A Tale of Three Piggies and other horror stories

It’s encouraging to know that common sense still, occasionally, prevails in this country.

Honley Junior school in West Yorkshire are due to stage a performance of Roald Dahl’s adaptation of Little Red Riding Hood and the Three Little Pigs. However, the committee responsible for the production decided that the swine should be replaced with puppies instead, in case the depiction of pigs ‘offends Muslims’.

Utterly ridiculous of course. And, once again, the only really offensive thing here is the idea of someone second guessing what might cause ‘offence’ to one particular group of society, as if some people are so sensitive they require constant protection from anything that might fire them into a tailspin of sheer outrage, then altering it to ‘protect’ them. Deeply patronising and inverted racism to boot: “Well, we’d better drop any references to pigs – it might offend, you know, that lot.”

Thankfully, the local council stepped in and reversed the nonsensical decision. In the words of the education spokesman Jim Dodds: “There is something barmy going on here.” Quite, quite. Reports that the sale of sausage rolls in the interval will also be banned in consideration of the Muslim community, the Jewish community and the vegetarian community could not be confirmed.

Meanwhile, at Leeds University, a lecture on ‘Islamic anti-Semitism’ by Dr Matthias Köntzel was cancelled at short notice on ‘security grounds’. A somewhat spurious decision considering that the talk, clearly a controversial subject, was planned sometime in advance. More likely, it seems that the university capitulated to a vocal minority of Muslim students who complained about the nature of the discussion. As Dr Köntzel himself remarked:

“I have lectured in lots of countries on this subject. I gave the same talk at Yale University recently, and this is the first time I have been invited to lecture in the UK. Nothing like this has ever happened before – this is censorship.”

It’s difficult to disagree. How dispiriting that a university of all places suppresses debate and discussion within the confines of its own buildings on the grounds of a subject being deemed too controversial to be offered for public dissection. This was meant to be a conversation about the extremes of Islamism and the origin of its inherent anti-Semitism, but at the first whiff of dissent and ‘offence’ the whole workshop is scrapped. Could there be a better way of doing extreme Islam’s work for it, when it is not even possible to identify and comment on the nature of its philosophy at the extreme end? Depressing in the extreme.

Caveat lector. This is a rather rambling piece.

As anyone who has ever tried to do so will attest, writing a blog can be hard work sometimes. You have to juggle the desire to write with other commitments and there are times when there is loads going on, you’re itching to say something about it, but you just don’t have the time. Other times, you feel like writing, but there are no stories around that really inspire you. Another scenario is when there are loads of things going on that would usually set you off, but you cannot summon up the energy for some reason. I’d say I’m experiencing the third situation now. This is a consequence of writing a mainly political blog: you’re really at the mercy of the current news agenda. I could write about other things I suppose, but I tend not to because I don’t think that’s why people come here and, secondly, I’m not terribly interested in writing about things going on in my personal life. I don’t treat this blog like a diary. Some people do, and that’s great, but it isn’t for me.

So why am I writing this at all? Because sometimes, as I’m sure other bloggers will agree, there is a clock ticking in your head, counting the days and hours since the last time you published anything, and after a while it can start to bug you. So here I am on a regular Sunday afternoon, reeling off thoughts purely to satisfy the little voice in my head constantly reminding me that I need to write something, anything, today.

But there are plenty of stories out there, mostly of a religious nature it seems. And perhaps that is putting me off writing about them: it just gets me worked up and, in any case, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. But what choice do I have?

So come with me while I load my shotgun and head for the nearest cylindrical container housing cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates.

News about veils continue to dominate, in particular the story of a teaching assistant suspended for refusing to remove it in class. Yet more evidence that this country is hell bent on persecuting Muslims at every opportunity. Because clearly, there are no practical considerations to be taken into account here. In a job where being able to communicate with young children is something of a prerequisite, it makes sense that the person be covered from head to toe. I’ve decided to wear a motorcycle helmet to work from tomorrow. Or maybe a Ku Klux Klan outfit. And who is my employer to dictate otherwise?

Elsewhere, the cabinet is split over new laws for gay rights, after protests from religious organisations terrified about sodomy in the streets, endless Judy Garland conventions in their churches or Graham Norton having the right to defecate in Westminster Cathedral. Or something. I stopped reading halfway through, so if anyone wants to tell me what it’s about, please do so.

