ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

'Vote Conservative or get stabbed by people who may well be black'

This Steve Bell cartoon appeared in Tuesday's Guardian:

It reveals a lot more about the prejudices of Mr Bell than it does of the Conservatives.  There is no basis for suggesting that tough and necessary statements from David Cameron on knife crime had any racist content but Mr Bell just couldn't help implying that they did.  Politicians need thick skins and get all sorts of stuff thrown at them but we think Mr Bell crossed the line on Tuesday.

"The race relations circus"

Paul Uppal is our candidate in Wolverhampton South West.  For reasons that are obvious from the photograph in his blog masthead he's in a stronger position than most of us to take on the race relations industry without being accused of racism.  That may not stop some commentators, of course.

This is Mr Uppal's latest post:

"It is with particularly sadness that I recently heard that  James McGrath (Chief of staff to our previous Chairman) has been pushed out of his job working with Boris Johnson.  Accusations of racism have been levelled against him, as a few words have been taken out of context and jumped upon by the PC brigade. I’ve met James on numerous occasions and found him to be a warm, witty and charming individual. As someone who prides himself as being fairly astute at spotting such things, I am wholly convinced that he does not possess a racist bone in his body.

Rather he appears to be the victim of the McCarthyistic mouth foaming utterances of the race relations industry, which through accusation alone can slay political careers and stifle well intentioned and principled debate. I say this because I have seen with my very own eyes the modus operandi of this circus which employs individuals to perpetuate this climate of political correctness. In reality this industry/business does dreadful damage to Britain’s real race relations. It seems more concerned with securing it’s own funding streams and non jobs for it’s membership of zealots. The cost of this is all is so much more than financial, as we lose decent people and gag those who point to the emperor’s new clothes."

Well said.  We look forward to Paul coming into Parliament as soon as possible.

The statement Boris should have made: I will not thow a good man to the wolves

Yesterday evening we discussed the events that led up to the sad resignation of James McGrath as a senior aide to Boris Johnson.  Boris' statement reacting to James' resignation included these words:

"James is not a racist.  I know that.  He shares my passionate belief that racism is vile, repulsive and has no place in modern Britain. But his response to a silly and hostile suggestion put to him by Marc Wadsworth, allowed doubts to be raised about that commitment... James's remark was taken out of context and distorted, but he recognises the need for crystal clarity on a vital issue like this.  We both agree that he could not stay on as my political adviser without providing ammunition for those who wish to deliberately misrepresent our clear and unambiguous opposition to any racist tendencies."

In other words: James is not a racist but I'm not prepared to risk standing up to the people who suggest that he is.  In a very strong blog Iain Dale has accused Boris Johnson of a failure of backbone over the affair.  Those of us who know James McGrath are seriously angered by this episode. Comments on our previous post on this have been virtually unanimous in their opposition to the resignation.

Here's a quick draft of an alternative statement that Boris could and should have issued - perhaps on camera, supported by one of the ethnically diverse appointments that he has made:

"You will have seen internet coverage of remarks made by one of my advisers, James McGrath.  I ask you to look at the context of the remarks and judge whether the author of the piece - a Labour activist - is a fair-minded person or someone with a political agenda.  I know James and I know him not to be a racist.  He wouldn't be part of my team if he didn't share my belief that London is greater because of its diversity.  He wouldn't be part of my team if he wasn't committed to my agenda of building a London where every citizen is respected regardless of race, religion and sexuality.  There have, of course, been calls from some quarters for me to sack James but I will not.  To do so would only encourage more malicious and vexatious allegations against my staff and other public figures.  In these cases it becomes not about what somebody has said, but about how the media think somebody, somewhere could wrongly perceive what they said. Racism is still a real problem in too much of society but we devalue real incidents of racism when we over-react to unfortunate uses of words.  I want to put an end to the gotcha style of journalism that is always determined to think the worst of people.  Most Londoners are fair-minded and want to think the best of people.  My administration won't be bullied by the politically correct.  Our priorities are fighting crime, improving educational opportunity and affordable housing.  James will continue to help me in those tasks.  I will not throw a good man to the wolves."

Reason and fairness are the first casualties when someone is accused of racism

ConservativeHome has learnt that one of Boris Johnson's most senior advisers James McGrath has stepped down from his post to avoid causing London's new Mayor any embarrassment.  On a citizen journalism website - The-Latest.com - this is reported:

"McGrath was far from politically correct, David-Cameron-new cuddly-Conservative Party, when I pointed out to him a critical comment of Voice columnist Darcus Howe that the election of “Boris Johnson, a right-wing Conservative, might just trigger off a mass exodus of older Caribbean migrants back to our homelands”.

He retorted: “Well, let them go if they don’t like it here.” McGrath dismissed influential race commentator Howe as ‘shrill’."

If you read all of Marc Wadsworth's piece for The-Latest.com you'll read the words of a writer determined to injure James McGrath and the Conservative Party.  James McGrath shouldn't have been pushed out of his job.  The remarks above - which are probably horribly out of context - should have been judged in the real context of his record.  Anyone who knows James McGrath knows him not to be a racist.  Far from it.  He's a man of integrity who as Chief of Staff to Francis Maude (when the latter was Chairman) helped deliver some of Project Cameron's early reforms.  Since then he has served the party very well - not least in helping to get Campaign Boris back on course at the turn of the year.

