More sowing and reaping

A union activist was branded a racist for producing a leaflet with an image of the Three Wise Monkeys proverb.

Onay Kasab, secretary of Greenwich Unison, is one of four branch officers facing a disciplinary hearing after handing out the pamphlet at last June's conference for the union, which represents more than a million public sector workers.

The four say the leaflet used the image of the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys to lampoon the committee for removing important issues from the agenda. But union bosses said the image was a "racist" slur aimed at one black committee member.

Mr Kasab, 40, from Bexley, said: "It's upsetting that I am accused of racism by my own union. We felt it was an apt image to illustrate our point that the committee were refusing to listen to members' concerns over issues such as the funding of the Labour Party, the election of full time officials and control over strike action.

"But in the conference hall the Unison president denounced it as racist and when we went to respond the microphone was switched off. We have been gagged and subjected to a witch hunt."

Now, up until this point I had some sympathy for Kasab, trade union activist though he may be. After all, the Three Wise Monkeys is well known imagery, devoid of any racial connotations, and there appears to be nothing indicating any racist intent or content in the leaflet in question. Rather, the Unison bosses just seem to be adopting the traditional leftist strategy of silencing an opponent by invoking the demonic chimera "racism".

But my sympathy rapidly diminished to the point of non-existence, when I read the next paragraph. For Kasab continued:

"I have dedicated a lot of my life to representing Unison members in Greenwich from all backgrounds. I led a 13-week strike against the civil service over the employment of a senior BNP activist. I am Turkish-Cypriot and have faced racism so to be accused of being something I despise is terrible."

It really does take a special kind of hypocrisy to be able to complain that one is the subject of a witch hunt, and then in the next breath to boast of having led a witch hunt against someone else. And a witch hunt which, if successful, would have had far more serious consequences for its victim (who would have lost his livelihood) than the alleged witch hunt against Kasab will have for him.

The three other members under investigation are Glenn Kelly, secretary of Bromley Unison, Suzanne Muna, secretary of the Housing Corporation Unison branch, and Brian Debus, chairman of Hackney Unison. All are also in the Socialist Party. Matthew Waterfall, who is not a member of the Socialist Party, was investigated but not charged.

"The fact they cleared Mr Waterfall shows that this is motivated by the New Labour supporters in Unison against the Socialist Party," said Mr Kasab.

Again, Kasab's hypocrisy is evident. He resents the fact that he may perhaps be being hounded out of his trade union because of his involvement with a far-left political party. However, he also believes that membership of a "far-right" political party should not only disqualify one from union membership, but that it should also disqualify one from the right to earn a living, full stop. Certainly, it is hard to put any other construction on his attempt to have the unidentified "senior BNP activist" dismissed.
Sadly for Kasab, hypocrites do not make very suitable objects of sympathy. Kasab has made his bed - he has willingly helped to create a situation in which "anti-racist" witch hunts are the order of the day, and in which people deemed "racist" can safely be subjected to inferior treatment - and now the time has come for him to lie in it.

The real terrorist threat

BBC bosses have defended the grisly beheading of a Muslim by a Christian zealot in new drama Bonekickers.

In the bloody scene, ex-EastEnder Paul Nicholls plays a fundamentalist who decapitates a Muslim with a sword.

Producer Rhonda Smith said: "It's not meant to be shocking or to cause offence and it comes very much from the storyline."

BBC chiefs are planning to warn viewers about the gruesome beheading scene.

A BBC spokeswoman said: "It is in a 9pm slot in early July and viewers will be advised of the content immediately before broadcast."

The six-parter billed as Time Team meets Indiana Jones follows a group of archaeologists solving historical mysteries. It stars Julie Graham, Hugh Bonneville and Adrian Lester.

The beheading scene comes in an episode dealing with the excavation of medieval soldiers from the time of the Crusades.

It leads to the hunt for the cross on which Jesus was crucified which the Crusaders may have brought back from the Holy Land.

Also keen to find the cross are right-wing Christian fanatics who also want to use violence to drive Muslims out of Britain.

Hmm. Haven't I come across this last plot detail somewhere before? Consider this Daily Mail summary of an episode of Spooks, broadcast on BBC1 back in 2006:

[The episode] showed a group of evangelical terrorists who carry out a number of attacks on the Muslim community and attempt to spark a religious war in the UK.

The programme also depicted a rogue Bishop, who was also a government advisor, organising the assassination of a radical Islamic preacher.

[...]

In the programme the Christian terrorist group was seen carrying out a hand-grenade attack on Muslims and planing to blow up a Mosque in Manchester.

It featured a video broadcast by the fictional group saying: "Britain is a nation under Christ - we will no longer tolerate the Muslims in our ranks - this is a declaration of war against Islam."

With the BBC raking in all that money from the licence fee, you'd hope that they could at least manage to think up new and original ways of demonising Christians!

I accept that there is an element of "if you don't like it, don't watch it" with programmes like this. And I certainly don't say that no Christian should ever be depicted in a negative manner on any TV show.

But what I object to is the sheer mendacity and hypocrisy displayed by the Beeb. When this programme is broadcast it will be the second time in as many years that a BBC drama has featured Christian terrorists targeting Muslims. This despite the fact that there is a distinct paucity of such incidents in the real world. The BBC is inverting reality, and allowing its programmes to give the impression that there is a problem with Christian violence, when such a problem simply does not exist.

