Benedict Rogers: I say to my Aussie friends: "Rudd says he wants a 'Fair Go' - I'd say: Just Go."

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist, a former Parliamentary Candidate, and is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

I am not Australian. I have Australian friends, I have visited Australia, and occasionally I have thought how nice it might be to emigrate to Australia. I have admired Australia, especially during the crisis in East Timor, when I was there and John Howard's government stepped up to the plate in a commendable way. 

But I have to say to my Australian friends: "Mates, if I were an Aussie, I wouldn't vote for that spineless undignified Rudd bloke." I'd say to them: "Mates, I don't follow your politics that closely; all I really know about Australia is Fosters, Qantas, Sydney Opera House, Kangaroos, surfing, the Great Barrier Reef, the Outback, Dame Joan Sutherland, Neighbours, Home and Away, Kylie Minogue and Jason Donovan, cricket, the Ashes, sunshine, surfing, sharks and the great John Howard.

In fact, I have to admit, the first time I went to Australia, when I was living in Hong Kong and travelling to East Timor, I booked my ticket to Darwin and thought: "Well, if I have to go to Darwin to get to Dili, I may as well call in on Sydney on the way". Shows how much this Pom knows about Aussie geography.

But, despite being woefully ignorant about the politics, geography and culture of Australia, I know a thing or two about politics, human nature and values, and I tell you this: I do not like that Rudd fella.

First, I did not like his resignation speech as Prime Minister three years ago. He got the boot, and he should have gone with dignity. Instead, he went with a nauseating pavlova of a self-justifying, self-promoting, self-absorbed sermon. It was appalling. I can picture you all, around the barbie, watching this jerk pontificating and telling you all how proud he was of himself - and yet he'd just been kicked out by his own party. If he'd had any sense of decency whatsoever, he'd have gone with dignity and made a quiet contribution to the country in some other way. I could not imagine William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith or Michael Howard, let alone Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair, behaving as Rudd did.

Second, his loss of temper here. Of course all of us, as human beings, are capable of losing it, and one should have sympathy with politicians who are human and who behave as humans. But this is ridiculous. It's a total loss of self-control over something he should have been able to control - and if he couldn't, he should not have let it be filmed. He's an idiot. If he can't control himself in front of a camera, how can he govern the country?

Third, the fact that he came back to challenge Julia Gillard: for goodness sake. If the Labour Party chops and changes its leader every few years, how can you possibly elect it to government? And if Rudd can't retire gracefully and become an elder statesman, and instead comes back from the dead to knife his assassin in the back, surely he's rtoo sordid to be Prime Minister again?

If Rudd had done what Duncan Smith or Hague did, he could have gained some self-respect and some national respect. Both have reinvented themselves and are now deeply, and rightly, respected - across the political spectrum. They have risen above the petty partisan politics of their past, and immersed themselves in the statesmanlike substance of the national interest, and are highly regarded across the parties as a result. Rudd, by contast, has proven himself a self-absorbed partisan narrow-minded political pygmy.

Lastly, it seems Rudd cheated in the leadership debate. Certainly, Tony Abbott came across as a more credible leader, able to speak without notes and with principles. 

So I'd say to my friends down under: I think your great island continent could quite successfully sail Rudd-erless for a while. But no monastery can be without an Abbott, and that's what you need right now. Eject the sanctimonious, vacuous, self-absorbed Rudd, who is so banale he almost makes me feel warm towards Nadine Dorries, and vote Tony Abbott - as he says, if you want a new start, you need a new government. Kevin Rudd goes on about a 'Fair Go'. I'd say he's had his go, now it is time to tell him where to go. Fair Go? Just Go, Kevin.

Benedict Rogers: Why aid matters - a review of Andrew Mitchell's new paper

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist, a former Parliamentary Candidate, and is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

Since Andrew Mitchell left the Department for International Development in the reshuffle last September, the profile of international development in Government, and within the Conservative Party, has fallen. The cause of the world's poor has not had a champion at the heart of Government with the skills, knowledge, passion, personal dedication and energy of Andrew Mitchell. For all her best efforts, and however unfair this may be, Justine Greening has been hampered by a perception that she did not want the job, does not like the job, and is only interested in cutting programmes. 

