Slouching towards dhimmocracy (4)

Monday, 4th February 2008

I have previously commented on the government’s craven decision to call Islamic extremism by everything except its proper name, resulting in the Home Secretary’s Orwellian description of it as ‘anti-Islamic’. Today the Guardian reports on a manual of state censorship now issued by the Home Office which enshrines this doctrine of institutionalised deception:

Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the ‘aggressive rhetoric’ of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism. It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a ‘confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures’. Instead it suggests that talking about the idea of shared values works much more effectively.

It shows that the government is adopting a new sophistication in its approach to counter-terrorism, based on the realisation that it must ‘avoid implying that specific communities are to blame’ if it is to enable communities to challenge the ideas of violent extremists robustly… ‘This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness - evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them.’

‘A new sophistication’, eh? I’d call it a new sophistry. As I recorded last year in my book Londonistan, the police have long been avoiding the I or M words, referring instead to ‘international terrorism’ among other euphemisms. Since the police themselves are in despair about the extreme paucity of information about I****** terrorism being volunteered to them from within the M***** community, the strategy would hardly seem to demonstrate ‘effectiveness’. Talking about ‘shared values’ amounts to no more than meaningless platitudes if it is forbidden to talk about the ideology which seeks to supplant them. That ideology can only be defeated if its characteristics are talked about frankly, and that cannot be done if the entire subject is prohibited. Fanaticism cannot be fought if people refuse even to name what they are fighting.

This ‘new sophistication’ is simply all about giving in to terror and intimidation. It principal effect is to give Islamism in Britain a free pass and to systematically conceal from the British people what is happening to their country. For what it also does is to define the problem as ‘violent extremism’; but the threat is not from violence alone but from the religious extremism that seeks to Islamise Britain, and whose strategy is to use cultural creep as well as terrorism to achieve its ends. Examples of this are occurring all the time. Yesterday, the Sunday Telegraph reported that female Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of superbugs:

Minutes of a clinical academics' meeting at Liverpool University revealed that female Muslim students at Alder Hey children's hospital had objected to rolling up their sleeves to wear gowns. Similar concerns have been raised at Leicester University. Minutes from a medical school committee said that ‘a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate handwashing’. Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to ‘scrub’ as this left her forearms exposed.

They are refusing because they say to expose their arms is against Islam. They are thus demanding an exemption on religious grounds. According to the ‘new sophistication’ of the Home Office, however, it would seem that we cannot record that fact in case it might reveal the unsophisticated truth — that this is indeed a clash of cultures.

The Telegraph story does not record what action if any has been taken against such students refusing to obey elementary rules of hygiene in medical practice. In any properly functioning society, they would be removed instantly from the course. But Britain is sleepwalking to cultural suicide. In Oxford, members of the Church of England, no less, have supported the demand made by the Central Oxford mosque that the amplified call to prayer should be broadcast three times a day over east Oxford as ‘our right’. The Telegraph, however, reported that at least one Oxford resident, Dr Allan Chapman, a member of Oxford University's Faculty of History who lives in the shadow of the mosque, has understood precisely what is at stake here:

‘It seems to me this is a move to torment and torture non-Muslims,’ he said. ‘It's not a matter of people's right to religious freedom, it's about making Islam the religion of public space - getting into people's houses and work places. If this is granted it will show that Muslims have the upper hand in a Christian country. The letters we have had in from all over the country about this have moved from a scale of stiff upper lip outrage to murderous fury. We see an element of Islamic dictatorship being introduced and an aggressive minority trying to seize the middle ground.’

Thanks to the craven idiocy of the British government and the ‘sophisticated’ intelligence service which provides it with so much of its lethally false analysis, it is in the process of succeeding.

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 (3)

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

Maven

February 5th, 2008 11:23am

As someone who monitors the output of MPAC UK regularly I can confirm that they have raised objections to the girl killed on an alleged honour killing as a Muslim on BBC R4, despite this being a quote from the coroner. http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4325/34/ They succeded in getting an apology from the BBC. They also object to the headline "Muslim beheading plot" http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4352/35/. So, its also Islamists working from their end who seem to be co-ordinating with the Government to prevent us from using the appropriate descriptions that classify events.

KateA

February 5th, 2008 11:52pm

Maven: thank you for the link. It is clear from the somewhat truimphalist comments on the announcement that British Muslims intend to impose rigorous censorship. That the BBC apologised in writing is not considered sufficient - some are now demanding an on-air apology. This is surely the slow demise, through fear, of free speech (and meaningful language). Somewhere long ago, I read - 'what we can name we can tame'!! Muslims are intent, on making sure 'naming' is abolished. It is relevant to note that these are the so-called "moderate" British Muslim leaders.

s.r.intulom

February 6th, 2008 3:38am

"A new sophistication"? Ha! Sophistication (OED) 1. a. The use or employment of sophistry; the process of investing with specious fallacies or of misleading by means of these; falsification. b. A sophism, a quibble, a fallacious argument. 2. a. Disingenuous alteration or perversion of something; conversion into some less genuine form … b. Deceptive modification.

Most read
Most commented on

1 CoffeeHousers' Wall, 8 February - 14 February (60)

2 Beyond doubt - David Blackburn (55)

3 Rationalism enters the climate change debate - Fraser Nelson (53)

4 Why winning isn't enough – and a response to The Fink - Fraser Nelson (50)

5 What’s needed now is a modern Conservative party with clear, discernible principles - Fraser Nelson (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 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.

For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here