At the same time, of course, there is a genuine and significant problem with Muslim terrorism in Britain (and many other places too). But will the BBC make a drama featuring Islamic terrorists targeting Christians, Jews, or Hindus? You know, a drama with a plotline that actually reflects reality. No, of course they won't. They won't even dare to broadcast a joke with a vague, non-insulting, reference to Islam in its punchline! After all, if they were to suggest that followers of the Religion of Peace could get even slightly violent, then, not only would that be horribly non-PC, but it might also put them at risk of, um, violence. Violence being the only appropriate response to such a slanderous accusation, obviously. By contrast, Christians, being designated oppressors, are eminently legitimate targets, and, since they are not actually violent, you can get away with saying that they are.

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Britishness Day

I am delighted to announce the return, after an unwarrantably long delay, of Mr Liam Byrne to the pages of this blog. In his latest stunningly wise pronouncement, the Sage of Hodge Hill has proposed that the August bank holiday should become "Britishness Day". On "Britishness Day" people will engage in a "celebration of what we like and love about living in this country", and will hold street parties and carnivals. Sounds fun, doesn't it?

Well, no, actually. Personally I find the idea of participating in some completely artificial celebration of Britishness, instituted by a New Labour apparatchik whose other major contribution to cultural debate has been the prediction that compulsory ID cards will become a "great British institution", thoroughly nauseating. After all, whatever is celebrated on this day, you can be sure it won't be Britishness in any meaningful sense, but rather a watered-down, plastic "Britishness" of empty and meaningless platitudes about "tolerance", "fair play", and the like.

Besides which, I regard all the expressions of patriotism that come from this government as the grossest hypocrisy. This is, after all, the government that has done more than any other to erode the British identity, through its policy of open door immigration, which has transformed large parts of the country, without the consent of the existing population. It is also the government under whose rule perfectly innocuous displays of patriotism have become increasingly frowned upon by those in authority - just consider the number of cases in which displaying the Union Flag and (especially) the Cross of St George has been banned.

To me, Liam Byrne's proposal has the look of a pressure valve. This government, which has done so much to undermine the British (and, particularly, the English) identity, hopes that by giving over one day a year to overt but phoney patriotism, it can keep in check the disquiet engendered by the fact that genuine, albeit often understated, patriotism is taboo the whole year round. Thankfully, I think that the vast majority of people will see through the charade.

Promoting Christianity is now a hate crime

What is wrong with the West Midlands Police? Just last month they had to pay out £100,000 over their handling of the Undercover Mosque fiasco, and now they are being taken to court by two Christian evangelists who were threatened with arrest for handing out leaflets in a Muslim area of Birmingham.

Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, both of whom are American, were talking to a group of young men in the Alum Rock Road area of the city when they were approached by a PCSO, who began questioning them about their beliefs. When he discovered their nationality, he, displaying the professionalism for which PCSOs are justly renowned, favoured them with a lengthy diatribe against George Bush, before telling them that as the area was a Muslim one, they were not allowed to preach Christianity there, that doing so constituted a "hate crime", and that if they did not desist they would be arrested. He also told them not to return to the area, saying, "you have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned".

As I've remarked before, it seems that incidents like this are happening on a weekly basis, if not more frequently. The West Midlands force has a particularly poor record, but officers from all police forces seem quite happy to use threats and intimidation in order to silence politically-incorrect views, and prevent politically-incorrect behaviour, a category within which promulgating Christian doctrine apparently now falls. I particularly note that, rather than make an effort to ensure that all people are safe to go anywhere in the country without getting beaten up, the PCSO in this case evidently feels that if Messrs Cunningham and Abraham were to get attacked, it would be their own fault, and no concern of his. No wonder dissatisfaction with the police is at record levels!

The PCSO's comments also indicate that, when Michael Nazir-Ali made his famous remarks about "no go areas", he was absolutely right. After all, the PCSO - who I rather suspect may have been a Muslim himself (update: he was) - made no bones about telling the men that if they preached Christianity in a Muslim area they were at risk of being assaulted. If that doesn't make an area a "no go area", then what does?

This, then, is Britain in 2008: a country in which Muslim preachers can incite murder with impunity, while Christian preachers are threatened with arrest for peacefully handing out leaflets; a country in which free speech is stifled to appease favoured minorities; a country in which certain areas become unsafe for non-Muslims, and our political and religious leaders turn a blind eye. And liberals still can't understand why we don't all embrace multiculturalism and "diversity"!

Hat-tip: Anon, in the comments

Even a stopped clock...

The police force that issued a teenager with a court summons for calling Scientology a cult could face a judicial review over the legality of its policing guidelines.

Although prosecutors last week declined to take the 16-year-old to court, freedom of speech campaigners are to ask City of London police to explain how the initial decision to issue the summons was made.

Campaigners said they would call for a judicial review if it is found that the force's guidelines for policing demonstrations led officers to confront the schoolboy.

If it emerges that the policy relates only to anti-Scientology demonstrations, a complaint could be lodged with the Independent Police Complaints Commission instead.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the civil liberties organisation Liberty, which spearheaded the teenager's defence, said: "We want to know who gave the instruction to issue this summons.

