Where’s the divide?

29 January 2011

The British debate about political Islam is catastrophically muddled

The outcry over Sayeeda Warsi’s speech on Islamophobia last week cannot be understood without a clear grasp of the balance of power within the coalition government. There are two factions, and the strongest can loosely be described as neoconservative. This faction remains an unconditional supporter of the United States of America, continues to defend the Iraq invasion, powerfully admires and in some cases worships Tony Blair, and automatically takes the side of Israel in the middle east.

This section of the coalition also takes a hard line on domestic security arrangements, supporting control orders and the divisive Prevent strategy for confronting its special interpretation of the Islamic terror threat. Its key cabinet supporters include George Osborne, Liam Fox, Oliver Letwin, Michael Gove (whose book Celsius 7/7 sought to define the domestic war on terror with astonishing success) and, crucially, the home secretary, Theresa May. Baroness Neville-Jones, the one-time Whitehall spook who sits on the fancily named Security Council, is another well-placed though bone-headed supporter.

The most prominent member of the rival faction is deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, whose room in the Cabinet Office is just a few feet down the corridor from Baroness Warsi’s. In opposition, Clegg made some thoughtful speeches on anti-Muslim bigotry, although in government he has been more restrained. He has also, once again rather feebly, been privately urging the coalition to break with the United States over its now paralysed and bankrupt middle east policy (incidentally, an approach which was powerfully urged this week by Prince Turki bin Faisal, former head of Saudi intelligence and British ambassador to London, in a masterful speech in central London). There are only a handful of other members of this Clegg/Warsi faction: the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is partially signed up, along with a phalanx of elderly one-nation Tories, mainly confined to the back benches.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Peter Oborne | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (1)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Frank

February 3rd, 2011 6:05pm Report this comment

The only thing that is "catastrophically muddled" is Oborne's understanding of Islamism. Why does he think that the only Muslims who should be considered 'extremists' are advocates of terrorism against the UK? What about individuals who advocate terrorism in Iraq, denying rights to homosexuals and executing 'apostates'? Are they not 'extremists'? They were well represented among the individuals invited to speak at the Global Peace and Unity event, even if the miniscule al-Muhajiroun were kept outside.

Oborne is so desperate to prove his anti-racist credentials that he ends up holding Muslims against lower standards than he would other people in society. This is a classic example of 'racism of the lower expectation'.

Post comment