Public figures can get away with misusing expenses and terrible policy failures but an unfortunate phrase on racial issues causes something to go wrong in the wiring of politicians and the media.  ConservativeHome celebrates multiracial Britain but we also worry about what should be called an industry that is determined to see racism when there is nothing but an unfortunate remark.  Is there a gutsy politician willing to face up to the hysteria that this industry generates?  Without such guts there'll only be more false charges of racism.

Boris was himself accused of racism at the start of his Mayoral campaign.  Out of context his remarks appeared unfortunate.  In the context of his full career they rightly didn't worry fair-minded Londoners.  Boris should have had the backbone to stand by such a loyal aide.  There should have been no pressure to resign and no acceptance of a resignation.

The party cannot afford to lose people who are as talented as James McGrath.  National debate shouldn't continue to be held hostage by the racism industry.

9.15pm update: Boris has released a statement saying James McGrath isn't a racist and that he was taken out of context, but had to go anyway because it could provide "ammunition for those who wish to deliberately misrepresent" him. Read it in full below...

Cameron gets tough with Islamic extremists, apologists for terror and the idea of 'state multiculturalism'

Last night, keeping up his recent frenetic pace, David Cameron spoke to the Community Security Trust - an organisation that "provides physical security, training and advice for the protection of British Jews".  Here are key extracts from the speech:

We must not tolerate the apologists for terror: "The historian Michael Burleigh has written a brilliant new book I would urge you all to read.  It’s called Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism.  In it, Professor Burleigh demonstrates how, time and time again, people who have resorted to terrorism have been assisted and sustained by apologists who seek to make excuses for them.  In some cases, even to glorify them.  We saw it in the 1970s when the Red Brigades were hailed as liberators by some Italian university professors.  We saw it in the 1980s when parts of the Labour Party were prepared to appear on platforms with IRA front men.  And we see it today when some people attempt to justify suicide bombers and call them ‘martyrs’."

The "nauseating" middle class Britons who are the terrorists' fellow travellers: "Extremism is not confined to any particular religious or ethnic group.  During protests against the conflict in Lebanon, we witnessed the nauseating sight of well-scrubbed, middle class English people… marching through central London holding placards that read ‘We are all Hizbollah’.  That is the extremist mindset in action.  These are the same people who urge a boycott of Israeli goods and academics… while saying nothing about China, Iran or Zimbabwe.  Unless we challenge such attitudes and expose them for the morally-bankrupt nonsense they are… they will spread through the body politic and become the received wisdom of millions."

What can the British Government do to persuade young Muslims that they should reject terror and fully embrace the British way?

The title of this post was the question asked by Paul Goodman MP within a speech he gave to the New Culture Forum on Monday night.

Mr Goodman, Shadow Minister for Social Cohesion, analysed three potential strategic answers to that question: appeasement, assimilation and integration.  We summarise the speech below and this PDF contains the full text.

Appeasement is a course that Mr Goodman quickly rejects: "If our armed forces withdraw from Afghanistan – the argument runs – if we simply let Iran acquire nuclear weapons without sanctions or resistance; if we actively seek the replacement of our allies in the Islamic world by Islamists, if we abandon our support for the existence of Israel and if we connive in Britain at special legal dispensations for Muslims, then the problem will go away... You don’t have to be a neo-conservative – as I am not – to dismiss this option with the contempt it deserves.  It’s hard to perceive how abandoning parts of Afghanistan to Al Qaeda could help weaken that movement rather than strengthen it; how writing special sharia provisions into British law could strengthen community cohesion rather than weaken it, above all, how knuckling under to extremism could possibly help mainstream Islam worldwide."

Paul Goodman also rejects assimilation: "At heart, this school of thought usually believes that Islam in particular, if not religion in general, is at the root of separatist extremism... If government is to hold that religion in general is a problem – a habit that, like smoking, is bad for your health, and is to be tolerated only in private, if at all – it must surely move towards, say, cutting off all state support from faith schools, removing all tax breaks from religious-based charities and, eventually, scrapping the Coronation Service.  You can make your own judgement about whether such courses of action are more or less likely to lower school standards, remove support from vulnerable people, offload new burdens on the taxpayer, damage civil society, harm the current quest for shared values and dent our common sense of Britishness.  I’ve already made mine."

Mr Goodman then devotes a large section of his speech to discussing whether Islam is different from other religions and deserves special prohibitions.  His strong conclusion is that there is enough hope within certain traditions of Islam to firmly reject the idea that Islam needs to be suppressed.  He focuses particularly on Sufism as catalogued by Bernard Lewis.

Warsi makes first big speech on community cohesion

Sayeeda Warsi has spoken to a Guardian conference on race equality this morning.  It's a good speech and this is a particularly encouraging section:

"A key question is to what degree political parties should engage with people and organisations who have extremist or separatist views.  My view is clear.  Of course we should be willing to engage with individuals and groups who don't share our philosophy – including disillusioned and alienated young men who are vulnerable to Al Qaeda. But engagement doesn't mean partnership. This Government clearly believes in partnership with national organisations that claim to represent communities. This is wrong – firstly because it’s patronising to suggest that diverse communities can be represented by single homogenous groups. It suggests that individuals – particularly women – within those communities aren’t capable of representing themselves. And this approach is wrong because some such groups often hold ambiguous views on cohesion and integration. And as a responsible government, engagement must involve what diplomats call ‘a robust exchange of views’, in which the Government asserts without apology or concession, that the attitudes of certain groups are hindering a cohesive Britain.  The next Conservative Government will take instead a fresh, new and more localist approach – listening to individual voices and ideas, particularly from women and young people, and devolving power through local government to the grassroots."

