The Norway Attacks

The terrifying and tragic events in Norway are still being played out. I would be surprised if the death toll does not continue to rise, and if by the end of the rescue operations more than a hundred haven't lost their lives at the hands of what now looks like being one evil man*. As such, any comments made may well be contradicted by what happens in the near future. Nonetheless, I'd like to make some observations of the events that started to unfold less than 24 hours ago.

Like most, I suppose, when this first happened I thought that it would have been an attack (and then attacks) perpetrated by Islamic Fundamentalists. Indiscriminate mass slaughter has tended to be the watchword and the calling cardss of the Muslim militants. A couple of things nagged at me, though. Because while the terror attacks of Islamic Fundamentalists tend to be abritrary on the surface, certain key things do emerge as themes when you study them. Firstly, when al Qaeda and its myriad of off-shoots and tangentially linked jihadists attack the West in the West, they tend to attack ordinary people. As such, they tend to attack mass transport systems. They also tend to time their attacks for the morning rush hour - in part to kill as many as possible and in part to get their attacks at the top of the media cycle and therefore in the faces of the public for as long as possible. This was an attack later in the day against the PM, the government, and the ruling party in a coalition. So the fact that this appears to be the work of one right-wing, Christian fundamentalist is not a total surprise. This may be Norway's Oklahoma City bombing rather than their 9/11 - although I have no doubt that this distinction will offer scant comfort to the newly bereaved.

After any terror attack, there is that burning temptation to blame certain freedoms for allowing it to happen. Any such actions - especially since it tends to end up in legislation - needs to be left until a calmer time for Norway; for a time when the initial panic, rage, fear and deeply felt loss are all a little less raw both for individuals and the mass psyche. There will be a temptation to adopt something like the Patrior Act or 42 Days Detention in the aftermath of this slaughter for some in Norway; the country as a whole would do well do resist that temptation. Good legislation happens after debate and thought, not after the jerking of a knee.

Likewise, there is the temptation to stigmatise the (more often than not minority) groups who are associated with the crimes. Witness the rise of Islamaphobia in the West after 9/11 - a rise that missed the point that it was not Islam that committed that crime, but a small bunch of Islamic fundamentalists with a clear political as well as religious agenda. So again there may be a temptation in the aftermath of these attacks to stigmatise conservatives, Christians, individualists, libertarians. Any such stigmatisation is likely to misrepresent all four positions. Furthermore, and far more importantly, any such stigmatisation is like to increase the radicalisation of affected minorities, and make further attacks more, not less, likely.

Finally, it is easy for those watching this drama from afar to get caught up in the political ramifications and the hysteria around it. However, this is not just the political - this is personal as well. Because with nearly 100 people dead, there are hundreds of people now in mourning. Family and friends, spouses and lovers, brothers and sisters have all lost someone through the brutal attacks of yesterday in shocking circumstances. So as fingers points and people pontificate, let's try to remember the appalling personal tragedies that also occurred yesterday, and the heart-breaking grief that so many must now be feeling.

*Although whether it is logistically possible for one man to carry out such slaughter is still understandably being questioned by some.

On the Death of Osama bin Laden

So, Osama bin Laden is dead. Make no mistake about it, I don't mourn the passing of that vile, murderous fundamentalist. But equally, I don't see that there's too much to get over-excited about. And I certainly don't think that this news will will make the world safer. Let's look at why:

1. Al Qaeda has never been, and almost certainly never will be, an army in the conventional sense. Consequently, the death of its supposed leader will make little difference to what its myriad offshoots are doing at the moment. The most powerful illustration of how al Qaeda works I've come across is that it is like a venture capitalist firm; it offers funds to those operations it thinks will be most likely to succeed. Just as the demise of a leader of a venture capitalist firm doesn't end capitalist investment, so the death of the nominal leader of al Qaeda won't stop Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

2. Besides, was bin Laden really in control of al Qaeda when he died? I find it hard to believe that he was. Being the world's most wanted man is probably a full-time occupation, and it would make controlling and communicating with a disparate and loose network of people next to impossible. So bin Laden was little more than the figurehead of al Qaeda, and a poster boy for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Killing him won't have stopped the fundamentalist terrorists already out there.

3. What it has done, though, is make him into a martyr. Much of what constitutes Islamic fundamentalist is a reactionary response to supposed American imperialism - cultural and otherwise. And what could be a better symbol of US imperialism that the gunning down of bin Laden? Of course, I know that the US wants to send a particular message to Islamic fundamentalist (fuck with us and we'll kill you) but I rather think those fundamentalists will have got a different message from this murder (and I use that term deliberately). That message is "the war's hotting up, and we don't want to be seen to be losing". I've read that across the world security measures are being tightened and threat levels raised. I'm not surprised. If there's one think Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are good at, then it's revenge.

4. And let's be clear: this wasn't justice; this was revenge. Justice is where you take a suspect captive, put them through a fair trial and then - if found guilty - they are punished (with the death penalty, if your country happens to have that draconian punishment and deems state-sanctioned murder appropriate in this particular case). Therefore, bin Laden's death wasn't justice. It was a summary execution. It was murder. And by all means say he deserved it, but make sure you get your terms right. Not justice; this was revenge, pure and simple.

Osama bin Laden's dead. Good riddance. But only the terminally naive would think that this actually makes the world safer. bin Laden's death is simply another moment in the ongoing revenge spiral between the US and fundamentalist Islam. The fundamentalists aren't going to give up now bin Laden's dead. In fact, if anything, they will become more determined and more resolute. This murder will simply lead to other murders.

Theroux, Westboro and Christianity

So, I got round to watching the new Louis Theroux documentary. The one about a family of (Christian funda)mentalists. Two thoughts strike me about it.

Firstly, I really don't like the way Theroux undertakes his investigations. There seems to be an inherent contradiction within them. When interacting with his targets (and make no mistake about it, they are targets) he seems to be determined not to provoke, or even judge, them (except in the voiceovers). Indeed, one of the most painful yet enlightening moments in his most recent documentary is when he is forced to reveal what he actually thinks of the homophonic shitheads he's dealing with in front of them. Yet the whole premise of his programme judges them. In this case, they are the most hated family in America. In the past, they've been Nazis. Or Weird Weekends. The whole point of his work is that he believes he is dealing with freaks who should be investigated - that's how he selects them. So, as far as I am concerned, he should either engage with them and challenge them properly on the areas he finds weird or freakish, or he should redefine his work as being a broad and open-minded investigation of counter-culture. Not the weird.