Meanwhile, according to the Muslim Council of Britain, Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, is pandering to an ‘Islamophobic agenda’ following the government’s decision to cut funding and official ties with their organisation. Why was our government helping to fund this group in the first place? Or any other religious promotion group for that matter. Not in my name.

British Airways, meanwhile, have stoked controversy by sending home a worker for refusing to conceal a Christian cross while on duty; a contravention of their uniform code. A code that extends to all religious clothing and paraphernalia, with the exception of Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs. Ann Widdecombe has stated that Christians are “being persecuted” in the current environment. Which is patently as nonsensical as the claims from the Muslim Council of Britain or this opinion piece in The Sunday Times arguing that ‘Muslims are the new Jews’. Although I suspect that the stance by British Airways is driven by a misguided PC belief that one of their employees displaying Christian iconography might be deemed ‘insulting’ to non-Christian customers and co-workers. The only thing this policy insults is everyone’s intelligence. I expect that the vast majority of people could not care less and there is a world of difference between wearing a piece of jewellery and wearing a niqab in the name of your faith: namely that the former does not prohibit the wearer from doing their job effectively and the latter, if said job involves meeting and greeting with people, does. A fairly simple, common sense position to take on the whole issue.

And it is all about practicality rather than discrimination. If I were to wear a small cross around my neck to work tomorrow, my employers wouldn’t be concerned. They might, however, object if I were to commandeer the boardroom and slaughter an ox as an offering to the lord almighty. Both could be defended as representations of my personal religious affiliation, but the latter is clearly impractical in the workplace, not to mention incredibly messy. And I know this from bitter experience.

Meanwhile, that execrable little turd George Galloway stuck his snout into the trough at the Respect party’s annual conference yesterday, proclaiming that anti-Muslim comments are the last “respectable” form of racism in our society. This from a man whose party used Oona King’s mixed race, Jewish heritage as a race-baiting electoral tactic while competing for the seat of Bethnal Green and Bow in the 2005 general election. Money quote from his speech: “It’s a disgusting, ugly sight and sound to see or listen to.” You certainly are George, you certainly are. Besides, Islam isn’t a race.

I can’t think of anything else to say. Which brings me back to where I began. I’m going to bed.

Thinly veiled hysteria

The hoo-hah caused by Jack Straw’s remarks about Muslim women wearing veils is perhaps the biggest storm ever to rage inside a tea cup.

The Leader of the House of Commons is an MP for Blackburn, where the Muslim population is estimated to be somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent. Writing in a local newspaper, he said that he now asks veiled women to show their faces when meeting them in person. Unsurprisingly, he finds it easier to communicate with a fellow human being if he can see their face. On the occasions when he has asked for this, the constituents have obliged. That’s it. That’s the story.

Judging by the reaction in some quarters, and the shameful hysteria being whipped up by the media, you’d think that he goes around Blackburn ripping the veils from women’s heads then setting fire to the cloth. Take this blustering headline from The Independent, for example: Straw fans flames by insisting he wants women to stop wearing veils altogether. From where have they got the word ‘insisting’? I’ve read what Jack Straw actually wrote in the Lancashire Telegraph and he doesn’t ‘insist’ on anything at all. He respectfully asks if they would mind removing their veil during what is meant to be a face to face conversation. So far, all have done so. But it’s their choice whether to do it or not, just as much as it is their choice (at least, it should be) to wear it in the first place. He is not refusing to speak to women who wear veils, nor is he telling anyone how they should dress, which some people have accused him of.

Asked on Radio 4’s Today programme whether he would prefer to see veils discarded completely, Jack Straw said: “Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather.”

That’s one of the great things about this country: Muslim women can choose what clothing they wear, and everyone else is free to have their opinion on it. That is Jack Straw’s opinion. I happen to share his view. I would go further and argue that a cultural requirement that all women cover themselves from head to toe amounts to subjugation (although whether or not the Koran explicitly requires that women wear these garments is a matter of conjecture). I would rather people did not dress this way but, as long as they choose to do so by their own free will (and I would be interested to know how many Muslim women dress this way out of community pressure rather than personal religious conviction) I don’t particularly care one way or the other. For the record, I would also prefer it if people didn’t wear gold jewellery, tracksuit bottoms with Reebok trainers, Chelsea shirts, hooded tops or baseball caps.