"Curtailing people's freedom of speech is a very serious issue and it's important to know whether this is part of the force's policy or a decision relating specifically to the Church of Scientology. There is the possibility of a complaint to the IPCC or a judicial review."

Chakrabarti said she was concerned the police action could have a "chilling effect" on other protesters who wanted to express their opinions.

"Some people are very easily intimidated and will be put off exercising their right to free speech by the thought that they may face court action over it. We have to defend that right and show how wrong the police were in issuing this summons," she said.

Well, on this occasion, Chakrabarti's right, and it is good that Liberty (indeed, that anyone) is challenging the police's handling of this matter. Although I'm not quite certain of the manner in which Liberty "spearheaded the teenager's defence", other than by the lovely and fragrant Ms Chakrabarti describing the summons as "barmy", and thereby getting herself in the papers.

But, while on this occasion Chakrabarti's organisation is doing the right thing, it's worth pointing out that she seems to take a remarkably selective approach to the question of free speech, and its suppression. After all, in recent years we have seen, inter alia, the leader of the BNP twice prosecuted for calling Islam a "wicked, vicious faith", an anti-Islamic blogger arrested for the content of his postings, a schoolgirl arrested for complaining that fellow pupils did not speak English, an academic forced out of his job for expressing politically incorrect views about the link between race and IQ, and measures passed banning BNP members from certain jobs. Yet on all these issues, and many more, Shami Chakrabarti has, notwithstanding her abundantly evident love of the media spotlight, maintained a strict silence. Maybe she was on holiday when they happened.

Ali Dizaei in race hustling shock

A senior Muslim policeman has said the Metropolitan Police's (Met) recruitment process is putting off young Muslims.

National Black Police Association President and Met Police Commander Ali Dizaei said the process should be "non- biased and fair".

He said some recruits were discouraged because they come under suspicion if they frequently visited some countries.

A Met Police spokesman said all staff regardless of background underwent the same vigorous security procedures.

Speaking to BBC London, Commander Dizaei said: "Just because someone visits a country several times does not necessarily make them a risk.

"We have to be quite careful to ensure our vetting process is non-biased and are fair and get the best people for the jobs without compromising national security."

BBC London's Home Affairs Correspondent Guy Smith said the National Association of Muslim Police told him another concern was that Muslim officers found it difficult to join SO15, the Met's counter-terrorism command, for which you need to be a detective.

Of the 300 current Muslim officers serving in the Met, half have less than three years experience.

This figure suggests that rather a lot of Muslims have been joining up recently, doesn't it? Or at least, that they've been joining up at a faster rate in the last couple of years than they had done previously. Which somewhat undermines Dizaei's claim that young Muslims are being discouraged from joining the force.

One should also note that the alleged "discrimination" consists, not in Muslims receiving inferior treatment, but rather, in the fact that all potential recruits are treated exactly the same. Dizaei claims that Muslim applicants are more likely to come under suspicion because of the countries they visit. But, had I been in the habit of making regular journeys to, say, Afghanistan, then, were I to apply for a job with the police, it is likely that they would look rather askance at me too. Perhaps Dizaei feels that visiting dodgy countries run or populated by large numbers of terrorists or terrorist supporters should not count against an individual's application to join the Met. But if this is what he thinks, then he should come out and make that case, rather than throwing around unsubstantiated accusations of discrimination. Still, I suppose he's just doing what he does best.

In a similar vein, the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) appears, from this BBC report, to be complaining that Muslim officers are not being recruited into SO15, because they are not meeting a requirement that applies to all applicants equally - i.e. being detectives. This is clearly related to the fact that Muslim officers are disproportionately likely to be new or recent recruits. In order to demonstrate actual discrimination, it would need to be shown that Muslim detectives were being denied positions in SO15, wholly or partly because of their religion. The NAMP has not done this. Of course, certain recent stories suggest that it is not unreasonable to question whether it would be wholly desirable to put large numbers of Muslims in a counter-(Islamic) terrorism force anyway.

When Ali Dizaei talks about making the recruitment process "non-biased and fair", he, like most race hustlers, actually means that it should be unfair and biased in favour of his special interest group - in this case, Muslims. He seems to believe that police vetting procedures should be relaxed in cases where the applicant is a Muslim, while his allies in the NAMP apparently feel that it should be easier for Muslims to enter SO15 than for the rest of us. Either that, or they're both in favour of a general lowering of standards for entry to both the police, and SO15, which might help some Muslim, career-wise, but which certainly won't make the police more effective. Either way, they're wrong.

Of course, while there is no evidence whatsoever that Muslims are being discriminated against, one should not imagine that police recruitment procedures are entirely fair. Members of that entirely legal political party, the BNP, are subject to an absolute ban on joining the police. But they're thought criminals, so it doesn't matter, right?

An imam walks into a bar...

I read that the left-wing "comedian" Ben Elton has made the astounding suggestion that the BBC is too scared to allow jokes about Islam to be broadcast. Speaking to the Christian cultural magazine, Third Way, Elton, who is apparently a churchgoing atheist (presumably that fits with the hypocrisy of a supposed radical leftist who fawns over the Royal Family, and writes kitsch musicals with Andrew Lloyd Webber), said that:

I believe that part of it is due to the genuine fear that the authorities and the communities have about provoking the radical elements of Islam. There is no doubt about it, the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass...I wanted to use the phrase 'Mohammed came to the mountain' and everybody said, 'Oh, just don't! Just don't! Don't go there!' It was nothing to do with Islam, I was merely referring to the old proverb, 'If the mountain won't come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain.' And people just said, 'Let's not!' It's incredible.