But it seems almost counter-intuitive to complain about Louis Theroux's journalistic flaws when he is dealing with an organisation as appalling as the Westboro Baptist Church. Yeah, Theroux could do more to improve his journalistic integrity. The Westboro Baptist Church could do more to be fucking human. They are odious, ignorant people. They hide behind an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible to justify their homophobia and rage against America. Their leader is a nasty, hate-filled misanthrope. They are, in short, repugnant Christian fundamentalists.

Of course, it is tempting for an atheist like me to condemn Christianity as a whole based on these malign Christians. But to do so would be wrong. Yes, it is true that this "church" can find its justifications in the Bible, but much of the Bible contradicts itself. Large swathes of the Old Testament contradict the Ten Commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and Jesus's own favourite, "Love Thy Neighbour". And the Bible is not unique in that regard; chunks of the Koran, for example, do not fit with the beliefs of moderate Muslims. And this phenomenon is not solely applicable to religion. Taking Marx at his word is blueprint for dictatorship and for Stalinism, whereas a more critical, moderate and intelligent engagement with Marxism can still find moments of value even if the theory as a whole is fatally and fundamentally flawed. The problem with the Westboro lot is not that they are Christian, but rather that they are dogmatic about it. They refuse to allow for any deviation from their flawed and self-justifying reading of the Bible. Just as those Muslims who strap bombs to their chests and go into battle refuse to engage critically with the Koran, and the Stalinists refuse to allow for any deviation from their dictatorial reading of Marxism.

Therefore, the documentary shows that the problem is not Christianity, but the religious myopia of those who unthinkingly treat Christianity as dogma. The mentalists in the Westboro church are no more representative of moderate Christians than the actions of Timothy McVeigh are of those who legitimately question the scope of the state. I'm no Christian - I believe the worship of the Invisible Sky Fairy is no more rational than a belief in Santa or the Force - but I do get that the extremists lackwits of Westboro have little to do with the much more benign beliefs of moderate Christians.

David Cameron on Multiculturalism

David Cameron finally has an opinion, and it is against multiculturalism. Now, this is hardly a novel position, but it almost immediately makes me feel uncomfortable. After all, what is multiculturalism? Fortunately, Cameron is on-hand to clarify - he's against "state multiculturalism". Which makes some sense to me - any state-led attempt to graft some sort of blueprint onto society doesn't tend to end well. The irony that this is the same David Cameron who is attempting to nudge us into his Big Society is not lost on me, though.

But why doesn't David Cameron think state multiculturalism is working? Well, he's against extremism; which, I suppose, is a logical position for a conservative. Of course, he's particularly against Muslim extremism, and seems to be doing little to tackle other forms of extremism - like the luddite reactionary racism of the EDL and the BNP. Furthermore, there seems to be little said about tackling the sort of extremists who march in the streets of London, demanding revolution before lobbing fire extinguishers off rooftops at police officers. Then again, the latter cant be grafted onto his narrative about the failure of multiculturalism. And that, of course, is a crushing blow to Cameron's case; extremism is not just about multiculturalism. It can occur whenever there is disagreement which - given we are a diverse society - is inevitable. And while extremism is often a cause for concern, disagreement and diversity shouldn't be. And anyone who, as Cameron seems to be doing in this speech, calls for some sort of collective identity to overcome such disagreement and diversity is being grossly illiberal.

Which is ironic, since Cameron is calling for a "much more active, muscular liberalism". The language immediately makes me feel faintly nauseous; Cameron here (deliberately or otherwise) sounds like one of those US Libertarians who speak in non-sequiturs like "in order to have a free country we must have a strong state". But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and see what he means by this vision of liberalism:

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations."

Ah, now this is more like it - vintage Cameron. Talking purely in meaningless platitudes. Let's look at some of these terms he's bandying around. First up, "universal human rights". Quite simply, these do not exist. There are no human rights that every state - let alone every person - is prepared to agree on. Pointing to North Korea is an easy way to demonstrate this, but we could also look at the US - our partners with whom we have a "special relationship". Their version of human rights does not match our one; not only do they execute people, but they are prepared to execute children. Universal human rights do not exist; how can anyone pass a test based on what does not exist?

And what of democracy? Cameron makes much of Islamic extremism. Yet look at a state often seen to embody Islamic extremism: Iran. Iran - like it or not - is a democracy, in that an elite choose candidates who stand for election. Sure, you can say that isn't particularly democratic - but then again, an elite choosing which candidates can stand in an election is a pretty good description of the dominant party politics of the UK. Furthermore, this sort of rhetoric falls foul of the fallacy that democracy is an end in itself; it isn't. It can help to bring freedom, diversity and a better life for many; but there is no guarantee that democracy can do it alone. Besides, democracy does not necessarily bring you the results you want. Again, look at the response to the last Iranian presidential election in the West. Still, at least this is a test many can pass: extremists can like democracy too.

And encouraging integration rather than separation - let's skip over the spectre of conformism inherent in the idea of integration for a moment and instead think about those who encourage separation. There are many people in this country who stand opposed to further integration into Europe - including in Cameron's own party. There are those who advocate separation from the EU. Are these extremists? Is UKIP really a challenge to the fabric of British society? Should Cameron refuse to stand next to those members of his Cabinet who have a Eurosceptic voting record? No, of course not. But the sort of terms that Cameron uses are so broad that they can be interpreted in any number of different ways. They are meaningless; yet they are the terms he will use to discover who the extremists are. In other words, the definition of an extremist is entirely at his discretion.

Multiculturalism may not have worked; but conformism is not then, ipso facto, the answer. Nor is it realistic; as soon as you try to force people to become what they are not, and believe in what they cannot, you run the risk of radicalising people. That's another irony of Cameron's plans; in fighting extremists, he runs the risk of creating more extremists. If multiculturalism is the problem, then Cameron still doesn't have the solution.

