« Cameron attacks Germany's backdoor attempts to revive EU Constitution | Main | The end of Blair: Tories up the rhetoric »


Nice list...but it ain't going to happen !

You are probably right TomTom but this is the security agenda that will appeal to middle England and VERY IMPORTANTLY to moderate Muslims who are ashamed of the extremists in their midst.

Sensible, but would be spun as a racist, anti-Islamic campaign by our opponents and drag CMD's cuddly Conservatives into a "nasty party" race row

There is a risk of this Paul D - that's why it would be essential for moderate Muslims to be seen to champion the agenda.

Also, putting aside the politics, it's the right agenda for our nation's security.

Mostly fairly sensible, even for a liberal/metrosexual/wishywashy type like myself. Of course, sensible isn't really NuLab's thing.

Number 8 is a bit redundant though: madrassa is just the Arabic word for school, without any (necessary) religious meaning at all. In the Arab world, even a Christian or explicitly secular school is called a madrassa.

as opposed to right-on grievances about the “black hole of Calcutta”)

What did this mean ?

I note that she says "Silence all imams who break the law in their preaching with incitements to violence" and "Censor the violent Islamist recruitment sites on the internet", which I think is the correct approach - that repressive measures against British citizens only kick in when they start to incite crime, not when they incite "hatred" which is not a crime. As for foreigners, including foreign imams, I don't accept that we need to accord them the same freedom of expression enjoyed by British citizens in their own country, and foreigners who try to stir up trouble here should simply be classed as undesirable aliens and summarily deported. If the European Court of Human Rights doesn't like that, well tough, but we shouldn't allow unaccountable foreign lawyers to tell us how to run our country.

I also have concerns about the growing phenomenon of dual nationality. There must come a point at which the descendants of Pakistani immigrants should make up their minds whether they are going to be British or Pakistani.

Mostly very sensible.

i agree with ALL of Marrins' points. The chances of this becoming Tory Party policy? None- it's not pc enough!

Described as it is, it is a list of targeted impositions - attractive in politics of fear but not effective in strengthening the majority of muslims who are not radicalised and building an integrated rather than multicultural community. That's not to say I don't agree with almost all she says but the consequences of making them policy as stated would be to divide this country into warring factions.

What was attractive about DCs speech this week was he couched things in terms of inclusion and rights. Most of the list can be done under current legislation and can be presented as community building.

It already has descended into 'warring factions' Ted! The establishment has had nigh on 50 years to build a 'multicultural society'. It hasn't worked. The million dollar question with regard to a 'multicultural society' is 'how do you get vastly differing cultures (radical islam and English/Welsh/Scottish) to mix?'

I agree with practically everything the (as ever) wonderful Ms Marin describes this morning, in terms of some of the action required to put right some of the ill created by the decades of failed multicultural identity politics. But I think it's a leap to see it as an election-winning formula. Can we be clear about the CH Editorial line:

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

Are you saying that this is the sort of key platform we should focus on between now and the election? If so I think you're mistaken (to put it mildly). Even within its own strand (the identity/culture strand) it's all wind and no sunshine.

"Stop the creation of religious schools (Blair sold the pass on this)."

Presumably she doesn't mean harmless C of E schools?

Richard puts his finger on a crunch point if we're serious about turning away from the failed multiculturalism paradigm of the left. It's much easier to adopt a value-blind perspective (if that's not a contradiction) and say "all faith communities have the right to educate their children in the way they see fit". It's much harder to say "faith communities X and Y do have the right, since the values they teach are consonant with the society we want, while faith community Z does not". I don't know how you bridge that divide but I know the easier (and less valuable) route will be to deny any state-sanctioned faith-led education (written by an atheist!).

There's a link here with the discussion about how far the state can or should decide the ethos of any state-sanctioned but non state-delivered activity (viz: adoption agencies). We want, as Conservatives, to encourage the view of the state as guarantor but not provider. But if the state imposes homogeneity of ethos on all the providers, what's the difference? But more, if the state remains "blind" to those ethoses, you can get some of the problems we're now witnessing with respect to the anti-western, non-democratic opinions set out in last week's invaluable Policy Exchange survey.

To be optimistic, it's not an insoluble (even politically speaking) problem I don't think. Sunshine helps!

