Home > Melanie Phillips

Friday 10 February 2012

The lights go out in Britain

Tuesday, 20th November 2007

The sinister police response to Islamist incitement (see post below) in which they tried to suppress the evidence of it in the interests of ‘community cohesion’ is unfortunately part of a far larger picture of terminal British cultural cringe and abasement in the face of the threat to Britain and the west. Following the statement by the head of MI5 that we should ‘pay close attention’ to the language used to talk about such matters, the Guardian reports that counter-terrorism officials are abandoning ‘offensive’ ‘inappropriate’ and ‘emotive language’ when talking about, er, Islamic terrorism. So no more ‘war on terror’; the ’battle’ against extremist ideology becomes a ‘struggle’ (hello? isn’t that what 'jihad' actually means?); and terrorist plots and conspiracies will be described as ‘criminal’ instead. ‘

We hadn't got the message right,’ said one senior official. He added: ‘We must talk in a language which is not offensive.’ Another said that the terrorist threat must not be described as a ‘Muslim problem’.

Later on in the story, however, we learn that the geniuses in the Home Office Research, Information, and Communications Unit, which was set up to counter al Qaeda propaganda and ‘win hearts and minds’, will draw up

‘counter-narratives’ to the anti-western messages on websites designed to influence vulnerable and impressionable audiences… to explain what one official called the government's ‘foreign policy in its totality’, counter the accusations made by al-Qaida sympathisers and extremist groups and pinpoint the weaknesses in their arguments. The unit will also support ‘alternative voices’ in the Muslim community.

So how precisely are they going to do this if they won’t even acknowledge that the words ‘Muslim’, ‘terrorism’ and ‘problem’ might go together? Since the driver of I*****c t*******m is the I******t injunction, mandated by leading M****m religious authorities, to wage war against western civilisation in the name of I***m, restore the M****m caliphate and subjugate unbelievers and M****m backsliders everywhere, just how is the HORICU going to ‘pinpoint the weaknesses in their arguments’ if they refuse even to use these words? On what basis will they single out the Muslim community for the encouragement of ‘alternative voices’ if they say the problem is nothing to do with that community? And just what is the government’s ‘foreign policy in its totality’? Does this involve saying less than fulsome things about George Bush, perhaps, and more fulsome things about the Palestinians in their historic ‘struggle’ against the Zionist entity? I’m sure that we’d all love to know.

Last week, London Mayor Ken Livingstone published a report about ‘Islamophobia’ which damned pretty well every factual reference to Islamic extremism, terrorism or intended genocide as ‘Islamophobic’. This risible document was said to have been written by ‘leading academics and experts’; but one of its main targets, the television journalist John Ware who made an exemplary documentary exposing the extremism of the Muslim Council of Britain, quickly discovered at the press conference that one of these alleged luminaries wasn’t an academic or expert at all but Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB, whose form in the field of prejudice and extremism has been well documented (see here, for example) and that two other MCB people were also among the authors.

As Ware wrote in the Sunday Telegraph, the purpose of this travesty was to suppress legitimate discussion of such issues by putting political Islam beyond the scope of media inquiry. There is already alarming evidence that this is happening. The British libel laws have been successfully used by a Saudi banker, Khalid Bin Mahfouz, to suppress evidence about the alleged links between Saudi financing and terrorism. More than 30 publications, authors and publishers have been successfully sued in Britain, with only one author, the terrorism financing expert Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, fighting a lonely battle against such ‘libel tourism’. A nine-minute video documentary on this can be viewed here.

Meanwhile, the Times reported yesterday that the prize-winning artist Grayson Perry had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

‘I’ve censored myself,’ Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. ‘The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.’

Far from upholding and protecting the culture that is under attack, the British government and counter-terrorism establishment are instead pushing us all further down this dark path. The lights are going out in Britain. This is the way freedom dies.

To read a response to this post from the solicitors of Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, click here.

Previous Back to Melanie Phillips Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (15)

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

Maizy Doats

November 20th, 2007 6:17pm

We need to listen to the Chief Rabbi: [Jonathan] Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive. A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others.” http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=914939

Jim

November 20th, 2007 7:46pm

There is always America. During WW2 many escaped Nazism by coming to America. Ayaan Hirsi Ali did the same just recently. Come to America. I hear we have a wide open border on the south. Laredo is especially easy to get into.

Tim

November 20th, 2007 9:00pm

By admitting to being fearful of his life if he should have included criticism of Islam in his art, Grayson Perry has in fact been much more effective in attacking those forces he alludes to. I'm sure he knew this when he said it. Well done Mr Perry.

Lee Jakeman

November 20th, 2007 9:49pm

The word "ignorance" is related to the verb "to ignore". Refusing to face facts; looking the other way; pretending that all is well; turning a blind eye - these are all examples of ignorance. Our leaders are not just ignorant - they are MORE ignorant than most ordinary people are. And that's in spite of being well educated and having university degrees. Which all goes to prove that an education is no guarantee against ignorance. Which is why they tell us to "celebrate diversity" and then threaten to prosecute us if we point out that people are - er - different. They concentrate most of the power in their hands, then turn around and talk about the need for "empowerment". They abolish selection in state schools, then send their own children to - er - very selective private schools. Is there any way of getting rid of these idiots, short of an insurrection? Every time I arrive at the polling booth, I'm asking myself: "Right - now which bunch of morons shall I vote for this time round?"

