Diary

Sharia law - or one law for all?

30 June, 2009

The revelation, courtesy of Civitas, that there may be as many as 85 ‘Sharia courts’ operating in the UK comes as little surprise. What else are we to expect, given the growing radicalisation among Muslim youth, many of whom openly admit that they seek a Sharia compliant Britain? Who can blame mosque leaders for surging ahead with Islamic justice when they are given a moral lead by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the former Lord Justice, Lord Philips?

But it is alarming nonetheless. For here we have stark evidence that, at least in civil matters, there is a potentially parallel system of justice emerging across parts of the country. This naturally violates one of the cardinal principles of any civilised and genuinely democratic nation: namely that there is one legal system that applies equally and fairly to every citizen. This is a fundamental tenet of our society and a basic guarantee of equality.

Yet the decisions of Sharia courts remove that equality by applying the strict principles of Islamic law. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony in court is worth less than that of a man, nor do Muslims and non Muslims have equal status in a Sharia court. Strict Islamic religious law is therefore not compatible with the liberal, progressive and enlightened elements of Western secular jurisprudence.

Advocates of Sharia legislation would argue that it would be up to a Muslim woman to choose whether to use a Sharia court or a British civil one. But this surely flies in the face of reality. Vulnerable people from traditional backgrounds would no doubt be coerced into using religious courts, ones that would actively discriminate against them in the name of justice. Not that any of that really matters to the saintly progressives who promote our modern multicultural madness. As long as they can tick the usual PC boxes for diversity and cultural tolerance, they are happy. How very depressing.

top

Is it time to ban the burqah?

25 June, 2009

Following a recent call by President Sarkozy to ban the burqah in France, last night’s Newsnight featured a debate on this topic between Ken Livingstone and Bernard Henri-Levy. The flamboyant Frenchman offered a vigorous defence of Sarkozy, insisting that banning burqahs was about the enforcement of equality between the sexes.

The burqah, he insisted, was a ‘prison’ which denied women their individuality. It made the body seem like a symbol of impurity and shame; an object to be covered up from the watchful eyes of lecherous men. In a country which insists on the separation of church and state, and whose guiding Revolutionary motto includes the word ‘equality’ you can understand this argument.

For Livingstone, by contrast, this was all about cynical political opportunism. Sarkozy knew there were ‘votes in this’ and that ‘attacking Muslims’ would boost his popularity in the country. He added that Sarkozy would never dare tells nuns they could not wear their habit. For Livingstone to condemn another politician for using cynical political calculation is breathtaking to say the least. As Mayor, he was aware that there were more Muslim than Jewish votes in London and that, as a result, attacks on Israel and Zionism played out well in terms of votes.

Whatever Sarkozy’s ultimate motivations, this is a debate that cannot be silenced. And whether we agree that an outright ban is justified, it is certainly worth considering the consequences of wearing either the burqah or the niqab (veil), not just for the women themselves but for those that interact with them.

In the Western world, so much direct communication relies on the visibility of the face. We look into people’s faces and read their emotional states. We see their smiles and their cries, their pain and their rage, their puzzlement and their confusion. Open communication like this enables us to live our lives to the full and to interact with people. The veil is clearly a barrier to this form of interaction and any sensible debate must take account of this.

It is certainly not right to construe an attack on the burqah as a form of religious discrimination. There is nothing in the Koran stipulating that women have to cover their bodies and faces with a thick, black canvas. There is only a requirement to dress in a modest fashion, hence the reason why the vast majority of Muslim women in the West shun the burqah. It is instead a political symbol, imported from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, symbolising defiant rejection of the West and its mores. It is the dress of religious fundamentalism.

Nonetheless, it may be considered draconian for the state to criminalise and regulate one’s choice of dress. It all seems rather un-English. But that does not mean that the burqah should be tolerated everywhere. It would be perfectly in order to ban this garment in certain restricted contexts. It has no place in a classroom because it hinders the right of children to communicate effectively with their teachers. In a court of law, the burqah should be banned because it prevents a jury from judging a witness’ reliability and truthfulness. At airports, the burqah should go for obvious security reasons. In each case, one freedom must be balanced against a number of others, as is the case with all human rights issues.

The French President has started a most interesting debate.

top

Was Bercow’s appointment a mistake?

23 June, 2009

John Bercow certainly has his work cut out. He must restore the reputation of the Commons which has taken a battering in recent weeks over expenses. He has to preside over fundamental and credible reforms of the expenses system. Above all, he has to win the trust of a House which is riven by party rivalries and sectional interests.

