How we got here

Rhoda Klapp

And again, what makes Wilders far right? This is as widely reported, but not liking Islam is not per se a left/right position.

I could tell you who the fascists are here, but that would make me beyond the pale too, I supppose.

Gruntson

Well said. Non-negotiable is the key term as is the word 'intolerance,' used by the Times in a leader some time ago in the following way:

intolerance of intolerance. (A hardening of a stance expressed in a previous Times leader - no tolerance for intolerance.)

strapworld

"but to have the courage to identify, and insist upon, the points of non-negotiable conformity."

The problem is conformity. It appears to me, and I suspect a large number of people, that the move to jumble everyone into being 'British' is wrong.

People are, rightly,proud of their nationality. We have lived together well for hundreds of years recognising the individual nationalities of the Scots, Irish, Welsh and English. Yet, willingly accepting one Government by the people for the people.

This Labour shower let the genie out of the bottle by giving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland their own form of part self government.

That has created a greater division between the countries, which can only worsen.

Then we have the addition of immigrants. Whilst the vast majority of West Indians, Africans and Indians are rightly proud of their roots, I believe they consider themselves English, Welsh, Irish or Scots first!

Sadly, I do not see that with the Pakistanis. They are proud of their roots but they remain Pakistanis.(I recently had a spell in hospital. In the same ward was a charming young man, born in England, played cricket for an English County and was proud of that fact, but told me he wanted to play for Pakistan. he did not accept and did not wish to be classed as English -he told me his friends were all of the same opinion!)

So we now have a greatly Disunited Kingdom, where the majority, English, are being subjected to assaults from all quarters.

Were the EU and this Prime Minister, (who never mentions the ENGLAND word!),appear to want to remove England from the map.

All this, in my mind, is leading us to major trouble.

I worry at the day the English speak!

We are no longer a Country of Free Speech. We are a country, at the moment, tip toeing on glass!

You are so right to call it 'terrifyingly geo political'
Perhaps Kipling was spot on when he wrote East is East and West is West

God help us.

Searcher

A Britishness project, as you define it Matthew, would be a worthwhile enterprise, although a difficult one to accomplish in this non-judgemental society that knows no moral absolutes. Gordon Brown’s “Britishness” project, however, was nothing to do with that: it was all about justifying the position of an unelected Scottish socialist prime minister, ruling over a country, England, with a majority conservative population. As such, it was rightly derided. And we don’t seem to have heard much about it lately. It was yesterday’s soundbite from the man taking the right long-term decisions.

James J

We lost Freedom of Speech when we accepted that the BBC would never invite Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, on to Question Time and be treated like the other participants. We lost Freedom of Speech when we allowed what David Irvin can publish about Hitler or the Second World War to be subject to criminal law.
We lost Freedom of Speech when referring to someone as looking like a Golliwog, while supposedly taking a work break, is enough to cost you your job. We lost Freedom of Speech when an employee of a school can be disciplined for complaining about her child being told off because the child discussed her religious beliefs.
Freedom of Speech is not about being able to agree with the current dominant political views but to disagree with them.

Bruce, UK

The only "GB" Brown ever cared about begins with James.

Bruce, UK

PS Satanic Verses is nowhere near as good as Haroun and the Sea of Stories.

Wilhelm

Matthew

Better watch out, your Spectator work chum Alex Massie will call you a bigot and a boor.

Ian C

I agree with Searcher that Brown's attempts were nothing more than self justification, if attempted on relevant ground. I can't however understand his refernece to 'the right long-term decisions', though. Brown has never done such a thing.

The fact is, like it or not, in 30 years time we will be a mixed white/brown/black skinned nation. What matters is that those coming in are actively required to integrate, leave their old country laws behind while for the British authorities must ensure that we do not become overcrowded and unamanageable in the process.

I see little hope that either is or will be the case and as such are building up enormous social and economic difficulties for the multi-coloured nation that is destined to emerge. But these are currently only at the level of 'blending' difficulties compared to what could unfold - and I don't mean in the context of Enoch Powell's warnings. They don't have to get anywhere near as bad as his forebodings for the problem to be enormous.