And is there a solution? Possibly, but it isn't an easy one. It involves understanding, and embracing, the fact of value-pluralism in humans at the same time as being guided by something like the harm principle. Or, to put it another way, you can believe what you like and cannot be forced to conform to the belief systems of anyone else - even the Prime Minister - just so long as your actions do not encroach on the freedoms of others. Yeah, it's not perfect and yeah, in a country where conformity is seen by many as something to aspire to, it isn't going to be easy. But it is perhaps the best we have to offer when people aren't going to agree, no matter how David Cameron might want them to.

Pastor Terry Jones Speaks!

And while the underlying message is less ignorant than normal, the speech is lacking in both coherence and eloquence. Let's take a look:

[First words inaudible]...

Best part of the speech.

...what would have to happen for us to call our event off. As we prayed about that, in the past we did have one idea.

I'm guessing it wasn't having pretty much the whole world opposing your event...

This idea we put out in prayer to God. That if he would want us to call this off, if we have accomplished our goal, then our thought was the American people do not as a whole want the mosque at the Ground Zero location.

The American people do not exist as a whole. Don't attempt to force homogeneity on one of the most diverse nations in the world.

That if they were willing to either cancel the mosque at the Ground Zero location, or if they were willing to move it away from that location, we would consider that sign from God.

So God doesn't so much move in mysterious ways - he is actually full-on fucking obscurantist. He talks to rednecks on Florida through the mouthpiece of Muslims in New York - and said Muslims aren't even talking about the same thing as Jones and his idiotic ilk. Yep, this may be a sign from God, but even if it is a sign from a fictional deity, it remains very open to interpretation.

We have, or he has [indicating Iman Muhammad Musri, standing beside him], been in contact with the imam in New York City.

I, with the imam here, will be flying up there on Saturday to meet the imam at the Ground Zero mosque.

Has the Ground Zero mosque actually been built yet? Or is Pastor Jones so delusional that he thinks he's going to meet people at a place that hasn't even been built yet?

And, by the way, the proposed mosque isn't on Ground Zero. By all means go there, Jones, but you're going to be a couple of blocks away from where you need to be.

He has agreed to move the location. That of course cannot happen overnight. But he has agreed to move that.

Except reports say that those behind the mosque haven't agreed to move the location.

We felt that that would be a sign that God would want us to do it.

Like a transatlantic mobile phone call, the coherence of Pastor Jones's statement is starting to become garbled, incoherent, and not worth going on with.

The American people do not want the mosque there.

Well, some American people don't want the mosque there. Others do. Like the people building the fucking thing two blocks away.

And of course Muslims do not want us to burn the Koran.

Which is precisely why you said you would do it, you antagonist, fundamentalist little twat.

The imam has agreed to move the mosque. We have agreed to cancel our event on Saturday.

Again, the first half of this sentence may well not be true. But hey, if delusion has got Pastor Jones to cancel his little book burning, then so be it. After all, it was the delusional belief in an ersatz God that created it the idea of a book burning in the first place.

And on Saturday I will be flying up there to meet with him.

Good. Enjoy New York. Take in a show, have a hot dog. And enjoy the celebrity while you can. Because hopefully you, Pastor Jones, are about to disappear from the public eye forever.

Christian extremist lackwits call for Koran burning

Oh, good golly gosh this sounds like a such a dumb fucking idea:

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

And the justification for it?

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: "We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam."

Well, Pastor Terry Jones is clearly a fucktard of the very highest calibre if he thinks that this will be a clear message getting to radical Islam. After all, his country has invaded two nations and destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives trying to send a message to radical Islam. And if radical Islam is getting the message, it is only making them more angry. Which is what Jones's little piece of idiocy will do, if it goes ahead. Make angry radicals even more angry. Woo-hoo! That's great work there, Terry, you empty-headed lackwit.

Of course, burning books is never a great sign, but as we know, radical Islam is not above having the odd burning of stuff itself. So why shouldn't these Christians get in on the act? Well, partly because their religion is big on turning the other cheek rather than burning books, but also because this is a reactionary and stupid thing to do. The only comfort arising from this situation is that more mainstream Christians in the US and elsewhere are making their voices heard and are shouting this idea down. Which is what they need to do. Because the extremes of religion - whatever that religion might be - are very dangerous. And they discredit the whole of that religion; it becomes tainted by association with the bigots. Just as Jones reckons he is sending a message to radical Islam so Christian churches in the US need to send a message to their radical, or extremist elements - and they need to tell Jones and his odious ilk to go fuck themselves. Or more Christian words that have the same meaning.

Obama, Islam and The Daily Mail

Oooh, it has been a while since I last tore apart a Daily Mail article. Then I saw this one, that combines largely incoherent rage against two of their favourite targets (Islam and Obama) and... and how could I resist?

The headline is:

'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster

Two points - first of all, being "provocative, insensitive and uncaring" is something that The Daily Mail should know all about - it is what they do all day, every day. In fact, it should probably the tagline for their hate-rag.

Secondly, I thought that September 11th was a terrorist attack - the use of the word "disaster" seems curiously restrained for the Mail. They missed a chance to be hyperbolic there.

On with the article:

Barack Obama has been hit by a furious backlash from victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks after he backed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

As we shall come to see, the sentence above should read that Obama "...has been hit by a furious backlash from some victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and some Republicans..." An important qualification that the Mail didn't see fit to mention. Then again, imprecise terms help to create the hysteria, don't they? As this next section shows.

The proposed site for the 13-storey building is close to where almost 3,000 people died nine years ago after Muslim hijackers flew two jet airliners into the World Trade Center.