But already the signs are not propitious. Firstly, it doesn’t help that he is saddled by sleaze himself, being a ‘house flipper’ who avoided paying capital gains tax on the sale of two properties. He is also a hugely divisive figure, loathed by Tories who see him as a greasy turncoat in Labour's pocket. In recent years, he has moved away from the Tory leadership and closer to Labour, leading to rumours that he was close to defection. Hence David Cameron's alleged response to a Labour MP who said he was voting Tory for the first time, that 'John Bercow doesn't count.'

His victory appears to have resulted from a cynical stitch up by Labour MPs who were desperate to embarrass the opposition and, most likely, the next government. Labour have chose to put party interests before the interests of Parliament and the country as a whole. Thus his appointment seems to have all the worst hallmarks of party manipulation and Westminster double dealing. Quite how this will restore public trust in our political class is hard to see.

In any case, the election of a new speaker is not the panacea some people claim it to be. The current chasm between the Commons and the common man will not be narrowed just because the former has changed its Chief Presiding Officer. Admittedly Michael Martin had to do, given his serial incompetence and failure to deal with the expenses scandal. But what is required above all is not a change within the institutions of Parliament so much as a change of personnel within Parliament. That is why, in the short term, a general election is urgently required. Over to you, Gordon.

top

Remember Neda Agha-Soltan

22 June, 2009

In today's Jerusalem Post, the irrepressible Charles Krauthammer offers a perceptive take on Obama's doom laden strategy of appeasement towards Iran. He does not mince his words. Obama's engagement is with a regime which is 'breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists.' His desire for dialogue 'inevitably confers legitimacy upon - leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.'

He goes on:

'This incipient revolution is no longer about the election. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.'

One needs to be cautious before fully accepting this suggestion. Many of the placard weilding protestors have held aloft pictures of Mousavi, hardly a figure of opposition to the Revolution. Many others might just support the theocracy but simply dislike the direction it has taken. Nonetheless, Krauthammer is right about one thing. Revolutions can start with an issue that, if left unresolved, brings simmering resentments into the open.

Krauthammer is also right when he considers the benefits of regime change.

'It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism - leave it forever spent and discredited. In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 - the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt - was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran. Now, with Hizbullah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect.'

A truly incisive analysis - do read the entire article at the link below. In the meantime, remember Neda Agha-Soltan, the young girl whose life was tragically cut short last week by Iran's theocratic thugs.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184890439&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

top

While Iranians denounce tyranny, the White House is silent

18 June, 2009

Over the last few days millions of Iranians have taken to the streets in outright defiance of the clerical regime. During the same period, the White House has been virtually silent. President Obama has refused to offer an unequivocal denunciation of the mullahs, despite their recent crackdown which has left blood stained corpses on the streets of Tehran. Here was the President’s recent justification: “The easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the U.S. that is encouraging those reformers. What I’ve said is, look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision.” He added that he did not want to be seen as ‘meddling.’

A second’s glance reveals this to be patently absurd. The regime is unpopular precisely because it will not allow Iranians to ‘make a decision.’ It has emasculated the list of Presidential candidates, vetted the remaining ones, tampered with the vote (as seems likely) and sought to suppress dissent from the populace. Quite simply, the upsurge in protests are happening because people refuse to be bullied into submission by a dictatorial regime.

In any case, the regime needs no excuse to crack down on its population and will, indeed, use every excuse in the book to do precisely that. In fact, Obama’s desire not to be seen as meddling has been contradicted by events. The Iranian foreign ministry has accused Western powers of “supporting illegal rallies" and making "off-the-cuff and hasty" remarks about the elections (see www.presstv.ir). In other words, they are using the classic trick of every dictatorship – pretending that the real enemy of the people is out there, rather than in here.

Despite Washington’s furious denials, the line about ‘meddling’ Westerners will no doubt resonate among Ahmadinejad supporters who will use it to justify their continuing backlash. Someone clearly needs to explain to the American President that dictatorships do not play fairly by the rules and will maximise their support by falsely pretending that their regime is under siege.

So why has Obama refused to stand shoulder to shoulder with the protestors? Ultimately, it is realpolitik based on two assumptions, one almost certainly true and one almost certainly false. Obama has said that there may be little difference between a regime led by Ahmadinejad and one led by Mousavi. This is largely correct. Mousavi was an architect of the Revolution with impeccable Khomeinist credentials, and he was an ardent champion of Iran’s nuclear programme. He is hardly the ideal pin up boy for Western liberals.

But this all gives the lie to the second assumption, namely that America’s policy of engagement could possibly work with Tehran. Obama believes that the mullahs, if kept sweet, will back down over their nuclear demands, hence his very muted displeasure at the current crackdown. The previous decade of Western engagement (appeasement), including the plethora of initiatives from the EU3, suggests otherwise. In any case, decisions on the nuclear issue are ultimately in the hands of Supreme Leader Khamenei and he shows no signs of giving up on what he sees as Iran’s divine right to join the nuclear club.