But that’s just my opinion.

Knock me down with a feather, Clever Trevor

I had the pleasure this morning of listening to John Humphrys interviewing Abu Izzadeen on the Today programme. Abu Izzadeen (also known as Omar or Trevor Brooks) was the protester who on Wednesday heckled Home Secretary John Reid during a speech he was giving to a group of Muslims in East London. Izzadeen disrupted the meeting, shouted his fury about “state terrorism by British police” and proclaimed John Reid an “enemy” of Islam before being removed by police and security.

 

Izzadeen/Trevor is a former member of al-Ghurabaa, an Islamist militant group best known for praising the 7/7 London bombers as “martyrs” and being the chief organisers of the February protest outside the Danish Embassy in London during the furore about the publication of those “offensive” cartoons. They were founded by Omar Bakri Mohammad, who publicly praised the 9/11 hijackers/mass murderers as the “magnificent 19”. Mohammad has since been excluded from Britain, and al-Ghurabaa itself was one of the groups banned by British law in July 2006 for glorifying terrorism in addition to suspected links with other extremist and terrorist organisations.

 

Again, taste the delicious irony. Here was Izzadeen protesting about the police state and the “war against Muslims” yet he lives and moves freely in the country despite suspected links to terrorist groups and hate-preaching Islamist extremists. Moreover, he was able to get within shouting distance of one of the most powerful members of the British government. He was then removed from the premises but was free to continue his bizarre ranting outside the building. Then, two days later he is given a ten minute interview to state his case on the most popular news show on British (state-owned) radio. Clearly, we have become a fascist state of monstrous proportions. Somebody, please call Amnesty International. Even George Galloway wrote an open letter to John Reid on Wednesday, wondering how “such a well known extremist….. was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary”. (To clarify, George was talking about Abu Izzadeen, not himself.)

 

The interview itself can be listened to here. It’s pretty much what you would expect. Bush and Blair are “Crusaders” who have declared war on Islam. Their intention is to murder Muslims, they have blood on their hands, the government is persecuting Muslims on a daily basis, democracy is a sham, we want Sharia Law, etcetera, etcetera. Personally, I think John Humphrys let him off quite lightly. When Izzadeen remarked that US/UK foreign policy is designed to inflame and persecute Muslims I would have liked to have asked him about Kosovo, where NATO intervened to halt Serbian slaughter of Muslim civilians: something that Tony Blair – that deranged Muslim hater – was instrumental in orchestrating. Or point out that military operations in Afghanistan are purely focussed on fighting the monstrous Taliban who were quite happy to kill, torture and deform any Muslim under their rule who did not adhere to their standards (women, mostly). It would have been good to counter-balance this interview by having a moderate Muslim involved too, to show that most British Muslims do not think in this way and – for once – not give the limelight to a deranged extremist. Humphrys did ask Trevor why, if he finds British life so objectionable, he does not simply choose to live in a country that does govern according to Muslim law. Funnily enough, Clever Trevor wasn’t too keen on that idea.

 

Trev, if it’s the air fare that’s putting you off, we can have a whip round. I’ll chuck in twenty quid towards a one-way flight to Kabul. You’ll like it there. You can meet up with other like-minded types and fight off the bloodthirsty Western Crusaders yourself.

This is an outrage! The Pope, Islam and perpetual offence.

So, to recap. The Pope makes a speech in Germany and, touching upon the concept of violence within religion, repeats a quote made by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus in 1391: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Cue hysteria and outrage across much of the Muslim world. Cue shock, disgust and despair. Cue thousands of Muslims taking to the streets in India, Pakistan, Turkey and Gaza burning effigies of the Pope, clashing with the police and attacking Catholic churches, outraged that their religion has again been associated with intolerance and violence. I mean, where does this undeserved reputation come from?

 

Some Muslim gentlemen turn up to engage in a
philosophical debate about their belief system.

Andrew Sullivan here reproduces a quote from a spokeswoman for the Pakistan Foreign Ministry which perfectly summarises this response: “Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.” Beautiful. This is right up there with the one I quoted from someone protesting against the Danish cartoons in Afghanistan: “They want to test our feelings. They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers.”

