified vulnerability, particularly for the elderly and poor. Once again, the state’s promise of expert guidance trumped common sense and individual judgment. Reagan’s joke rang hollow as real harm accumulated.

These tragedies share a common thread: the substitution of government prescription for human responsibility. Central planners assume they can foresee every variable — fire spread, viral transmission, human panic. When reality deviates, the body count rises. The Grenfell Inquiry, like countless reviews before it, revealed systemic failures in regulation, procurement, and oversight. Yet the deeper failure is philosophical: the belief that more rules, more funding, and more bureaucracy equal better outcomes.

Governments have a legitimate duty to set basic safety standards, enforce building codes, and respond to genuine threats. They fail when they overreach, when they discourage personal initiative, or when they prioritize uniformity over adaptability. The cladding scandals in both the UK and Australia exposed regulatory capture and cost-cutting under the guise of “green” or modern building practices. Remediation efforts drag on, costing billions, while residents live in limbo.

True safety emerges not from edicts to “stay put” or “stay home,” but from resilient systems that empower people: functional escapes, transparent information, accountable builders, and a culture that trusts individuals to make life-saving decisions. Reagan understood the danger of unchecked government benevolence. Grenfell, Triangle, and the lockdowns remind us that when the state fails in execution of its limited duties — or exceeds them — the vulnerable pay with their lives.

It is past time to heed the joke as the warning it always was. Smaller, more competent government. Greater individual agency. And a healthy scepticism toward anyone who says, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” The alternative is more deaths by policy.

The Pilgrim Fathers: America’s True Founding Spirit

While Jamestown and the ill-fated Roanoke colony preceded them, it was the Puritan settlers—beginning with the Pilgrims at Plymouth—who provided the enduring moral, cultural, and institutional foundation for what became the United States. Roanoke simply vanished, leaving behind only cryptic clues and the haunting label “Lost Colony.” Jamestown, for all its ambitions—searching for a northwest passage, spreading Anglican Christianity, hunting gold, and establishing English claims—remained a precarious commercial venture plagued by starvation, disease, and conflict. Its legacy is real, but limited. The Puritan colonies, by contrast, endured and multiplied, shaping the Thirteen Colonies and the character of the young republic.

On November 11, 1620 (Old Style), the Mayflower’s passengers—Separatists who had fully broken from the Church of England—dropped anchor at Provincetown Harbor. By March 16, 1621, after a brutal winter that claimed nearly half their number, a lone Native American named Samoset strode boldly into the settlement. He famously asked for beer. The Pilgrims did not hand over their precious stores, but they offered him alcohol and a meal. That act of hospitality forged friendship. Through Samoset and later Squanto, peaceful relations with local tribes took root, enabling the colony’s survival and the first Thanksgiving. It was a small gesture with outsized consequences: pragmatic welcome grounded in faith.

The Puritan wave extended far beyond Plymouth. The broader Puritans who founded Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, New Haven, and (through dissenters) Rhode Island carried a different but related vision: not total separation at first, but the reform and purification of the English church. They came primarily as families, not lone adventurers or soldiers. They prized education so that every believer could read the Bible. They established schools, colleges (Harvard in 1636), and town covenants that emphasized consent, moral order, and accountability. Within fifty years of Plymouth’s founding, England itself had endured civil war, Cromwell’s Puritan Commonwealth, and the Restoration of the monarchy. Puritanism faltered at home amid political excess, but it took deep root across the Atlantic.

These colonies differed profoundly from earlier efforts. They were built on covenant theology—the idea that communities, like individuals, stood in solemn agreement with God. This fostered habits of self-government, literacy, and industry that proved far more durable than gold-seeking or military outposts. Their success became a beacon. It inspired other dissenting groups, including Anabaptists whose stricter traditions later produced the Amish communities that still testify to plain living and separation from worldly excess.

Puritanism has taken an unfair beating in modern telling. The English Interregnum’s excesses and, especially, the Salem witch trials of 1692–93 are held up as proof of bigotry and hysteria. Yet the trials occurred amid genuine fear and strange afflictions. Young women exhibited fits, sensations of being pinched and bitten, and other torments. Even a test—giving a dog urine from one of the afflicted, which reportedly caused the animal to convulse, chew rocks, and ultimately be put down—suggested something real was at work. Historians have pointed to ergot poisoning from moldy rye as a possible physiological trigger, alongside social tensions, factionalism, and spectral evidence. The authorities were not cartoon “hanging judges” but sober men facing an outbreak they did not fully understand. In a society that believed in the reality of spiritual warfare, they acted on the evidence available to them. To dismiss it all as mere victim-blaming ignores the complexity and the era’s worldview.

After the Revolution, America’s religious landscape diversified rapidly. French and Spanish settlers brought their own muscular Catholic expressions to the South and West. The Quaker influence grew, producing leaders and a distinctive witness for peace. By the 20th century, a Catholic (John F. Kennedy) could win the presidency, and evangelical voices under leaders like George W. Bush became a potent political force. Waves of immigrants and awakenings added layers—Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and more. Today, America is not defined by any single denomination. Yet her spiritual and cultural father remains the Pilgrim who welcomed a stranger with spirits and vittles, who endured unimaginable hardship for the sake of conscience, and who planted institutions ordered toward liberty under God.

The Puritan legacy is not perfection but persistence: a commitment to moral seriousness, education, ordered liberty, and the belief that a people can form a “city upon a hill.” In an age quick to condemn the past, we do well to remember that the same soil that produced Salem also produced the Mayflower Compact, town meetings, common schools, and a resilient work ethic that propelled the American experiment. The Pilgrim spirit—practical, hospitable, Bible-shaped—still whispers in our national character. We would do well to listen.