Although I am usually on the right wing side of the Party I have to agree with Ted that this list is very unhelpful as public policy
The only proper resolution of the Islamic crisis is to integrate Muslims into mainstream society and make them Britons first and muslims second as has happened over very many years with Catholics and Jews.
The one certain sure way to prevent this is to publish a list like this. I am not saying these are not sensible actions but that it is not at all sensible to detail them like this.
Only the first point should be publically enforced. The battle of Western Liberalism over Islam is a battle of ideas and must be fought as such if it is to be won. Actually it is already won but through nulticulturalism we are throwing the victory away. People seem determined to demean or dehumanise immigrants. Almost all have come to this country through a rational, sensible considered understanding of what is best for them and their families. They have already understood that the West is better. (An admission that you would not get out of the resident of a Hampstead or Islington drawing room with a thumbscrew.). The radicalisation of Muslim youth is a masturbatory fantasy of the victim, misunderstood mentality of so many teenagers. Like drug taking and acne they will grow out of it. We just have to ensure, without being seen to do so, that the religious porn peddlers feeding this radicalisation disappear.

Pretty sound proposals. I think that David Davis, had he been elected leader, could have proposed something along these lines.

With Cameron in charge, as with Blair, the practical policies needed to fully turn around a failing situation are unlikely to be implemented. I don't have any confidence that DC sees what is genuinely required, and has the courage and tenacity to advance such policies.

Jonathan - secretly I'm pretty much on the right of the party which is probably why I agree with you (agreeing with me first of course).

Simon - We are not already a nation divided into warring factions. I've experience of those and strangely in the UK haven't found I need to drive along looking for landmines buried in the the road, armed myself, put up 9 foot walls topped with razor wire, slept with CS Gas under the pillow etc. There are a few, maybe hundreds but a few, extremists. Most of these are radicalised islamists, a few are Animal Rights and others.

You don't defeat them by singling out their communities and directly targeting their religions or beliefs. You do it by depriving them of communal support and greater investment in intelligence.

Even Gordan Brown (in his article last week) referred to failed multiculturalism - that argument has been won. The next is about how we reverse the damage it has caused. That's done by attracting people to our way of life, by operating our laws fairly, by not discriminating or allowing discriminiation.

The Muslim League had part of its origins in the fear of Enlightened values - it's founder shocked by the behaviour of western women. We need to have a society where a young muslim women can be sure that if she goes against the wishes of her family , she doesn't fear harm, being beaten, burnt to death or raped in a forced matrimonial bed. That means she must trust our police, our courts, our social services will support her in her choices. Not because she's a muslim but because she is a free citizen.

I was struck recently reading a biography of James Stewart that just after Pearl Harbour, he together with Orson Welles, Walter Huston, Lionel Barrymore and Edward G. Robinson took part in an all chanels radio programme which responded to the attack by celebrating the Bill of Rights. DC has said we should have a new Bill of Rights and our one does need some updating, but we should respond not with scattergun authoritarian discriminatory policies but with our own truths and values.

Multiculturalism has tried to cheapen them by equivalence with other value systems, lets defeat that by celebrating their achievements. Freedom of speech, the Rule of Law (where even a monarch or as Blair is discovering a PM) is subject to the law, freedom of conscience, of religion, of the right to marry whomsoever you wish, freedom of movement, trial by jury and protection from arrest without proven cause, freedom from want and disease. In the 200th Anniversary of the abolition of slavery we should be celebrating how activist British citizens changed the attitudes first of this country and then the world.

"Stop the creation of religious schools (Blair sold the pass on this)."

Presumably she doesn't mean harmless C of E schools?

Posted by: Richard | February 04, 2007 at 13:18

She has missed the point.

WE have lots of Muslim Schools - they are PRIVATE Muslim Schools and we have many of them in places like Bradford, Leicester etc.

They are outside the National Curriculum. Blair wanted to bring them under some kind of government inspection and control so they did not teach just the Koran and so they had exams and did not train girls to be good little shroud-wearers.

To do so he offered them funding to become Voluntary-Aided Schools and subject to controls. The media called it "Faith Schools" and created a red-herring on C of E Schools and Catholic Schools.

So instead we can stay with private Madrassahs and let Saudi Arabia finance them....that is what Minette Marin wants isn't it ?

win an election with this?

Are you joking?

Like Howard's anti-immigration campaign at the last electon was so successful and won us that one?

