« Reform offers George Osborne an economics lesson | Main | Labour: Cameron is just like Bush »


I find it strange that Jack Straw has condemned the newspapers that published these cartoons but not the extremists who reacted with the highly offensive placards.

There has been a response. I heard David Davis had spoken out saying we must protect free speech.

Former Spectator editor and Conservative MP Boris Johnson told the BBC the Muslim religion should not be treated with kid gloves.

He said: "If you are a Muslim and your faith is strong and you believe in God and in your prophet then I don't think you should be remotely frightened of what some ludicrous infidel says or does about your religion or any depiction he produces.

"I think we've got to move away from this hysterical and rather patronising idea that we have got to treat the Muslim religion with kid gloves and not subject it to all the same rough and tumble that we subject other faiths to."

I think this is a pretty sound response really - certainly what's needed. We have to be robust as well as refraining from any appearance of foaming at the mouth and scaring off Muslim Tories.

Mark Steyn on Newsnight last night was very good, pointing out that attacking Bush's Christianity is considered fine (he gave the example of a play in which Blair and Bush sing a duet: "We're sending you a cluster-bomb from Jesus" - many more examples could be found).

For my own part, I'm against disrepect (as opposed to critique) of any religion, and I think we should strive to avoid offensiveness to any moral or cultural sensibilities so long as

1) There are no defined 'no-go' areas for criticism and questioning; that we tolerate even if we criticise those who go beyond the limits we would ourselves prefer

2) That all religions and culture are treated equally; the Guardian/BBC should not consider it fine to mock the Christian faith of some politicians but not those of other faiths

Some at the Guardian/BBC would argue that as one is the privileged domain and the other is a minority faith, they do not need to be treated equally. It's not an argument that can be easily dismissed - at least, if Christian Britain were in a confident phase of its history.

Usually I am a passionate defender of mainstream religious practice, including Islam.

Muslims get a very raw deal at times and deserve the protection of the state.

However, I think the points made by Mark Steyn are very relevant.

I'm often aghast at anti-American comments made by (leftist) politicians and commentators. Next time you here a Guardian-ista tell you the "it's those silly Americans" or words to that effect, replace the word American with "Pakistanis".

On the infamous EPP thread there was a comment about "when the took the jews, I didn't protest because I was not a jew" - the editors who published did so to show solidarity with a fellow European editor and country under threats. Jack Straw's comments were those of a weak man dependent on muslim votes in his constituency, he put personal concerns ahead of the issue of freedom of expression and our common European heritage and aliances. I would hope that our spokesmen firstly support the rights of the Danes to free expression, attack the threats made to fellow Europeans (of whatever race or creed they are) then reflect on common courtesy to any religion.

Like petersmith I am against deliberate offense - it's bad manners. However when the response to being offended is to make threats of violence and retribution, then we need to respond to make clear the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
Peaceful demonstrations, boycotts of products and suchlike are acceptable; if islamic countries cut off trade or diplomatic ties thats their business. Threats of bombing, of another 9/11 of violence against the person are not.

I thought there was a law against threatening behaviour? Are Sir Ian's Metropolitan Police seeking to identify the people carrying these signs? Or do concerns about the racist media and Kate Moss have higher priority?

The police have to balance public order against action against offenders. However if they don't take early action against violence or threats of violence the more extreme elements are emboldened to go further. We have seen this happen in Animal Rights, where police inaction in the early stages led to increasingly threatening demos, then to violence against property and eventually against the person.

It needs to be made clear to those Christians, Sikhs or Muslims who threaten violence in pursuit of their beliefs that they will be prosecuted.

I'm heartened by the tone of these comments - dignified but unyielding. We all know that`there are some hotheaded anti-Islamists in our`ranks - and after seeing these disgusting placards their numbers will increase. We also know that the Party has always had its 'realist' faction that instinctively seeks to appease aggressors. Both tendencies should be resisted.

There is one huge group that has been completely marginalised in the cartoon debate (and in other controversies relating to Islam) - secular Britons of Muslim origin. I personally know quite a few younger people who would be head-counted as part of the UK's Muslim population but who are completely integrated into the mainstream of British life and who either don't believe in Allah at all or observe their faith in the same vague and occasional way that many Christians do.