Now, I would personally be happy with anything that keeps Ben Elton off the airwaves. I simply don't find the man remotely funny. Indeed, not only do I not find him even vaguely amusing, but I also find him deeply cringeworthy - a kind of real-life David Brent. No doubt his censored joke, whatever it was, was as dreadful as all his other ones.

But in this case, he is absolutely correct. It is abundantly evident that the mainstream media, and not just the BBC, does voluntarily censor itself to avoid offending Muslims, in a manner that it would never feel the need to do with any other religion. One need only consider the fact that, in the whole of the UK, the only newspaper that reprinted the infamous Danish Motoons was the student newspaper at Cardiff University. And when the university's students' union, who publish the newspaper - ironically titled Gair Rhydd (Welsh for "Free Word") - realised what they'd done, they issued a grovelling apology, recalled all the copies, and suspended the editor. Would the same thing have happened had the cartoons been anti-Christian?

This kind of double standard applies not only in the case of direct references to Muslims, or Mohammed. Today also brought the news that a set of books aimed at promoting homosexuality to schoolchildren aged five and upwards have been withdrawn from primary schools in Bristol, after Muslim parents complained en masse. Of course, it is quite reasonable to oppose the left-wing brainwashing of very young children, which was the evident purpose of these books, and complaints were also made by some Christian organisations, such as the Christian Institute. But a comparison of the responses to Christian and Muslim complaints is instructive. Last May, Sunderland University's Dr Elizabeth Atkinson, who is responsible for the production of the books, was scathingly dismissive of Christian concerns, saying that "we knew when we started this that the Christian groups wouldn't like it because they don't like homosexuals. It wasn't surprising." Yet as soon as Muslims complained, the books were swiftly removed, in order to, as Bristol City Council put it, allow schools to "operate safely".

Muslims constantly complain that they are the victims of discrimination, and many on the left are more than happy to give credence to their claims - indeed, Ben Elton's comments have already been recorded as an example of "secular, liberal Islamophobia" at Islamophobia Watch. But the fact is, that, by virtue of a unique combination of whining about how unbelievably oppressed they are, and expressly or impliedly threatening violence against anyone who challenges them (a tactic most recently observed in the actions that led to the temporary removal of Fitna from Liveleak's servers), they have achieved a privileged status in this country, and, indeed, across the entirety of Western Europe. As Ben Elton's comments show, this is something that is recognised by increasing numbers of people, including some on the left. The next challenge, of course, is to actually do something about it...

Nanny Jowell: hypocrite!

A week ago I mentioned the news that Labour MPs Sadiq Khan and Andrew Slaughter had been caught campaigning to keep post offices in their constituencies open, while voting in favour of the government's plans to shut thousands of post offices nationwide. Now, I read that Tessa "Nanny" Jowell has been doing the same thing:

Tessa Jowell has been accused of "breathtaking cynicism" after she vowed to keep her local post office open despite voting in Parliament for its closure.

The Labour Minister attended a demonstration in support of the branch in Herne Hill, South London, only last week, and accepted a 3,000-signature petition from its customers.

At the event, she pledged to "go on campaigning to keep your post office open until its future is secure".

But just one week earlier, Miss Jowell, Labour's Olympics spokesman and MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, voted in favour of a Government scheme that will see 2,500 post office branches shut across the country - including hers.

Postscript: The Telegraph has full details (almost - they missed out Andrew Slaughter) of how the ninety Labour MPs who have been campaigning against post office closures in their constituencies voted when the matter came before parliament. I particularly note that among the numerous hypocrites was that paragon of virtue, Keith Vaz. Vaz has been making great play of resisting post office closures in his Leicester East constituency, but he still voted to shut them all down in parliament. Still, what more do you expect from the smarmy little toad?

Hypocrites of the Day

The seventy plus Labour MPs who told their constituents one thing, and then did the exact opposite:

Labour MPs are being criticised for voting against plans to suspend post office closures in Parliament before going back to their local constituencies to protest against the cuts.

Andrew Slaughter, the MP for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush in west London, is the latest to be accused of hypocrisy.

He voted against Conservative plans to suspend Post Office closures at 7.15pm on Wednesday. Thirty minutes later, he was addressing an open meeting at Hammersmith Town Hall to protest against the closures.

Greg Hands, the Conservative MP in neighbouring Hammersmith and Fulham, who was at the meeting, said: "He appeared with me and stood there and decried the local post office closures and even said he would back Ken Livingstone's judicial review.

"He came out with a mealy-mouthed line like he saw the need to close some post offices but disagreed with the choice of closures locally. Even in these times reeking of hypocrisy, it is surely one of the swiftest volte-faces ever."

It had already emerged that Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP for Tooting, voted against the suspension before addressing a meeting to speak out against post office closures.