Oooo, and there is is - the motherload. Note the phrase "... Muslim hijackers". Can we dispute that? Technically not - the hijackers were Muslim. Yet they were also male - so why not write "male hijackers"? They were also human - so why not write "human hijackers"? Why not list their individual ethnicities? The problem with the use of the term "Muslim" - what makes it misleading at the very least - is the broad nature of the phrase. Islam is a religion followed by millions across the world and has different factions that believe in different things. The 9/11 hijackers were a particular kind of Muslim - they were Islamic fundamentalist militants. And as such, they were divorced from the vast majority of Muslims across the world. The use of the word "Muslim" in this context is misleading as it does not take into account the breadth of beliefs and different levels of fundamentalism inherent within that religion.

BTW, fact fans, the new mosque is two blocks away from the site of Ground Zero. Just in case you are wondering.

Mr Obama expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks, at a White House meal celebrating Ramadan.

He said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

Let's have a round of applause for Obama - a man who thus far in his presidency has been more than a little underwhelming has said something that is simultaneously courageous and absolutely right. America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion - and this freedom has to be protected, particularly if the religious building is being built on private land in accordance with the law.

His speech on Friday was heavily criticised by a group representing the families of victims of the terrorist attack, who called the plan a ‘deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah’.

Bullshit. It will have quite the opposite effect - by not discriminating against Islam based on the fanaticism of a tiny minority of Muslims, his speech will reduce and slow the rate of radicalisation. To do the opposite - to ban this mosque on the basis of an ignorant tainting of all Muslims as fundamentalist will increase alienation and in doing so increase the chance of more bloodshed in the name of Allah.

Debra Burlingame, a sister of a pilot killed when his plane was flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon and a spokesperson for victims’ families, said: ‘Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.’

Barack Obama was actually talking about a site two blocks away from "the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago". Furthermore, religious tolerance is part of America's values - and what Obama said is completely in line with those values.

BTW the Pentagon, where this lady's brother died, is in Washington, not New York. Wonder whether she objected to the rebuilding of the Pentagon? Probably not, because that wasn't about the "Muslims", just the US war machine that has, through years of attacks and aggression, helped to provoke the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists.

Peter King, a Republican congressman in New York, said the President had been wrong to back the plan, adding: ‘It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero.’

Ooo, looky, a Republican congressman in an election year who doesn't agree with the sitting US Democrat president. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, condemed the President for a 'gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.'

Well, Regenhard is entitled to her opinions. Just as Muslims are if they want to express their religious beliefs in a mosque a few streets away from Ground Zero. In this case, on private property. The fact that Regenhard has lost someone does not make her opinion more valid that the opinions of others - tragedy is not a trump card in public political debate.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

'The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding,' he said.

So, the House Minority Leader is opposing the sitting President in an election year - again, nothing startling here. It would actually be more startling - and, indeed, interesting - if said representative agreed with Obama. As it stands, the correct response is "of course he'd say that - it's his job."

New York Republican Congressman Peter King added: 'President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.'

Hmmm, hasn't this already been said?

Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida said: 'President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

'Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.'

This is more interesting if only because the person speaking is a Democrat. However, for all the world, he sounds a lot like a candidate in an election year trying to jump onto a populist bandwagon. And he's also wrong - he's conflating "Islamic terrorists" with "Islam".

However, Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill in the 9/11 attacks, disagreed and claimed a mosque would be 'a fitting tribute'.

'This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience. This is what moderate Islam is all about,' she said.

A-ha! Someone who gets it! Magic. And the fact that she tragically lost her brother shows that the families of the bereaved are not the homogenous entity they are sometimes made out to be for the sake of political expediency.

Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida yesterday, the President said: 'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.'

Obama said that 'my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.'

Uh-huh. Obama also gets the point about religious freedom in the US - a principle on which that country was founded that appears to be on the cusp of being forgotten.

The White House insisted Mr Obama was not backing away from his initial comments.

Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

Good - Obama shouldn't back away from his comments. And I'd have more sympathy with the anti-mosque brigade if they were looking to ban all religious sites of worship within a two block radius of Ground Zero. But they're not; and even if they were, I'd only have more sympathy with them - not believe that they are correct.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist said: 'I think he's right - I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others.

'I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't.'

Excellent! A Republican who gets it as well! No wonder he's having to run for the Senate as an Independent rather than Republican, though.

There had been mounting pressure for Obama to speak out on the issue after his political enemies, including former candidate for the vice presidency Sarah Palin, criticised the plan.

How predictable - Sarah Palin adopts the ignorant, populist stance on a issue. How deeply tedious that woman is.

The site was bought by the not-for-profit group the Cordoba Initiative for £3 million.

It plans to spend £75 million on a complex including a prayer room, mosque and ‘September 11 memorial and contemplation space’.

Developer Sharif el-Gamal said: ‘We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our President’s words.’

In a sense el-Gamal shouldn't be grateful to Obama - he should be grateful to the fact that America was based, in part, on the concept of religious freedom.

Which is the point here. Muslims have a right to worship just as much as any other religious believer. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that Islam is a load of toss just like every other religion. But if you are going to have a free society, then you have to allow people to be free to believe in nonsensical toss. Otherwise, you are discriminating; you become illiberal. You become an enemy of freedom.

And if you want to understand just how crass the whole idea of not having a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, then just imagine the outcry if Northern Ireland banned Catholic Churches because the IRA once carried out terrorist atrocities in that country. Same principle here; just a different religion...

UKIP and the burka

Nigel Farage seems to have lost it a bit, and jumped on to the banning the burka bandwagon. I happened to catch some of his performance on TV yesterday, and it pretty much ended any notions I have that the man has Libertarian leanings.

Let's see what Nigel had to say:

"I can't go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on. I can't wear a balaclava going round the District and Circle line."

As far as I am aware, Farage is right: you can't do either of those things. But he completely misses the point in his argument. No-one has a religious obligation to wear a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava. The same isn't true of the burka. And why would anyone want to wear a balaclava on the District and Circle line, for fuck's sake?

"What we are saying is, this is a symbol. It's a symbol of something that is used to oppress women. It is a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain."

Yes, it's a symbol of religious devotion. Now, as someone who finds religion - from Christianity and Islam through to fucking Jedis - absolute nonsense, I can't understand why anyone would wear a burka. But I also accept that their religious beliefs - which I think they are totally entitled to - means they feel they should wear a burka. If you want to cover your face because of the prattlings of long dead preachers, then knock yourself out. That's what the burka represents - devotion to a particular interpretation of Islam.

