Presidential style

This may not have been big news in the US, but the Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked in Pakistan.

Some of the English speaking officials are complaining because they were promised "presidential style security" by the Pakistani government.

Rather churlish of them, given the health and safety record of political leaders in Pakistan. Seems like Presidential style was exactly what they got.

Sharia in the UK

According to a Times article yesterday:

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

On the one hand, I'm all for alternative dispute resolution - I guess. On the other hand, this really creeps me out. As a woman, I have to say, sharia pretty much sucks for us.

The courts have been established through rules on arbitration, so it's basically binding arbitration, but all parties must agree to it before entering the court. Then the ruling becomes enforceable. This keeps people from venue shopping and dragging things out indefinitely. If you go to a sharia court over a contested will, the male sibling will receive twice as much as the female sibling. I know that and so would any Muslim litigant. I wouldn't go to a sharia court to settle an inheritance dispute (sorry Vol Bro), but I do know a Muslim woman who probably would have and all she wanted was what sharia "entitled" her to when her brother wanted to take a lot more than his already larger share. In most senses, I really don't have a problem with this.

But these courts are deciding all kinds of matters including charges of domestic violence. Ummm, yeah - the victim and the perpetrator are on equal footing there, aren't they? It turns out that in the domestic violence cases the men have been ordered to undergo anger management courses. How enlightened. And the women have dropped the charges. Fancy that.

No sandwich for you

I love holidays, I do. If you got a feasting, dancing, singing, wear-a-silly-hat and jump up and down like a fool holiday, I'm all for it. As long as it's free and it doesn't clash with work, I might even join in.

But scourging and fasting just aren't my bag. I'm not big into ashes or penance either. Sorry. I understand it's importance, but I'm not in the game of collecting suffer tokens. Thanks, anyway.

And so, we're now almost into the season of Ramadan. You want to fast. Fine. Go ahead. But I'm not planning to do anything special for Ramadan. (I'll happily eat any Eid food, though.) I'm not planning to make much in the way of special considerations for those who do want to fast during daylight hours. I'll still eat lunch at my desk, but I won't offer you any special treats. Deal?

But at Tower Hamlets, everybody has to observe:

Muslim council leaders have sparked outrage after trying to ban all councillors eating in meetings until sunset during the holy month of Ramadan.

Politicians have hit out after the move to impose hardline Islamic rules on non-Muslim colleagues throughout September.

The bombshell has been dropped by Labour chiefs of the notoriously loony Tower Hamlets Council in east London.

The storm was sparked by an email sent to all councillors this week highlighting arrangements for Town Hall committee meetings next month, which marks the Muslim fasting period of Ramadan.

Oh, dear.

These are evening meetings and many of these councillors have jobs and are coming straight from their places of employment and they won't get out until very late. No tea, no sandwich for them. And it's rare that you'll go to a meeting in the UK where at least biscuits aren't on offer (unless I've arranged the meeting, I rarely order biscuits). But I guess that's out, too.

Some councillors (the ones in political opposition) are outraged and say this appears to be favouring one religion over another. I'd tend to agree.

Rage on campus

I'm a little bit late to the party, but toward the end of July the Centre for Social Cohesion published a report looking at the views of both Muslim and non-Muslim students at Universities in Britain.

Like a spate of previous survey results, the findings should be shocking but sadly they just seem to fall into a long pattern of radicalised views of Muslims in the West. (See executive summary here) To be sure, most Muslim students don't want to stone all the gays, or overthrow Democratic traditions or kill in the name of Islam, or believe that women are inherently inferior, but a significant disturbing minority do. And apparently, that number (mostly) rises when survey respondents were active members of Islamic societies on campus. Actually, active members of clubs or societies were more likely to feel that Islam and Democracy were compatible, which can be interpreted in more than one way.

Kids will be kids. Young adults seem more likely to hold extreme views on a number of things from the unalloyed good of the "free market" to environmentalism to Islamism. Pragmatism and moderation and nuance can often increase with age and experience.

In a Times online article, it's reported that the full report (which caused my browser to fall over when I tried to download it) focuses on Queen Mary university, located in East London.

The researchers highlighted Queen Mary college, part of London University, as a campus where radical views were widely held. Last December, a speaker named Abu Mujahid encouraged Muslim students to condemn gays because “Allah hates” homosexuality. In November, Azzam Tamimi, a British-based supporter of Hamas, described Israel as the most “inhumane project in the modern history of humanity”.

James Brandon, deputy director at CSC , said: “Our researchers found a ghettoised mentality among Muslim students at Queen Mary. Also, we found the segregation between Muslim men and women at events more visible at Queen Mary.”

A spokesman for Queen Mary said the university was aware the preachers had visited but did not know the contents of their speeches. “Clearly, we in no way associate ourselves with these views. However, also integral to the spirit of university life is free speech and debate and on occasion speakers will make statements that are deemed offensive.

I used to be a fairly regular visitor to this campus and their views surprise me not at all. Over the course of time when I did visit, the tone of the local community changed. It became an increasingly hostile place. During the build up to the Iraq War, as an American, I no longer felt safe there. I don't know for certain, but I think the University is fooling itself by throwing up its hands and saying "Well, sometimes speakers say offensive things." I don't think the University would allow the student arm of the British National Party (should it exist) to host events on campus and spew hatred of this or that group. I don't think that the University would allow a group that segregated its black and white attendees (blacks in the back) to rent its halls and rooms. And the same standards should apply to Muslim groups.