But outside Government, Mitchell has far from abandoned the cause. In a powerful recent paper, published by the Legatum Institute and titled "A Safer and More Prosperous World: Why Aid Really Matters in an Age of Austerity", he sets out a concise but passionate case for a Conservative approach to international aid. It is a paper that every Conservative, and everyone working in the aid sector, should read. It is not lengthy. Indeed, its strength is in its brevity and the force of arguments conveyed in a mere 25 short pages.

Mitchell begins the first chapter stating what we all know, or ought to, but often forget. "Britain's international development policies are not about soft-hearted altruism," he writes. "They are a clear and hard-headed approach to our own security and prosperity". I have long argued that we need to make the case for international development, as well as for promoting freedom and human rights around the world, not only in moral terms but also as a matter of self-interest. Ten years ago, in a paper called 'New Ground', James Mawdsley and I made precisely this argument. Mitchell rightly notes that at a time when other areas of public expenditure are being cut, and British taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet, people want to know whether we get value for money and clear results from aid expenditure. "Are funds used for the best possible advantage? Is it aid and development for the benefit of Britain as well as from Britain?," he asks.

He argues firstly that "there is clear evidence that aid and development works". Recent years have seen more than 500 million people lifted out of poverty, millions more children in school, and child mortality rates plummet, as a result of aid increases, debt cancellation and economic growth. "Incredible improvements such as these are sometimes overlooked," he notes. As a result of a major new global initiative for vaccinations, which he introduced in 2011, "Britain's contribution alone will ensure that a child is vaccinated every two seconds and that the life of a child is saved every two minutes (during the five years of this Parliament) from diseases which no longer kill children in Britain". 

DFID's programme, however, is not just about giving out money. It is also about supporting good governance and institutions to help developing countries grow into stable, free and prosperous societies, and combating conflict. It is about "building a rule of law that treats all citizens equally and assures foreign investors that they will be dealt with fairly and according to transparent rules, not at the whim of a powerful politician or warlord; supporting openness and transparency, zero tolerance of corruption". These are, he says, "as essential as more traditional aid interventions such as clean water and sanitation, or feeder roads along which agricultural good can get to market."

Yet the challenges remain immense. Despite the "small miracles" created by development aid "well spent", Mitchell notes that still today 67 million children do not go to school. "A girl born tonight in South Sudan is statistically more likely to die in childbirth than to complete her primary school education", he writes.

During his time working on international development, in Opposition and then in Government, Mitchell became a true believer in the cause. I first met him shortly after he had been appointed Shadow Secretary of State, and I must admit I was unsure. He did not have a background on aid, and I was unconvinced as to whether he really cared. Within a short time, however, and over the past seven years, I became very convinced. We travelled together in 2007 to the Thailand-Burma border, and he was true to his word in consistently speaking up for the people of Burma ever since. He has done more than any other senior Conservative to change the narrative and, more importantly, change the thinking about international development. The "new agenda for international development" which he says in his pamphlet has "emerged" has been largely driven by him. "The old certainties of the left - that development is about spending taxpayers' money - or of the right - that all funds end up in the Swiss Bank accounts of corrupt leaders - has made way for common ground which, to a greater or lesser extent, commands support among the many people who take an interest and who are not wholly ideologically opposed", he concludes.

That "new agenda" is one which combines the moral case with self-interest, generosity with a relentless focus on results, provision of aid with a focus on the causes of poverty and long-term remedies. It is an agenda which highlights conflict, human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the free market as all being crucial elements in a development approach. As I have argued before, dictators are the cause of most of the world's poverty: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma are just some of the examples of the poorest parts of the world where poverty has been caused by dictatorships' economic mismanagement, oppression and war against their own people. Refugees and internally displaced people fleeing their homes in some of these countries are fleeing the consequences of dictatorship. 