Nope, the BBC would just write the Tories off as same old nasty racists.

It's a vote loser.

Implement it, for sure, but don't campaign on it.

I'd agree with all that, Ted, except your reference to "scattergun authoritarian discriminatory policies" - which is oxymoronic, surely, as if we're not allowed to discriminate then whatever we do must be indiscriminate, ie "scattergun"? I'd prefer to discriminate, but discriminate on the right grounds - and your implicit assumption that "freedom of movement" must include freedom for everybody in the world to move across our borders as they please, rather than freedom for those who are allowed to be in the country to move around within our borders.

I don't Luke for one moment think it should be our only message - David Cameron is right to build a greener, gentler Conservative Party (something Michael Howard didn't do) but this should be a very prominent part of the mix. The agenda is right for our nation's security and good politics.

These are mostly all things that ought to be done if we are to turn back the tide of aggressive non integration and radicalism that is gaining a real hold on some British Muslims, especially the young.This isn't a debate about faith it is a debate about politics however and also about the security and community cohesion of our country and these steps should to be welcomed by the vast and silent majority of British Muslims as well as by everyone who wants to see an integrated and happy Britain. To not take steps such as these simply in order to pander to the dhimmism preached by the BBC and the hard left is to completely abrogate all responsibility for the future on a scale not unlike Chamberlain's reliance on a piece of meaningless paper and will drive voters into the hands of the despicable BNP.

Oh and no we shouldn't be shouting from the rooftops about policies such as these since that simply allows, as ever, the left inclined media to shift the debate away from the key electoral issues and onto "Tory racism" which has become the sorry tactic which all of the left revert to when they have comprehensively lost the argument, as in this case.

And precisely what does the author propose to do about the large number of Muslim immigrants every year-all very enriching of course-. Surely the first thing to do when you are in a hole is to stop digging. All muslim immigration should be stopped and all illegals deported as a starter.

These suggestions would save the health and well being of many Asian girls. Life enhancing, even life saving.

The most surprising thing to me about Minette Marrin’s list is how much of it you would expect to be taken for granted under a half-competent government without it having to bear a “War on Terror ®” label.

For example. take point 3. Why is it now critical that imams are security-vetted? “Are you telling me that people with routine access to our prisons are not security-cleared??”. Let’s find some good evidence of that and have Mr Davis beat John Reid round the head with it at the earliest opportunity.

Take point 6 – some prisoners have internet access? Is this as a recognised part of rehabilitation or education? No? Then why do they have it? (as a diversion due to lack of prison officers due to overcrowding?). Several of the remaining points relate to having a good education system meeting certain minimum standards, something else that can and should be accomplished without reference to Islamic extremism.

I’m not sure how the censorship of the web proposed is to be accomplished – the British government cannot censor the entire internet. A good thing too, as given the bizarre sense of priorities sometimes shown by the current administration it wouldn’t be long before they were trying to censor Tory bloggers instead…

My main point is that while of course we have to be well aware of the real dangers of Islamic extremism, and take a few of the serious practical steps in the article, we need to do it and can do it in such a way that we are seen to be standing with moderate Moslems in facing down extremists and criminals, not against them. I’m not sure that the tone of Marrin’s “little list” is altogether helpful in keeping the goodwill of moderate British Moslems. However, implementing some of the broader common-sense practical points I mention above, alongside the approach to unrepresentative Islamist groups in DC’s speech last week should help us to ensure our security while promoting community cohesion without us having to explain to our opponents at every turn that these measures are aimed at criminals, not at peaceful British citizens who are Moslems.

As for whether the Ed is right that this is an election-winning agenda, I’m not sure that this list is required. The key thing here is that national security could be a General Election issue – positively or negatively. While it eludes me how Labour might possibly poll as more competent on national security given the current ruckus in the Home Office, we do need to ensure that we’re seen as highly competent on core security and criminal justice issues.

These suggestions would save the health and well being of many Asian girls. Life enhancing, even life saving.

Annabel, I agree that restraining extremist customs in this coutry would save young Asian women from the abuse that many in their own communities in this country are appalled by but too afraid to speak up on without support.

This is off-topic but I know that you have written about this before, and have some experience of the issue. I wondered if you were following the Forced Marriages (Civil Prevention) bill that was given its second reading in the Lords in late January.