Such people are often more hostile to the claims and presumptions of Islamic leaders than the rest of us. Not just the obvious nutters like Abu Hamza but also the
Muslim Council of Britain.

A few of them have popped up on TV in recent days - often offering a more eloquent defence of free speech than many journalsits (some of who have been truly awful in their equivocating and lack of backbone).

Creeps like Jack Straw make it hard for these guys to uphold British values. Their elders turn around and say 'See, even the establishment of this country that you want to be part of doesn't think people should have free speech to insult our faith.'

Did anyone else register the interview, doubtlessly included by mistake on Radio 4, where an American cartoonist compared the Jihadists with the Klu Klux Klan in the USA? Being a Southron gentleman, the speaker knew about KKK. Not a bad analogy, I thought.
Quite where it gets us I am not sure. I recommend that we cool it as far as the ignorant and discourteous cartoons in mainland Europe are concerned.

Jack Straw's unwillingness to support free speech is worrying.

The Tories should determinedly support the right to publish the cartoons - its not about respect, its about freedom and individual responsibility.

Surely these people should be in jail for inciting murder?

There is a superb piece on the cartoon controversy by Charles Moore today, pointing out how our lazy media presumes the views of Muslim leaders and terrorists onto ordinary muslims, who I suspect don't feel that strongly about it. Anyway the protests have been very small in the Middle East and Europe with only hundreds protesting not thousands.

Shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve has now issued a statement - put out by CCHQ:

“From what we know about the cartoons it is understandable that they have caused offence. However, the decision as to whether to publish or not is one of taste and decency that should rightly be taken by newspaper editors/broadcasters and their owners and is not one for Government.

“The effect of our amendments to the Religious Hatred Bill was to protect free speech by ensuring that only publications which were intended to incite religious hatred fell foul of the Bill's provisions, rather than being reckless as to whether they incited hatred. Whilst it could be argued that these cartoons were reckless, it is almost certainly the case that they were not intended to stir up hatred.”

This 'cartoon crisis' is a test of character more than anything else.

It is a sign of an institution's strength how it responds to criticism, whether that criticism is in the form of complex arguments or simplistic, glib pictures like these cartoons. Christianity and Judaism have endured criticism of all kinds, in the form of modern-day literature like 'The Da Vinci Code' to persecution and attempted genocide. All that, and Christianity and Judaism remain strong in heart and mind. And the fact that most Christians don't threaten Dan Brown with death because of what he writes is not the reason why Christianity is in decline in western Europe - there are far more important reasons than how violently Christians respond to criticism or any interpretation of their history or beliefs which they don't like.

Christianity was at its worst, giving up its most fundamental principles about love and understanding, when the Church killed men of science for challenging the religious theories about the world and the universe. Now, Christianity has learned its lesson and we are all better for it.

All Muslims must respond to challenges like these with strength in heart and mind, and must not make the mistakes that committed Christians made centuries ago. If a great institution like a religion so strong as Islam can respond to a challenge without resorting to terrible promises of violent retribution, like 'the real Holocaust' or 'your 9/11', then we will all be stronger for it.

Islam is stronger and better than some silly cartoon. This is a great opportunity for all Muslims to prove their strength of character and the strength of their religion.

One comment which hasn't been made about the cartoons: they aren't actually any good.

The BNP's Nick Griffin said that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith". Interestingly, Boris Johnson also demeans the great faith of Islam (The Spectator, 14th July 2005)

He said “The problem is Islam. Islam is the problem.”

He is disrespectful to the faith, referring to:

“Islam’s medieval ass”

He insults the Holy Qur’an:

“Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions”

He pours scorn on Islamic teachers:

“Islam’s disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers.”

So, we do have an idea of how the Conservative Party views Islam - it promotes the source of these views to Shadow Minister for Higher Education!

I would like to have heard much stronger condemnation of the Muslims who were burning flags, threatening violence, and walking around with such shocking placards (while our police protect them!).

We need to realise that what we're seeing is a clash of civilisations -- of worldviews -- and that they are absolutely irreconcilable.

You can't fudge this conflict away and say something like, "well, both sides need to compromise etc". The sort of actions we are seeing from Muslims are so fanatical as to be totally at odds with our own values, and we must decide whether we stand up for our culture, or meekly stand by while it is destroyed.