The Daily Mail reports that Khan was jeered when he spoke at the meeting in his constituency. At least that's something, although I must say that I wouldn't have been satisfied with anything less than pelting him with rancid tomatoes, and possibly tarring and feathering him for good measure. The same goes for Andrew Slaughter, and, it would seem, a great abundance of other Labour MPs:

At least 90 Labour MPs - one in four of the Parliamentary party - have campaigned locally against closures. Several members of the Cabinet are among them. However, only 19 backbenchers rebelled against the Government in Wednesday's vote.

So the remaining seventy-one or so also campaigned against closures, and then voted for them. Forget "Hypocrites of the Day" - this lot would stand a good chance of getting "Hypocrites of the Year"!

The morally bankrupt left

The deputy leader of the party that has ruled this country for nearly eleven years was answering questions from readers of the Independent on Monday. Along the line, this interesting little nugget arose:

David Newton, Edinburgh: Fidel Castro: hero of the left, or dangerous authoritarian dictator?

Harriet Harman: Hero of the left – but time for Cuba to move on.

She's right, of course: plenty on the left do regard Old Uncle Fidel as a hero. And arguably, David Newton was creating a false dichotomy: being a "dangerous authoritarian dictator" is no bar to being hero-worshipped by the left. Indeed, some might say that it was a necessary qualification.

But since Harman is a proud member of the (far) left, one assumes that she was proclaiming Castro to be one of her heroes. Now, how long do you think any vaguely right-wing contemporary politician would last, proclaiming his admiration for, say, General Franco? Indeed, just think how quickly Nigel Hastilow's career was killed off after he expressed agreement with Enoch Powell, a man who, so far as I am aware, was not responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people. Among those who weighed in against Hastilow was one Harriet Harman, who said that his comments demonstrated that the Tories were "the same old nasty party". If admirers of Powell are "nasty" what, I wonder, are admirers of Castro? Is there a word strong enough to describe them?

Of course, unlike Nigel Hastilow, Harriet Harman won't lose her job over her admiration for Castro, because the media, which launched a witch hunt against Hastilow, is largely ignoring this. Only the Times and the Spectator's Coffee House blog have devoted any real attention to Harman's comments, although the Daily Mail did mention them, very briefly, in passing. The BBC, which happily stoked the flames for the burning of the heretic Hastilow, makes no mention of this. Quelle surprise!

Harman's remarks expose the utter moral bankruptcy, and complete hypocrisy, that is the hallmark of the modern left. As Pete Moore of ATW, to whom I owe a hat-tip for this story, puts it "no matter how low your opinion of them, they'll always demonstrate that it wasn't low enough". Damn right!

Update: It seems that Harman is not alone in her admiration for Castro. Via CentreRight, I see that sixty-nine other MPs have signed an Early Day Motion tabled by obscure Labour backbencher Colin Burgon, which states that "this House commends the achievements of Fidel Castro".

There's a first time for everything. The only constant: angry Muslims

Astonishingly, the government (and, indeed, the normally particularly inept Home Office) has done something with which I agree:

The controversial Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been refused a visa to visit Britain.

The Home Office said the UK would not tolerate the presence of those who seek to justify acts of terrorist violence.

During his last visit in 2004, Dr Al-Qaradawi defended suicide attacks on Israelis as "martyrdom in the name of God", during a BBC interview.

Dr Al-Qaradawi applied for the visa eight months ago, so that he could receive medical treatment in Britain.

Reacting to the decision, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) called it deplorable, and said the government had caved in to unreasonable demands spearheaded by the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron.

Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB said the decision had "worrying implications for freedom of speech".

"Whatever one may think of some of Qaradawi's views, the way forward is surely to allow them to be aired and then, if appropriate, to challenge them openly."

You know, calls for free speech always sound so much more convincing when made by people who don't have a track record of trying to suppress the free speech of others. As I have previously noted, Bunglawala was an enthusiastic supporter of the restrictions imposed on free speech by the Religious Hatred Act, and was among those calling for the laws against "inciting racial hatred" to be expanded in scope after Nick Griffin's acquittal. Why is it that Bunglawala thinks that Qaradawi's opinions should be challenged and debated, but that Griffin's should be silenced?
Furthermore, it is almost universally accepted that the right to free speech does not extend to the right to incite others to criminality, which is what Qaradawi certainly came very close to doing, when he sought to justify acts of mass murder.

In any event, this is not really a free speech issue. Qaradawi is not having any of his human rights violated: there is no right to be granted a visa to enter the UK, and the question of a right to exercise free speech here only arises once someone has arrived here. Accordingly, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to make this decision based solely on the question of whether or not his presence would be beneficial.

Last week Mr Cameron called Dr Al-Qaradawi "dangerous and divisive", and called on the government not to allow him an entry visa.

Well said Cameron. Not something I say a lot, but when set against the likes of Inayat Bunglawala, even Call Me Dave comes up smelling of roses.

"This decision will send the wrong message to Muslims everywhere about the state of British society and culture", said Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council.

He said Dr Al-Qaradawi was respected as a scholar throughout the Islamic world.

Well, that tells you rather a lot about the Muslim world, doesn't it? As I wrote in my last post, there are very few shared values between them and us.

He's right about it sending the wrong message about "the state of British society and culture", though. This is, after all, an unusually tough response on the part of the government to Islamic extremists, and as such sends a rather misleading message. The more usual response to such people is to stick them on a government taskforce.

Mohammed Shafiq, from Muslim youth organisation the Ramadhan Foundation, criticised the decision.