So once again, America's 44th President is being taken for a ride at the very moment that a terrorised population is crying out against tyranny. History will not forgive him.

top

The old adage is still true: Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

16 June, 2009

For weeks, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu has been dancing on a diplomatic tightrope, forced to balance unwarranted American pressure to re-start the 'peace process' with the intransigent views of his Cabinet hawks. His speech on Sunday which endorsed, in principle, a Palestinian state, was canny, realistic and bursting with moral clarity. It offered the Palestinians an olive branch while demanding essential preconditions for Israel's security.

In a telling rebuttal to President Obama, he rejected the claim that Israel’s legitimacy rested primarily on a history of persecution. As he put it: ‘The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people.’ Instead it was the ‘connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel…for more than 3500 years’ that provided ample historical justification. Whether or not he intended it, Obama bought into the Arabist grievance that the Jews of Europe were ‘dumped on’ Palestine as rectification for the Holocaust, a truly egregious reading of history.

Unlike Obama, he also refused to draw any false equivalence between the Israeli and Palestinian narratives. The reason for this conflict was quite simply ‘the (Arab) refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic homeland.’ Thus before further Israeli withdrawals, which would merely give oxygen to extremists, the Palestinians had to end terror and incitement while strengthening governance and the rule of law.

As he stated so clearly: ‘Many a worthy person has told us that withdrawal is the key to peace between us and the Palestinians... but the fact is that every withdrawal has been accompanied by rockets and suicide attacks.’ If in any doubt, just ask the terrified inhabitants of Sderot.

Netanyahu went on to say that a viable Palestinian state would have to be demilitarised, without an army or control of its airspace. To appreciate the force of this argument, one only need look at what happened to Gaza after it was overrun by Hamas. An alien terrorist entity used it as a base from which to launch rocket attacks on Southern Israel. The same development on the West Bank would bring ‘Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport.’

The Palestinian Authority, he added, had to do two things that had thus far eluded them: recognise Israel as a Jewish state and reject the Palestinian ‘right of return’. Both remain vital to Israel’s security. The failure to recognise Israel as a Jewish state is no mere intellectual error but an integral part of the war being fought in the Palestinian mind. So long as Palestinians dream of vanquishing their foe so that they can return to ‘Palestine’ they will regard every Israeli concession as a further opportunity to weaken their enemy using violence, terror and intimidation. The right of return is another weapon in this conflict for as the Islamists well know, an influx of refugees (and their descendants) would lead to an eventual Arab majority in Israel and the demise of the Jewish state.

Were such issues to be resolved, Netanyahu said, the prize would be immense. His vision was of two peoples living ‘freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect,’ each with ‘its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government.’

In truth, not much of this is new. This has been the consistent Israeli position for decades and the subject of numerous rounds of the ‘peace process’ since the mid 1990s. It is a vision embraced by some Arab states (to their credit) including Egypt and Jordan. But after Obama’s speech in Cairo, it needed to be re-stated in clear and unequivocal terms.

Now we all have the ‘moderate’ Palestinian response. Israel’s Prime Minister stands accused of ‘burying the peace process’ and destroying ‘all initiatives and expectations.’ Palestinian officials are outraged that they should recognise Israel as a Jewish nation or settle refugees in their own state. There are even calls to resume a violent intifada. Sadly, nothing better vindicates Netanyahu’s point about why this conflict persists today.

top

Another (sad) victory for the Revolution

15 June, 2009

Coming tomorrow: The Netanyahu speech

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent triumph has dealt a savage blow to Iranian dissidents. The ‘facebook generation’ calling for greater liberalism and economic reform have seen their hopes crushed by the re-election of this incompetent, bellicose politician. Now these same supporters face the crushing weight of state power if they dare to protest about this election. The scenes of brutality and mayhem in Tehran give the lie to the notion that Iran is a progressive, Muslim democracy.

By any account, Ahmadinejad has been a disaster for the country. His belligerent diplomacy, including his calls for Israel’s destruction, have alienated him from fellow leaders and caused growing regional instability. His mismanagement of the economy has been worse with Iran now facing high inflation and growing unemployment. It is hard to think of a less appealing head of state.

Many in the West pinned their hopes on Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s rival for the Presidency and an ostensible voice of Islamic moderation. In one sense, this is understandable. Compared to Ahmadinejad, even Genghis Khan might have seemed like an impeccable liberal with whom one could do business. But this would be a mistaken conclusion.