 

 

Bonfire of the Inanities

Islam strikes me as a particularly childish faith. Of course, all religions are childish with their superstitions, anachronisms and rituals; their reverence of ‘sacred’ texts, rocks, buildings and animals. But Islam in particular is so rigid and inflexible, so unopen to dialogue, reasoning or criticism, so unchanged since the Middle Ages, it sets itself up for strife. It is the Daily Mail of religions: stuck in another age, frozen rigid in a permanent sense of outrage, preternaturally conditioned to take offence at the slightest opportunity. Prepared to kill in defence of its beliefs. Beliefs that are not open to debate under any circumstances.

And so the Pope, quoting from an ancient text and making it very clear from the outset that these were not his own words, has been forced into making an apology for words which he is not personally responsible for in the hope of nullifying the anger that has erupted – again – through the Islamic world. (Question to Muslims everywhere: is there anything you don’t get offended about?) Of course, one might question the Pope’s motives for highlighting this particular text, and one could also point out that the Catholic Church is in no position to criticise or comment on any faith that seeks to enforce and perpetuate its belief system through violence, as it worked well enough for them for hundreds of years. A pot-kettle-black situation if ever there was one. But it’s little short of depressing that for days the biggest news story has been caused by the leader of one redundant belief system quoting some words spoken 615 years ago by somebody most people have never even heard of, criticising the philosophy of another redundant belief system.

Non-theists like myself can only howl in despair and rage. I think I might take to the streets in protest. Would anyone like to join me?

Terrorism, foreign policy and accountability

The events of Thursday served as a timely reminder that there will probably never again be a time where the threat of a major terrorist incident is not a routine part of British life. Although you could argue that we have never lived in such a world: after all, it wasn’t so long ago that London and other UK cities were frequent targets for the IRA. But the threat we face now is an altogether different animal. The IRA, at least, had a political face (of sorts), a stated, tangible objective and, more often than not, gave an advance warning to clear the targeted area of civilians before detonating their bombs. Now the biggest domestic threat we face is predominantly home grown and wishes to inflict the highest death count possible in the name of medieval religious fanaticism. Was anybody surprised to learn that the people arrested in those police raids are all British citizens? After 7/7, I certainly wasn’t.

What is attracting young British Muslims to such murderous ideology? Many speak of the ‘alienation’ they feel, but why should it be more acute in this particular minority? Where are the Sikh suicide bombers? The Hindus? The Buddhists? The Mormons? There are fewer barriers to integration in British society than ever before and racism, while still undoubtedly a problem, is far less common in the UK than in many other countries in Europe. Look at France, where racism manifests itself in many more pernicious ways than here (they only got their first black TV newsreader this year – it was a huge national story), and they have the largest Muslim population on the continent. Last year saw the huge outbreaks of riots by a frustrated and dispossessed underclass, but still no suicide bombers in their midst. Moreover, a far higher percentage of French Muslims place their national identity before their religious affiliation than here in Britain. According to a recent Pew poll of Muslims worldwide, 81% of Muslims in the UK identify themselves by their religion above their country of residence; in France the figure was 46%. Only in Pakistan was this figure higher than the UK, AT 87%.

Meanwhile, British Muslim groups (among them, three Muslim MPs) have written to the Prime Minister calling for a reassessment of British foreign policy towards the Middle East which, they claim, is exacerbating unrest and putting British lives in danger. Well, British foreign policy over the last five years has been predominantly a response to post-9/11 reality, so this would appear to be a cart-before-horse situation. I’d take this letter a lot more seriously if it unequivocally condemned the actions of Muslim extremists who see the murdering and maiming of civilians as a divine mission. If it showed some sort of commitment to tackling the cancer within their own faith. But there is no mention of this, other than the bland platitude that “Attacking civilians is never justified”. Moreover, while urging the PM to “do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens”, it doesn’t occur to them that the Prime Minister believes he is pursuing such a strategy. They clearly disagree with the methods employed, but offer no alternative vision, nor any clarification of how a change to British foreign policy might make any difference to the civil war that is raging within the Islamic faith between the forces of moderation and the deranged fantasists intent on killing all non-believers. Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has responded to the letter, calling it ‘facile’. I’d go one further and say they are making a casual assumption and dressing it up as fact that there is a direct link between government policy and young men blowing themselves up. Such an argument is dangerous and counter-productive. This critique of British foreign policy seems to be based purely on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan too, both comparatively recent events. This leader in The Observer was a surprise to read, arguing (correctly) that there is no ‘war against Islam’ being raged by Britain and the United States and that, in fact, two of the highest profile international policies of the last ten years were undertaken to protect Muslims: the NATO interventions in the Balkans to protect Muslims from genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo (something that Tony Blair was instrumental in, to his credit); and the ongoing diplomatic efforts of the Clinton administration to forge a workable peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Neither of which made any difference to the planning and implementation of 9/11, so where is the evidence of a link between foreign policy and Islamic terrorism there? Such acts have occurred and will continue to occur regardless of British and American foreign policy. Any claim to the contrary is specious in the extreme.