As Mitchell argues, "we have refused to balance the books on the back of the world's poor", an approach that is in Britain's best traditions. "Britain has a proud history of going to the assistance of those who are suffering, whether it is campaigning to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century, the fight against fascism in the twentieth century, or 'making poverty history' in the twenty-first century." It is to that sense of history that Mitchell appeals so powerfully. When the history of this Government comes to be written, it must be for his contribution to the world's poorest that Andrew Mitchell should be remembered. I hope he will continue to make a major contribution to this area of policy for a long time to come.

Benedict Rogers: Cameron and Hague should press for justice in North Korea

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist, a former Parliamentary Candidate, and is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

Few people know more about North Korea than Lord Alton of Liverpool – and certainly no-one in Parliament. For over a decade, he has championed human rights in North Korea and peace on the Korean peninsula, relentlessly holding hearings, debates and tabling questions. Most significantly, he has visited North Korea, South Korea and the China-North Korea border. His new book, ‘’Building Bridges: Is there Hope for North Korea?’, is a testament to his skill and dedication and essential reading for anyone interested in the question.

The most extraordinary aspect of David Alton’s approach to North Korea is the way he has managed to pursue engagement with the regime, without ever compromising over human rights. Together with Baroness Cox he has made three visits to the country to talk to the regime, and in October 2011 he made a fourth solo visit, to lecture at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST). The lecture, on education, science, ethics and virtue, makes extraordinary reading when one remembers it was delivered in the capital of the most closed and oppressed nation on earth. The venue, PUST, is an equally extraordinary initiative – a privately owned university established by an entrepreneurial South Korean Christian, Dr James Kim, in a country where religion is virtually outlawed.

UK should lead the way on North Korea: accountability, information, critical engagement

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist, a former Parliamentary Candidate, and is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

Two events took place yesterday which have the potential to contribute to making our world a better place. One was President Barack Obama’s inauguration – or more specifically, his speech. The other was a debate in the House of Lords on the security, humanitarian and human rights situation in North Korea. Both had a ‘carpe diem’ feel to them.

Obama’s speech had the soaring, inspiring rhetoric which we have come to associate with him. But, beneath the rhetoric, it contained some truths that all of us, wherever we are in the world, should internalise and turn into action. He talked about the founding truths of the United States of America, which are universal to all mankind – of all men being made equal, with unalienable rights, including life and liberty. But he added a challenge to us:

"For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth".

In other words, we must work for it.

Ben Rogers: International Religious Freedom: A Human Right for Everyone

By Ben Rogers

Five months ago, I sat in a remote prison in the hills in West Sumatra, Indonesia, and met a young man, Alex Aan, who had been jailed for his beliefs. I travelled over 1,300 kilometres from Jakarta to see him, involving a flight and a four hour drive through the mountains.

Alex, aged 30, had been imprisoned not because of his religious beliefs, but because he has no religious beliefs. He had declared himself an atheist. Yet Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the freedom of religion or belief (FORB), applies just as much to Alex as it does to any of the millions of religious believers around the world persecuted for their faith.

A few days before visiting Alex, I had stood with a church congregation just outside Jakarta, surrounded by a mob of extremist Islamists shouting “Christians get out, kill the Christians”.

The previous year, I had met Ahmadi Muslims who had survived a brutal attack on their community. One man described how he was stripped naked and beaten severely and a machete was held at his throat. He was dragged through the village and dumped in a truck like a corpse. Another man fled into a fast-flowing river, pursued by attackers throwing rocks and shouting “kill, kill, kill.” He hid in a bush, dripping wet and extremely cold, for four hours. A third suffered a broken jaw, while a fourth, pursued by men armed with sickles, machetes and spears, was detained by the police for three days, treated as a suspect not a victim.

Benedict Rogers: Democracy against dictatorship and Islamism in the Maldives - it cannot be in our interests to betray our friends and our values

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist, a former Parliamentary Candidate, and is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

Tonight, the man the Prime Minister described less than a year ago as his “new best friend” will address the Royal Commonwealth Society. I recommend you come if you can.