He said: "We've had figures like Nick Griffin and the BNP operating freely and promoting violence towards ethnic minorities, and nothing is done.

"This smacks of double standards, and will isolate Muslim communities further."

So far as I am aware, there is no evidence that Nick Griffin, or the BNP as a party, has ever promoted violence towards anyone, and certainly not towards non-whites in general. Nor is it accurate to say that "nothing is done". As Shafiq might recall, Nick Griffin, and his associate Mark Collett, were twice brought to trial on charges of "inciting racial hatred" (a crime which is itself a restriction on free speech). The police and CPS have hardly shown themselves to be averse to prosecuting Mr Griffin: on the contrary, they seem all too keen to do it.

Indeed, the only cases that I can think of in which people have openly incited violence and got away with it have involved Muslims. I am thinking in particular of the police response to last year's television programme, Undercover Mosque. As readers will no doubt recall, that programme featured Islamic clerics inciting a variety of crimes, including murder. And yet the response of the police was to investigate the possibility of having the film-makers charged with "inciting racial hatred", before making a complaint about the programme to the media regulator, Ofcom (a complaint which was subsequently rejected). So, while there may well be double standards, it doesn't look like they are operating against Muslims.

It should also be noted, once again, that Qaradawi has no right to enter the UK, and, as such, cannot have a right to exercise free speech here. Nick Griffin, by contrast, is a British citizen, and does, therefore, have the right to live here, and to exercise free speech here. As, indeed, do the likes of Bunglawala, Bari, and Shafiq. Considering the above, I have to say that Shafiq's remarks, based as they are on a possibly libellous accusation, a misleading comparison, and a falsehood so severe that it completely inverts the truth, serve only to demonstrate the utter weakness of Muslim claims that they are being oppressed and discriminated against.

Anyway, Qaradawi isn't coming, and, as an added bonus, we may also be getting shot of Abu Hamza pretty soon. Now, if only we could find someone willing to take Rowan Williams...

Not dying for their art

A gallery has offended the church by exhibiting a statue of Jesus with an erection.

The graphic figure is on display at Gateshead's Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art.

The exhibit is a traditional form of Jesus which has been doctored by controversial Chinese artist Terence Koh.

Gone, Yet Still, features 74 plaster models ranging from Mickey Mouse to ET, with the 1ft high depiction of Christ with an erection a central figure in the artwork.

Outraged visitors and church leaders have criticised the artist and Baltic bosses for disrespecting the Christian faith.

Personally, I don't think it's worth kicking up a fuss about this kind of thing. "Artists" like Koh are essentially no different from small children who misbehave in the hope of getting attention. React to their provocation, and they'll only derive satisfaction, and a delicious sense of moral self-righteousness, from playing the martyr, from the belief that they have made a heroic stand for free speech against those wicked Christian fundamentalists. Ignore them, and there is a very slight chance that they'll grow up.

But one remark from John Monaghan, a visitor to the gallery, does make a good, albeit obvious, point:

If other religious characters were portrayed in this way, Mohammed for example, there would be riots.

Of course, there's very little chance that any art gallery would dare to feature any depiction of Mohammed whatsoever, and certainly not one like this. As the Turner Prize-winner Grayson Perry (whose works include the depiction of "a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary" - the mind boggles) said in November:

I’ve censored myself. The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.

And then last month in the Netherlands, a museum opted not to show a work of "art" portraying Mohammed and his son-in-law as homosexuals, for fear that "certain people in our society might perceive it as offensive". Of course, it's not actually the offence they worry about, it's the potential reaction of those who are offended. Christians respond mildly and proportionately, Muslims don't. As such, Christians can be attacked without fear, but one must act towards Muslims as though one were treading on eggshells.

But perhaps if Terence Koh (and the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art), or the "artist" behind last year's "Christ Killa" (in which the audience at a Los Angeles art gallery were invited to play a video game involving shooting legions of "homicidal Jesus Christs"), or Andres Serrano (the man responsible for the notorious "Piss Christ"), want to be really brave and really controversial, they could always try depicting Mohammed in the same way that they have depicted Jesus. Maybe then they'll really get to die for their art.

Kettle, meet pot

A government campaign will warn bosses that they face large fines and prison sentences if they are caught employing illegal migrant workers.

The Home Office will run radio and print adverts ahead of a tightening of the law on illegal labour in February.

Employers could be fined up to £10,000 for every illegal worker they negligently hire, or could face up to two years in prison.

The immigration minister said firms would have no excuse to break the law.

Liam Byrne said: "Illegal working attracts illegal migrants and undercuts British wages. That's why we're determined to shut it down.

"The message is clear for employers - we will not tolerate illegal working."

Well, I certainly don't disagree with that, and I hope that the advertising campaign, and the new laws, succeed in deterring employers from employing illegal immigrants. But I do wonder whether the government in general, and the Home Office in particular, are not being a tad hypocritical. After all, not only has their repeated failure to tackle illegal immigration probably done more to "attract illegal migrants" than anything any private company - however avaricious - could do, but they have themselves been caught employing illegal immigrants!

Pot, meet kettle

Without wishing to belittle the possible political significance (not to mention the human tragedy) of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, I must say that I laughed heartily when I saw that Gordon Brown has accused her killers of being "cowards afraid of democracy".