The muslims who have acted in this episode are not looking for tolerance; they are looking for submission.

Sadly, I fear they have won. People are already scared of criticising (let alone mocking) Islam. Such fear will have only increased after this episode, and fundamentalist Islam will continue to grow unquestioned and unexamined.

I agree with ToryT - I can't help but think Jack Straw's soft-pedalling on this subject has something to do with the large Muslim population in his Blackburn constituency.

I hate to think that that might also explain his softly softly approach to Iran.

I agree that Charles Moore's article in The Telegraph this morning was very good. For those who didn't read it, he points out that the original cartoons were published in October and have only just been made available to suitably outraged muslims in a well-organised distribution, which involved hundreds of Danish flags to be burnt in "spontaneous" demonstrations.

That was a good article indeed from Charles Moore.

Weakness in the face of threats simply shows that violence pays off.

I agree entirely, John Hustings. The people waving these placards should be arrested and placed on a watchlist.

I feel that I hardly dare comment on this issue - do you know what I mean?

"Exterminate those who slander Islam." "Behead those who insult Islam." "Europe you will pay. Your 9/11 is on its way." "Be prepared for the real holocaust." Sounds violent and vicious to me, in fact it sounds downright threatening.

Are Islamic believers as tolerant and respectful towards all other faiths as they in turn expect the rest of the world to respect and understand their beliefs? I honestly don't know and am curious.

Nick Griffin may have described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" but what have muslims done to demonstrate that this assertion is incorrect?

All the recent terrorism and incitement of racial violence shown above demonstrates that Islam needs a reformation of its own.

It's very puzzling that the police are quite hqppy for people to march with placards threatening violence to non-Muslims, yet will harass someone who heckles who Jack Straw, or an elderly couple who object to gay marriage.

Editor, Tory T: actually, I suspect that Jack Straw's approach to the cartoons crisis and Iran has exactly nothing to do with the demographic profile of his Blackburn constituency.

I doubt that Neville Chamberlain had many German constituents in Edgbaston.

I am disturbed that the Muslims in the above pictures, are presumably British Citizens or those who have sought refuge in this country.

What exactly are they doing in this here if they hate it so much?

I know so many people who are here (myself included) because the UK offered all the freedoms and opportunities we couldn't get from our countries of origin.

I hope this is proof that this multi-culturalism experiment has gone very wrong indeed.
That certain groups can publicly call for murder and threaten holocausts without censure is unbelievable when the reverse would not be allowed. This is much worse than what Nick Griffin was arraigned for!

And on another point, isn't burning a flag with a Christian Cross on it just as offensive as publishing derogatory cartoons? What exactly is their moral high-ground.


"And on another point, isn't burning a flag with a Christian Cross on it just as offensive as publishing derogatory cartoons? What exactly is their moral high-ground".

They have no moral high ground. Have you seem some of the depictions of Jews in cartoons in Arab newspapers?

Sean Fear: Have you seem some of the depictions of Jews in cartoons in Arab newspapers?

I agree. Certain amount of synthetic pot/kettle calling from a few governments and their front organisations. Interesting that whilst the cartoons were first published last year the story only exploded (as it were) following the Hamas victory in the election. But perhaps this has been a slow-burner in Denmark.

Anyone who really wants to read the alternative cartoons can follow the link below.

As the BBC used to say, this is not advisable for someone of a sensitive or nervous disposition (they're very crude and not artistic or refined at all).

Naturally, they should be seen as indicating the official viewpoint of certain Arab establishments, and not a reflection of the vast majority of etc. etc.

link to Middle Eastern cartoons about Israel

Of course Jack Straw's a creep - but I think the reaction of the left to the revolting display we were treated to in London yesterday is at least as interesting as the predictable medieval screams from the moslem version of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

How can the left vigorously attack what are quite clearly vicious and unpleasant - let me be blunt - unBritish behaviour like we saw yesterday at the Danish embassy? I don't think they can, because they've already defined Moslems as one of their client groups, suitable only for victim status and special rights under various NuLab laws, like the Religious Thoughtcrime bill that just about limped onto the statute the other night. Haven set up this group as deserving of special rights and victim status, the left wing mind will be quite capable of carrying out what to the rest of us looks like doublethink - that is, that any Moslems behaving as atrociously as that demonstration can't be held to account for it, because they're the oppressed (innit).