It was six years ago that I first met Mohamed Nasheed in the Maldives. At the time, he was the opposition leader, under house arrest, in a country ruled by one of Asia’s longest serving dictators, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. I visited him in his home, which he was not permitted to leave. I also visited a journalist, Jennifer Latheef, also under house arrest.

Nasheed, or “Anni” as he is known, had spent years in prison, in solitary confinement, in exile, and subjected to torture and beatings. He was the Maldives’ Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi, an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience defying a typical brutal, corrupt dictator.

I visited the Maldives on behalf of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, in 2006, and found that Gayoom had appointed some reform-minded ministers, perhaps with the intention of giving a veneer of change while hoping to retain a grip on power. I wrote a report following my visit. It was a simple, common-sense document, which made two key recommendations:  if the reformers in Gayoom’s regime were serious, the first thing they should do is free Nasheed and Latheef; and if they were freed, Nasheed and his party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), should enter into a dialogue with Gayoom’s reformers, and chart a transition to democracy together.

Ben Rogers: Our country must face up to the challenges of radical Islamism and social breakdown

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and a former parliamentary candidate in the City of Durham.

9/11 and 7/7 seem a long time ago. The riots last summer appear all but forgotten. Yet two new books have just been published which remind us, in a deeply personal and profoundly important way, of two distinct but equally significant challenges our country continues to face but has still not yet fully grasped: radical Islamism and social breakdown.

For those of us who live in leafy surburbia or the countryside, grew up in comfortable, loving middle-class families, were educated in good schools and universities, read literature, go to the theatre, appreciate a variety of forms of music, travel abroad for work or holidays, the world described by Harriet Sergeant in Among the Hoods: My Years with a Teenage Gang and, for different but equally challenging reasons, by Maajid Nawaz in Radical: My Journey from Islamist Extremism to A Democratic Awakening appears completely foreign. Yet the people and issues described in these two books may only be a few miles away.

These two books are among the most important books I have read in a long time, and are essential reading for anyone with a mind, a heart, a soul and a brain. They present, in stark, shocking and moving ways, the twin challenges of radical Islamism and social breakdown in a way which must surely wake us from our slumber. Gripping, heart-breaking, inspiring, they tell the story of two very different individuals – Sergeant and Nawaz – who have travelled an extraordinary journey of discovery and are now sounding the alarm. They could almost be described as prophets in our time.

We will honour Aung San Suu Kyi when she addresses Parliament this week. But the best honour we could pay her is to heed her words.

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and a former parliamentary candidate in the City of Durham. He is the author of Burma: A Nation at the Crossroads, which was published this month. He has visited Burma and its borders more than 40 times and taken senior politicians, including Andrew Mitchell and John Bercow, on fact-finding visits to the borders.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to Britain this week is a reflection of the extraordinary turn of events in Burma in recent months. Less than a year ago, such a visit was inconceivable.

Twenty-four years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi left her home in Oxford to return to Rangoon to nurse her dying mother. She told her husband, academic Michael Aris, and two young sons that she would be back soon. Instead, as the movement for democracy unfolded in a series of mass protests against Ne Win’s regime in 1988, the people turned to her, as the daughter of Aung San, the leader of Burma’s independence who was assassinated in 1947, to lead them.

Benedict Rogers: Cameron's Burma message must be: "So far so good, but there is much more to be done".

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and a former parliamentary candidate in the City of Durham. He is the author of a new book, Burma: A Nation at the Crossroads, to be published in July by Random House. He has visited Burma and its borders more than 40 times, and taken senior politicians, including Andrew Mitchell and John Bercow, on fact-finding visits to the borders.

For years, I used to say that I had hope for freedom in Burma, but such hope flew in the face of the facts. My hope was based on a belief that the courage of the Burmese people would be rewarded in the end, and that history shows that dictators do not last forever. It was, however, a vague hope which I had to hold onto to ensure that my advocacy efforts were not in vain. Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest for most of the past two decades, over two thousand dissidents were in jail, and the country’s military was carrying out crimes against humanity. A visit by a British prime minister was inconceivable.