Has the burka been used to oppress women? I'd imagine so. Does that mean that when it is women wear it they are automatically being oppressed? Of course it doesn't. Some women may be wearing it because they want to, or feel it is their religious duty. That's not oppression - however, if you force them to take it off, that is oppression. Oppressing people to save them from oppression. Idiotic.

And of course the burka isn't a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain. The symbol of that is mobs of EDL members bashing the shit out of UAF members, and vice versa. And that symbol is created by this sort of dog whistle politics being employed by political leaders in this country.

"And the real worry - and it isn't just about what people wear - the real worry is that we are heading towards a situation where many of our cities are ghettoised and there is even talk about Sharia law becoming part of British culture."

Well, strikes me that this isn't about the burka at all, but about ghettoisation. In which case, the talk about the burka is a diversion, and Farage would do far better to address the real issue - how shitty some cities are becoming. And as for Sharia law becoming part of British culture, well, I've seen no real evidence of that. Besides, I'd only worry about it if it became actual law, rather than part of the culture of some parts of some cities. And there isn't a hope in hell of Sharia law becoming law in this country in Farage's life time or mine.

"There is nothing extreme or radical or ridiculous about this, but we can't go on living in a divided society."

There is nothing extreme or radical about this if you are a middle class, white MEP vying for a Parliamentary seat in Buckingham. However, if you are someone who feels a religious duty to wear a burka - or even a moderate Muslim feeling increasingly ostracised by a nation determined to dismiss Islam - this will be extreme and radical. And that is one of the things increasing tensions across the UK - this ongoing attempt by the media and certain politicians (of all political parties) to paint Islam as something odd and sinister. There is no quicker way to increase radicalisation of moderate Muslims in this country than by attacking their religious beliefs, and banning the burka is an attack on Islam, pure and simple.

Over the years many people have said I should vote, and even actively support, UKIP. I've been suspicious of them, and the party that lies behind the Farage facade. This policy confirms my fears about UKIP, and explicitly links Farage to those fears. And they certainly won't get my vote whilst they pursue this sort of moronic policy.

Islam4UK banned!

Only yesterday I pointed out what a bad idea it would be to ban Islam4UK. With their ongoing commitment to bad ideas, the government has only gone and done it.

And, lo and behold, Islam4UK is already playing the bleeding martyr. Witness this statement from Islam4UK spokesman Anjem Choudary:

"We won't be using those names and those platforms which have been proscribed, but I can't stop being a Muslim, I can't stop propagating Islam, I can't stop praying, I can't stop calling for the Sharia."

See how quickly and easily that happened? Islam4UK have gone from public nuisance to put religious group being suppressed for their beliefs by the government in one flick of the Home Secretary's pen. If you wanted a dictionary definition of counter-productive, then it would be this "proscription" of Islam4UK.

In fact, I find myself agreeing with Choudary - an unpleasant position for a passionate atheist like me to find himself in, and a turn of events I blame entirely on the Home Secretary:

"What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship."

Quite. I don't agree with Islam4UK - I think their call for Sharia law in this country and their stunt marches are idiotic. But, unlike the government, I don't think they should be banned for being idiotic. See, that is the measure of a free society - people have the right and the ability to express idiotic and unpleasant opinions, just as everyone else has a right to disagree with them. This latest government move just goes to show that we don't live in a free country. But we knew that already, didn't we?

Banning Islam4UK

Apparently Islam4UK won't be doing their march after all. I dare say that there won't be many lamenting their failure to go ahead with their crass plans.

But in amongst all the guff about this stupid farrago, this comment - from our "beloved" Home Secretary - stand out to me. It is on the subject of banning Islam4UK:

"Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism," he said.

Really? Necessary? Since when? When has banning a group ever done anything more than turn the members of that group into martyrs? How will banning a group - even one as vile as Islam4UK - stop them from holding unpleasant views and paying homage to terrorism? Does the Home Secretary really think that banning this group will make its members and supporters change their views? If he does, then he is even dumber than he looks. And he looks pretty fucking dumb.

And the problems associated with banning a group like Islam4UK are compounded when you consider that it would be Nu Labour ordering the banning. And groups are banned under Nu Labour not because they are vile, but rather because Nu Labour disagrees with them yet is too scared to debate with them. Nu Labour proscribing a group simply shows Nu Labour has no respect for free speech.

Proscription is not necessary in the fight to combat terror. Rather, proscription creates even more people who can claim to be suppressed by an increasingly draconian government. And in doing so, increasing the likelihood of more widespread radicalisation and therefore makes terrorism more likely.

Don't ban Islam4UK, Mr Johnson. Let the chunter away. Because letting them spout their shite will do them far more harm than any ban could ever do.

Debating Islam4UK

Well, this is a smart PR move. Islam4UK (wonderful use of text speak there, especially given this is an Islamic fundamentalist group) won't carry out their controversial plans for a march if Gordon Brown debates with them. It's a smart move as it has got lots of media attention for what is the very definition of a tiny group. Yet there is no way that Brown can debate these people. Here's the reason why:

Islam4UK seeks the introduction of sharia law in Britain and has links to Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed who has been banned from entering Britain. The group's website gave no indication of when the march would take place.

Make no mistake about it, this is a fundamentalist group. If Brown debates them, then he is debating extremists. As soon as he has done that, then he is open to the charge that he is being elitist and almost racist against white people by not debating say, oh, I don't know... the BNP. Or the moronic EDL. As soon as he debates Islam4UK, then he's got to debate every extremist who comes along with a plan for a faintly upsetting march. And there is no way that Brown - a man who hates any sort of situation where it isn't him talking and others listening - would ever let that happen.

Of course, I'd argue that he should debate Islam4UK and every other group who wants to talk to him. Not on the TV necessarily, but as the Prime Minister of a democracy who must hold views that are worth defending (especially against religious fundamentalists), it would be nice if he actually engaged with his people. Rather than hiding in 10 Downing Street like a mole with agoraphobia.

