Multicultural creep

David Aaronovitch writes in today’s Times:

The conservative Jewish commentator Melanie Phillips exercised some extra-jurisdictional powers of her own in calling for the Archbishop to be dethroned (next week the Vicar of Dibley gives her choice of Chief Rabbi), entirely missing Dr Williams's conservative attack on the decline of civility and ‘customary ethical restraints’ produced by our ‘narrowly rights-based culture’.

I wonder which is the greater of my crimes — to be ‘conservative’ or to be Jewish?

Apparently, this should debar me from saying that Rowan Williams should step down as Archbishop of Canterbury or saying who I think should be his successor. Does this mean, perhaps, that correspondingly I would not be entitled to say that Rowan Williams should continue as ABofC and that all other members of the House of Bishops are pygmies by comparison to his titanic moral authority — or am I simply not entitled, as a ‘conservative’ Jew, to criticise?

Are Catholics, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other non-CofE British citizens of a society in which the Archbishop of Canterbury plays an important leadership role also not entitled to call for his resignation because they fear he is inviting their country to commit cultural suicide through creeping Islamisation — or is it only ‘conservative’ Jews who are not?

Is no non-Muslim entitled to condemn Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi who says it is a religious duty to kill Israelis and coalition forces; or the head of the Muslim Council of Britain when he says he wants to Islamise Britain; or call upon the Muslim community to deal with imams preaching sedition and hatred – or is it only ‘conservative’ Jews who are not entitled to do so?

Are all ‘conservatives’ who are troubled by the ‘decline of civility’, ‘ethical constraints’ and ‘our narrowly-based rights culture’ to be expected therefore to endorse a) sharia b) the Archbishop’s belief that the principle of one law for everybody is ‘a bit of a danger’ — or is it only ‘conservative’ Jews?

Aaronovitch appears to think he is the only member of the commentariat to have read Dr Williams’s lecture (given the banality of his synopsis, he should have saved himself the bother). I have read it many times, and even heard it being delivered. Presumably however to Aaronovitch, since I am a ‘conservative’ Jew, that counts as not having read it at all.