Mousavi does not have a history of moderation. Instead he has impeccable Revolutionary credentials, being one of Khomeini’s right hand men during the 1980s and a key figure in the Iran-Iraq war. In this position, he authorised the shutting down of Iranian universities for four years and the execution of thousands of political prisoners. He helped to mastermind the hostage crisis in Lebanon and to found the virulent group, Hezbollah. In truth, his track record in the 1980s stands comparison to any of the Middle East’s worst dictators.

Indeed had Mousavi questioned Iran’s theocracy, the Guardian Council would have barred him from standing for the Presidency, as they did with nearly 500 other potential candidates. This is because real power lies, not with a President who comes and goes every four years, but with the Supreme Leader and guardian of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei personally approves Presidential candidates and his decisions, which are final, are supported by a terrifying apparatus of state power. Thus Iran is only nominally a democracy as no one can legitimately stand against the theocracy and demand full Westernization. This is electoral fraud practised on a grand scale.

The re-election of the blundering, racist Ahmadinejad is bad enough. But what the recent election shows is that while millions of young Iranians yearn for ‘change,’ the country’s leaders are determined to stifle them. The Revolution is alive and well in the country – and nothing Obama says will change that.

top

Don’t blame judges for going soft on terror

12 June, 2009

What an unholy mess! On Wednesday, nine law lords threw the government’s anti terror strategy into confusion by ruling that the convictions of three men on control orders were unsafe. As the men had not seen the evidence against them, or even the gist of the evidence, their trials were considered unfair under the Human Rights Act. Alan Johnson was quick to express his disappointment while others, like Liberty’s Shami Chakrabati, welcomed the decision. But at least both can agree that this was a wholly predictable mess.

The government got itself into a wholly predictable mess the moment it failed to deport these suspects after 9/11. Our judges decided that to expel these individuals would breach their human rights as they would face torture and inhuman treatment abroad. Thus the men were incarcerated in Belmarsh prison where they were free to return to their native countries if they so wished. But then the Law Lords ruled that their continued detention was ‘discriminatory.’ Successive home secretaries decided that it was too risky to put the men on trial, arguing (understandably) that this would lead to the release of sensitive material in court which could jeopardise the operations of the security services.

As the government could hardly release the suspects, some of whom were deemed ‘truly dangerous individuals’, control orders appeared to be the only option. The problem is that these orders are a legal nightmare. It is certainly unfair for a suspect to be held under house arrest, unable to know the identity of his accusers, unable to view the evidence against him and subject to a trial in secret. These are surely the hallmarks of a totalitarian state. But with the imminent abandonment of control orders, even some Law Lords are queasy. Lord Hoffman thus declared:

‘I think that the decision of the ECtHR was wrong and that it may well destroy the system of control orders which is a significant part of this country’s defences against terrorism.’

But while ministers throw up their hands in despair, and the red top brigade condemn ‘soft’ judges, we should remember who is ultimately responsible for this debacle - namely our political class.

It should be the right of any government to deport foreign visitors whose presence is not conducive to the public good. But because of our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, this right has been progressively stifled over the years. Wanted terrorists have to remain on our shores because if they are deported, they may face harm abroad. As a result of this warped agenda, one to which our myopic politicians are willing signatories, Britain has become a soft touch and an international laughing stock in tackling jihadis who seek to destroy us.

top

Bemoan the BNP’s success - but understand it too

9 June, 2009

The election of two BNP members to the European Parliament has been greeted with understandable dismay by the political class. It is indeed ‘horrific,’ though hardly ‘shocking,’ that an openly racist, white supremacist British party has won seats in a major legislature. Nick Griffin’s BNP will now join Europe’s corrupt gravy train, gaining invaluable funds at our expense.

But are our mainstream politicians drawing the wrong conclusions from all this? Does the BNP’s success indicate that we have, within our midst, a growing mass of unreconstructed racists, venting their collective xenophobia in our faces? Are nearly one million Britons in desperate need of 'diversity training' and cultural awareness? In fact, neither of these conclusions follows.

Firstly, we must avoid undue panic. For all their fighting talk and their despicable use of Churchillian imagery, the BNP remains a small, fringe party with no realistic hope of gaining power. They achieved 6% of the vote in the European elections which, considering the low voter turnout, is less than one fortieth of the (total) electorate.

Without proportional representation, they would not have gained one MEP, never mind two. In addition, they received fewer actual votes than in 2005, indicating that their success is partly down to the disillusionment of Labour voters who stayed away from the polls in droves. However, while it is dangerous to talk up extremists, it is equally dangerous to ignore them.

This leads to the second conclusion about these results, one which will be discomfiting for Labour and the entire political class. Quite simply, support for the BNP has come, not from hordes of malevolent right wingers, but from the heartland of the left. In areas of the North like Burnley, young, white, working class people have abandoned Labour in droves. In the North West, for example, Labour’s vote has plummeted from 576,388 in 2004 to 336,831 in 2009.