In many ways, I think Universities abet the most vocal and most radicalised. In one "diversity" leaflet I've seen from another London based universities, it states in bland and matter-of-fact language that Muslim women are under obligation to cover their hair. Not all Muslims scholars agree with this and certainly not all Muslim women agree with this. This would be a little like saying "Christians must not eat meat on Friday" or "married Jewish women must cover their hair." To be sure, some do believe such a thing, but by no means all. And blanket statements like that inculcate a belief that Muslim women who do not wear the hijab are not "real Muslims" and their views on Islam is not really worth listening to.

Instead of denying these findings, as the National Union of Students seem wont to do....

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, condemned the study. “This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain,” he said. “Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted.”

...Universities should take these findings as a warning and proactively seek to promote a civil discourse on campus and perhaps also help their students understand statistics and a valid sample size.

Islamism and fascism, happy bedfellows

Here's an interesting post from Harry's Place which captures some interesting conversions from the far right to extreme Islamism.

I reckon it's not that big a step - particularly if you're fueled by hatred of the joos.

Commenter Wardytron nails it:

Plus they’ve seen that you get far more indulgence and less outright hostility as an Islamist as opposed to a neo-Nazi, the ideological leap is tiny - you get to keep all your enemies - gays, Jews, liberals, women - and you’re joining a movement which, if not actually flourishing, isn’t down to nearly single figures. I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often.

I guess one thing that makes it hard to make the transition to Islam - even the violent, nasty political hate-filled kind is having to give up beer.

Not those dang cartoons again

Here's a true story. It's one that might be familiar to you if you were raised amongst the hard core Protestant, as I was.

A Protestant walks into a Catholic Church and is offended.

Why? Because of the depiction of the Prophet. Not that prophet. But our prophet, our final prophet and savior, Jesus. And there were depictions of Jesus and his whole family and some people who went before him and his Apostles, too.

I didn't say anything, and I wasn't deeply offended. But I did sort of wonder if anyone had told the Catholics that maybe putting up graven images and praying before them was not just a little idolatrous. Perhaps a teensy bit heretical or even blasphemous. Seriously. And from talking to others over the years, it turns out I'm not the only one to feel this way when first faced with these differences in Christian worship.

Even now - and I'm essentially faithless - I sometimes feel a little bit squidgy inside when I see representative religious art displayed prominently in a place of Christian worship - even though, very likely, I've specifically gone into the church to see the art.

But my squidginess is but a vestigal reminder of the blood shed in the towns and fields of Europe over these differences among people who really are our co-religionists. Now I can enjoy religious art in churches from a secular point of view, but as a youth I reconciled it with the notion that the Catholics were wrong but well intentioned with their display of graven images. I could look upon it much more in sadness than in anger.

So I guess what I'm saying here is I understand how somebody could find those Danish Mohammed cartoons or any other depiction of "The Prophet" offensive. It's my understanding that Mohammed warned against the worship of himself as a kind of Godhead and thus came the prohibition of images of himself - to help folks avoid the temptation. But it was also consistent with Mohammed's destruction of idols at Qabah and his fight against the pagan and polytheistic. So yes, a devout Muslim might see a graven image of Mohammed and feel just a little squidgy or maybe a bit more.

But in the end, the prohibition is for Muslims not to depict their prophet. It's not actually a prohibition that falls on us the infidel. The right response would have been to right a strongly worded letter-to-the-editor (or blog post) about how deeply squidgy seeing the prophet depicted that way made devout Muslims feel and then that should have been the end of it. Or even, perhaps, writing letters to advertisers in the Jyllands-Posten (the newspaper commissioning the cartoons) saying that Muslims could no longer in good conscience patronise their businesses. But that wasn't the response. And that wasn't the end.

-0-

I originally began drafting this post back in January. After Ezra Levant was brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing copies of the cartoons in his now defunct (aka online only) magazine. I never finished the post, because - well, I'm busy. And it seemed like it was being covered well enough by the usual right wing suspects. Although it's absolutely wrong to leave cases of free speech and liberty to the right wing blogosphere, or folks will start to think it's a right wing issue only.

I couldn't believe that people were still going on about it and that publishers in a supposedly free country (Canada) were being subject to public prosecution (of a sorts) just for publishing some pictures.

Mr Levant has been accused publishing the cartoons in order to increase circulation to his magazine and for using his summons to an HRC tribunal as an opportunity to self-promote. (He uploaded his statements to YouTube). Maybe. But the guy was being subject to a ridiculous kangaroo court, congrats to him for trying to make lemonade from lemons. And he still has to bear the cost of defending himself.

The Canadian Muslim Imam who brought the complaint against Mr Levant has withdrawn his charge. Syed Soharwardy says it's because he realised just how important free speech was to Canadians. Mr Levant reckons elsewise. And Christopher Hitchens weighs in, too.