Nu Labour: Bankers and the Art of Creating "The Other"

Another day, another Nu Labour attack on a section of the people of this country. And today's attack victim is that gift that keeps on giving for Nu Labour - the bankers.

Alistair Darling is drawing up plans to face down the country's top bankers by taking the "nuclear option" of a windfall tax on their bumper bonuses as part of measures aimed at the super-rich.

Oh, goody. That will incentivise bankers employed in those institutions we, the British public, now own to work hard. And in no way whatsoever will this lead to bankers and banks heading abroad, to countries where the ruling elite are not so in favour of crippling the financial services sector.

This notion that bankers should be penalised for the crime of earning bonuses is as dense as it is ignorant. Bonuses are incentives for working hard and achieving goals. That is why banks - and other organisations - pay them. If a bank pays bonuses to those who do not deserve them, then that is their own silly fucking fault. And would result, in the long term, in that bank going under - except that doesn't happen any more, since Gordon Brown uses such circumstances to posture like Superman. Assuming, of course, that you see Superman as a fat ghoul with the personality of a rancid corpse. But the notion that banks should be able to do what they think is best is abhorrent to Nu Labour. I mean, they love to be interventionist in every single aspect of every single part of British life, but no-one gets quite the same level of intrusive manipulation and control than the banking sector these days.

The government's desire to control the banking sector is not simply down to their natural obsessive compulsive need to justify their existence through constant fiddling. No, this is something more. See, bankers have become the whipping boys of society - and the government can play to the public gallery by pursuing punitive policies against them. They can argue, every time they further cripple both a sector and the people working within that sector, that these people aren't in public favour just at the moment, they are simply doing what the public want them to do. The only problem with this is that the government, through their panicked rhetoric and desperate desire not to be caught up in the financial crisis they helped to create, made the bankers into a hated class of society in the first place.

A lot of political philosophy discusses the concept of "the other"; that (under)class of people within a nation that wider society defines itself by being in opposition to. There is much debate about whether "the other" naturally exists, or whether it is created by the powers that be in order to unite a naturally divisive society behind its ruling elite. I personally think (somewhat pessimistically) that it is a mix of the two. However, what is startling about Labour is just how carefully and cynically they have worked to create "the other" across their years in power. You can actually trace the history of Nu Labour by looking at which parts of society Nu Labour have set up to be shat on.

It started with the Tories. Back in 1997, when the Tories were about as popular as bowel cancer, Labour set them up to be the evil part of British society. However, as Nu Labour got involved in various scandals and as the Tories showed themselves to be about as effective as a fart in a hurricane, that stopped working. So Nu Labour helped to manufacture another subspecies to kick around. The paedophiles. And it worked very well. They managed to whip up a hysterical storm about child sex predators, and had the baying mob ready to shred anyone who looked a bit dubious. Of course, that didn't work so well either. Partly because mobs are difficult to control (particularly when fired up by such an emotive issue as child sex abuse) and also because paedophilia remains mercifully rare - at least in the high-profile cases of child sex killings. Which left the government with a vacancy for the post of the bit of society that the UK can shit on.

Then the Twin Towers came falling down, and the government turned their attention towards Islam. It was subtle at first, talking about engagement with the Islamic community - a small yet both clever and corrosive way of highlighting perceived differences between "mainstream British society" and that of that of the Muslim section. Then, of course, it got more and more blatant as the UK invaded Muslim nations. After 7/7, the government rhetoric was at its most poisonous. But yet again "the other" refused to play ball with the government so determined to ostracise them. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK are peaceful, productive members of society; and of the minority who are not, they showed themselves (barring 7/7) to be incompetent in the extreme. I mean, it is difficult to paint a section of the British population as dangerous when their extremists carry out terrorist attacks on Glasgow airport that end with a terrorist getting their teeth kicked in by a baggage handler. Then there was the problem of the attrition of civil liberties designed to combat Islamic terrorism. They led to government defeats and both to much mirth and indignation about the crassness of such policies. And the end result of this attempt to ruthlessly stigmatise Islam in the UK? The English Defence League. Well the fuck done, Nu Labour. Hark the sound of one hand clapping.

So when the economy went down the shitter, the government - in particular the Prime Minister, desperate to preserve the utterly undeserved reputation for being an economic genius - turned to and then turned on the banking sector. Of course, bankers were in part responsible for the current recession. And many of them paid for it with their jobs. And bankers perhaps don't help themselves by being so arrogant and refusing to defend themselves in the notorious court of public opinion. Yet the government's attempt to make the whole banking sector into a scapegoat will fail - if only because at some point, in our service based economy, it is going to become clear to even the ignorant shites in Numbers 10 and 11 of Downing Street that we need a strong financial sector, rather than a crippled husk of one. But for now, they won't stop. The anti-banker rhetoric is just too useful to them.

Of course, other governments do the same thing. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Tories to turn on their usual hate figures (such as immigrants) when they get back into power. However, it is Nu Labour who have turned this use of McCarthyism into a central government policy, and also transformed it into a constantly updating tool to both control and breed resentment within society. Their treatment of the bankers is just the tip of the iceberg; they have come to define their style of government by their ongoing cynical attempts to define British society as a whole through government sponsored resentment to a perceived bogeyman - regardless of whether the opprobrium is deserved or not. And this stands as yet another damning indictment of this hopefully moribund regime.

Christian Calls For Sharia Law. Eh?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has opened his mouth again - this time to argue for the partial introduction of Sharia law here in the UK. Inevitably, the rubbish that spews forth when he opens his gob is not unlike the vomit from the mouth of a cretin who has consumed too much pizza: useless, unpleasant and with a nasty aroma of cheese.

I don't really know what his latest speech is meant to achieve, other than alienate the flock he is meant to be leading and most of the other people in this country, but it does show a staggering ignorance when it comes to the law. Ultimately, the law is catch-all - it does apply to everyone who lives in this country, regardless of what community they live in. You can live in different ways, according to your beliefs, if you so wish and if it is in line with the law. Ultimately, any other way leads to anarchy, and the breakdown of the rule of law.