That is critical.  We should be open to dialogue with nearly all groups within Britain but extremist groups - often highly unrepresentative - should not have a special place in government consultation mechanisms and should not receive public funding.

Listed below are other key highlights from her speech.  Download a PDF of Sayeeda Warsi's full remarks.

On her mission to free Gillian Gibbons: "I hope that as Muslims and as Parliamentarians in a democracy, we helped represent to the Sudanese government and people a very simple and very important principle.  That you can be a Muslim and believe in democracy and the rule of law. We wanted, in a small way, to show the people of Sudan that Muslim politicians can have different values to those responsible, for instance, for what is happening in Darfur."  This is the one disappointment of the speech.  There could, and should, have been much stronger criticism of the Khartoum regime.

Julian Lewis resigns from Oxford Union in protest at BNP-Irving debate

Conservative MP Dr Julian Lewis has resigned his life membership of the Oxford Union in protest at its decision to hold a 'Free Speech Forum' with BNP leader Nick Griffin and David Irving, jailed in Austria for denying the Holocaust.  Television presenter June Sarpong, Defence Secretary Des Browne, and Austin Mitchell MP have also protested at the Union's decision by pulling out of future debates.

In his letter of resignation, Dr Lewis wrote:

"Nothing which happens in Monday's debate can possibly offset the boost you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored.  It is sheer vanity on your part to imagine that any argument you deploy, or any vote you carry will succeed in causing them damage. They have been exposed and discredited time and again by people vastly more qualified than you in arenas hugely more suited to the task than an undergraduate talking-shop, however venerable."

Local LibDem MP Evan Harris, due to speak at the Forum with Griffin and Irving defended the invitation for the two men to speak:

"The measure of our country's respect for free expression is our willingness to allow it for the most objectionable and offensive lawful speech, not just for those with whom we agree."

Luke Tryl, President of the Oxford Union Debating Society, told Sky News:

"Nick Griffin likes nothing more than parading around in gags, saying he is being censored. I want us, the liberal mainstream, to show that we are not afraid to take him on in a debate, we will defeat him, and we will beat fascism every time."

Can Cameron end the Labour Party's "special relationship" with black voters?

The cover feature in this week's New Statesman is a report on the Tory relationship with Britain's black voters - Black and Blue.  The article by David Matthews notes that the Tories won just 2% of the Black and Minority Ethnic vote at the last election.  Can it be turned around?

Two black candidates - selected for the Conservatives in target seats - think it can.

Chippenham constituency's Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones is quoted in David Matthews' piece: ""The Labour Party has had the black vote for over 50 years and what have they done with it?  Where are the black MPs on the Labour front bench?"

If Labour have failed to promote black talent, Shaun Bailey - our Hammersmith candidate - also believes that Labour is talking about the wrong issues: "Climate change, obesity and the environment are not what black people want to hear about. Black people want policies that address crime, education, single parenthood."

The black vote could be crucial for winning the London Mayoralty for Boris Johnson next year.  Ken Livingstone understands that and that is why his proxies launched an all-out assault on him in August over his record on race.

Key to connecting to black voters will be to recognise their concerns about crime and public services - as Shaun Bailey does - but also to recognise that a huge proportion are socially conservative and churchgoers.  The Conservative Christian Fellowship has organised a series of meetings between black churchleaders and the Tory leadership in a bid to ensure that the party understands their concerns.  Support for the family and for faith-based social action should be a key ingredient of Tory efforts to transform that embarrassing 2% figure.  David Cameron addressed related themes in the 2007 William Wilberforce Address.

The party leadership's attempts to win support amongst minority communities also partly explains - rightly or wrongly - the speed with which Caroline Spelman moved to end the career of Nigel Hastilow.

David Cameron to challenge Saudi leader on funding of extremist literature

This morning's Times reports that the Conservative leader will confront King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia later today about Saudi Arabia's financial support for extremist literature that is available in British mosques:

"The Conservative leader will ask the Saudi King to curb the export of fundamentalist religious ideology in books and pamphlets that advocate the suppression of women’s rights, hatred for non-Muslims and the execution of lapsed Muslims."

Mr Cameron will be drawing on yesterday's report from the Policy Exchange think tank which found that a quarter of UK mosques contained literature, much of it Saudi-funded, that was hateful to gays, Christians and Jews.

Mr Cameron is also expected to point to evidence compiled by Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' security report that Saudi Arabia's religious establishment is still exporting extremist propaganda across the globe.

There is something deeply objectionable about the way that the British state has given Saudi Arabia the red carpet treatment.  Yes, we should certainly talk to this important nation but do we really have to deck The Mall with its provocative flag and have the whole British establishment honour the leaders of this repressive, terrorist-exporting nation?  Dan Hannan writes this on his blog:

"Saudi Arabia is one of many dictatorships around the world, neither the mildest nor the harshest. We should deal with it in a brisk and businesslike manner, as we do the many other regimes which fall somewhere between the categories of “distasteful” and “rotten”... When a free democracy lowers its standards in order to accommodate a sleazy autocracy, the former is diminished and the latter magnified."

***
The video below from last night's Channel 4 News captures the hilarious moment when King Abdullah is greeted by the Queen.  And the music that is playing?  The music from Star Wars that accompanies Darth Vader's arrival.  I'd love to think that that was planned.

