ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Liam Fox: A Britain obsessed with celebrity, indifferent to serious learning and unsure of its values and history risks being unable to defend itself

1. Russia is spending over $200 billion in the next five years upgrading its forces.  Vladimir Putin's strategic bombers are probing UK airspace again.
2. The world's greatest exporter of terrorism - Iran - is inching ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.  An Iran - still publicly committed to wipe Israel off the face of the map - with nuclear capability will be able to sponsor 'nuclear terrorism' which may include the detonation of a dirty bomb containing enough radioactive material to contaminate whole cities.
3. The ideology of the Islamic fundamentalist continues to be spread across the globe.  All over the world young Muslims are being exposed to an ideology that is "irreconcilable to our political system and our values."

These were some of the threats outlined by Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox yesterday - during a speech to Politea.  He could also have mentioned the increasingly worrying situation in Pakistan.  Dr Fox warned that Britain was a nation that was losing its moral seriousness and that this endangered our ability to meet the threats to our peace and security:

"There seems to have been a view developing in recent years that defines peace simply as the absence of war.  If only we can avoid armed conflict the argument seems to say then we will live in a more peaceful world.  But peace is not simply the absence of war.  Real peace has an unavoidable set of values which accompany it.  Freedom from tyranny, freedom from oppression and freedom from fear are essential for real peace.  Unfortunately we sometimes have to fight and even to die for these freedoms. The need to maintain public support for the conflicts which are sometimes required to ensure these freedoms is a burden which democratic states have to carry but many of our enemies do not.  The absence of a clear and rational argument for the necessity of military action in certain circumstances can hand the advantage to those who wish to undermine our democratic systems and, indeed, our whole way of life.  This is where our social attitudes, our political direction and our national security converge- in the crucial question about the state of our national resilience.  For it is our resilience-  our political and social fortitude- which will determine whether or not we are able to deal with the threats and challenges which lie before us."

Pasted below are sections of Dr Fox's speech in which he identified the key forces weakening Britain's fortitude:

Liam Fox attacks Muslim fanatics who branded British soldiers as "babykillers" during homecoming parade

Soldiers returning from Iraq - and marching through Luton as part of a homecoming parade - were greeted with banners branding them as "butchers, war criminals, murderers, terrorists — and baby killers" by Islamic extremists.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, told The Express: “This was a very offensive protest by a tiny number of known extremists who should not be allowed to tarnish the reputation of Luton’s Muslim community."

The police had to form a protective cordon around the Islamic fanatics when local people turned against them:

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox called the protests “disgraceful, appalling and offensive”.  He continued "It is only because of the sacrifices made by our armed forces that these people live in a free society where they are able to make their sordid protests."  'The Sun Says' agrees:

"Our brave troops have enough to put up with as they risk life and limb in Afghanistan and Iraq.  To top it all, now they fly home to vicious abuse from Islamic fanatics.  The Royal Anglians had to face a chanting mob waving grotesque placards accusing THEM of terrorism and child murder.  Astonishingly, this despicable demo went ahead with police approval.  When it turned predictably ugly, who did our brave bobbies arrest?  Not the extremists who started the trouble, but a couple of locals who rallied to Our Boys’ defence."

What do readers think?  Should the police have approved this "despicable demo"?  I think not.  It was the wrong time and wrong place for such protests.

Tim Montgomerie

Dominic Grieve calls for fresh thinking on multiculturalism as he condemns a decade of political correctness

Dominic Grieve, the shadow Justice secretary,  will today make a hard-hitting attack on political correctness and the Government's failure to question damaging aspects of multiculturalism. But he also admits that the Right has so far failed to credibly address some of those issues.

Speaking at Queen Mary, University of London, he will characterise the decade of this Labour Government as:

"A decade of ranking people as members of neatly categorised ethnic, religious or social groups, rather than treating everyone as an individual in their own right; a decade of courting self-appointed heads of minority groups and pandering to special interest lobbies, ignoring the range of opinions and depth of diversity in modern Britain; and a decade of stifling difficult debate, under a blanket of political correctness, that marginalises those ill at ease with prevailing dogma or accepted ‘progressive’ wisdom.”