Today, Burma may be beginning to change. A year ago, I was deported from the country, because the authorities disliked a book I had written about the previous dictator, Senior General Than Shwe. As they threw me out, a military intelligence officer told me assuredly there was “no change, no change”. Just a few months later, the new president, Thein Sein, stunned the world by meeting the woman the regime had refused to talk to but failed to defeat: the democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Ben Rogers: Read David Lammy MP's book and make him an adviser on social justice

Ben Rogers is a human rights activist, focused on Asia, and a former Conservative candidate. Follow him on Twitter.

David Lammy is a ‘Big Society’ conservative. That may be ‘conservative’ with a small ‘c’ – he is, after all, a Labour MP and former Minister – but if his new book is anything to go by, he has more in common with David Cameron, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove and Oliver Letwin than with Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman, Gordon Brown and Ken Livingstone.

His book, Out of the Ashes: Britain after the Riots, is the most sensible piece of analysis of modern Britain by a Labour politician in a long time. There is, in fact, little to separate it from the ‘broken Britain’ analysis which the Prime Minister and IDS have been highlighting for years. It is almost as if he has taken the enormous, excellent, weighty Centre for Social Justice policy reports such as ‘Breakdown Britain’ and ‘Breakthrough Britain’, and translated them into a quick-and-easy-read designed for the man in the street.

Bigger than party politics

What is most striking, and an example to us all on both sides of the political debate, is the lack of partisan rancour. Lammy talks passionately and authentically about the issues themselves, and avoids pointing the finger or scoring cheap party political points. “No single political party, no single government and no single factor was to blame for the riots,” he argues.

Benedict Rogers: Healing our sick society

I am not a father, but this year I became an uncle. My six-month old nephew has had a more profound impact on me than I had ever anticipated. And I am deeply concerned about the society in which he will grow up.

Twelve days ago, I wrote on the site about threats to our civilisation. In the past week, some of those threats became all too apparent in a horrific, vivid and tangible way on the streets of many of our cities. What I had thought was a slow-burning, smouldering undermining of society became, for a few days, a frighteningly accelerated, intensified, violent, mindless, anarchic reign of terror. Watches and wedding rings torn off diners at The Ledbury Restaurant in Notting Hill, ordinary people forced to strip and hand over their clothes, a Malaysian student beaten, injured and then robbed by people pretending to help him, children aged 11 or younger looting and stealing, girls who had been drinking all day laughing about the awful arson in Croydon, shops and homes and buildings that survived the Blitz destroyed forever: it was as if Mao’s Red Guards had taken over.

Benedict Rogers: We should call time on the Burmese regime's crimes

Twenty three years ago today over 3,000 people protesting for freedom in Burma were gunned down by the country’s military regime. Thousands more were killed during previous months, as the democracy movement swept the nation. Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Burma after many years living abroad, and rapidly emerged as the democracy leader and a voice of hope. 

Since 1988, thousands more people have been killed. Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), overwhelmingly won elections held in 1990, spent most of the subsequent two decades under house arrest. The junta refused to recognise the results and instead of handing over power, those elected were jailed, killed or exiled. Even though Aung San Suu Kyi was freed nine months ago, almost 2,000 prisoners of conscience remain behind bars. The military has intensified its offensives against the ethnic nationalities, using rape as a weapon of war, forced labour, the forcible conscription of child soldiers, human minesweepers, torture and killings as a matter of policy on a widespread and systematic level. More than 3,600 villages have been destroyed in eastern Burma alone. 

In November last year, twenty years on from the election won by the NLD, the regime held a new, heavily rigged sham poll, and formed a supposedly new, civilian government. Yet in reality the change is cosmetic – a few changes of personnel, perhaps some subtle changes of tone, and a change of clothing from military uniform to civilian suits, but no change in behaviour. In the past nine months the human rights and humanitarian crisis has continued. On 9 June the regime ended a 17-year cease-fire agreement with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), resulting in the displacement of over 20,000 civilians, and the rape of at least 32 women and girls. Of the cases of rape, at least 13 victims were then killed. And these are only the cases that have been documented and reported. A few months earlier, the regime broke a 22-year ceasefire with one of the Shan ethnic armed groups, wreaking death and destruction upon thousands more civilians. 