I can't muster the same levels of rage that DK has over Williams - Williams is a stupid man, clearly unsuited to his position, and with an apparent inability to talk sense. And as such, he is not unlike many other people who hold senior positions organisations in this country. And like all stupid people who open their mouths and babble incoherent rubbish, he should be ignored.

The staggering stupidity of what Williams has said is put into sharp focus by the fact that he has made a Liberal Democrat appear to be the voice of reason. So, Calamity Clegg, over to you:

"Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another. There is a huge difference between respecting peoples' right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."

Quite.

The Thought Police Are Coming

Samina Mali has been given a suspended sentence at the Old Bailey. In some respects, she was lucky. She could have gone to prison. And what was her crime? Talking arse, basically.

She said:

"The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom."

And:

"Watching videos by my Muslim brothers in Iraq, yep the beheading ones, watching video messages by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri and other videos which show massacres of the kaffirs."

She also wrote "Lengthy ramblings about firing rocket launchers and "taking part in the blessed forgotten sacred death of Jihad".

Talking about jihad, and rambling on about martyrdom is indicative either of naivete or an ultimately pointless commitment to an extreme form of religion. However talking and writing about these things is just that – talking and writing about them. It is not going out and committing those acts. She has been convicted based on poorly expressed motivations. Basically, she has been convicted for her thoughts. Cue a hundred references to Minority Report and Nineteen Eighty-Four. The scary thing is, though, if you are starting to prosecute people for their thoughts, then those comparisons are valid.

Mali should be able to say what she likes about jihad etc – that is a crucial part of free speech. And that right shouldn’t be taken away, because as soon as you do, it is only a matter of time before everyone else loses the right to call her a twat because of what she says.

The Teddy Bear Row

Watch me fall on the wrong side of opinion, both popular and blogosphere, with this post. But fuck it, I think it needs to be said. And since I’m struggling to write coherently at the moment, here’s a series of questions:

Does it seem hopelessly backwards for a country to prevent people from naming a teddy bear after a long dead prophet?

Does sentences such as 40 lashes, a fine and imprisonment for the above "crime" seem not just a little excessive but actually totally ridiculous?

Does it seem extreme and worrying that people would call for harsher penalties for anyone convicted of that "crime"?

Does Sudan have an appalling record when it comes to Human Rights?

If you were going to teach in that country with an appalling Human Rights record, would you get to know the law?

If you were going there to learn about the culture, wouldn’t you actually learn something about how religion is viewed in that culture, and the importance of religion within that culture?

If you were teaching in that country, wouldn’t you make sure that both you and the children you are teaching stayed on the right side of the draconian laws?

If you were convicted of a crime in a foreign country, would the British government be within their rights to say "Tough shit, you’re guilty"?

Was Gillian Gibbons fucking lucky to have the support of the British government?

Was she fucking lucky to get a presidential pardon?

(The answer to all the questions above is, by the way, yes.)

Now, I’m not saying I can stomach radical Islam. But the fact is Sudan is an Islamic fundamentalist state. If you go there, you should accept that. And I can’t claim that I knew about Sudan’s farcically excessive laws on teddy bear naming (although the maniac reaction to the Danish cartoons last year may have set off some sort of warning bell), but you can bet your life that I would have found out about it before going to that country to teach. And when the kids mentioned naming that bear after the prophet, they would have been told to sit down and drink a tall glass of shut the fuck up.

You can bellyache all you like about Sudan, and how hysterical and barbaric their behaviour has been, and I’ll agree. But I also reckon Gibbons has to accept some of the blame for what happened to her, and realise that she got off lightly. If you go abroad, then know the laws of the land you are in, and regardless of whether you agree with them or not, obey them.

90 - Sorry, 200 - lashes for being raped

A story from our allies, Saudi Arabia, whose Royal Family were recently honoured (in idiosyncratic style) by our Royal Family:

"According to the Arab News newspaper, the 19-year-old woman, who is from Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in the eastern province a year-and-a-half ago."

A terrible story, but one that is not unique to the Middle East. Gang-rape can, and does, happen everywhere. And it looks like the rapists were brought to justice:

"Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years."

A year to five years strikes me as a little light for the crime of gang rape, not least because the crime can carry the death penalty in that country. But, hey ho, I’m sure the judges know best.
Ah, wait, not they don’t:

"But the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia's laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man."

The victim was sentenced to 90 lashes. That’s the victim. And her crime? Being in the car of a strange man. Jesus, it is just as well that this particular law isn’t applicable in the UK. Otherwise there would be mass floggings every Sunday morning.

"On appeal, the Arab News reported that the punishment was not reduced but increased to 200 lashes and a six-month prison sentence."

Well, I’ll bet that the rape victim is really happy with the outcome of that appeal then.

I know that you should obey the law of your country, and I know that if you don’t, you should accept the punishment if you are caught. But it is a bit difficult to escape from the pungent air of misogyny that surrounds a law that sees a rape victim sentenced to 90 lashes. And then, on appeal, having those lashes more than doubled. With a six month prison sentence stuck on top.

And these people are our allies.

You could argue that, given my decadent Western ways, I can’t understand where this ruling is coming from. And you know what, you’d be right. Because I find the idea of lashing and jailing a person who was raped 14 times utterly abhorrent.

Still, it could have been worse. The victim could have been raped in Iran, where the penalty is far harsher.

Another day, another headline about evil Muslims indoctrinating our youth with hatred, evil, and murderous desire masquerading as devout religion. You’d be forgiven, sometimes, for reviewing our media and concluding that to become a Muslim is to become a suicide bomber.

Of course, the truth is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people, who just want to get on with life. Some radicals do want to blow themselves – and others – into the imaginary next life, but most of them don’t.

You can’t deny that Islamic fundamentalism is a problem with modern society, but it is part of a broader problem that we sometimes forget about. Because, overall, it is religious fundamentalism that causes so many problems today. Don’t just blame Islam, ‘cos Christianity can be such as bad.