Jack R

Mr. D'Ancona: I agree with you about Salman Rushdie; but Philip Johnston of the Telegraph made the point yesterday that, although there was widespread support for Mr. Rushdie in 1989, there appears to be less for Dutch MP, Geert Wilders today.

'Multiculturalism' is, in practice, a denigration of Western civilisation and values; this ideology of cultural relativism elevates Islam over Western culture in an appeasing acceptance. As for an alternative campaign for 'Britishness', Gordon Brown is utterly hypocritical about this: he willingly yields British national sovereignty to the European Union, and enthuses for the Islamisation of Europe by supporting the entry of 75 million Muslim Turks.

Yes, a revivial of a British nationalism is politically desirable and attractive to most British people.

A good philosophical case is put by Roger Scruton in his pamphlet: 'England and the Need for Nations' (Civitas, 2006).

Searcher

Ian C - I was being ironic. I know that I should have used quotation marks, but in the context of my other comments on Brown, I thought the irony was pretty obvious.

Francis

"Multi-culturalism - often presented as a sinister Left-wing conspiracy"
-but isnt it a sinister left wing conspiracy? Millions of alien people didnt appear by magic. Socialists looked around fro a way to spite British people and decided to settle them here. If there is a better explanation for mass immigration than simple racial hatred of British people I would like to hear it. (I suppose if you are feeling charitable you could say it was just for vote-fodder).
"a multi-cultural society like Britain"
-or a nation state going thoruhg the agony of having its culture and identity persecuted at the same time as having countless millions of alien people settled in it.
"component communities"
-the Scots, English, Welsh and Irish?

The Britishness project was fairly derided because it was being done by people who hated Britain and had worked to destroy it and clearly had nothing of value to replace what they had destroyed.

Steve.W

In your Telegraph article - 17th July 2005 you say - “Muslims, in my view, have as much a right to their own schools as Anglicans, Catholics and Jews. But they have a corresponding duty to treat their female pupils in a fashion consistent with British social practice”.

I think you knew in 2005 that Islam UK would not accept the corresponding duty towards their female pupils. It is a dream from which the rest of the UK, who thought they might, should awake.

bill

More stuff from D'Ancona with which I do not agree (now there is a surprise). Still at least I can read the Speccie for free rather than pay for it which I used to be prepared to do.

TGF UKIP

The absence of any ringing condemnation of the decision to refuse Geert Wilders entry to the UK says everything about this piece.

The comments above have much more to commend them in a right of centre forum.

Verity

"... on the day when the struggle against Islamic militancy in Britain truly began."

Wrong. Why?

There is no struggle against Islamic militancy in Britain. None. There is submission. There is damage control; there is tip-toeing around the edges ... as in when British intelligence/police go to home of a suspected terrorist, our police dogs wear little booties so as not to "offend" the floors of the house they're investigating.

Dogs are an integral part of British life and have been for thousands of years before Britain existed as a concept. Any Islamic who can't handle that that can bugger off back to the Hindu Kush.

There should be an iron-fisted attitude to people with alien ideas that militate against our basic laissez faire. You're here. You fit in, and that includes having dogs in your house if the police deem it necessary for public safety.

The vile Muslim Council is another violent cultural assault. The Muslims themselves didn't ask for it. But Britain couldn't kowtow low enough. After 7/7, Blair, who spends his entire life on his knees to Muslims - take that as you will - raced onto to TV not to offer solemn sympathy and resolve, as did Mr Bush after the WTC, but to hector the British into not seeking revenge. As though we were a nation that would take to reckless violence on the streets in a situation like that. Sadly, we're not, and Blair knew it, but, with an eye to a future career in the Mid-East, it was a chance to suck up to the enemy.

If you recall, he instantly formed some kind of "Muslim advisory committee" - why? to let us know what steps it would be OK to seek out terrorists and what steps are proscribed by Islam? - and on this instant committee was the former Cat Stevens (!) - permanently banned from entering the United States - but then, Tony always did love show biz) and some creepy little half-Pakisani and half-(I think) Kiwi, who was a barrister who had chambers out of his council house ... and similar. Where did he find them? All with access to Downing Street during a period of terrorism.