Benedict Rogers: Our civilisation is under threat: from ourselves, as well as from extremists

I am an optimist. I don’t generally buy the Victor Meldrew view of the world. But events of recent weeks have made me deeply concerned for the future of Western civilisation and, in particular, Britain as a civilised state.

On many previous occasions, I have written on this site about the threat posed to our liberal democracy by radical Islamism. That threat still holds. The terrorist massacre in Norway exposed in a stark and tragic way the threat from far-right ideology in Europe. But there is another threat: ourselves, our ruling classes and, more precisely, our lack of vision.

In recent years, one by one shocking scandals have been exposed in key institutions that are meant to be pillars of stability and reassurance in our society. MPs’ expenses drastically undercut whatever remaining vestiges of respect there may have been for politicians, and damaged the reputation of Parliament, perhaps irreparably. The banking crisis unleashed distasteful stories of city fat cats claiming large bonuses while ordinary hard-working honest people saw their savings disappear. The phone hacking scandal has torn apart our trust in the media, the police, and perhaps even each other.

Benedict Rogers: Yesterday, Pakistan lost its Martin Luther King

Benedict Rogers is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and East Asia Team Leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide.

Pakistan has had many dark days in recent years, and yesterday was even darker. The assassination of the Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, robs the country of another of its leading voices for religious freedom, equal rights, justice and peace. It also robs the country of a true patriot, and the world of an inspirational and courageous activist. It may be no exaggeration to say that Pakistan has now lost its Martin Luther King.

I had the privilege of working with Shahbaz Bhatti for five years, during which I supported his campaign for the repeal of Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws. I counted Shahbaz as a friend, as well as a close partner. He always impressed me with his personal integrity, deep faith, unflinching commitment to religious freedom, social justice and human rights, and his love of Pakistan.

Shahbaz, founder of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, was one of the most selfless and compassionate people I have ever met. He and I shared some profound experiences together. I will never forget meeting a little seven year-old girl, Sharee Komal, who had been brutally raped and tortured because she came from a Christian family. Shahbaz was helping her and her family, because no one else would. He and I missed a bomb at the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad by five minutes in 2004. He faced daily death threats and attempts on his life for many years, long before he became a Cabinet minister. He worked extraordinary hours, never took a holiday or a day off, and was entirely focused on helping the poor, the oppressed, the persecuted and the marginalised minorities. In 2007, for example, a Christian community in Charsadda, in the North-West Frontier Province, received threats from extremists, giving them an ultimatum: convert to Islam or face the consequences. The night the deadline expired, I telephoned Shahbaz to ask for an update, and to my surprise he told me he was in Charsadda. The community were terrified, he said, and they expected an attack at any moment, so he had gone to be with them. That was typical of Shahbaz.

Ben Rogers: End the grievance culture and unite in defence of liberal democracy

David Cameron's speech at Munich on Saturday is one of the best and most inspiring speeches I have read in a long time. It is one of the most robust defences of freedom and democracy, and one of the most balanced and honest analyses of radical Islamism. In contrast with a previous Conservative prime minister's famous words after a Munich conference seventy two years ago, Cameron has shown that if we really want peace in our time, we have to be prepared to fight for our values.

That Yvette Cooper, Sadiq Khan and Jack Straw decided to score cheap party political points rather than engage with the substance is disappointing, though unsurprising. That the Muslim Council of Britain, and people such as Inayat Bunglawala from Muslims4Uk don't like it is indicative of their Islamist sympathies. But that Cameron's speech has been praised by Muslims such as Haras Rafiq and Maajid Nawaz, a left-wing journalist like Nick Cohen, and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's Trevor Phillips suggests to me that he has got it absolutely right.