-0-

But that's not all. In the past week, Danish authorities have made arrests to stop a plot to murder one of the original Danish cartoonists. That's a lot more than a strongly worded letter. Read more about it at this Danish blog dedicated to the cartoons and their aftermath.

-0-

And now NOT the Danish cartoons, but medieval depictions of Mohamed are being targeted by many thousands of the faithful. There can be absolutely no doubt that these paintings weren't done with any spirit of malice. Yet Wikipedia is being bombarded with requests to take them down from the entry on Mohamed. Good for Wikipedia for refusing.

Sharia in the UK?

The Arch-freakin'-Bishop of Canterbury* is saying that sharia law in the UK is inevitable? Holy-effin'-moly! Where's your convictions man? I'm nearly (but not quite) struck speechless.

In one breath the Archbishop says

Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states: the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women,”

Well, yes, I would certainly agree with that. But then he goes on to say:

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.”

Arrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry I couldn't come up with something more eloquent, but I did say I was nearly struck dumb with the stupidity of it all.)

Doesn't he get it? Doesn't he understand? Enforcing sharia based decisions in matters of family law - and especially in matters of divorce - is exactly what underlines the barbaric attitudes to women.

There's nothing to stop two parties coming to an agreement based on sharia and abiding by it under current UK law. Women - in case of separation, do you want to hand over custody of your children? Do you want to have a "mosque-based" marriage in which you have no rights when it comes to property? Hey, fine by me. Do what you want.

But no way, no how should British courts be enforcing such decisions or routing women of Muslim origin into sharia based civil court hearings. That's what a tandem system of sharia law for Muslims would mean.

It's wrong.

Equality before the law. One law for everyone. We may not always get it, but we must always , always aspire to it.


_________
*head honcho bishop in the Church of England


UPDATE: At Harry's Place, just as one would have expected there's a discussion about this. They call for the sacking of the Archbishop and the disestablishment of the Church of England. No need. When the head of the CoE calls for sharia law - the church done been disestablished.

With friends (and MPs) like these...

There's a big furore here over the potential bugging of a conversation between an MP and his friend and constituent. This MP happens to be my MP. This constituent lives within easy walking distance from my house. That is he lives there when he's not in jail - on terror charges.

Sadiq Khan is at the center of a controversy about whether his jailhouse conversation with Babar Ahmad should have been taped without his knowledge. Doubtless, all of Mr Ahmad's conversations are bugged (except probably privileged conversations with his lawyer) - given that he is, in fact, a terror suspect awaiting extradition to America. It's all so very complicated why he's to stand trial in the US and not in the UK. But what appears to not be in dispute is that the man helped raise money for the Taliban.

He raised money for them, but this wasn't a crime in the UK at the time he was doing it because the Taliban wasn't a proscribed organisation at the time. Not that we didn't know they were nasty pre-9/11, just that they weren't outlawed.

From the Washington Post:

In late 1996, while a 22-year-o.ld undergraduate at Imperial College in London, Ahmad launched a Web site dedicated to promoting Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan, according to U.S. federal prosecutors. Dubbed Azzam.com, in honor of Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian who served as bin Laden's spiritual mentor, the Web site rapidly became a prominent and influential English-language platform for Islamic militants.

...snip...

"It was the very first real al Qaeda Web site," said Evan Kohlmann, a New York-based terrorism researcher who has tracked Azzam.com since the late 1990s. "It taught an entire generation about jihad. Even in its nascency, it was professional. It wasn't technically sophisticated, but it was professional looking, definitely more professional than any other jihadi Web sites out there."

...snip...

According to a U.S. indictment filed in October, Ahmad used Azzam.com to
solicit donations for Chechen rebels and the Taliban, and arranged for the
training and transportation of Islamic fighters. Among the specific charges is
one alleging that Azzam.com posted messages in early 2001 containing specific
instructions for supporters to deliver cash payments of up to $20,000 to
Taliban officials in Pakistan

And I blogged about this two and a half years ago (post has links to US extradition request).

-0-

Now, Sadiq Khan, MP feels aggrieved because there is an established convention that MPs' conversations won't be bugged. I guess I can understand that, though it was Mr Ahmad and not Mr Khan who was the explicit subject of surveillance.

But in news story after news story Babar Ahmad is listed as both a constituent and a friend. They did grow up in the same area, so childhood friends they may be - and I'm sure we all had playmates who turned out not as well as might be hoped. But Mr Khan should consider whether he really wants friends like Mr Ahmad. And Tooting constituents should consider whether we want an MP with friends like that.

with Friends like these

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is what I would describe as a radical Islamist group. To put this in perspective a fundamentalist Muslim I know thought they were a dangerous cult. This group is proscribed in a number of European countries, but not the UK.

I would guess that many of the members of HT in the UK are of a Pakistani origin. I don't know what the ethnic breakdown is, but I'd guess there are enough that they feel they it's legitimate for them to turn their organisational attention to the situation in Pakistan.

And it's no surprise what they feel the right solution is for Pakistan - more Islam. Sharia law - the whole thing - the establishment of the Caliphate or Khilafah. That's what a brochure I found on the street in my neighborhood says anyway:



And here's the text:

Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan has been tormented by failed dictators and political parties.