Take a look at this article about Jesus Camp in America. It makes for eye-opening, and rather frightening, reading. For the indoctrination and radicalisation of youth described in the article isn’t happening in a Muslim training camp in the deserts of Afghanistan, but rather in a Christian summer camp in the American heartland. Yep, that’s right, at the very heart of the country that is fighting a war on terror against Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists are indoctrinating the youth with hate filled, hideous lies masquerading as biblical truth. Two passages spring out to me in the article:

"…a slick, clever, politically ambitious preacher tells his 2,500-strong congregation of impressionable young people that they should have no use for democracy since all the law they need is in the Bible."

That’s right. Bye bye democracy. Bye bye freedom of speech. There is only one truth. The truth contained in the archaic, incoherent and ancient Bible.
And then the article goes on:

"There is no love here. No turning to your neighbour and exchanging a sign of peace. This is not Christianity as we know it. What we see in the movie is children in their hundreds being indoctrinated by nutcases, encouraged to hate and fear and ready themselves for ultimate war."

That’s right, "ultimate war". That’s the sort of phrase that you just can’t spin in a positive way. Preparing the youth for ultimate war is a totally terrifying concept.

I’m tired of reading about how bad Muslim fundamentalism is when other radical wings of various religions are just as bad. Religious fundamentalists of all creeds are unthinking, ignorant creatures, who cling to the ancient words in their out of date texts believing them to be an absolute and indisputable truth. It doesn’t matter whether you follow the teachings of Mohammed or of Jesus. The former strap back packs to themselves and blow up trains to enter paradise, the latter blow up abortion clinics to preserve the sanctity of life. The fundamentalist nature of the religious beliefs is the problem, not the idiosyncratic semantics of the individual creeds.

UPDATE:

And this article shows another example of religious fundamentalism gone hideously wrong. I can understand - and almost admire - this woman for dying for her beliefs. Then I think of the new widower, of the kids who will never grow up knowing their Mum, and who, no doubt, will be indoctrinated with the same warped, archaic beliefs that killed their mother. I know I should support the rights of anyone to have any beliefs they feel are right.

But I will also support my right to tell them that those beliefs are, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking stupid.

Via the Chase Me Ladies blogspot I have come across the John Doe Manifesto. And very silly it is too. But the particular bit that stands out to me goes:

“I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

“I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.”

Oh really? If you are never going to forget them, then name them. Go on, name them. Hell, name just some of them. I’m not claiming I can name any of them myself, but then again, I am not devising a crappy mantra about being vigilant about terrorism.

I rather think that defeating the threat posed by global terrorism may be partly down to the security services and law enforcement organisations as well as individuals keeping their eyes open. And I also rather think that further ostracising members of the Muslim community with this sort of unmitigated bollocks may be a tad counter-productive, not least because - as the long campaign of the IRA shows for example - not all terrorists are Muslims...

Veils

Because it is one of the stories of the day, the Moai and I have been having a bit of a debate about the decision to let schools ban veils. And in spite of agreeing with a lot of the arguments for banning veils in schools I cannot agree with the decision.

I completely agree that veils can represent a more fundamentalist side to Islam. I agree that they make security and identification very difficult (see here for a topical example). I agree that they also make communication and integration very difficult. And I know that some of our leading educational organisations have already taken action to ban the niqab and the burka. But I still do not think they should be banned.

It is different to asking a motorcyclist to remove his helmet when they come into a building for identification purposes. And it is different to asking someone not to a cross. Because Muslim women wear the niqab and the burka for religious reasons. Because of their faith, they do not feel they have a choice.

And this is fundamentally about freedom of expression rather than more pragmatic and practical considerations. I think those who wear the niqab or the burka should know that it does make communication and integration more difficult. They should also be aware that in our traditionally Anglo-Saxon, Christian culture there will be prejudice and stigma attached to wearing a veil. But you know what? If you make them aware of the above and the strength of their religious convictions is still strong enough to make them want to wear a veil then they should be allowed to do so.

The simple fact is that we do live in a multi-cultural society where there are disparate religions and other beliefs that may appear alien to the traditional British values (whatever they maybe) but unless you are willing to embrace the barmy far right, neo-Nazi politics of the BNP then multi-culturalism is here to stay. So rather than banning people for adhering to the rules of their religions, let’s try to find ways around the problems and issues that may arise.

"Uncovered Meat"

Every now and again, a Muslim says or does something that appalls me utterly and makes me question my ideological commitment to free of religion. Today's fucktard is Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali. He has apologised for his comments but quite frankly that is not good enough. The sickening misogyny spouted by this shameless shithead has no place in a twenty first century liberal democracy.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?"

Interesting how some who claims to be a cleric regards women as "meat" to be "eaten". The analogy gives away a lot - Hilali sees women not just as inferior to him but as not even human. Come on, Hilali, say what you think - you see women as "fuck meat." Which is fine, because I see you as an open, oozing, infected sore on the face of the world - a leaking, feculent sewer on legs.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred,"

Unless she fell victim to an honour killing. Or to incestous rape. Which of course would *never* happen in a Muslim household.

"Sheikh Hilali also condemned women who swayed suggestively and wore make-up, implying they attracted sexual assault.
"Then you get a judge without mercy... and gives you 65 years," he added."

I cannot think of any Western country that gives out a 65 year sentence for rape, but exaggerating really is the least of Hilali's sins. The assertion that by dressing attractively and wearing make up makes a woman a viable target for rape is the thinking of a stone age man. And Hilali is an important figure in the Australian Muslim community - as Pru Goward, an Australian prosecuter, points out:

"Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man... their leader in court"

In his apology Hilali says:

"I had only intended to protect women's honour"

Is Hilali really so goddamned ignorant that he thinks we will be fooled by this utter shite? How can someone who sees a woman wearing a skirt and make-up as a piece of meat possibly talk about honouring women?

The Lebanese Muslim Association apparently condemns Hilali's words and may ban him from speaking in Mosques. Good. Because if they do not condemn, and then take action against, this man then they are condoning his words as the words of Islam. And the only way to bridge the religious and cultural divides is to ostracise the likes of Hilali and ultimately force them to go to a society that is compatible with their atrocious views are acceptable. In the 1980's those in the far left were told to "piss off back to Russia". These days, we should be saying to the likes of Hilali "piss off to a Middle Eastern backwater".