Going back to that Pew poll, another interesting statistic is shown: only 22% of the British Muslims polled want to adopt national customs, 64% wish to remain distinct from society. This is the real problem here. Far from being ‘alienated’ from the rest of the country, nearly two-thirds of Muslims in the UK wish to live exclusively in their own communities amongst followers of their own faith, and to resist the characteristics of life in a modern liberal democracy. Another failing of the orthodoxy of modern multiculturalism.

Lord Stevens, the former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has today written in the News of the World that the issue of Islamic terrorism is a problem for the Muslim community to deal with, and that it is time to take some ownership. These words will undoubtedly provoke cries of anguish from politically correct mandarins, but there is a lot of truth to his argument. This is not to condemn the entire Muslim community in this country – far from it. But the best way to stamp out this kind of extremism is within the very communities from which they emerge. Based on the hand-wringing letter sent to the prime minister by senior members of the Muslim community, we are a long way from seeing that happening.

Fun-Da-Mentally hypocritical

As an avid reader of the UK weekly music press in the 1990s, I remember Fun-Da-Mental from way back. They were part of a wave of dreary politico-rap/Asian-hybrid bands that were vaguely popular circa 1992-1994 (see also: Credit to the Nation – who were anything but – and Cornershop, way before they had a big hit with Brimful of Asha).

So it’s bizarre to see them back in the national news in 2006 (as opposed to a half-page interview in Melody Maker), with group leader Aki Nawaz defending their new album All Is War (The Benefits of G-Had) which, some have claimed, glorifies terrorism. Nawaz, who used to perform using the stage name Propa-Ghandi (geddit?), says he is prepared to be imprisoned under anti-terrorism laws and, if need be, promote the album from Belmarsh Prison. And what’s this? Two executives from the record label have threatened to resign if this record is released? Sniff. Sniff. I smell an enormous publicity stunt.

The story in yesterday’s Guardian goes into a little more detail about some of the lyrical themes of this album, which makes for an interesting read. One song, Che Bin, draws parallels (unsurprisingly, given the title) between Che Guevara and Osama Bin Laden. I suppose the point that Mr Nawaz is trying to make here is that, to some Muslims, Bin Laden is a revolutionary icon just as Guevara is treated like some kind of deity by many on the left. Sure, but Che Guevara was a psychopathic bandit who said that he would have no hesitation in dropping a nuclear bomb on the United States if given the opportunity. So the parallel runs deep – they are both deranged lunatics and would-be murderers of millions of innocent people. Another song predicts the demise of America at the hands of Islam, one chronicles the inner dialogue of a suicide bomber and another condemns the immorality of the west. Toe tapping stuff, I’m sure.

Interesting that he should consider the west to be immoral though. Nawaz was born and raised in Bradford, so is a fully fledged citizen of a country that tolerates the opinions of just about everybody, even hypocrites like himself. And let’s be clear about this, he is a hypocrite of the highest order: while perfectly happy to label the west as ‘immoral’ and ‘disgusting’, I bet he wouldn’t dream of ever actually leaving somewhere that allows him to be critical of the country he lives in and to make a living from it too. Try doing the same in Iran or Saudi Arabia, Aki. I suspect you would soon find yourself with one less hand with which to write your polemic or, perhaps, one less head with which to vocalise your inner rage.