Because, for the avoidance of doubt, this is the selfsame Gordon Brown who has in the past few months backed down from holding a general election, and reneged on Labour's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the EU constitution. Yes, it's that Gordon Brown. Not another one.

Brown and Liberty!

I see that before he flew off to Lisbon to sell the country down the river (the Tagus, presumably), Gordon Brown favoured the members of the House of Commons liaison committee with some inspiring sentiments on the subject of liberty. To be precise, he said:

I think Britain was the pioneer of liberty for the modern world. I think in later years America took it upon itself to claim that it was the leading country in promoting liberty. I think Britain. But our view of liberty is different from the American view of liberty. Our view of liberty is not the 'leave me alone' liberty that we characterise with some of the American constitution. Our view of liberty is liberty in the context of social responsibility.

Now, to an extent, he's right. This country does have a long and proud tradition of liberty - the notion of the "free-born Englishman" is not merely apocryphal. Equally, I think that genuine social responsibility is important, although I don't really know what Brown means when he talks of "liberty in the context of social responsibility".

What is more, I suspect that if Brown did make his sentiments more explicit, I would not be greatly enamoured of what he had to say. Because Brown's praise for "liberty" rings somewhat hollow when you consider what the Labour government has done over the past ten years. This is, after all, the government which has:

Restricted free speech, with its laws against "inciting religious hatred";

Banned smoking in pubs;

Presided over the creation by the police of the world's largest DNA database;

Banned fox-hunting;

Passed laws compelling adoption agencies to place children with homosexual couples (a move which also undermines social responsibility, since it looks set to drive Catholic adoption agencies out of business);

Banned handguns.

And still on the cards we have:

The further restriction of free speech, with laws prohibiting the "incitement of hatred" against homosexuals and the disabled;

The introduction of compulsory ID cards, which that buffoon Liam Byrne says will become "a great British institution".

I do not pretend that the above lists come anywhere close to being definitive.

And then there are Gordon Brown's own words, in the aftermath of the acquittals of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett on charges of "inciting racial hatred":

Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country. We have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes. And if that means we have got to look at the laws again, we will have to do so.

So, in the first place, Brown appears to believe that simply because something "will offend mainstream opinion" (by which he means, Gordon Brown's opinion), it should automatically be illegal. Secondly, he advocates a reactive approach to law-making, under which the government waits to see what behaviour members of the public engage in, and then decides whether to criminalise that, rather than setting down the law as a guide to conduct. I fail to see how anyone who thinks in these terms can have the temerity to even mention Britain's tradition of liberty.

Some are more welcome than others

Last month I wrote that the Stop the War Coalition had invited Ibrahim Moussawi, chief foreign news editor for Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV station, to speak at its rather misnamed (considering that the representative of a genocidal terrorist organisation was among the speakers) "World Against War Conference". Despite Tory calls for the government to prevent Moussawi from entering Britain, he attended the conference, which was held last Saturday. Admittedly, his speech was rather more restrained than that given by George Galloway, who proclaimed Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah the rightful president of Lebanon, but nonetheless his presence shames both the Stop the War Coalition, who invited him, and the government, which, unlike its Irish counterpart, did nothing to prevent the entry of this terrorist propagandist into Britain.

But that's not all. Because, while Moussawi is free to enter Britain, and speak to a bunch of terrorist supporters and delusional liberals, the Israeli public security minister, Avi Dichter, has had to decline an invitation to give the keynote speech at a counter-terrorism seminar held at King's College London, for fear that if he set foot in this country, he would be arrested. This is because in 2005 Israeli "human rights activists" persuaded a British court to grant an arrest warrant against Mr Dichter, in relation to the assassination in 2002 of a Hamas terrorist by the Israeli Air Force, in which a number of Palestinian civilians were killed. As the then head of Israel's internal security service, Shin Bet, Mr Dichter had played a part in planning the operation.
English courts have jurisdiction to try suspected "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention, under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. While Mr Dichter would normally enjoy diplomatic immunity, he has been told that this would not apply in this case, since his visit to Britain would be in a personal, rather than a diplomatic capacity. The British government has reportedly promised the Israeli government that the law will be altered to ensure that Israeli officials can come to Britain without the threat of arrest hanging over them, and it is to be hoped that it will do so swiftly. But until it does, we have in this country an intolerable situation whereby Hezbollah propagandists can come and go as they please, but government ministers in the Middle East's only democracy cannot.

Terrorists for Peace?

I read that the Tories have called on the government to ban the head of Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV station, Ibrahim Moussawi, from visiting the UK next month. Moussawi, who, as head of Al-Manar, has presided over the showing of, among other fascinating programmes, a series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, will be visiting the UK as a representative of Hezbollah, to speak at a conference scheduled for the first of December.

So, what conference is this, that Moussawi will be attending? The annual general meeting of Hizb-ut Tahrir, perhaps? Or a gathering of neo-Nazis and rabid anti-Semites?
Well, no. Actually it's the "World Against War Conference", organised by that splendid organisation, the Stop the War Coalition, where Moussawi will be speaking alongside such heroes as George Galloway, and the "campaigning comedian", Mark Thomas. Why, next to such creatures, he has half a chance of coming off as the sane and rational one!