I leave aside any calculations about how scared NuLab is as it sees some of its client vote draining away to the LibDems oop North (see my ranting about that particular NaziSoviet pact in posts passim).

I note with horror - though sadly not surprise - that the representatives of HM Constabulary who "policed" the demonstration at the Embassy refused to act when members of the public complained. Sir Ian Blair's police service ain't here to stop you getting knifed when you get off the train at Hackney Wick; they're here to push the rights of various victim lobby groups and maximise the Labour vote at elections. Sorry Sir Ian! Don't shoot!

Where does this take us as a country? Can you hear that grinding noise? It's the grinding of the doublethink gears of your closest Guardianista, trying to affect outrage on behalf of the poor Moslems, afflicted with the horror of Danish cartoons, while simultaneously affecting outrage on behalf of the poor gay people, so viciously wounded by the vile homophobia (there should be a LAW!) most recently broadcast by .. um .. a leading Moslem, whose views we have to protect with laws, except when he's being judgemental to, um, gay people, except when, um, one of them has the temerity to say "I don't want to be a gay man in an Islamified society", except, um ... etc. If it wasn't our culture and our country that these fools were unravelling it would make a wonderful farce.

To those idiot gay voters of the left, who have taken some comfort crumbs from NuLab posturing and positively revelled in their socialist victim-hero status, so long as it delivered (some overdue) legislative changes, and so were therefore glad to vote NuLab en bloc: when the chips are down -- and they are falling down now -- do you think your Socialist MP will speak up for your right to criticise any faith group or spokesmen who would deny your right to exist? Or do you think they'll do the electoral arithmetic, and act accordingly? If you live by the sword of utilitarian sectional politics - then you might just die by it too.

I haven't even seen much media coverage of these displays. Why on earth not?

Can you imagine if it were the other way round?

The demonstrations are big news in the US blogosphere, John. Some conservative bloggers are launching 'Buy Danish' campaigns!

BBC website: Muslim leader condemns protesters

Incidentally, I see also that the hard-working MP for my neighbouring constituency has thrown himself back into the service of the British people:
Detained Galloway 'enters Egypt' . Still, by the sound of it one Big Brother will have prepared him for a night as a guest of another....

See here. This thing is escalating.

"The demonstrations are big news in the US blogosphere, John"

There we see the divide between the blogosphere and the MSM once again.

I, personally, am ashamed of our pathetic media.

Radio 4's PM programme is covering yesterday's demonstrations in London now. They did have vox pops from passersby frightened by it. A spokesman for Livingstone is vommitting out some on-the-one-hand-on-the-other drivel (all the fault of the media, it seems) and appears to be getting an easy ride from the interviewer.

"In other developments:

* Iran says it should consider abandoning commercial and trade deals with countries where the cartoons have appeared
* The Vatican says the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs
* UN Secretary General Kofi Annan calls for calm and urges Muslims to accept an apology from the Danish paper that first published the cartoons."

The original apology by the Danish newspaper

On second thoughts, I may have been a little harsh in attacking George Galloway for jetting off to Egypt immediately after spending a few weeks in the Big Brother house.

Clearly, having been a great success at impersonating a cat, it makes sense for him to move to a country where they used to worship them as gods.

The original apology by the Danish newspaper

Now I've read the apology and seen the demonstrations the chasm between traditional European enlightenment thinking and Islamic zealotry is apparent. The poor Danish newspaper tries to make a nuanced and reasoned case to a body of people who despise rationalism.

I have heard some very sensible muslim opinion on this subject, along the lines of "it's insulting but so are lots of other things".

This however is not going to happen with muslim opinion being whipped up abroad. The wicked demonstration in London was attended by a few crazed zealots totally unrepresentative of the 1.5 million muslims in the UK. As normal the BBC finds it hard to look beyond the Muslim Council of Britain or Hizb ut Tahir for an opinion. In reality, as Charles Moore points out in the Telegraph, where did all the Danish flags for burning come from and why only many months after the original publication is the 'arab street' being called into play?

Mark Steyn made the excellent point on Newsnight that those who shout and demonstrate the loudest and most violently get appeased. We have seen this with the IRA and so it should come as no surprise that extremist Islam is successfully pushing Europe into a state of Dhimmitude.