Music, of course, was forbidden under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Having been treated to a snippet of this album on the Today Programme this morning, one can only have sympathy for such action. Not for political reasons, you understand, but for reasons of quality. Controversy aside, it’s not particularly good music and since when has British rap ever been worth listening to anyway?

In addition to playing an extract from the album, Nawaz was also interviewed about the controversy. He’s clearly not a stupid man and I daresay may even be making some valid points somewhere, although I suspect I would disagree with him on nearly everything. I sincerely hope he is not charged with ‘glorifying terrorism’ – it would be illiberal and counter-productive to do so. More importantly, by allowing him to speak openly about these issues, no matter how wrong he might be, it undermines the very points that he is trying to make. Far from being immoral, western traditions of tolerance and free speech reinforce our civility. Again, that quote from Voltaire sums it up best: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” (Even when it’s presented as piss-poor Agit-Pop.)

In any case, the only person who can possibly benefit from all this fuss is Aki Nawaz himself. Let’s face it, without this national coverage, you could probably have counted the number of sold copies of this album on Abu Hamza’s fingers.

Two peas in a pod

An interesting story in The Times today about The Nazi Formerly Known As David Myatt. The founder of the British National Socialist Movement, Myatt is the alleged author of a fascist terrorist booklet and was once leader of the far-right, Hitler-worshipping troglodytes known as Combat 18. Myatt is also said to have been an “inspirational” figure to David Copeland, perpetrator of the horrific Soho nail bombings in 1999.

So why was this man in the news today? Well, he’s converted to Islam. An extreme form of Islam in fact. The jihadist, kafir-slaughtering variety to be precise.

My first reaction to this story was to think that this was very strange, almost surreal. But not for long. After reading the article in full I soon remembered that, actually, this isn’t at all surprising because there aren’t many tangible differences between the philosophies (for want of a better word) of Islamic extremists and Nazis. They’re called Islamofascists for a reason, after all.

Myatt (now known as Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt) supports the killing of any Muslim who breaks his oath to Islam and wants to see the creation of a Muslim superstate. He goes on (and on):

“The pure authentic Islam of the revival, which recognises practical jihad (holy war) as a duty, is the only force that is capable of fighting and destroying the dishonour, the arrogance, the materialism of the West . . . For the West, nothing is sacred, except perhaps Zionists, Zionism, the hoax of the so-called Holocaust, and the idols which the West and its lackeys worship, or pretend to worship, such as democracy. They want, and demand, that we abandon the purity of authentic Islam and either bow down before them and their idols, or accept the tame, secularised, so-called Islam which they and their apostate lackeys have created. This may well be a long war, of decades or more — and we Muslims have to plan accordingly. We must affirm practical jihad — to take part in the fight to free our lands from the kafir (unbelievers). Jihad is our duty.” 

Those similarities in full, then:

Dedication to the principle of war? Check.
Belief in a Zionist conspiracy? Check.
Holocaust denial? Check.
Denunciation of democracy as a sham? Check.
Commitment to preserving a “pure” race? Check.

The parallels between extremist Islam and Nazism are obvious and plenty. Apart from having to grow a big beard, the transition will have been seamless for Myatt. He can continue to spout exactly the same hateful lies and racist bile that he has always done. Perhaps the biggest difference is that he could now in all feasibility join the Respect “coalition”. Obviously they would never have tolerated his views when he was an avowed Nazi, but now he’s converted to the most extreme interpretation of Islam I’m sure he’d be very welcome. After all, as long as he’s speaking from an anti-materialist, anti-American, anti-Zionist platform he’ll find plenty of friends there. Galloway and Myatt unlikely bedfellows? Don’t count on it.

Update: Coincidentally, Oliver Kamm has written a piece on the overlap between the far-right and Respect in The Times today, going into far more detail than I could hope to. Alternatively, it can be read on his blog.

How do you solve a problem like sharia?

Forty per cent of British Muslims support the idea of sharia law being introduced to parts of the UK, according to an ICM opinion poll carried out for the Sunday Telegraph,

If anyone was wondering what the limits of multiculturalism are, I think we may have stumbled across them.

We should obviously approach these statistics with caution. A sample of 500 people could never produce concrete conclusions, no matter how sophisticated the profiling or the nature of the questions asked.