During this period, the BNP has been tapping into concerns about mass immigration, housing and the rise of fundamentalist Islam. What has given the party a seductive appeal (for some) is that these core grievances are ones on which the mainstream parties have been silent for years. Labour, in particular, has been stifling debate on immigration for years.

In May 2007, Margaret Hodge, as Minister for Industry and the regions, suggested that the allocation of council houses had to be perceived as fair. She went on to say that it was perceived as unfair because newly arrived immigrants with children were being given priority over those who had lived and worked in the country for years. But for suggesting that the ‘indigenous community’ had a ‘legitimate sense of entitlement’ she was denounced for ‘using the language of the BNP.’

When in the same year, Sayeeda Warsi spoke out against the ‘out of control’ tide of mass immigration, she was denounced by the left for her ‘grotesque’ views. The unspoken assumption in each case was that to challenge unrestricted immigration was unpardonably racist and xenophobic. If there are core grievances which cannot be discussed at Westminster, they will be exploited by the far right, with the pernicious racist twist that only the far right can provide. See the BBC website for more on this.

Allied to the government’s obsession with mass immigration is the doctrine of multiculturalism, a form of moral relativism which elevates the values and identity of ethnic and religious minorities and denigrates white, British nationalism. In practice, it has led to the creation of ethnic ghettos with segregated communities cut off from the mainstream. Many of these ghettos have bred Islamist fundamentalism which the government, to the chagrin of Muslim moderates, has done little to curb.

It is no surprise that Griffin made this statement recently: ‘There's a huge amount of racism in this country. Overwhelmingly it is directed towards the indigenous British majority, which is one reason we've done so well in these elections." He was playing on the idea that the political class, in its obsessive quest to uphold a politically correct, minority rights agenda, had abandoned the white majority in this country. Rightly or wrongly, this perception has now had dire electoral consequences.

The answer to all this is simple. The BNP will not be defeated by simplistic slogans which paint all their supporters as racist. Instead the mainstream parties must re-engage disillusioned voters with an honest debate on immigration, asylum and multi culturalism. They must tackle the core issues being exploited by the far right and understand the grievances driving many into the arms of extremists.

Of course, there are (and will always be) xenophobic Little Englanders who regard all ethnic minorities with disdain. For these people, a fascist party is their natural home and little can be done to win them to more moderate ways. But not all those who vote BNP belong in this category.

It is easy to condemn the far right and the appalling excesses of their leaders. But it is an altogether different matter to understand their success in simple, political terms. The election of two BNP politicians has made the latter task all the more urgent.

top

Mandy foiled the Blairites. But not even he can save New Labour.

8 June, 2009

So the Blairites blew it then! This was supposed to be the great Labour Cabinet coup that would unseat Gordon Brown and save New Labour’s hide. But David Miliband and Alan Johnson were not reading the script. Instead of taking James Purnell’s lead and bolting out of the no. 10 door, the two would be assassins meekly surrendered and rallied round their leader. Had both men resigned, it is likely that much of the rest of the Cabinet would have followed and Brown’s position would have become untenable. But when it came to delivering the coup de grace, they simply bottled it. It seems the only person with balls in the cabinet is the School Secretary, Ed.

As it is, Brown is a haggard and pathetic figure. His authority now shot to pieces, he is now the political embodiment of the living dead, a man kept alive from day to day by the weakness and timidity of his enemies. Over the last week, his position was so weak that he was unable to sack his Chancellor, Alistair Darling, or promote his economic protégé, Ed Balls.

Yet Brown also knows that his would be plotters suffer from a fatal flaw, namely a desperate desire for personal survival. The desperation was etched in the face of Caroline Flint, the one time Europe minister, whose Cabinet desertion was delayed for 24 hours while she awaited an expected promotion. Her resignation statement included a risible comment about being treated like 'window dressing.' This would be somewhat more believable had she paid more attention to policy and less to modelling in previous years.

Of course, all of Brown's rivals know that in the event of a successful coup, they would face irresistible public pressure to hold a general election. After all, it is bad enough to have one unelected leader but utterly intolerable to have a second. And the evidence from last week indicates that in any such election, Labour would face certain annihilation. If the party is to face inevitable defeat, it is better that it occurs in a year’s time rather than now.

No one knows this better than Brown’s one time enemy and arch rival, the fiendishly clever Lord Mandelson. It was Mandelson who called the shots after the Purnell resignation and Mandelson who rallied the troops to Brown’s cause. He now finds himself in a position of unassailable power. His appearance on Andrew Marr’s Sunday AM was a master class in political dissimulation and spin.

