| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Free speech? Labour cares more about the Muslim vote |
| 2006-02-10 |
| It is 10 years since Tony Blair told me, in an interview for The Sunday Telegraph, of his fascination with Pontius Pilate. In an exploration of his personal beliefs, the Labour leader explained that he viewed Pilate "as the archetypal politician, caught on the horns of an age-old political dilemma... It is not always clear, even in retrospect, what is, in truth, right. Should we do what appears principled or what is politically expedient?" Well, indeed. How resonant those words have seemed in the past few days, as Mr Blair's ministers and spokesmen have trimmed and mumbled over the cartoons controversy, passing the buck to the police and prosecuting authorities, shirking the statesmanship that was so desperately required. Listen, and you can still hear the sound of hands being washed: this is a government on auto-Pilate. The tone was set on Friday by Jack Straw, who condemned the republication of the cartoons of Mohammed, but not the protests that had started the night before, at which outrageously violent slogans were brandished on placards by militant Muslims. At the weekend, it became clear that ministers would have to say more. But neither Mr Straw nor Peter Hain would endorse David Davis's call for arrests. Mr Hain sounded as if he was breaking up a playground row: "There has to be a bit of give and take. So let's cool it and work together in the interests of peace and stability around the world." That's telling them, Peter. In the Commons on Monday, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said that "these are operational matters for the police to consider" - but also claimed that "the incident illustrates the merits of having all the legislation on the statute book, which includes the offences created by the Terrorism Bill, including the proposed new offences of encouragement and glorification of terrorism, which I hope will now have the support of the whole House." So which is it to be, Home Secretary? Were the police right not to make arrests? Or did they lack the necessary powers? The confusion was compounded yesterday by the conviction of the radical cleric Abu Hamza. That verdict was entirely welcome. But if it was right to convict Hamza for inciting murder, why were those calling for beheadings and terrorist acts not arrested? Yesterday, Mr Blair finally promised that "political correctness" would not "prevent the police from taking whatever action they think is necessary". But it is not political correctness that lies behind the ministerial blether and evasion: it is electoral statistics. Much has been made of the large number of Muslim voters in Mr Straw's Blackburn constituency, where his party's vote in last year's general election was down by 12.1 per cent and the performance of the anti-war Lib Dems up by 12.5 per cent. Blackburn was merely a vivid example of a national trend that terrified Labour pollsters. In seats where between five and 10 per cent of voters are Muslims, Labour's vote fell by 8.1 per cent. In constituencies where more than 10 per cent are Muslims, the drop was 10.6 per cent. Overwhelmingly, Liberal Democrats were the beneficiaries. With less than three months to go until local elections, Labour strategists are desperate to make up some of this lost ground, not least because the third party is in such disarray. They are gleeful about the Lib Dems' collusion in the watering down of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill - a tactic which will be presented to Muslim voters as an act of appalling treachery. Now, as flames engulf embassies and British Islamists call for their enemies to be slaughtered, ministers are taking no chances. Nothing must be done to alienate the Muslim vote. Which leaves the rest of us to resolve such trivial matters as the future of free speech, the prospects for pluralism and the repeated collision of liberal democracy with modern Islamic fundamentalism. After 9/11, Madrid, and July 7 - to name but three horrors - it is no longer possible to shelve such issues as philosophical abstractions. The stakes could hardly be higher; the cost of failure unthinkable. In the thick of the Rushdie affair, Carlos Fuentes warned of a terrible approaching conflict between "essential activities of the human spirit" - debate, humour, art - and a creed in which "reality is dogmatically defined once and for all in a sacred text... a sacred text is, by definition, a completed and exclusive text, You can add nothing to it. It does not converse with anyone. It is its own loudspeaker." The conflict is not only between people, but within them. Yesterday, Omar Khayam, the 22-year-old from Bedford who imitated a suicide bomber in protest at the cartoons, was returned to prison for breaching the terms of his parole licence. How is it possible to be both a convicted drug dealer - the very personification of the sinful West - but also a passionate Islamist? The answer is that it is not. But Khayam's behaviour symbolises the lethal tension between integration and radicalisation that exists within many Muslim males of his generation: a life oscillating between freedom and certainty, Western temptations and imported jihad. The allure of Islamism to such people owes much to its confidence. And that confidence has been bolstered during the past week. On Monday's Newsnight, Anjem Choudary of al-Ghuraba - the group that organised Friday's rally - showed in a series of furious outbursts how empowered extremists feel by the impunity they have enjoyed. In response to Jeremy Paxman's point that he might be happier in a country where sharia law was in place, Mr Choudary raged: "Who said to you that you own Britain, anyway? Britain belongs to Allah." And just to make clear what he thinks of the British, he continued: "If I go to the jungle, I am not going to live like the animals. I'm going to propagate what I believe to be a superior way of life." At such moments, the nation needs Paxman, and he did not disappoint. "We're moving on, matey," was his verdict on Mr Choudary's nonsense - and the right one, too. It lifted the spirits, as did the fine contribution by Sayeeda Warsi, the Conservative vice-chairman, and a British-born Muslim of Pakistani background. Unfazed by Mr Choudary's offensive claim that she was not entitled to speak because she was not wearing a veil, Ms Warsi spoke up for the very British determination not to fall for the frothing of the reactionary Right (we are all doomed) or to yield to the threats of Muslim extremists (you are all doomed). "I am confident," she said, "that in Britain the middle ground, the people who are prepared to engage in dialogue and live alongside each other with shared values and a sense of shared identity, that they will prevail." Firebrands like Mr Choudary, she said, had no place in multi-cultural Britain. It takes a lot of courage for a Muslim woman to say such a thing. Ms Warsi's intervention made the anodyne remarks of white male ministers seem all the more cowardly. Every politician, as Mr Blair observed a decade ago, resembles Pilate. But not all of them, when the moment of decision arrives, choose to wash their hands. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #3 How is it possible to be both a convicted drug dealer - the very personification of the sinful West - but also a passionate Islamist? The answer is that it is not. Bullshit. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-10 12:49 |
| #2 Mr Choudary raged: "Who said to you that you own Britain, anyway? Britain belongs to Allah." Oops, dood, you spilled the [baked] beans. This is it, cousins... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-10 03:20 |
| #1 bravo! |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-10 03:04 |