It’s worth remembering too that a majority of people asked did not support this idea. But it’s still worrying that any British citizen could possibly favour a system of law that involves punishments such as stoning, lashes, severing of hands and beheading for so-called Hadd offences (which include sex outside of marriage, drinking alcohol and petty theft).

There’s a good opinion piece in today’s Guardian by Marcel Berlins that I agree with, arguing that sharia law is completely incompatible with the values and laws of this country to the point of them being mutually exclusive. It is unthinkable that this could ever be permitted.

Response from the government so far has been fairly muted, but I would favour an outright dismissal of the very concept from the outset. There needs to be a very clear and unequivocal message delivered to the group of people who think it could ever be taken seriously, namely: No. It is never going to happen. This is not even up for discussion.

Now the question remains: how do we ever integrate the people that believe this?

I reserve the right to offend anyone I choose

And so it continues. Thousands of moderate Muslims took to the streets of London today to protest against those infamous cartoons. (Not that they’ve even been published in this country of course, at least not in their entirety. Our papers have claimed they did not to want to cause offence. But let’s face it: they were simply terrified of repercussions, which is tantamount to appeasement.)

Thankfully the march appears to have been peaceful, with approximately 4,000 people turning up to represent the views of moderate Muslims in this country. Not quite the 30,000 that the organisers hoped for, but at least the extremists seem to have stayed away. It’s been a bit chilly in London lately, so maybe they’ve decided to stay at home and burn some more Danish flags to keep themselves warm. At least we won’t be treated to the sight of banners calling for jihad in London. Not today, anyway.

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn was there, talking about the need for mutual respect, etc. So, too, was Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather who opined that the cartoons were “a juvenile posturing exercise”. You are entitled to express that opinion, of course, Sarah. After all, that is your right. But even juvenile posturing exercises are not forbidden under British law. She then went on to say that: “Nothing was done to further the cause of liberal values or the freedom of speech – the publication of the cartoons was just plain racist.”

Two points. Firstly, Muslims are not a ‘race’ – it is a religion. Secondly, nobody is claiming (at least, to my knowledge) that this was ever intended to “further the cause of liberal values or freedom of speech” in any case. The point is, the publication of these pictures was an expression of freedom of speech which is protected by liberal values. The question is: why are you so keen to defend only this one faith from being offended? Especially when so many aspects of this faith (which isn’t alone in this respect, either) clash directly with the values that you, as a member of the Liberal Democrat party, are meant to embody. Why aren’t you leaping to the defence of all religious groups when they are affronted by something, as you obviously feel so strongly about it?

The BBC caused a commotion amongst some Christian groups last year when it broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera on national television. The show depicts Jesus in a nappy, has him describing himself as “a bit gay” and generally wound up a lot of Christians in much the same way that the Danish cartoons have upset Muslims. Fair enough, they have the right to be outraged. They also have the right to demonstrate outside BBC offices (which some of them did). But unless my memory fails me, there was a marked lack of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs protesting with them. Maybe Corbyn and Teather were there, upholding the right of Christians not to have their faith mocked. I doubt it though.

The general response from a number of commentators and politicians to this issue has been disappointing. Our own government’s response was feeble, as was the Bush administration’s. The same was true when the fatwa was placed on Salman Rushdie’s head in 1989 by Ayatollah Khomeini – condemning someone to death for the ‘crime’ of writing a novel. There was a general air of apathy along the lines of “well, he shouldn’t have written something if he knew it was going to offend people”. Pathetic.

If we’re going to start addressing any personal behaviour that might offend religious beliefs then where do we start? Taking the Lord’s name in vain? Depicting Jesus in a nappy? Depicting Muhammad in any form? Working on the Sabbath (this would have to cover Sunday and Saturday to keep Christians and Jews happy)? Worshipping false idols? These are all forbidden according to religious texts. I drink alcohol, eat pork and have sex outside of marriage (often at the same time). Should I stop, lest I ‘offend’ somebody? It wouldn’t be a case of knowing where to start: where would we stop is the question.

We shouldn’t be appeasing or protecting any religious beliefs or convictions as a matter of public policy. In fact, we should be scrapping our own (Jesus protecting) ‘blasphemy’ law and certainly not opening a debate on the concept of widening it. God forbid!