I saw over Christmas that a school Nativity play, one of our oldest traditions, was postponed until after the New Year, when Christmas was over, because "it interfered with Eid".

Others can add legions of examples of surrender. Including not allowing a perfectly respectable, responsible ethnic Caucasian Dutch legislator onto British soil because he might offend "Lord" Ahmad who had threatened the British government with the mobilisation of 10,000 angry Muslims to blockade the House of Lords. Rather than having the "lord", who is awaiting sentencing for possibly causing a death by texting while driving at 60 mph, up before the beak for threats to the British government, the supine government submitted and packed Mr Wilders, holder of an EU passport, off back to Holland.

Sorry, Matthew, but your piece, although clearly written in good faith, in reality clangs false.

Verity

Francis - Well said, that man! An astute post.

Verity

Strapworld - Your post makes no sense. You equate the indigenes of the Celtic countries with Muslim immigrants. This is wrong on several levels, but most obviously, the Scots, Irish and Welsh have their own ancient countries within the United Kingdom. The Muslims do not.

The Scots, Irish and Welsh are a race. Islam is not. The Scots, Irish and Welsh are, within their own context, tied together genetically. The Muslims are not. The Scots, Irish and Welsh have occupied their lands back into time immemorial. The Muslims to not have any lands in the United Kingdom and thus have no ties to our soil and no shared history.

There's more, but I can't be bothered because the ignorance of the multiculti manipulators is willful and designed to be destructive and I just can't be bothered.

John Thomas

The fact that Wilders received little sympathy and support, unlike Rushdie, two decades ago, is because of the changes that have been engineered since, by the "multiculturalist/diversity" brigade, who now rule us, whose bottom-licking of the radical Islamicists is truly nauseating. In addition, of course, Wilders suffered from the demonising he received at the hands of the Brazenly Biased Corporation.

Denis Cooper

The most fundamental of "the points of non-negotiable conformity" must be that nobody in this country, Muslim and non-Muslim, is above the law.

Therefore, nobody has the right to use, or threaten to use, unlawful means to suppress lawful freedom of speech, which is what appears to have happened in this case.

Moreover, the peculiarity of this case is that this is not just a matter of free speech in general - which it would have been, if Wilders had intended to address a public meeting outside Parliament - but also free speech within Parliament, and therefore a matter of Parliamentary privilege.

We cannot allow Ministers to abuse their powers to prevent free debate in Parliament.

What would have happened if Wilders had been allowed into the country, and he was actually at the meeting in the Lords, and then Jacqui Smith, a Minister of the Crown, had turned up with police officers to shut the meeting down?

Would present day parliamentarians insist on their privilege, in the same way as their predecessors did when Charles I barged into Parliament with armed men, or would they just roll over?

Nor can we allow the situation to develop where Parliament is so terrified of mob violence, from any quarter, that it submits to curbs on freedom of speech even within its own precincts.

The question is whether there is a sufficient number of parliamentarians in either House who still care enough about both free speech, and Parliamentary privilege, to insist that these events must be fully investigated by a parliamentary - possibly a joint - committee.

Parliamentary committees have the legal power to order witnesses to attend, and if appropriate give their evidence under oath.

These events should be investigated by at least a Committee of the House of Lords, whose privileges have been impugned, and preferably by a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and both Jacqui Smith and Lord Ahmed should be required to explain themselves.

Acient Briton

It would be beneficial to us British if all state handouts were denied to all and any persons not born here and those that thus find themselves without handouts were given free passage out of the country.

That should reduce the drain on the taxpayers' pockets and release some much-needed housing onto the market which, in turn, would ease prices and help provide cheap accomodation to first-timers. (MPs might also find that second homes are cheaper!)

I expect some coffee housers will say we can't take away established rights but I, for one, feel that my rights are being undermined and removed daily - largely to cater for the needs of incomers.