Max Kaye

November 20th, 2007 11:01pm

Grayson Perry would certainly fox the fanatics. They wouldn't know whether to slit his throat or put him in a burka.

I agree with Tim that by speaking out he is doing his bit for our freedoms. Where are the rest of the art fraternity? C'mon Damien, pickle us a mullah!

Wally Greeninker

November 20th, 2007 11:38pm

At the time of the Danish cartoons controversy I believe that Private Eye was the only British journal that said they didn't publish them because they were scared of becoming a target of terrorism. There was something pathetic about the way the rest of the British press posed as responsible journalists who would not irresponsibly cause trouble and wished to show respect towards Muslim sensibilities.

Verity

November 21st, 2007 2:49am

Wally Greeninker - Agreed, yet remember that this was when Campbell was the press tsar. None dared tread. Why? I always wondered. Although given that all the senior positions in law were occupied by Tony's flatmates/former employers, I could understand the fear. They disgusted me. What was ambulatory twit Alastair Campbell going to do? They were more scared of Alastair Campbell than they were of islam crunching away at the roots of British democracy. That's when I figured their reputation for being "fearless" was as empty as Alastair Campbell's power to control them.

Elliott

November 21st, 2007 2:57am

..." Not with a bang but a whimper "

George Steiner

November 21st, 2007 3:08am

Madam, the lights went out some time ago already. And the colonization is progressing relentlessly. There are two reason for this. The British on the whole are very sympathetic to Islam. They are also absolutely terrified of it. The Chief Rabbi reminds me of the Rabbis of pre-war Europe. Supine, politically correct, incoherent and apeasing. Ready to blame the Jews no less. The British Jews should get the hell out while the getting is good. There are better places for them than Britain. As for treating the terrorists as common criminals, this will upset the Muslims instead of apeasing them. For they know that they are soldiers in the global Jihad and not criminals. Even this the Brits don't understand.

field

November 21st, 2007 3:14am

Yep the British press were all wearing brown trousers at the time. Private Eye's response wasn't much better. They had exposed the gangster Krays in the 60s when they were living round the corner from their offices. But they weren't prepared to back fellow satirists in the 21st century. Shameful. My suggestion to the British press at the time was that they should all print a small drawing on their mastheads showing various famous figures from the past including Mohammed, all respectfully drawn. That would have at least made targets of them ALL and thus reduced the risk. It would also have focussed the debate where it needed to be focussed since the ideologues object to ALL representations of he who must be obeyed whether good or bad. Sacks has hardly given up on identity politics has he? Or has he disbanded the British Board of Deputies?

Elgar1857

November 21st, 2007 9:26am

Winston Churchill had a word for such appeasement, it was cowardice.

Gordon Neil

November 21st, 2007 10:59am

Like an echo of the old testament prophets you seem to have taken on the mantle of speaking the most uncomfortable of truths to those in power. In this case the truth that the terror we face is being committed by islamist zealots with the express intent of promoting and fulfilling their vision of Islam. A simple truth which exposes the stupidity of the governments attempts to suddenly pretend that terrorism and Islam are unconnected No one is fooled by this pretense. Either the government itself is in denial or they think we are stupid. You don't win hearts and minds by refusing to face up to the truth or by treating your audience as stupid. You win hearts and minds by acknowledging the truth , speaking it plainly and ensuring that you always act in concordance with it. Truth and Freedom are indivisible, to deny one is to deny the other. If we are to win the battle of hearts and minds then it will not be by recourse to postmodernist notions of competing narratives, but by openly and honestly confronting the issues, by acting to curtail the activities of those who promote and fund the ideology of extremism and by promoting positively the value system on which this society is founded and by which it is sustained.

mary C

November 21st, 2007 1:08pm

Many years ago members of my own family escaped from the East to begin a new life in the West. They had to escape because a million or more of their people had been slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire. There was no escape.The religion of peace followed them here and now we aren't allowed to speak about it.We must speak about it.

David Saxon

November 21st, 2007 11:32pm

It would be a great mistake to think that the Islamophiliac leanings of the political and cultural elite are shared by the bulk of the British people. Most of us are deeply disturbed by what is happening to the leadership of our country and all the mainstream political parties. Western civilization, which is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is under intense attack both from without and within. The time has surely come for all who love our great civilisation, from whatever our different backgrounds, to join together in its defence.

Mark from Canada

November 24th, 2007 2:29am

If so many Brits are aware of this threat and are disgusted at the pretense of the government and agencies such as the police, then why hasn't a truly conservative, anti-immigration, pro-British history and heritage party come to the fore and been elected into power? Is it a matter of PC codes making it illegal to discuss such things? Are fewer Brits concerned than some believe? Or could it be that Brits really don't care that much... you know, enough to put together a party to save their nation???

Most read
Most commented on

1 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray (97)

2 Don’t let’s be beastly to the bankers - Fraser Nelson (71)

3 We must be honest about honour killings - William Maxwell (62)

4 Lawson: Abolish DECC - Fraser Nelson (48)

5 Where has the pro-EU camp gone? - Daniel Korski (39)

Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.

For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here