The BBC have said that Hamas is protecting Christian churches in Palestine; this is the sort of protection Al Capone used to offer and mirrors the situation of the benighted Copts of Egypt. Both groups live in Arab countries and have chosen to stick with their original religion in the face of invasion oppression and bigotry.

Don't expect Jack Straw to stand up and be counted on this one though - blatant hypocrisy and craven submission come easily to people who like to sput on abot human rights and equality but can't bear the thought of facing down a loudmouthed minority who are poisining the lives of millions of people. Their blatantly evil worldview, that demands submission to a cultish view of Islam that twists the faith out of recognition must be beaten by people of strong will and from all sections of the community. Some things are jsut wrong and threatening to kill people beacuse they've said something that's upset you is just wrong and nobody should be afraid of saying that - Ian Blair has obviously decided it's easier to shoot innocent brazillians than arrest people inciting murder but who wrap themselves in a cloak of religous zealotry.

I strongly recommend Melanie Phillips take on these events:


As normal the BBC finds it hard to look beyond the Muslim Council of Britain or Hizb ut Tahir for an opinion.

You should have taken a look at the link provided by William Norton - Muslim leader condemns protesters

I've read about Asghar Bukhari and his group MPAC and while I do not agree with a lot of things he's said in the past, his condemnation was pretty clear.
There was none of that "Yes, but what about.." stuff you normally get.

I've watched him twice on BBC News 24 now. Credit where credit's due. There's too much BBC-bashing on the blog.


That's one opinion on the unwatched news 24. On Newsnight they had the guy from Hizb-ut tahir without even the usual health warning over their opinions, a little like having the BNP on a spekepeople for white English citizens.

I think if you find there's too much BBC bashing on this blog it's because the BBC enrage contributors more than any other news body!

William; I'm glad you noticed that the PM presenter gave an easy ride to an apologist for the muslim intolerance. I assume the presenter was Eddie Mair. I regularly complain to the BBC about this smarmy twat, who drops his usual aggressive manner when interviewing a member of an ethnic minority to assume a helpful grovelling style. Pure BBC.

"I think if you find there's too much BBC bashing on this blog it's because the BBC enrage contributors more than any other news body! "

Mainly because they are more influential in shaping opinions. Don't get me wrong: I think Channel 4 News and ITV News have ridiculous left-wing biases as well; they are just less important than the BBC, which has a virtual monopoly on thought in this country.

If Nick Griffin can be arrested for calling Islam "wicked" and "vicious" then surely the placard-holders can be arrested for a similar offence?

What I find most interesting is that apart from the bomb-turban cartoon, most of the cartoons are pretty tame. This suggests the anger is mostly theologically driven (you shouldn't draw the prophet) and therefore should definitely be resisted. We are a democracy, not a theocracy.

If Nick Griffin can be arrested for calling Islam "wicked" and "vicious" then surely the placard-holders can be arrested for a similar offence?

Yup. It's all very confusing, I'm not even sure what's a crime anymore and what isn't.

The news said Scotland Yard is investigating complaints,but personally I am not even optimistic about them identifying people like the woman in the burka in the image above telling me to be prepared for the real holocaust.

Its ridiculous that the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill may have prevented those images from being printed here, but wouldn't have stopped those people above from threatening the rest of us who are a heterogenous mix of race and religion.

"I'm not even sure what's a crime anymore and what isn't."

New Labour's crowning achievement.

John Skinner: William; I'm glad you noticed that the PM presenter gave an easy ride to an apologist for the muslim intolerance. I assume the presenter was Eddie Mair.

No, actually, it was Caroline Quinn. I can't recall the name of the (female) spokesman for Ken Livingstone but her general line was that the media had been irresponsible in inflaming passions. Quinn fed her some soothing questions along the lines of "how should newspapers respond properly" etc. etc.

Don't expect Sir Iain Blair to crack down on the "demonstrators". He's likely to have his hands full for the next few days questioning 15 men in connection with oppressing an ethnic minority:
shocking act of dominant supremacy

Assuming, of course, he can spare some time from his other arduous duties:
allo allo allo

If Muslim activists around the globe burn down buildings and actively encourage religious hatred at the mere publication of a few cartoons, then what will they do when the world gets down to the ghastly task of picking apart such a stagnated and septic set of religious beliefs, and what will its followers, who continue to wallow in self-denial, think or do? What further violence is there to come?

as it seems the police investigated Sir Iqbal and Tony Blair on receiving public complaints perhaps fellow bloggers we should individually complain about being threatened?