Oh, and kick EU membership into touch, too. We can quite effectively rule ourselves, thankyou, without all those deceitful and duplicitous foreigners interfering.

Again, to be consistent, we should stop interfering in other nations deomestic affairs; Afghanistan, Iraq, et al.

Alan

Please, Britain, or is it Great Britain (I can't tell the differance) is not an Nation, a State or Country. It is a geographical entity, part of the British Isles. You live in a State, which is a Realm called the United Kingdom and you have a choice of Countries for your Nationality i.e. Scotland, England, Wales (But N.I. is a problem)

Neil Turner

George Orwell stated that "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

As long as the media keeps branding Wilders a "far right" / extremist / repugnant (etc) then you are contributing to the deceit that NewLabour have imposed on us

Please get real !

Verity

Denis Cooper writes: "Parliamentary committees have the legal power to order witnesses to attend, and if appropriate give their evidence under oath."

Now here we have another illustration of why Islam cannot enjoy a place at the table in the enlightened West - or at least until it undergoes a Reformation.

Here is what many who write opinions about Islam without having read anything about it trip up. Regarding taking the oath, on the Q'ran, it is permissible to lie under oath if it is in the service of Allah or the individual testifying judges that a lie would further the cause of Islam.

This is fundamental.

All those people like Charles Moore who believe, because they lack any experience and haven't done enough reading, that everything will be nicey-poo if we all just play nicely and "respect" each other ar wrong.

This is an enlightened Westerner's point of view. Islam is still rooted, as we know, in the C8th. Until it has a Reformation, it will be at odds with all other religions. People should not make assumptions that, because they have satellite TV and cellphones that, as belief system, it has progressed beyond the C8th.

Herbert Thornton

Verity - you've written excellent comments.

The heading - "Matthew d’Ancona reflects on the day when the struggle against Islamic militancy in Britain truly began" must be one of the most misleading ones I have ever read in the Spectator. It invites the question - "What struggle"? Come to that, it's difficult to read Mathew's piece as being much of a struggle either.

There is in fact no substantial opposition to Islamic militancy anywhere in the entire British Establishment - Labour and Conservative politicians, the newspapers, the BBC, the Universities and schools, the judiciary, or the police. Rather, they tend to be not just tolerant of it but actually sympathetic and even supportive of it.

Theirs is a ragbag of unfounded assertions that Islam is inherently peaceful, that Muslims in general heartily disapprove of terrorism, that in any case militants bent on terrorism are a tiny minority, that to the extent that some Islamic militants may perhaps be planning the occasional barbaric outrage, it is all our fault and can be set to rights by our being more tolerant, accepting and understanding. Mild handwringing followed by rapid sweeping under the carpet in the case of any especially barbaric outrage is part of their general response.

But their general response also alas, includes constant refusal to engage in rational discussion. This is demonstrated by the fact that the BBC and the media constantly ignore, for example, the growing disillusion with immigration and the existence of No Go areas. Even the few bishops (I can think of only two) who have dared to draw attention to No Go areas have been excoriated. As for reporting anything that Nick Griffin says about those topics, he is treated as if he were permanently silent.

While that may all sound disturbing, the Establishment's response goes beyond ignoring dissenting opinions. It has been one of attempting to actually suppress dissent by whatever means is available - e.g. by the exclusion of Geert Wilders for being willing to show "Fitna" to the House of Lords, and by prosecutions for alleged "hate" crimes - which, in the case of the leader of the BNP thankfully failed. (Incidentally, I would recommend "What the West Needs To Know" quite as wholeheartedly as I recommend "Fitna".)

The media in particular - newspapers and the BBC - indulge in demonisation of the BNP on a scale, and using the methods alarmingly like those used by Hitler's propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels. They constantly repeat the false allegation that the BNP is "extremist right-wing" , "racist" and even "Nazi" - in the belief (too often sadly accurate) that if a lie is repeated often enough it will come to be accepted as the truth.

Some people are nervous that Britain is being turned into a new version of the Balkans. I believe that it is being turned by its Establishment into something much worse.

Verity

"I believe that it is being turned by its Establishment into something much worse."