Related link: In past years the British state rolled out the red carpet for Ceausescu and Mobutu; it's King Abdullah's turn today.

Tory Muslims' report defends Iran's nuclear ambitions and offers comfort to extremists

The Telegraph highlights a number of recommendations from a recent report on security by the Conservative Muslim Forum.  Having had a chance to look at the report (that appears to have been written last month) I fear that The Telegraph's report is an accurate summary.  I've also discovered other troubling recommendations.

The Forum, chaired by Lord Mohamed Sheikh, enobled in 2005 by Michael Howard, offers comfort to Iran and its ambition for nuclear weapons: "Given Iran's position in the Middle East, facing a nuclear armed Israel, Iran appears to have legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons for defensive purposes."  Let us never forget that Iran's President has spoken of wiping Israel off the face of the map.  Last year Iran hosted a conference that gave comfort to Holocaust-deniers.  There can be no equivalence between Israel and Iran.  Although not without fault, Israel is a democratic nation - besieged by totalitarian states.  Iran is a sponsor of global terror.  It is a great shame that the CMF could not have begun to made this clear.

The Forum rejects Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' suggestion that “foreign preachers and scholars advocating the rejection of the institutions and values of democracy” should be denied entry into Britain".  The Forum suggests that "If a political party wishes to campaign, constitutionally, for the abolition of democracy in the UK and its replacement by a totalitarian system, why should it not be free to do so?"

The CMF then criticises David Cameron's support for 'Zionism'.  On 12th June the Conservative leader, asked if he was a Zionist, said:

“If what you mean by Zionist, someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country then yes I am a Zionist and I’m proud of the fact that Conservative politicians down the ages have played a huge role in helping to bring this about” and “There is something deep in our Party’s DNA that believes in Israel, the right of Israel to exist, the right of Israel to defend itself and that a deal should only happen if it means that Israel is really allowed to have peace within secure borders and real guarantees about its future”.

Nothing wrong with that but the CMF is displeased.  "Pro-zionist statements only damage relationships with Muslims nationally and internationally," the Forum concludes.

The Forum concludes that "the Muslim Council of Britain is well-respected by many Muslims and non-Muslims" and encourages the Conservative Party to recognise that.  Paul Goodman is just one of many Conservative MPs who worry about the MCB's tolerance of extremist attitudes, including its unwillingness to support Holocaust Memorial Day.

The report then defends Yusuf al-Qaradawi - a Muslim scholar who has made unacceptable remarks about homosexuals.  Conservatives have rightly criticised Ken Livingstone for having rolled out the red carpet for al-Qaradawi when he visited London.  It is deeply troubling to learn of a group within the Conservative Party giving comfort to this extremist.

4.45pm update: LGF has now picked this up and is quite depressed about the state of Britain, as has "Islamophobia Watch" which has a rather revealing tongue-in-cheek headline: Conservative Muslims back Ahmadinejad shock!

A Conservative government would offer 'National (Citizen) Service' to all sixteen year-olds

'Bring back national service!' is one of the favourite calls of traditionalists and the Tory leader is today returning to an idea that he first floated when he was running for the Conservative leadership (see here).  Mr Cameron will travel to Bolton today where he will launch a Green Paper calling for a 'National Citizen Service'.  Olympic medalist and boxer Amir Khan (pictured) will be at the launch.  The scheme has been scaled back somewhat since the leadership contest.  It will be weeks rather than months in length and the idea of compulsory service has also been dropped.  It will have the following key characteristics (according to today's Mail):

• It will be a six week commitment - running during the summer months.
• 650,000 sixteen year-olds will be encouraged to undertake aid work, visit the elderly or undertake military training.
• There will be a cash award for graduates of the Service - 50% of the award will go to the individual volunteer and half to a charity of the individual's choice.
• Employers would be encouraged to take note of an applicant's involvement in the Service in the same way they currently take note of Prince's Trust and Duke of Edinburgh involvement.
• At the end of the course the volunteer will have to make a pledge of allegiance to Britain and explain what they have learnt. 

In the past Mr Cameron has said that he hopes the scheme could be seen as a nationally recognised 'transition to adulthood' or 'rite of passage': "In our society, the closest thing to a rite of passage is probably going out and getting completely hammered on your eighteenth birthday.  I think programmes like this could provide a positive alternative... It could become a recognised 'stamp' of adulthood in Britain."

The cost of funding the Service has not yet been calculated.  A new policy group under Michael Gove's chairmanship will do that work.  The Conservative leader sees National Citizen Service as an essential part of his long-term aim to repair 'Britain's broken society'.  He issued this statement:

"It will mix people from different countries.  North and south, black and white, rich and poor. They will be putting something back into the community.  It will be a way of learning respect for our country and each other just like national service was.  This could really change our country for the better. I feel very passionate about this. It should be a part of every child's experience.  You should go from primary school to secondary school, and then at 16 your citizen service. We cannot afford not to do this."

The Sun welcomes the idea - calling it "imaginative and optimistic".

'Meet the shadow minister for militant Islam'

This week's Spectator - of which I've just seen an advance copy - includes an interview with Shadow Communities Affair minister, Paul Goodman MP.  Mr Goodman is characterised as 'the shadow minister for militant Islam' by The Spectator's James Forsyth.

Labour get back into bed with Muslim extremists

Gordon Brown talks tough on terror but, as always with the Brown-Blair years, the actions are very different.