I was given an interest in the bill when I was discussing it with a local colleague now elevated to the Lords, Lord Taylor, who spoke very eloquently in the debate at the request of Baroness Verma. I gather the bill has now gone into Grand Committee.

This is sensible stuff from Minette Marrin.

We really shouldn't be afraid to defend liberal values in this country anymore.

Thank you so much for the link, Richard. I had not been following it, as am a duffer at finding stuff on the internet. Lord Ahmed is being especcially useful is he not.
I just wish they would end up with a bill that means abusive parents would get their collars felt. The message would go out that "family honour" would NOT be promoted by carrying on with these forced, often 1st cousin marraiges.
When I was working in the field, I was well aware that our multi disciplinary treatment and assessment centre, was over subscribed by asian children with various congenital disorders. These are caused by repeated 1st cousin marraiges, so that recessive genes become dominant. Then the health authorities are faced with the care of these handicapped children.
One good thing you can say about sikhs. Inter family marraige is verboten, and so sikhs are usually pretty healthy folk, sound in wind and limb as the old saying goes.
All speed to a new bill that does criminalise the frank forced marraige of young women - and men.

Just found this Panorama Site - very interesting:


Click on Towns


How young Muslims were radicalised

Sir: It should not come as a surprise to anyone that a large number of young British Muslims are more radical than their parents (article, 29 January), displaying signs of militancy and being attracted to extremist ideologies.

The extremist imams and community elders indoctrinating today's Muslim generation against the western way of life are the products of the Islamic fundamentalism that proliferated under the patronage of the grand anti-communist alliance of the past century, comprising western powers and Saudi fundamentalism, generously funded by petrodollars.

The extremism and intolerance took decades to sink in and become a way of life for many Muslims, not just in Britain. Equally, its eradication will not be swift and easy. Yet a combination of drastic measures and patient understanding of the religious, cultural and social pressures faced by today's Muslim youth can achieve the desired objectives, although this may take yet another generation.

The monitoring of hate-preaching imams, strict regularisation of uncontrolled growth of madrassas and compulsory inclusion of women in the committees managing British Islamic institutions need to made top priorities for the government, should they wish to avoid a situation where Oldham riots of 2001 would seem like a picnic in the park.

British Muslim communities need to start presenting truly moderate and well-integrated role models with proud Muslim identities yet with success stories to tell their youngsters.



We need to recount and shout about Blair’s disasters.
There was the disgusting overthrow of the House of Lords with no clear idea of what to replace it with. Now it is a purchase scheme. The previous system worked well for hundreds of years, then along came Blair.
Serbia was battling with insurgents in Kosovo, then along came Blair.
Despite the shrill and frantic cries about genocide that paved NATO’s bombing of Belgrade for 71 days, forensic teams only found some 200 bodies. NATO’s bombing had killed 2,000! Not to mention the hazards from depleted uranium and the deadly toxins released from the chemical works. Fortunately the Russians needed to borrow some money and dug NATO out of the mess. Funny what happened to Robertson. If you mess up the you get dumped on NATO perhaps.
There were the Northern Ireland troubles. John Major held all the cards, including a few aces – then along came Blair. Incredibly he threw all the cards away. He released all the IRA prisoners, for nothing in return. Were they not supposed to hand over weapons at some stage?
There was and is Iraq, at least their prisons were not full! And along came Blair. Once again there was no clear idea of the consequences. The weapons of mass destruction? Dr Kelly in desperation was giving leaks to the press – the case for war was being over cooked. At least 100,000 dead so far. If anyone in the world should be disarmed it should be Mr Blair.
And then there is Education, plenty of A grades around now. Only a ticked list of “Can Do” tasks will be required soon.
The list can go on and on.

How are you going to force Muslims to 'integrate'? That could have been done IF both Labour and Conservative governments had controlled immigration/asylum properly but they didn't and anyone who sensibly warned of the problems these irresponsible governemnts were building-up for Britain in the future was castigated as a 'racist' like Enoch Powell was.

Sir, Christianity and Islam will never meld in this country - or anywhere else, in all probability - the practices of each are too different. In my view, unless there is a radical re-think of this country's proper priorities for its future direction, there will just be increasing tensions our society, vast amounts of time, money and energy spent on trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. It is a very difficult problem but the nettle has to grasped.

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