Now, whatever one's opinions regarding the Iraq war, or any other war, it ought to be patently obvious by now that, whatever the Stop the War Coalition's interests may be, stopping war is not among them. If they were genuinely anti-war, would they invite to their conference a representative of an organisation which exists primarily for the purpose of waging war, an organisation that has carried out terrorist attacks against targets as far afield as Argentina, an organisation whose leader has been quoted as saying that "if Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"? No, of course they wouldn't.
This is not the first time that the Stop the War Coalition has shown its support, not for peace, but for Hezbollah. In August 2006, a great abundance of Hezbollah flags (you know, the ones with the big gun in the middle, which might give some indication as to their stance regarding the use of violence) were on display at the Stop the War Coalition march demanding that Israel call a ceasefire in its campaign against Hezbollah. No, the Stop the War Coalition has never truly been anti-war. They're fine with war and violence - just as long as it's waged against the West.

Some are more equal than others

In the wake of the recent conviction of the self-styled "Lyrical Terrorist", Samina Malik, the Muslim Council of Britain's Inayat Bunglawala has penned a characteristically rambling piece, entitled "An attack on liberty", at the Guardian's Comment is Free site. After ranting for some time on various stock Muslim grievances, he concludes by saying that "a foolish young woman who did not harm anyone now faces a maximum 10-year term in prison for what can only be described as a thought crime".

Now, some might say that possessing terrorist propaganda and joining an organisation, Jihad Way, which aimed to disseminate such propaganda and to support al-Qaeda goes some way beyond mere "thought crime". Personally, I would definitely say that organisations such as Jihad Way ought to be illegal, although I don't really think that she should be punished for her (admittedly appalling) poetry, or for downloading offensive material from the internet. In any event, I fail to see why Samina Malik should be prosecuted, while the likes of Anjem Choudhary are left free to incite murder in peace. So, to some extent I do actually agree with Inayat Bunglawala, and I am certainly glad to see that he is taking a stance against thought crime, an issue which greatly concerns me, and about which I have written on numerous occasions.

But hang on a minute! This Inayat Bunglawala, this champion of free speech, this enemy of the criminalisation of thoughts, surely he cannot be the same Inayat Bunglawala who, in 2005, wrote in favour of the introduction of laws creating a new crime of "incitement to religious hatred"? He must be a different Bunglawala from the one who then said that:

We believe stirring up hatred against people simply because of their religious beliefs or lack of them should be regarded as a social evil...We understand the concerns about free speech, but we think that they are totally misplaced.

And he can't possibly be the same Bunglawala who last year supported plans to widen the scope of the laws against "inciting racial hatred", following the acquittals of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett. No, because anyone who felt that Nick Griffin should go to prison for saying that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" (which statement, I would point out, does not contain any explicit or implicit threat, nor any reference to individual Muslims), but that punishing Samina Malik for writing such delightful couplets as "Kafirs your time will come soon/and no one will save you from your doom" and "For the living martyrs are awakening/and Kuffars world soon to be shaking" is "an attack on liberty", would be a complete hypocrite.

Postscript: To be fair to Bunglawala, he's not the only person displaying a distinct hypocrisy over this. Following Malik's conviction, Martin Sullivan, of the Islamophobia Watch blog, quoted approvingly from both Bunglawala's article, and Boyd Tonkin's rather better written piece on the same theme. Yet in the past he too has repeatedly come out in favour of restricting the free speech of people like the BNP.

Good ignorance, bad ignorance

It has been revealed that only 48% of schoolchildren taking their GCSEs this year took exams in either French, German, or Spanish. This is down from 83% in 2000, and the fall in numbers has caused concern in some quarters. The Lib Dems, who, to their credit, unearthed the information, have been particularly vocal in their condemnation.

And rightly so. Languages (especially French) have been among the mainstays of the school examination system for decades. The fact that fewer than half of all pupils are now taking any of the major European languages even as far as GCSE should be cause for concern for all of us, particularly when one considers that a number of other traditionally important subjects (notably history) are now studied to GCSE level by only a minority of pupils. Ignorance is never a virtue, and I doubt that anyone will argue that the massive collapse in the learning of foreign languages (the extent and speed of which really is quite shocking) is a good thing.

But another story I read this evening caused a question to pop into my mind: why is it that the fact that most English schoolchildren are no longer taking exams in any foreign language (which, let's face it, most of them would have virtually no occasion to use during their adult lives) is generally acknowledged to be cause for concern, but that the idea of expecting skilled immigrants to this country to demonstrate their ability to speak English has been denounced as "racist" by a number of pro-immigration organisations?

Hypocrite of the day

He was a minister who helped to toughen up the law banning drivers from talking on a mobile phone.

And he made his name in the Commons by claiming dangerous drivers were "serial potential killers" and campaigning for longer sentences.

But yesterday Liam Byrne was convicted of using his mobile while at the wheel - leaving him with a fine, a criminal record and a reputation in tatters.

In the interests of fairness, I should point out that the statement that Byrne was left with his "reputation in tatters" is grossly inaccurate and misleading. As a minister in the current government, it should be abundantly clear to anyone that his reputation was already in tatters. Consider this recent video of Byrne in action, in his capacity as immigration minister (hat-tip: Sage King):



See? After a performance like that, what reputation does he have left to be "in tatters"?