The US and UK, constantly meddling in the affairs of Pakistan, are desperate to save their only hope in the region, General Pervez Musharraf, by working to ally him with failed politicians such as Benezir Bhutto. They have thus brought about an alliance between the most treacherous leader and the most corrupt politician in Pakistan's history.

Pakistan is in need for anew type of leadership which look after the needs of the people according to the Quran and Sunnah, and implements a system which is truly representative and that has an independent judiciary: the Khilafat State.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, Britain has organised a conference to artculate the need for a new leadership and new system for Pakistan - an alternative to the failed leadership and systems of the past 60 years.

It doesn't really disturb me that HT is calling for a Caliphate state. Yep, that's what they want - what they've always wanted for all countries, not just Pakistan. What does disturb me is that Friends House - the home of the peace loving Quakers in Central London is hosting this conference. Why oh why oh why are they providing a venue for a group which would give all Christians and all women second class citizenship or worse.

For many years of my childhood we attended Quaker (Friends) meetings. I'm pretty sure that Quakerism is incompatible with the establishment of a global Caliphate. I'm pretty sure that message of tolerance and forgiveness that I learned in First Day school are not in line with the harsh, biased justice of Sharia.

With friends like these....

Ikea and recommended reading

Oriana Fallaci's novel Inshallah


I think this version is in Swedish. We saw this today. What else can you find on an Ikea flat pack bookcase?

This is important

Alan Johnson's address to a Labour Party Conference Fringe event.

Ignore the jibber jabber like:

First, having the will and the resolution to promote that order and that society as non-negotiable normative ends. So enough with the apologetics for them and the self-hatred for us.

Just try to wade through it. This is the stuff wherein liberals (in the American leftist sense) and classical liberals need to get their act together and fight not just violence of extremist Islamism, but the ideas, too. You know, the old hearts and minds thing.

Gone native

Now we all know that the situation in the Levant has been hot for a long time. No matter what side you come down on, it seems like everybody has a side. Personally, I plumped for Israel ages ago. It's not something I think much about. I don't discuss it much, because it's one of those things that I'm not likely to change my mind about. No, in fact, I won't change my mind. I guess it's tribal.

I could go on about the Palestinians this, the Israelis that, but if you have an entrenched position on the matter I'm not likely to change your mind either.

Suffice to say, little that the Palestinians do surprises me much. The photos of the wee kids holding some pretty heft weaponry and just waiting for the day that their martyrdom dream comes true is sickening but doesn't really work me up.

But this video from Palestinian children's tv showing a man in a bee suit abusing cats and lions in the Gaza zoo just floors me.

And there you go, I've gone British. They're abusing animals now. I may just have to write a strongly worded letter.

______

HT: Harry's Place

More on the Undercover Mosque

This article pretty much exactly encapsulates my opinion on the matter:

Andrew Anthony's Comment is Free article: When did the police start collaring television?

Channel 4's controversial documentary Undercover Mosque was great investigative journalism. That the CPS thought it incited racial hatred beggars belief

To recap: Channel 4 commissioned a documentary on extremist preachers working in the UK and supported by Saudi Arabia. Preachers with some extremely unpleasant views. The documentary focused on a mosque in Birmingham. West Midlands Police (headquartered in Birmingham) investigated the preachers - when the couldn't find enough evidence for a crime of incitement, they turned on the programme makers.

That radical preachers hold radical (and repugnant) views, is sadly, nothing new. That those holding extremist views are often embraced by the UK government and are given positions of responsibility - encouraging "community cohesion" is laughable if weren't so disturbing. That the police are going after journalists for exposing them, practically acting as religious enforcers for Wahabism is terrifying.

Fresh outrage

The Muslim "community" is up in arms again. Just metaphorically this time. There's fresh outrage over a documentary - Undercover Mosque, which aired in January on the UK's Channel 4.

The documentary is largely based on secret filming by a undercover reporter at Birmingham's Green Lane mosque. It shows that some Muslim preachers are spewing hate. Hate for homosexuals, hate for Jews and Christians, and at the very least disrespect for women. (We are "deficient" - fathers should beat daughters who don't don the hijab from around ten.) This same mosque claims to be working toward "community cohesion" - i.e. multicultural understanding, blah, blah, blah. But as the program shows, really a number of preachers are Saudi trained, Saudi subsidised and supported.

This was supposed to be a shocking expose. I missed it when it first came out in January. But I watched it this morning (See it here on YouTube) Can't say that I found anything terribly shocking. Religious fundamentalists hold abhorrent, archaic views. Duh. I didn't need to go to years of Church of Christ Bible study to work that one out. Some religious fundamentalists hold particularly militant and violent views (some of these preachers were filmed saying that Muslims should bide their time, wait for the right moment for the big jihad and establish the UK branch of the Islamic Caliphate - I'm paraphrasing). Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.

I do understand that folks living with their heads in a kind of soft, fuzzy, lefty la-la multi-culti land might have found this shocking. "What - you mean evil isn't an exclusively Western attribute?" Ha. I have to admit that while I don't find the revelations particularly shocking, I do find them disturbing. I don't want to live under Sharia law.

The outrage though - from some of those filmed - was that their comments were taken out of context. I doubt it. Sure, the documentary makers picked out the most inflammatory statements, but the statements were made. It would be like the highlights of a sermon being taped in your local church, but editing out the prayer list and information about next Sunday's potluck.

And those filmed were given a right of reply.


-0-

Here's the outrageous bit.

Following the documentary, the police investigated. They may have investigated some of the nasty things that folks said. You can watch the show and judge for yourself, but only a few things sounded to me like they might have been direct incitement to violence - the rest were just deeply unpleasant. And yes, they might well fall foul of "stirring up hatred" - which is against the law. I don't believe that should be against the law - stirring up an emotion. So we'll let that pass without further discussion.

But the police also investigated the program makers:

After investigating 56 hours of footage, West Midlands Police said that it had been advised by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the broadcaster for stirring up racial hatred, but that selective editing had helped to create an impression of Muslim hatred.

And from the Metro:

Confirming that police had now made a formal complaint to broadcasting regulator Ofcom, Assistant Chief Constable Anil Patani said: "The priority for West Midlands Police has been to investigate the documentary and its making with as much rigour as the extremism the programme sought to portray."

Stop just a moment and let that sink in. Someone spews hate. You film it. You do some necessary editing. It's got to fit into an hour less commercials. You broadcast. It could certainly be argued that it's in the public interest to broadcast this material. Some of the people filmed have advised or are associated with those who advise the government on community cohesion. It's in the public interest to understand just what kind of community they're hoping to cohere.

And then you get investigated by the police. Rigorously. For stirring up racial hatred.

And what lesson is in that? Investigate unpleasant elements in the Muslim community, get investigated yourself.

reflections on the terror attacks

I think the really interesting thing about the latest terrorist attacks in Britain is what it might have been. Most of the alleged participants are doctors, medical students or somehow connected with the National Health Service. Dumbass terrists. They could have really terrified people by slowly and steadily killing patients - or killing a bunch of patients over a two week period and then going out in some kind of blaze of glory. Holy moly. The NHS would collapse. Any vestige of "commuity cohesion" would collapse. Folks would be quite hesitant to entrust their wee kids to the good Dr Mohammed Ibrahim - even though Mo has a beer on a Saturday (when he's not on call) and despises the whole terror thing and wants to live a quiet life.

Asians are perhaps overrepresented on the General Practitioner rolls and I could quite see the untrusting white, black and Asian populations being accused of racism, Islamaphobia or sectarianism when they refuse to get a jab from the brown doctor.

-0-

Normally my initial reaction to any kind of terror plot is "How is this going to inconvenience me?" I changed my whole vacation plans last year because I didn't want the hassle of airport security and the whole liquids ban thing. I avoided the plane and took the cross-channel ferry. I'm not afraid of dying - after all the numbers are really still in my favor. I don't know anyone who's died in al Qaeda action - but the Vol-in-Law lost two cousins in a ferry disaster. And despite growing up in Belfast, he didn't know anyone who was killed in terror attack. So ferries 3, terror 0 in our book* - but we still took the boat.

This summer I'm not really planning on flying anywhere - and I'm not really that bothered by the inconvenience of my visiting relatives. But one thing does trouble me; the plot centered on Calor gas - the canisters used for bbq grills and patio heaters and such like. Is there likely to be increased security around propane** and propane accessories? Am I going to have trouble getting a refill on my near empty cannister of gas? Should the sun ever come out, should there be a break in the clouds, a moment of bbq weather will I be left gasless?

-0-

Over at Harry's Place, they're hopeful that a new, more sensible, dialogue is emerging:

Something else has changed in the past week and it is certainly not just
the result of a few articles from ex-Islamists and sensible mainstream British
Muslims. After the failed bombings in London and Glasgow there has been much
less of the 'we had it coming' apologist claptrap in the media reaction and a
much greater willingness to accept that Islamist terrorists mean what they say
and are what they are.

Maybe. But at the same time British polticians and leftist commentators are discussing these latest terror attempts without mentioning the words Muslim, Islamist or sometimes even terrorist. We all know that not all Muslims are terrorists. We know that already. But let us face up to what Islamism really is.
____________
*one of the cousin's fiance was also killed - and he did know someone who was permanently disabled by an IRA bomb

**actually most bbq gas in this country is the inferior, but safer, butane

Growing up with fundamentalism

Anglofille had a post about the tolerance of (Islamic) religious fundamentalism by some of Britain's leading politicians. I've been meaning to comment on it - but I've been quite distracted. All I can think about is baby, baby, baby - why are you so late?

I guess I'd like to say that I broadly agree with her points in the main post and in the comments section - so do go read it. But I'd like to add additional nuances to the argument, but sadly all I can think about is baby, baby, baby - why are you so late? (With the occasional, I feel really uncomfortable and moody thrown in - see I don't have a one-track mind).

Here's some of what she wrote:

I’ve been shocked to read about how Tony Blair and London Mayor Ken Livingstone have embraced certain Islamic fundamentalists here in the UK, men who have expressed vile and disgusting views. Under normal circumstances, I imagine that Livingstone would condemn a person who, for example, was a raging homophobe. [And if the person were Jewish, he may even call them a Nazi.] But apparently if you’re an Islamic fundamentalist, you can trample all over the liberal values these politicians supposedly hold dear. How is this possible? The mind boggles.

I'm not so certain about Tony Blair - although top people on the left have certainly accepted Saudi-funded, Wahabi-style, politicised fundamentalism with abhorrent views of women and homosexuals as the "mainstream" Islam. Ken Livingstone is certainly guilty of literally and figuratively embracing the leaders of Islamist movements - like Yusef al Qaradawi - a most nasty chap by almost any account.

Maybe Blair and Livingstone don’t have much experience of fundamentalism in their own lives and don’t understand how it operates. They associate it with “foreign” people and tolerate it on their home turf because they don’t want to appear racist, perhaps.

Racism is seen by opinion formers here as "the worst thing in the world"* and in order to get the same protection and promotion as the anti-racist agenda - some Muslims have quite pointedly played up the race element of Islam. (Anyone can be a Muslim, but it so happens that most Muslims in the UK have their ethnic origins in the Indian sub-continent.)

But I think we are getting into seriously dangerous territory when we associate thought, behaviour and belief (religion) with race. If we can't discriminate against people because of the way they behave, then we've lost our standards. After all, Sharia (Islamic law) is essentially a discriminatory framework based on religion and behaviour (fair enough, though I disagree with it) and gender (not so fair). If I can't say to the fundamentalist/literalist Muslim as well as to the fundamentalist/literalist Christian "I think you're wrong about evolution - and this wrongness leads me to doubt your approach to other scientific matters," then there's something not right.

Anglofille then writes of her own experience:

As an American and someone who knows a thing or two about religious fundamentalism, I worry about the threat religious extremists pose to British society. I see it as a very real and dangerous threat

I think she touches on an important point. I don't think it applies to Tony Blair or Ken Livingstone who are men of the world. I think Livingstone embraces Islamism as part of his cynical Trotskyite self-loathing and destructivist tendencies (just as he embraces Chavez and Castro to the cost of London taxpayers).

But I do think it applies to vast swathes of London upper-middle class policy makers and opinion formers and the mass who form "general public opinion". Their experience with church and religion has been cursory at best (at worst?). They have no idea what it's like to live in a community dominated by one prevailing and strongly religious world view. Well, I'll tell you what it's like as someone who grew up in the buckle of the Bible belt. If you're a natural non-conformist - it sucks. It's oppressive**. And that's exactly the kind of world that Qaradawi and political Islamists want us to live in.

Trouble on the left?
I consider myself something close to a classical liberal. And oddly this makes me pretty right-wing in the UK. But there is a movement on the left which recognises the danger of extremism.

I've written a little about that here - when I still had brain.



________
* I agree that racism is bad and harmful and ill-informed, but I'm not sure it deserves the "cause of all evil" status that it seems to have in UK society.
** Yet at the same time, religion can support good behavior and vital social structures and provide a comforting and useful moral framework. Go figure.

The ViL puts the world to rights

I said that if the Vol-in-Law did a good job on the Conservative Home web tv programme, I would post a link. Well, I reckon he did do a pretty good job (though I recognise my bias). So here it is.
And though it means breaking anonymity, the Vol-in-Law is not the young chap with the revealing neckline, nor is he the blonde woman.

He came yesterday wearing makeup (to make him look less shiny) and told me he'd had precisely 15 minutes of fame. So, if your even vaguely interested in the internal workings of the British Conservative party, give him a quarter of an hour to entertain you on the matters of candidate selection, the British relationship to Europe and the Gove lecture on an anti-islamist intelligentsia.

An anti-islamist intelligentsia?

It seems like you can wait ages to spend an evening with a Conservative MP and then two chances come along at once.

We'd been invited to hear the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Peter Ainsworth MP speak on things environmental at a Wandsworth Tory event - and we'd fully intended to go. I knew I was going to spend the evening spitting and fuming about how the Conservative party has adopeted the pseud-scientific mantras of environmentalism. (Don't get me wrong, I like nature - I just think there are greater threats to human health and the environment in Britian than global warming.) But we would have been in the company of people we know and like, so it wouldn't have been awful.

But then the Vol-in-Law was invited to hear Michael Gove, MP speak at a New Culture Forum event “Are we seeing the emergence of a new anti-Islamist intelligentsia?”at Portcullis House (the parliamentary office building). And it's not that we're ruthless social climbers or the kind of people who'll stand you up for a better offer, but well it just sounded like a swankier and possibly more interesting event.

Unalloyed gushing
And it was. First, let me gush a little bit about the venue - as a girl who went to Lawrence County High School is allowed to do (so do bear with me or, if you must, skip down a few paragraphs). Portcullis House is a fabulous building - one of those places that firmly demonstrates that you can have wonderful modernist architecture so long as you a) follow the laws of physics and b) use predominantly traditional building materials (e.g. oak and stone).

And the building was filled with celebrities. Celebrities of the political sort of course, but none of whom I recognised. (The Vol-in-Law mocks my statement If London's so full of celebrities, how come I never see any? It's true, I recognise no one. The only celeb I've ever spotted on my own was because I recognised his voice first.)

But we saw, for example, Helena Kennedy QC ( the ViL says she's done more to destroy life in Britain than almost anyone else) and David Trimble, former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party who looks remarkably healthier and younger in real life now that the burdens of Northern Irish political leadership have been forcibly removed.

And finally, the wine. I know this is cheesy, but I was impressed. The wine served at Portcullis House - was House Wine - House of Commons wine - with its own specialty label including the seal of the House of Commons. I'm a sucker for a visual pun. The wine itself - well, I didn't indulge as I'm pregnant, but I definitely had to sample it - and it tasted much as you might expect Government wine to taste.

Anti-islamism on the Left?
But on to the topic itself, Michael Gove is the author of Celsius 7/7 an analysis of Islamism and how this came to manifest itself so violently in Britain just over a year ago. A sample of Amazon UK review comments:

It is a well reasoned attempt to show the historical roots of Islamic totalitarianism from Maulana Maududi, Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al Banna, all the way through to their modern incarnation of Al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups.

Gove's is a clarion call to all of us to defend liberty and rationality. Unless we do this, we may well find ourselves heading rapidly towards a time of repression by religiously motivated totalitarian ideologues.

Although a Conservative politician, Michael Gove concentrated on the emergence of a "new" anti-Islamist intelligentsia on the left. Partly, this is because there is little intelligentsia on the right (in the UK) and partly because the non-Islamic ideological support for Islamism and Islamic politcal aims has come recently most strongly from the Left. Gove says, yes - there is an emergence of anti-Islamist thought and voice on the Left - and he feels that it will be as powerful and important the condemnation of Soviet socialism in Europe by Left-liberals was during the cold war and in the collapse of communism. And Gove highlights a few key thinkers to support his argument. Daniel Johnson, also at the event, writes:

...the most prominent voices now being heard in protest against the scandalous alliance of the Left with Islamo-fascism are themselves for the most part intellectuals withimpeccable Left-liberal credentials. Gove singled out the journalists Nick Cohen(whose book What’s Left? How the Liberals Lost Their Way chronicles the Left’s great self-betrayal), David Aaronovich (who defected from the Guardian to the Times of London), and Christopher Hitchens, who needs no introduction for American readers. Nick Cohen is also a leading light among the group of liberal academics and writers who last year signed the Euston Manifesto, distancing themselves from the Leftist consensus.

For me, an unapologetic Liberal (more classical liberal) and still romantically attached to the Left, it's always seemed more shocking to me that the Left has aligned itself to a clearly backwards ideology. Yusuf Al Qaradawi - Islamist imam - was described by London Mayor Ken Livingstone as a force for progressivism. Yes, if by progressive you mean stoning gays and beating and covering women. I'm less interested in why a few voices on the Left are speaking up but in why so many have submitted to Islamism and so many more remain quiet.

Michael Gove almost seems to clutch at straws in a way. Who cares about a few Guardianista journalists (who like Nick Cohen might easily be dismissed as being Joo-ish Zionists anyway - so rife is anti-semitism these days)? So what that a few novelists like Ian McEwan or Martin Amis or even Salman Rushdie (who might be accused of still being peevish over the whole fatwa thing) are speaking out? Though I've got to admit they do it cleverly (again via Daniel Johnson).

Amis even describes himself as an “Islamismophobe,” but the real objects of his hatred are the “middle-class white demonstrators last August waddling around under placards saying ‘We Are All Hizbollah Now.’” As he observes, “People of liberal sympathies, stupefied by relativism, have become the apologists for a creedal wave that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, imperialist, and genocidal. To put it another way, they are up the arse of those that want them dead.”

So now I'm also interested in the question - what can those on the Right do? The American Right has funded intellectual pursuits through think-tanks, Chairs and fellowships and has managed to fundamentally shift the debate. There is plenty of intellectual fodder there. Unfortunately, I cannot subscribe to the position of the American Right - for me it's often too closely aligned theocracy and the very anti-progressive views that I despise in Islamism. And while I find the optimism of neo-conservatism appealing - everyone wants democracy - everyone wants to be "free" - I don't find this view supported in reality. Not everyone wants democracy - Islamists for example believe that it's absolutely antithetical to Islam.

So I guess my question is - what can those on the British Right do? - particularly those who follow the Thatcher view that as Conservative you'll be alright so long as you follow the principles of "Liberty under Law". How can they develop cogent and powerful arguments to support the maintenance of a liberal society in the face of those who seek to impose Sharia - not just abroad - but here in Europe - and in contravention to those who would support them through ignorance or mischief.

Stand up

At Harry's Place there are two recent brilliant posts. One is about a Dispatches programme on Britain's Channel 4 last night called Undercover Mosque. I missed it, but apparently it "uncovers" the hate preaching going on in British mosques. Hate preaching that is bankrolled by wahabist Saudis.

The investigation reveals Saudi Arabian universities are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology, then sending them back to the West to spread the word. And the Dispatches reporter discovers that British Muslims can ask for fatwas, religious rulings, direct from the top religious leader in Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti.

Saudi-trained preachers are also promoted in DVDs and books on sale at religious centres and sermons broadcast on websites. These publications and webcasts disseminate beliefs about women such as: "Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete", and girls: "By the age of 10 if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her," and there's an extreme hostility towards homosexuals.

Lovely.

On the Channel 4 site, most comments applaud Channel 4 and the Dispatches programme for their work. But of course, a few don't. I do love this one:

It is becoming fashionable in the West to attack the Islamic beliefs and teaching. One year ago, our prophet was depicted and mocked. However, we as Muslims should see this as another opportunity to reform themselves and to spread the word of Allah, after all our aim and objective is to give Dawah.

OK, I can certainly see how some Muslims would feel under attack or at least harsh scrutiny. And yes, that statement about "reforming themselves" and spreading the word of Allah is almost turn-the-other-cheek-esque. But our commenter goes on to say:

Gradually by the will of Allah, we shall conquer every country, be it the USA or others.

Lovely.

In the same post, though there's an example of a Muslim who doesn't want to use his religion as a weapon and who is fighting against political Islamisation. It's all very well to point out the bad in the spread of political Islam and to ask moderate Muslims to stand up to it, but we ought to least listen when some of them - like Shaheed Satardien seem to be doing so.

-0-

The other great post is about Argentina's Nestor Kirchner and how he's uncovering the secrets on some of his country's dirty past. This includes opening the files on the Buenos Aires bombing of a Jewish synagogue in 1994. Looks like it was Hezbollah with backing from Iran. Kirchner, although a "leftist" who buddies up with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, has done what other leftist leaders in South America haven't.

...it's reassuring that Kirchner is standing on principle by refusing to join other leaders in greeting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his current Latin American tour.

But here's the poignant bit:

I'm sure I could find much to dispute with Kirchner, not least his lavish praise for Chavez, but at least-- unlike some other "leftists"-- he draws the line at embracing a man who protects people almost certainly responsible for the mass murder of Jews as Jews.

There was a time when this was the minimum you could expect from those who identified themselves with the Left. Not anymore.

Extremist U.

Are British Universities hotbeds of extremism? Is the UK taxpayer educating the next wave of terrorists and suicide bombers?

Probably.

Via Right Truth a report on the extremist elements rife in a number of UK (and mostly English) univerisities.

Europe recognized their problems with terror in universities and Adrian Morgan writes an excellent 2 part report at Family Security Matters. Mr. Morgan is also a writer at Western Resistance.

On Monday September 26, 2005, Britain's Social Affairs Unit published a report by Professor Anthony Glees and Chris Pope from Brunel University. This report, entitled "When Students Turn To Terror", listed 24 universities where radicalism flourished, including Birmingham, Brunel, Durham, Leeds, Leeds Metropolitan, Luton, Leicester, Manchester Metropolitan, Newcastle, Nottingham, Reading, Swansea, and Wolverhampton. Coming out while Britain was still reeling from the horrors of 7/7 when 52 people died on London Transport, Professor Glees' report galvanized the UK media. Already mosques and radical preachers had been named as contributing factors to the bombings of July 7, 2005. Universities had thitherto been ignored. Yet Britain's campuses had long been the playgrounds of amateur radicals and Islamists.

Well, I'm not so sure that Europe really did recognise the problem. When the current Labour government suggested that Universities start monitoring the activities of some of their radical elements - most of the leftists I know got all a-twitter. "They want the universities to spy on their own students. Outrageous."

Actually, not so outrageous. If students are meeting in their own private accomodation and keeping their terror activities off campus then I would agree that the university has no business in monitoring their behaviour. However, these students are fly-posting on university bulletin boards and using university meeting rooms (at low-low to no cost). These student-radicals are recruiting on campus. This makes it the university's responsibility to make sure that university property isn't being used for potentially catastrophic ends. It makes it the university's responsibility to protect other students from these student-radicals. And I'm not talking protecting them from a potential threat - but protecting existing students - especially female, homosexual and Jewish students.

I'm a free speech fundamentalist - but I don't necessarily believe in subsidised speech. I would ask leftists who might use the Islamaphobia label if at least the same standards should be applied to speech on university property and in university meeting rooms. If some skinhead types were railing on about scantily clad women and homos and the Jooos - what should happen? If women were being harrassed on campus - if there was a climate of fear created by skinhead activists - then what should happen? Well, the university authorities should step in. And I guarantee you that Qaradawi inspired radical Islamism certainly doesn't vary strongly from neo-Nazi views on homosexuality and the Jews and takes a somewhat dimmer view of outspoken, bare-headed women. The university also has a responsibility to protect Muslim students - in particular Muslims who practice a less Wahabist, less radical form of Islam - e.g. Muslims who will happily associate with students from other religions or Muslim women who don't cover their hair. I know Muslim students who have been harassed and intimidated for not being "Muslim enough".

This doesn't mean turning kids over to the authorities for their hot head views. This means creating a climate where harrassed students can make a complaint and zero tolerance attitude to threating misogynistic, anti-Semetic and anti-homosexual language and behaviour.

This means not supporting radical Islamist values with free or subsidised meeting spaces. For example, some time last year a radical group at my husband's university booked a hall for their outrageous anti-semetic propaganda. They claimed that it was for one thing when booking - but advertised another anti-semetic event. A group of Jewish students complained, the university investigated and the Islamists were moved on basically on the grounds that they had reserved the hall for one purpose and were using it for another.