Last year Ruth Kelly - to her credit - broke off relations with the Muslim Council of Britain.  She criticised the MCB's boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day.  The MCB's extremism has been well-documented by the New Statesman's Martin Bright and by our own Michael Gove in Celsius 7/7.  Yesterday, as revealed by The Spectator's Coffee House blog, Hazel Blears has u-turned on Mrs Kelly's policy and appears to have restarted engagement with the MCB.

It is encouraging to see our frontbench pursuing the Government vigorously on this issue.  Paul Goodman MP, Shadow Communities Minister, has written to Hazel Blears demanding an explanation:

"As you know, Ruth Kelly announced last year in a major speech "a fundamental rebalancing of our relationship with Muslim organisations from now on".  She continued: "In future, I am clear that our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values.". She said that it was "not good enough" to pay lip service to combatiing extremism.

The speech was briefed by the Government as signallling the end of its engagement with the MCB as a partner in preventing extremism.  Indeed, Ms Kelly specifically criticised the MCB's boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day, as follows: "I can't help wondering why those in leadership positions who say they want to achieve religious tolerance and a cohesive society would choose to boycott an event which marks, above all, our common humanity and respect for each other."

Yesterday, your Department conspicuously failed to deny that the Government has once again engaged the MCB as a partner.  This is a significant policy U-turn.  I write to ask what's changed in less than a year.  On what basis do you believe that the MCB is now proactively tackling extremism?  Does it plan, for example, to attend Holocaust Memorial Day?"

This re-engagement with the MCB follows Gordon Brown's failure to act against Hizb ut-Tahrir.

On a not unrelated matter ConservativeHome has given space to Michael Ancram to make the case for talking to Hamas.  I greatly respect Michael Ancram but I think he's profoundly wrong on this issue.  Hamas must moderate considerably before they can be allowed at the negotiating table.  Again on the indispensable Coffee House blog, James Forsyth highlights the following quote from the representative of Hamas that Mr Ancram has met:

“The final goal of the resistance is to wipe that entity [Israel] off the face of the earth. This goal necessitates the development of the resistance until the entity has been destroyed.”

Is Britain policing or appeasing Islamic extremism?

That's effectively the question being asked by Paul Goodman MP.  Paul will take part in a Policy Exchange seminar this lunchtime that will discuss the recent decision of the West Midlands police to refer Channel 4 to Ofcom.  The West Midlands police made the decision after they had decided not to prosecute a number of Muslims featured in a Dispatches programme entitled 'Undercover Mosque', broadcast earlier this year (Google video).  The programme uncovered a number of quotations including:

“No-one loves the kuffaar, no-one loves the kuffaar, not a single person here from the Muslims loves the kuffaar, whether those kuffaar are from the UK or the US. We love the people of Islam and we hate the people of kufr, we hate the kuffaar.”

“Whoever changes his religion from Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state.”

“Do you practise homosexuality with men?  Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.”

“I don’t agree with those individuals [the 7/7 bombers], but at the same time they are closer to me than those criminals of the kufr.”

“He’s better than a million George Bushes, Osama Bin Laden, and he’s better than a thousand Tony Blairs, because he’s a Muslim.”

The West Midlands police decided that these quotations may have been taken out of context and decided that no action should be taken against those who made them.  That decision will seem extraordinary to some but more extraordinary was the decision of the police and CPS to refer the programme makers to Ofcom on the grounds that they may have stirred up racial hatred.

In a letter to the Home Secretary Paul Goodman seeks to highlight the danger that in behaving in this way our police and law enforcement agencies are choosing to deal with extremist voices by effectively appeasing them.  Mr Goodman's letter (which is attached here_as_a_pdf) concludes with these words:

"This referral is likely to encourage extremists, discourage moderates (including those who appeared on the programme), damage public confidence in the CPS and West Midlands Police, compromise media freedom and undermine the Government's stated community cohesion policy.  As you know, Ruth Kelly, the former Communities Secretary, said last year that "our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values. It is only by defending our values that we will prevent extremists radicalising future generations of terrorists."

Pusillanimous

Britain gives a knighthood to Salman Rushdie and then...

Effigies of Queen Elizabeth are being burnt in Pakistan.

Pakistan's Parliament passes a resolution condemning the award.

Britain's representative in Pakistan is summoned to the foreign ministry for a rebuke.

Pakistan's Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq says that the knighthood for Mr Rushdie could justify suicide attacks on Britain.

[Let's not forget that Britain is home for over 800,000 immigrants from Pakistan.]

An Iranian foreign ministry official calls the Rushdie honour provacative and says that "the consequences of this provocation, which has angered Muslims, will be directed at the British Queen and government."

I ask for a statement from Shadow Home Secretary David Davis and am told by a Conservative HQ staffer: "Sorry.  No Comment From Us."

Has Parliament discussed this issue today?  No.

Pusillanimous is the word that comes to mind.

There's worse to come...

Few Conservatives would put Mr Rushie at the top of any list for a knighthood but I hope that most would also reject the idea that any foreign power should veto the awarding of an honour.  In an interview with ePolitix.com, Conservative MP Stewart Jackson mouths a rejection of any such a veto but goes on to effectively claim that we have sent the wrong message to Pakistan:

"We do not need a situation where we are gratuitously offending our allies in the fight against terror. I believe it was wrong and I think the Prime Minister's office should think very carefully about that decision.  If you are going to give a knighthood to someone then you have to bear in mind the message what the message you are giving is going to be.  It is for Her Majesty and the government to decide who they give honours to and not open to the veto of a foreign power but it does convey an important message and the timing was very insensitive particularly with ongoing problems with Iran and the instability in Pakistan.  I am not entirely certain myself whether Salman Rushdie is deserving of a knighthood given his ingratitude to the taxpayers of this country for protecting him form the fatwah for the best part of 10 years and the fact that he is not normally resident in the United Kingdom and the fact that essentially he writes rubbish books - for all those reasons he does not deserve a knighthood.”

Stewart Jackson is the one who is sending out the wrong message.  We need to show Muslim nations that free speech is non-negotiable for us.  Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum has a good post on what's at stake here.

Related link: Pakistan is an incubator for terrorism

10.45am update on 20/6: From today's Times: "Paul Goodman, the Tory MP for Wycombe, said that the UK should demand an apology from the highest reaches of the Pakistani government for Mr ul-Haq's comments and compared the Government's response to its quiet stand in the protests over Danish newspaper cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad last year.  “Our own Government should call for such a condemnation without delay," he said. "Instead, there appears to be radio silence on the matter from ministers. It’s Groundhog Day from the Government on incitement from terror: in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon protests in London, ministers stood idly by. It’s the same feeble story today.”"

11am update: Stephen Crabb MP has put these questions to International Development Secretary Hillary Benn today:

• "What assessment he has made of the impact of UK aid to Pakistan in strengthening freedom of speech in Pakistan."
• "What assessment he has made of the impact of UK aid to Pakistan in reducing violations of religious freedom in Pakistan."
• "What assessment he has made of the impact of UK aid to Pakistan in reducing anti-British extremism in Pakistan."
• "What discussions he has had with the Ambassador of Pakistan about continuance of UK aid to Pakistan in light of the official rebuke by Pakistani authorities over HM Queen's birthday honours."
• "The amount of aid given to Pakistan by his Department in each of the last five years, and planned expenditure for the next three years."
  

Empowering people will create a cohesive society

David Cameron spoke for just under half an hour at the Islam and Muslims in the World Today conference this lunchtime, hosted in the grand Lancaster House by Cambridge University. 

He wasn't the only politician to grace the event - Tony Blair gave a speech at the same venue yesterday in which he announced a funding boost for Islamic Studies in universities. Labour MPs Shahid Malik and Ruth Kelly were both there today to watch Cameron's speech with scornful expressions. Flying the Conservative flag for the duration of the conference were Dominic Grieve MP and Sayeeda Warsi.

The underlying theme of the speech was the same as numerous others on different subjects:

"It's a question of social responsibility: the attitudes, decisions and daily actions of every single person and every single organisation in society. After all, it will be the many millions of individual acts between human beings that will determine the success of community cohesion. And more people will assume their social responsibility and feel part of their community if they feel real control over its future."

In an unfortunate part of the speech Cameron quoted the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa. The Mufti had spoken at the conference yesterday and was said to be meeting both Blair and Cameron. He has gone on record saying:

"When Allah permitted wife-beating, He permitted it to the other side of culture, which considers it as one of the means to preserve the family, and as one of the means to preserve stability."

Willetts opens door to selection by race to tackle segregation

We learnt yesterday that the Conservatives are considering allowing schools to select by race in order to tackle any problems of racial segregation in ethnically mixed towns and cities.

This morning's Daily Mail quotes David Willetts as saying:

"There are parts of England where our towns are divided by race and religion into two very distinct groups... We are keen to invite a whole range of charities and organisations to set up academies.  In those communities which are deeply divided we could use the creation of new academies to improve links between the communities by setting the aim of recruiting students from both those communities.  No one can be forced to apply for a school and we don't want to bus children around. But we do see potential for a positive role in tackling the growing ethnic segregation in our schools."

The Mail points out that four out of nine secondaries in Jack Straw's Blackburn attract more than 90% of the school registers from just one ethnic community.

A new name for Islamism please?

Yesterday ConservativeHome readers reacted excitedly to David Cameron's suggestion that  it might be time to find an alternative to 'Islamism' as a way of defining the current terror threat.  Melanie Phillips has described the Conservative leader's remarks as "soft brainlessness" and Stephen Pollard has described Mr Cameron's intervention as a "dangerous... attempt to woo trendy opinion".

Regular readers of ConservativeHome will know that this site is pretty hawkish when it comes to the war on terror.  It's not for reasons of weakness, therefore, that I am happy to defend yesterday's remarks by David Cameron.  It's not a 100% defence.  In a second post Melanie Phillips correctly castigated the Conservative leader for comparing Islamist terrorism with IRA terrorism.  They are of very different natures.  The IRA bombed (successfully) in order to win a place at the table for their nationalist demands.  As Senator Joe Lieberman recently wrote, the terrorists killing men, women and children in Iraq do not want a place at the table - they want to blow it up.

I do not criticise commentators' use of Islamism - it's an academically-established description of the interpretation of Islam that poses an existential threat to western civilisation.  The trouble is, as David Cameron understands, it is a term that is most certainly open to misinterpretation.  Most thoughtful people understand that there's a difference between Islam and Islamism but there must be a danger that the term will be misunderstood by moderate Muslims in Britain and overseas particularly when used by western politicians.  The academic interpretation of Islamist is not universal either.  The main Turkish Islamic party is named 'Islamist'.

So what alternatives might be possible?  Here are some suggestions and I'm sure you could do better...

• Islamic-fascism: This is the term ConservativeHome has tended to use.  The term acknowledges that the terrorist threat is somehow connected with Islam but is a political interpretation of it.  Although some will see not like the retention of the word Islam within the description it remains my favoured term (and, certain to damn it, George W Bush's).
• Jihadi terrorism: This, already in existence, may be just as offensive to many Muslims.  For many Jihad refers to holy struggle rather than violent militarism.  For Shia Muslims, Jihad  is a central component of the faith.
• Wahhabism is the ideology that motivates al-Qaeda but it is a Sunni phenomenon and would not, for example, describe the threat posted by the Iranian regime and the terrorist groups sponsored by Tehran.
• Qutbism.  This refers to Sayyid Qutb - the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, "the man who's ideas would shape Al Qaeda" and who defined the now popular understanding of Jihad.  It's not a term that will be readily understandable but that may be something of a virtue.  Educating people about the term might also educate people about the underlying nature of the enormous threat we all face.

For the moment I still intend to use Islamo-fascism.

Related link: Islamism - from analysis to action (by Paul Goodman MP)

Cameron: We must stop using Islamic and Islamist to describe the terrorist threat we face

David Cameron writes (as he frequently does) for 'The Guardian on Sunday' this morning - The Observer.  The choice of The Guardian/ The Observer is all part of his BBC strategy.

The Conservative leader reflects on his two days with a Muslim family in Birmingham.  His top conclusion is that we need to be more careful about our choice of language when discussing the nature of the current terrorist threat:

"By using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a 'good Muslim', you have to support their evil campaign."

Mr Cameron does not suggest an alternative way of describing a terrorist worldview that is deeply, if perversely, connected with the Muslim faith.

Mr Cameron also defends faith schools in his article as a positive force for integration.

At the end of the Conservative leader's thoughtful article he makes what is, for me, the most important of points about integration.  Why would Muslim and other minority communities want to integrate with British society when, despite all its strengths, it is increasingly decadent?  David Cameron:

"'To make men love their country,' said Edmund Burke, 'their country ought to be lovable.' Integration has to be about more than immigrant communities, 'their' responsibilities and 'their' duties. It has to be about 'us' too - the quality of life that we offer, our society and our values.  Here the picture is bleak: family breakdown, drugs, crime and incivility are part of the normal experience of modern Britain. Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear. Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

There are, of course, aspects of the Islamic faith that many of us find deeply objectionable but the debate about integration cannot be isolated from questions about the fragmenting and coarsening nature of too much of British society.

Related link: David Cameron stays with British Muslims in Birmingham

12.45pm: Cranmer's take can be read here.

1.15pm: 18DoughtyStreet.com's Donal Blaney gave his thoughts on this topic on Friday:

David Cameron stays with British Muslims in Birmingham

David Cameron went to Balsall Heath, a surburb of Birmingham, to spend a night with Abdullah and Shahida and their three children. On his first day David Cameron went to the local mosque where he had a conversation he describes as "really fascinating (and in some respects extremely worrying)." He reiterates the point that the easy shorthand "Islamic terrorist" makes Muslim's feel "they mean us" but he also worries about the denail he found:

"In some parts of the community, yes. In the mosque and elsewhere I got the familiar depressing questions about who was really responsible for 9/11 and even 7/7. Dig a bit deeper and it all comes out. “CIA plot…Jews told to leave the twin towers” - even when it comes to 7/7 “how do we know the suicide bomber videos are real and not fakes?” Even if this is a view held by 5 or 10 per cent of British muslims - and I suspect it is at least that – this is a real problem which we have all got to get to grips with".

Abdullah and Shahdida's children go to the local Jewish primary school. When David Cameron questioned Abdullah he responded that he welcomed the school's faith and strong ethos. David Cameron writes:

"To those who think that faith schools are part of the problem and prevent us from building a more cohesive society this tale has a powerful message – far from being part of the problem, schools like King David’s are actually part of the solution.  They can promote integration and cohesion, instil discipline, teach the basics, inspire young minds and raise their aspirations – all at the same time."

You can read David's blog posts fom his time in Birmingham here and here.

Below is a video of David Cameron's visit to the mosque.

Andrew Burkinshaw

Paul Goodman leads debate on Integration and Cohesion in Britain

Yesterday Paul Goodman held a debate in Westminster Hall on Integration and Cohesion in Britain, focussing on the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain. As MP for Wycombe Paul Goodman has more Muslim constituents than any other Conservative MP and he has spoken before about the barriers that face Muslims wanting to integrate. Goodman says of the barriers:

They include racism and Islamophobia, lower life chances, intergenerational conflict, the failure of the multiculturalist consensus, foreign policy and, perhaps above all, the impact of ideology. In its most stark form, that ideology is one of terror—hence 9/11 and 7/7. In its less brutal form, it rejects terror in Britain but embraces separation. Separation, of course, inevitably leads to a lack of integration and cohesion and the “parallel lives” of which Cantle [in his 2001 report] warned.

In his speech Paul Goodman asks how we can end the separation that has grown up between Muslims and non-Muslims:

In my view, the origin of such a cure lies in strengthening the unwritten social contract that exists between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain. Under that contract, non-Muslims are obliged to recognise that Islam is now a permanent presence in Britain, that British Muslims have lower life chances than the non-Muslim majority as a whole, and that those life chances must be raised as part of any programme of social justice. In turn, Muslims are obliged to face up to the fact that Dhiren Barot, Richard Reid and the perpetrators of 7/7 claimed to act in the name of Islam, however unjustified that claim is, and recognise that the separatist ideology that I described earlier must not merely be condemned—it must be actively challenged, confronted and rooted out.

Conservative MPs Mark Field, Patrick Mercer and Michael Gove spoke in the debate, as did Liberal Democrat Andrew Stunell and the Minister, Meg Munn. The full debate can be read here.

Andrew Burkinshaw

Conservative candidate discovers that Corby is too white and too British for public sector jobs

Louise Bagshawe, the Conservative candidate for Corby, has done a great job in exposing invidious criteria that the Prison Service is using to move jobs from 'too white' Corby to 'more diverse' Leicester.  The full story is in the Daily Mail. 

Replying to a letter from Louise Bagshawe, one of John Reid's top civil servants, Ann Beasley, highlights the fact that 40% of Leicester's population are not 'white British' as a "key influencing factor" on the decision to remove jobs from 94% 'white British Corby'.

Louise tells the Mail:

"Labour has controlled Corby council for 23 years and the town is very deprived. We have the lowest wages in Northamptonshire. Now locals are being told that Corby is too British for British jobs.  I told Ann Beasley our town already has a thriving Polish immigrant community, but she ignored this. Corby is just beginning to turn the corner, but we need good jobs.  Gordon Brown loves to bang on about Britishness - if he means it, I call on him to reverse this disgraceful policy and tell Corby people they aren't too "white British" for Government jobs."

There is now a real possibility that this Prison Service policy will be investigated by the Commission for Racial Equality.

An election winning agenda for the Tories?

Earlier this week ConservativeHome published Paul Goodman MP's essay on how to act against Islamism.  In this morning's Sunday Times Minette Marrin sets out her own formidable list of action points:

1. "Silence all imams who break the law in their preaching with incitements to violence (the government’s record has been abysmal).
2. Monitor all mosques; refuse visas to foreign imams who speak poor or no English (the government lost its nerve over this, as over so much).
3. Control and monitor imams visiting prisons (the Prison Service is so shambolic that it is impossible to know whether all its 130 or so visiting imams have been security vetted).
4. Segregate Islamist prisoners in jail (this is done in the best prisons but is out of control in the rest).
5. Isolate radical Islamist prisoners (this is against the Human Rights Act).
6. Stop them having internet access (not all prisons do).
7. More widely, recognise that the problem now lies with “self-radicalisation” in suburban front rooms. Stop the creation of religious schools (Blair sold the pass on this).
8. Monitor madrasah schools.
9. Restrain the practice of importing brides and bridegrooms in arranged marriages from the Third World (this is well known to inhibit integration, but the government abolished the “primary purpose” rules preventing such marriages, presumably for electoral advantage); this could be done by following the Danish example of strict entry requirements and a minimum age of 24, which enables young people to choose more freely.
10. Spend much more money monitoring young dual-passport Britons’ trips to Pakistan and deport them for attending training camps (these routes are watched but it is expensive and the Pakistani government is unable to help).
11. Teach schoolchildren the facts about conditions in Muslim countries (as opposed to right-on grievances about the “black hole of Calcutta”).
12. Teach them what happens in jails in Muslim states, compared with what has happened in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.
13. Teach schoolchildren and young adults what sharia involves.
14. Stop listening to the so-called representative bodies of British Muslims, not least the Muslim Council of Britain.
15. Require the government to reveal the names and CVs of its advisers on Islamic affairs.
16. Censor the violent Islamist recruitment sites on the internet, including the insidious hip-hop and rap sites. America and even China manage it for different reasons."

I cannot help thinking that this is the sort of agenda that could win an election for our party.

The five barriers to community cohesion

David Cameron will speak to residents of Lozells today on what he believes prevents community cohesion: extremism, poor educational standards, multiculturalism, uncontrolled immigration and poverty.

Our ten highlights of the excellent speech are below (Download full speech):

The British way of resolving tensions: "When there have been tensions, when things threaten to divide us, we’ve always reacted in a very British way. We haven’t been hysterical. We haven’t lost sight of the British way of doing things. We’ve been calm, and thoughtful, and reasonable. That is the British way, and that’s the way we should face the challenge of this moment, today."

Inspiring not coercing (Sun instead of Wind): "Yes we must demand from everyone in this country that they obey our laws. But loyalty is not just about laws. Loyalty is about giving people something to believe in. So we must inspire loyalty by building a Britain that every one of our citizens believes in."

Sharia law advocates are equivalent to BNP supporters: "For the BNP, racism isn’t a scourge, it’s a political philosophy. They prey on voters who are disillusioned with mainstream politics. And those who seek a sharia state, or special treatment and a separate law for British Muslims are, in many ways, the mirror image of the BNP."

Multiculturalism as it stands is a divisive force: "For many years, the ruling class in this country believed in something called multiculturalism. Multiculturalism sounds like a good thing: people of different cultures living together. But it has been manipulated to favour a divisive idea - the right to difference… instead of promoting a unifying idea - the right for everyone to be treated equally despite their differences."

And its proponents have undermined national unity: "Together with the extremism of the BNP, they created a situation in which many people were even scared to be proud of their country, because to say you’re British was practically the same as being a racist. We’ve got to stop all this. We’ve got to make sure that people learn English, and we’ve got to make sure that kids are taught British history properly at school. I believe that the Government should redirect some of the money it currently spends on translation into additional English classes."