He cleverly deflected criticism of his leaked email from last year in which he described the PM as angry and insecure, traits which are instantly recognisable to all who have served under him. He appeared calm, collected and self assured, qualities that will prove invaluable in the nervous wreckage that is the Downing Street bunker.

Perhaps Mandelson is of the view that in 12 months, with the economy over the worst and with a new package of constitutional measures on the table, Brown’s prospects will be brighter. If so, he is as deluded as the Prime Minister. As with the Tory defeat of 1997, people have long memories of failure and in Labour's case, those failures are many.

top

Islam’s apologist in Cairo

5 June, 2009

Even before yesterday’s groundbreaking speech in Cairo, there was something distinctly unnerving about an American president addressing ‘the Muslim world’. After all, political leaders are given to addressing nations or political groups rather than religious blocs. Even Blair at his most spiritual never communicated with ‘Christendom’. So when Obama called today for ‘a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,’ he was assuming that he could appeal to the collective interests of over one billion people. As Amir Taheri pointed out in The Times yesterday, ‘This ignores the rich and conflict-ridden diversity of the 57 Muslim-majority nations and fosters the illusion, peddled by people such as Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Islam is one and indivisible and should, one day, unite under a caliphate.’

Indeed so anxious was Obama to jettison the (perceived) noxious leftovers of the Bush era that he ended up prostrate before his hosts, serving up one misrepresentation and distortion after another.

At the outset he establishes his agenda:

‘We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate…More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalisation led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.’

So are we to assume that colonialism, the Cold War and globalization are responsible for the modern tension between Muslims and the West? This sort of grovelling, half heartened apology ignores a rather more obvious reason for the conflict, namely the ideology of radical Islam. According to this pernicious belief system, modernity and globalization are part of a coordinated Western plot to destroy the foundations of Islam. Accordingly, the Western powers and their inhabitants, Muslim and otherwise, are ripe for attack and destruction in order to ensure the survival of the Islamic faith. Yet you find no mention of ‘Islamic extremism’ in the speech.

In echoes of our own government’s lily livered analysis of the terror threat, Obama merely says that ‘Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.’ Again later in the speech he declares that while not at war with Islam, America has to confront ‘violent extremism in all of its forms.’

But what we are dealing with today is extremism dressed up in religious garb; the conflation of secular ideologies (such as fascism) with Islam itself. Obama naturally failed to mention that in the 1930s, Muslim extremists in Palestine and elsewhere had a love affair with the Nazis, an affair which continues to this day.

While it is certainly wrong to declare war against a faith and to believe that its foundational texts are monolithic (Geert Wilders’ mistake), it is equally wrong to believe that Muslim extremism is disconnected from any interpretation of the Muslim faith. Hence his later statement: ‘Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.’ But this all depends on the Islam we are dealing with. Are we talking about the Islam of Iranian ayatollahs, the Islam of Wahhabi clerics or the Islam of murderous Sudanese Islamists here? To pose the question is to see these issues in a very different light.

Obama’s obeisance reaches fever pitch when it comes to discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. The mere fact that he can regard it as ‘the second major source of tension’ (between America and the Muslim world) betrays his rather false perspective. For many Muslims, it is the very existence of a Jewish state, indeed of Jews per se, that causes conflict with the West.

Some of Obama’s words are encouraging:

‘America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.’

Obama goes on to talk about the tragedy of the Holocaust and rightly declares that it is ‘baseless, ignorant and hateful’ to deny the murder of 6 million Jews.

But he then goes on to say:

‘On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation...’

This is a distortion of immense proportions. Firstly, to equate Holocaust denial with denial of the Palestinian narrative is itself ‘baseless and ignorant.’ Worse, it is malevolent. Secondly, it is to deny key historical facts, including the offer of statehood made to the Palestinian Arab community in 1937, 1947 and 2000-1. On each occasion, the Palestinian Arabs were offered a state of their own and, each time, they rejected it. During the same period, Arab states kept Palestinians in refugee camps so that they could use them as political pawns for their own domestic purposes. If the Palestinians have ‘suffered in pursuit of a homeland’, it is largely a self inflicted wound.

The false moral equivalence continues when he declares:

‘Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus.’

But blowing up innocent civilians is not an act of ‘resistance’, like the direct action campaigns of the Civil Rights movement. It is sheer wanton terrorism. For Obama, the words ‘Palestinian’ and ‘terrorism’ are seemingly incongruous.

Obama goes on to condemn the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements:

'Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.’

This rather overlooks a few details. Firstly, it is Hamas, not Israel, which controls Gaza. Secondly, the West Bank Palestinians have received the highest per capita level of aid of any people on earth. They have received billions of dollars from the EU and the UN, much of which has been squandered by corruption, mismanagement and terrorism. And while it is undeniable that military restrictions like the security barrier and checkpoints do create misery and hardship for innocent people, it is facile to ignore the reasons behind these impediments. Were the Palestinians to end their state of war with Israel, those barriers would come down tomorrow.