"as it seems the police investigated Sir Iqbal and Tony Blair on receiving public complaints perhaps fellow bloggers we should individually complain about being threatened?"

Good idea. I, for one, shall be doing so.

Incidentally, on the point of BBC Bias, those in doubt should listen to Radio 5 Live this evening (starting at 10pm on Listen Again) and ask themselves if that show -- in giving *huge* air time to an Islamic fascistic thug -- is serving any of us well with our licence fees.

"Incidentally, on the point of BBC Bias, those in doubt should listen to Radio 5 Live this evening (starting at 10pm on Listen Again) and ask themselves if that show -- in giving *huge* air time to an Islamic fascistic thug -- is serving any of us well with our licence fees."

The BBC are so blinded by their own prejudices that they continue to see the Muslims as a persecuted minority who should be as much airtime as possible so that they can explain their point of view.

As much as I dissaprove of the views of Islamofascists I will defend their right to proclaim them BUT ONLY if those with opposing views are treated equally. On principle I don't actually think those extremists with the placards should be arrested no matter how offensive they were. But if those who make "offensive" comments about Islam can risk getting banged up then I don't see why the Islamic extremists should be treated any differently.

"On principle I don't actually think those extremists with the placards should be arrested no matter how offensive they were."

I agree that they should not be arrested because their placards were offensive. They should however be arrested for incitement to murder.

With regard Nadim's post much, much earlier, I just posted this on politicalbetting.com which I think is relevant:

As far as the theological problems of Islam are concerned, it is an utter conceit to try and detach Islamic terrorism from its religious roots. The main issue is that, whether or not moderate Muslims such as those in the MC of GB agree or not with their interpretation of the Koran, the one thing they cannot do and have not been able to do since 9/11 is to say “these people are not Muslim”.

They can say “I don’t agree with their interpretation”; “they are not doing anything I can countenance”, etc, but they cannot deny that the terrorists’ driving ideology is Islamic. This is not the case with “Christian” sects such as many of those found in the US, or even larger groups like Moonies or Mormons. Fundamentalist interpretation of the Old Testament is not compatible with Christianity because there is a distinctly articulated hierarchy of

1) the Gospels
2) the rest of the New Testament
3) the Old Testament

i.e. anything that is said in the first overrides a contradiction with something said in the second, which overrides something said in the third, etc. Anyone who does not subscribe to this view is and will be denounced as not being a Christian.

Islamic doctrine, however, does not allow for this in the Koran. Some people cite the “peaceful” elements of the Koran, but the fact is that those same people cannot answer how the contrictions with what are undeniably violent parts of it can be resolved. Obviously most Muslims in this country, and probably even those in the Middle East, don’t agree with violence; we are all human and it would very unnatural were this not to be the case. Yet their inability to be able to completely condemn the terrorists, in the manner outlined above, causes endless problems.

Think about this: most Muslim families are fairly conservative and children put great store by their parents’ guidance. British middle class Muslim parents can, and often will, say, “these terrorists are evil; their violence is bad and is not an answer”. This is fine as far as it goes. But when the youngster returns from the Mosque, having heard some rabid preacher of jihad, and comes back and asks his parents the simple question: “was that man a Muslim”, the parents cannot, and do not, say “no”. They cannot because it would be untrue. A western child who comes back from listening to the rants of a cult leader could come back and ask the same, “was that man a Christian?”, and the answer would very easily come back, “no”.

Some people might hold that this is too nuanced a position to be influential, but I believe it reaches to the heart of the matter about Islam and its place in modern western society. Until such a crucial dilemma can be reconciled, I just don’t see where we are going other than down a very, very slippery road.

This ongoing incident illustrates, once again, what happens to a society in which the educated elites have stopped believing in it. One might think the disgusting placards at the head of this page should prompt denunciation from almost across the board. But this is manifestly not the case. We Conservatives have to, politely but firmly, affirm the belief that our pluralistic parliamentary democracy is sacrosanct and all attacks upon it will be resisted. Leadership in this regard should be evinced by the Conservative party hierarchy.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker