I have to admit, I am becoming a fan of the new magazine Standpoint. I have no vested interest in promoting it, other than that it contains articles which I believe convey important messages for our society and our policy makers today.
The current issue is particularly worth reading, and for that reason I want to draw ConservativeHome readers' attention to it. In particular, to two articles, which while seemingly cover totally different topics, are actually two sides of the same coin.
First, a fascinating article by Geoffrey Robertson QC, prosecutor of numerous war criminals around the world and author of a superb book Crimes against Humanity. Robertson comes out strongly in support of the Conservatives' proposal for a British Bill of Rights. He says:
David Cameron's call for a British Bill of Rights deserves enthusiastic support
He cites our heritage as one reason for supporting the proposal:
..... as a document that will teach our children to take pride in their heritage and history. Take the prohibition on torture: how many know that it was abominated by the common law and abolished along with Star Chamber, while it flourished for centuries afterwards in Europe, solemnly ordered by French and Italian judges? How many can trace freedom of speech to John Milton and "freeborn John" Lilburne, and later to Erskine's defence of the brave booksellers who sold the work of Tom Paine? Or the development of fair trial to the forensic genius of William Garrow, or how the right to hold governments legally accountable for abuses of power began with John Wilkes and Chief Justice Pratt? These rights should be recognised, in our schools as in our courts, as living parts of our own culture, rather than remain lost in the uninspiring Euro-prose of a "European" Convention.
Music to my ears: promoting a respect for our history with an appreciation for the rights and freedoms we take for granted, and which others around the world today sacrifice so much to obtain.
Next, Robertson fires a shot across the bows of the interfering State, arguing that "without an entrenched Bill of Rights, there is no liberty in Britain that is safe from the meddling of politicians".
But he warns that drafting such a Bill will not be easy:
But Bills of Rights do not come ready-made. Cameron should turn his mind to forming a non-partisan drafting committee, and then perhaps to summoning a National Convention to approve it. That could be followed by a referendum in which the people could decide whether to entrench the rights to which we have always paid lip-service, but which no previous government has dared to protect from the vagaries of panicked or prejudiced parliamentary majorities.
Turn over the page in Standpoint, and you will find an equally stimulating article by Michael Nazir-Ali. Here, he makes a point I have regularly made in posts on this site - that the struggle against radical Islamism is an ideological, as well as a military and security battle. He writes, and this is worth quoting in full, in case you don't read the full article (though I hope you do):
Not since the demise of Marxism has the world been faced with a comprehensive political, social and economic ideology determined, by force if necessary, to achieve hegemony over large parts of the world. I mean, of course, the rise of radical Islam, in its various manifestations, with its claim to be the only authentic interpretation of the religion. I am aware that there are many Muslims who reject such an interpretation of their faith and, indeed, there are secular forces in the Muslim world prepared to resist such programmatic extremism. We should not, however, underestimate Islamism's capacity for disruption and destruction and its desire to remake the world in its own image.
In the face of such an ideology, the international community must not lose its nerve. Any withdrawal from a political, military and even intellectual engagement will be seen by the Islamists as capitulation. Instead of leading to containment, it will only encourage even greater attempts at the expansion of power and influence of movements connected with this ideology. This has already caused and will continue to cause immense suffering to those who do not fit in with an Islamist worldview, including minorities of various kinds, emancipated women and Muslims with views different from those of the extremists. The independence of nations, the autonomy of communities, traditional devotional practices (such as those associated with Sufism) and "deviations" from the prescribed orthodoxy will all be threatened, even with regard to their very existence.
It is true that this ideology, and the movements associated with it, thrive on the grievances, sometimes genuine, which Muslims have, whether in Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya or the Balkans. Let there be no mistake, however, that the ideology exists not because of such grievances, but because of particular interpretations of Islam and what follows from them. There is a desire to purify the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) of all infidel influence and corruption. This means that the role of women must be greatly restricted, that non-Muslims must accept the inferior status of dhimmi (rather than that of fellow-citizens), if they are to survive at all and that even Muslim males must behave according to the dictates of the guardians of the ideology. The non-Muslim world (Dar al-Harb, the House of War) must be brought within the ideologues' sphere of influence, whether through persuasion, accommodation by others of the extremists' agenda or the fear of armed conflict.
Later on in this edition, there is an interview with the new Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, about secularism, Catholicism and society, which is well worth reading, and a fascinating head-to-head between Michael Gove and former Chief Schools Inspector Chris Woodhead about education (already covered on ConHome).
This month's Standpoint is jam-packed with thought provoking, stimulating and - for me - heartening articles. I'd recommend you go out and buy it, or at least read the articles I have highlighted online.