His idealistic words about overcoming obstacles, both between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Muslims and the West, will not endear themselves to the real enemy of moderates everywhere i.e. radical Islamists. Rhetoric, no matter how sweet it sounds, will not overcome implacable hatred, whether it comes from Hamas, Al Qaeda or Ahmadinejad. Those who reject Jewish self determination and Israeli self defence are unlikely to change their position now.

When he comes to the Iranian nuclear threat, an issue of particular sensitivity to Sunni Egypt, there is a baffling refusal to see the issue clearly. Bush was clear that a nuclear armed Iran, led by the Holocaust denying, racist Ahmadinejad, was a danger to its neighbours, the region and the world as a whole. For Obama, the danger is instead a ‘nuclear arms race in the Middle East.’ And then he offers a nod to lefties everywhere with the following gem:

‘I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.’

Excuse me? Does the President of the world’s most powerful democracy really believe that his own nuclear stockpile is as dangerous as that of Kim Jung Il or the Iranians? If so, he has no business trying to dissuade Tehran from joining the nuclear club. And if that is his view, he will lose allies not just in Jerusalem but across the Sunni Middle East.

By the time he comes to address democracy and human rights, the die has already been cast. Unlike Bush, who vigorously championed the cause of freedom and democracy, and who believed in the right of all people to change their government, Obama believes that ‘no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.’ He continues:

‘That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.’

Yet it is scarcely possible to argue that every nation’s political system reflects the will of the people. Some nation states, particularly in the Arab world, are dictatorships presided over by autocrats who pay lip service to the ‘popular will.’ What Obama seems to be implying is that we should not presume that Arabs and Muslims are as ready for democracy as the rest of us, a peculiar and pernicious form of reverse racism. Indeed that sentiment stands in contradiction to what follows:

‘I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.’

Indeed so, and it is only in enlightened (capitalist) democracies that you get anything like this package.

And the speech continues with all manner of absurd platitudes and gushing praise. He says, in discussing religious freedom, that Islam has a ‘proud tradition of tolerance.’ But there is little mention of the ways in which non Muslims have been routinely discriminated against in Muslim societies and of how Jews and Christians have been turned into second class dhimmis. Yet he does offer this hint of criticism: ‘Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's.’

If he is talking about determined jihadists in the Muslim world, that ‘rejection’ of other faiths is measured not by benign disagreement but by suicide bombings, assassinations and genocide. What a euphemism! But whereas the onus on religious freedom should come from Muslim countries where this sacrosanct right is so frequently absent, Obama lays the burden on the West:

‘It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.’

The reference to the veil is completely misguided. Firstly, it is not so much a religious as a political garment, worn by a small minority of Muslim women with an ideological axe to grind. Banning the veil in certain restricted contexts (in a courtroom, in classrooms) is hardly the same as denying women religious freedom. It is certainly not the equivalent of arresting people for possessing a bible, as in Saudi Arabia, or persecuting religious minorities, such as the Copts. The President has simply imbibed the Islamist victim narrative here.

In sum, while Obama rightly talks up the American values of liberty, representative government and religious tolerance, while he rightly condemns Palestinian violence and Al Qaeda and while he justly calls for women’s rights and democracy, he offers a distorted analysis of the relations between Islam and the West.

This is not a Reagan banging at the Berlin Wall or a Truman standing up to Stalinist aggression. This is another Jimmy Carter, offering a naïve whitewash of Islam in the hope of winning over his enemies. Yes, relations between Islam and the West do need to change. But the onus is on Arab and Muslim nations to radically alter their societies - to empower their citizens, educate their women, offer democracy and tackle Islamist extremism and anti semitism. And it needs to be said in strong terms.

Millions of moderate Muslims, who wanted America’s leader to speak truth to power, have seen their hopes dashed at the altar of appeasement. Such are the Chamberlainite follies of America’s 44th President.

top

Ministers resign, recriminations abound: A government in turmoil

3 June, 2009

The resignation of government ministers, and the imminent departure of Jacqui Smith, is the clearest sign of near total collapse at the heart of government. Now Hazel Blears has joined the New Labour exit lounge in a desperate effort to jump before being pushed. For weeks, she has been under pressure over her second home expenses and for her scarcely disguised attack on Gordon Brown’s you tube appearance. Blears, a fiercely ambitious woman, is no doubt repositioning herself to challenge for the top job. Her resignation was timed for maximum effect.

According to one report in the Telegraph today, Blears may have been a Blairite fall guy in a ‘Brownite’ Downing Street stitch up. There were rumours (fiercely denied by Blears) that she had leaked the imminent resignation of Jacqui Smith, rumours that may have come from within No. 10. If so, this is just further confirmation of the dreadful internecine warfare that has corroded the heart of New Labour.

Yet whatever the truth, it is clear that there is lethal paralysis at the heart of government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has allegations of financial impropriety hanging over him. The Home Secretary, herself mired in allegations of corruption, faces imminent departure while other ministers are scrambling away desperately from the heart of government. John Reid has reportedly refused the Home Office, which is hardly surprising seeing that rats rarely swim towards a sinking ship.

Gordon Brown’s personal authority is fast disappearing yet he clings to power with all his usual ruthlessness. He defies the electorate by denying a general election, the one thing that will help to purge our political class. And with the economy imploding, with public services in crisis and with grave challenges in foreign policy, this is a tragedy for us all.

top

Taking radical groups seriously

02 June, 2009

People often argue against talking up the danger of radical Islam in Britain. Their seductive argument goes something like this: Despite their bravado and blood curdling rhetoric, Muslim extremists are in no position to seize power in the West. They proclaim the imminence of the Islamic revolution while promising to fly the flag of ‘resistance’ above 10 Downing Street. Yet they are in no position to carry out their threats. Individuals like Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri are merely figures of fun who grossly overestimate their strength and popularity. Instead of censorship, we should engage them politically so that their ideas can be held up to ridicule in the court of public opinion.

Of course there is some truth in this. No Islamist group is about to take over Britain or bring European civilisation to its knees. Abu Hamza and his fellow travellers are deluded if they think they can succeed where the Nazis and Communists ultimately failed. Their grand jihadist rhetoric promising the end of US domination, Israel and the West is big on ambition but light on realism.

But ignoring radical organizations would be a step too far. As the Centre for Social Cohesion reported yesterday, one is seven Islamist convictions in the last decade have been linked with the extremist group Al-Muhajiroun. Their report states:

‘New CSC research shows that 15% of all those convicted in the UK of terrorism-related offences were either members of, or have known links to, the organisation (Al- Muhajiroun). In addition, al-Muhajiroun claimed in 2000 to have recruited up to six hundred young British Muslims to fight violent jihad in Kashmir, Chechnya and Afghanistan, amongst others. Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 the group increased its recruitment drive targeting prominent UK universities and mosques with Bakri calling for followers to embrace martyrdom.’

Among those convicted of Islamist related offences was Jawad Akbar who was sentenced to life in April 2007 for his involvement in the fertiliser bomb plot. Another was Abdul Muhid, convicted in March 2007 for soliciting to murder during the Danish Embassy anti-cartoon protests and Mizanur Rahman convicted in November 2006 for stirring up racial hatred during the same protests.

Now Al-Muhajiroun was banned in 2005 but is not a proscribed terrorist organization. With the early release from prison of some of its key ideologues, such as Abu Izzadeen, there is, as the CSC warns, the chance for the group to regroup. Hence this statement from Douglas Murray, CSC Director: “The fact that al-Muhajiroun followers have comprised one in seven Islamist-related convictions should be a wake-up call. The Government needs to realise that when these people say they are prepared to kill in the name of their religion, they mean it.”

Indeed. It is tempting to treat these Islamist fanatics as mere figures of fun who are ripe for public ridicule. We know who has the last laugh.

top

June Entries

• Sharia law - or one law for all?
• Is it time to ban the burqah?
• Was Bercow’s appointment a mistake?
• Remember Neda Agha-Soltan
• While Iranians denounce tyranny, the White House is silent
• The old adage is still true: Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity
• Another (sad) victory for the Revolution
• Don’t blame judges for going soft on terror
• Bemoan the BNP’s success - but understand it too
• Mandy foiled the Blairites. But not even he can save New Labour.
• Islam’s apologist in Cairo
• Ministers resign, recriminations abound: A government in turmoil
• Taking radical groups seriously

Archive

• February 2007
• March 2007
• April 2007
• May 2007
• June 2007
• July 2007
• August 2007
• September 2007
• October 2007
• November 2007
• December 2007
• January 2008
• February 2008
• March 2008
• April 2008
• May 2008
• June 2008
• July 2008
• August 2008
• September 2008
• October 2008
• November 2008
• December 2008
• January 2009
• February 2009
• March 2009
• April 2009
• May 2009
• June 2009
• July 2009
• August 2009
• September 2009
• October 2009
• November 2009
• December 2009
• January 2010
• February 2010
• March 2010
• April 2010
• May 2010
• June 2010
• July 2010
• August 2010
• September 2010

Related links

• Richard Millett's Blog
• oyvagoy
• Robin Shepherd Online