I do, too, Herbert Thornton, and it insults us with camera angles and trick lighting.

TGF UKIP

Verity, 2.37 pm, brilliant brilliant post.

And why have the House of Lords been so supine over this? It would seem that they are as rotten as the current Cameron Tory Party.

NickB

Here's a simple test for anyone who claims to believe that multiculturalism is unquestionably the right thing: would you have supported the right of any white South Africans who wanted to continue to live in a whites-only world to form enclaves of Apartheid within the UK. If not, why not? I don't want such enclaves - not least because my wife is black - but then I don't claim to be a believer in multiculturalism.

Denis Cooper

No doubt you're right that some Muslims won't consider themselves bound by their oath, Verity, just like some non-Muslims.

That's why the law of the land, the irreducible "point of non-negotiable conformity" which must be upheld at all times, lays down that anyone who lies under oath is committing perjury - irrespective of their religion, and the nature of the oath they have taken or affirmation they have made.

The relevant law long pre-dates large scale immigration of Muslims into this country - it's still the Perjury Act 1911, which provides for a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment, which applies just as much to Lord Ahmed as it did to Lord Archer, and which applies just as much to witnesses giving evidence under oath before a Parliamentary committee as to witnesses in a court:

"False statements on oath made otherwise than in a judicial proceeding."

"If any person -

(1) being required or authorised by law to make any statement on oath for any purpose, and being lawfully sworn (otherwise than in a judicial proceeding) wilfully makes a statement which is material for that purpose and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true ... he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof on indictment, shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years ..."

However all this is theoretical - even though these events should be investigated by a Parliamentary committee, it's very unlikely that they will be, and it's even more unlikely that Jacqui Smith and Lord Ahmed would be summoned as witnesses to explain themselves under oath.

A large majority of parliamentarians in both Houses are now self-seeking placemen who have no respect for the Parliament of which they are members, because they have no respect for the people whose Parliament it is; and they have no respect for, or even understanding of, our civil liberties or our constitution; and most of the exceptions who do understand and care about those things are too weak to stand up to the executive.

Wilders being Dutch, Wilders being an elected representative, Wilders holding views which some find obnoxious - in my view, these are all matters of secondary importance.

Of primary importance is the fact that members of the legislative branch, parliamentarians, organised a meeting within the precincts of Parliament, and a member of the executive branch, a Minister of the Crown, abused powers previously granted to her by Parliament to prevent that meeting taking place.

I've no doubt that the Home Secretary has other powers which could be abused to prevent anyone else travelling to and entering the Parliament buildings, even members of that Parliament, and who can say that won't be the next stage?

Verity

Dennis Cooper - Thanks for the information - but, with respect, I fear that you miss the main argument here.
Do you honestly think the current judiciary in England (they're more robust in Scotland and they have their own legal system) would prosecute a Muslim for perjury? Honestly??? When (if caught; and who is going to investigate and make a case of this?) the Muslim is going to claim that he was practising his religious freedom and was following the directions Mohammad handed down to the entire world. Do you think anyone in today's English judiciary is going to take on the 8th Century desert "visionary", and his 1.5bn adherents? Remember the events worldwide when some people drew some rather unwitty cartoons? When "Lord" Ahmad can snap his fingers and summon 10,000 furious Muslims, and no doubt so can the Muslim Council and some postal-vote moguls in Bradford and Blackburn and many other places?

No. Muslims will be excused for lying under oath. Just as they are excused for committing bigamy, forcing their daughters into arranged marriages and cutting off the clitorises of their little girls. It's their "tradition". So is lying under oath.

I agree, Denis Cooper, that Wilders's circumstances in that episode are of secondary importance to the main event, which you rightly describe as: "... the fact that members of the legislative branch, parliamentarians, organised a meeting within the precincts of Parliament, and a member of the executive branch, a Minister of the Crown, abused powers previously granted to her by Parliament to prevent that meeting taking place."

And what will happen to the odious Jacqui Smith? Once again, this debased, corrupt "government" will roll its wagons into a circle and sit it out.