He will highlight his concern that people no longer feel able to decide what is right and wrong - citing a "disinclination to criticise attitudes which are morally unacceptable to a modern western tradition" such as forced marriages:

"The reluctance to exercise reasonable judgment and to criticise or challenge negative cultural imports into our country, including discriminatory practices against women and corrupt political and electoral practices, is one of the most troubling consequences of a culture that wishes to avoid offence and accusations of racism."

George Osborne suggests that banning Geert Wilders was wrong

Yesterday, after having first indicated that the Conservative Party would not be making on comment on the Geert Wilders row, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling did issue a statement in which he attacked the Government's inconsistency over which "extremists" it would and wouldn't allow into this country.

He did not, however, appear to want to condemn the Government's decision to ban Mr Wilders from entering Britain, saying in fact that the Conservatives supported the ban if he has "expressed views that represent a threat to public security".

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has this afternoon commented on the matter to the Manchester Evening News - and whilst he repeats Mr Grayling's point about the Government's inconsistency, he seems to suggest that the ban was wrong:

"My personal view is by banning him [Wilders] in such a public way, he has been given far more publicity than would have been the case. I am not sure how thought-through this really was."

Jonathan Isaby

Tories choose silence on Geert Wilders

3.45pm: Chris Grayling told me earlier that the party would NOT be issuing a statement on this issue but forty minutes ago this statement was released from his office:

“We have consistently called on the Government to tackle extremists. If Geert Wilders has expressed views that represent a threat to public security, then we support the ban. But people like Ibrahim Moussawi, a spokesman for the terrorist organisation Hizbollah, have not been banned. The Government must apply the criteria governing entry into the UK consistently.”

***

You don't have to agree with the very strong views of Dutch politician Geert Wilders to worry at the British Government's decision to ban him from entering Britain.

The Times thinks his views are "laughable", "inflammatory" and "illiberal" but still runs a leader this morning entitled 'Let Him In':

"The right to oppose, mock, deride and even insult people's beliefs is essential to a society where bad ideas are superseded by better ones. There is no right to have one's emotional sensibilities protected, for it is no business of government to legislate for people's feelings. Mr Wilders' views are obnoxious, and (not but) his freedom to express them must be defended."

On CentreRight yesterday Douglas Murray noted the hypocrisy of the Government's position:

"Numerous extremist clerics still come into this country each year and numerous others (not least those filmed by the Dispatches crew) remain happily untroubled by our authorities despite being filmed calling for the murders of Jews, homosexuals, Hindus, Muslim apostates and others.  This country hosts many ambassadors – official and unofficial – for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah who call for the annihilation of whole peoples.  These people do not find themselves deported, nor barred from entry or re-entry into the country."

One often gets the impression that the Government will bend over backwards to appease extreme Muslim opinion.  It is also disappointing that the Conservatives are silent on this issue of free speech.  Speaking to CCHQ and Chris Grayling this morning I was told not to expect a public statement.

Tim Montgomerie

> Related link from The Telegraph's Damian Thompson: "On three separate occasions, [Douglas] Murray has found himself on a panel with Tory spokesmen. And, each time, the Tory has told him off for using the phrase "Islamist terrorism". The approved word is "criminality". As Murray told me: "It's as if they can't see the difference between stealing a handbag and setting off a car bomb outside a nightclub.""

"Multiracial Britain is a success but immigration is too high"

That is how I would sum up the message which David Cameron delivered when asked about the thorny issue of immigration by Jeff Randall on Sky News last night.

The Tory leader has not exactly gone out of his way to raise the matter during his leadership, after the party courted criticism for making it too prominent an issue at the last general election.

However, he denied the suggestion that he had avoided discussing it and said the following:

“I think that immigration is too high, I think it needs to be limited and I think the numbers need to come down... I don’t think in any way I’ve shied away from this policy, but I wanted to make sure the Conservative Party would be listened to and heard as a bunch of reasonable people making a reasonable point. The problem in the past is whenever we’ve talked about this issue people questioned our motives – why are they doing that?”

“I think it was very important to make it clear that we believe in a multiracial Britain. We believe it’s a success. We think immigration has been good for Britain in the past. We think immigration will continue, but not any immigration, not all immigration, it needs to be controlled."

"Controlled Immigration" was of course the fifth of Michael Howard's five two-word phrases which he said summed up the major planks of Conservative policy in advance of the 2005 general election.

Jonathan Isaby

Will there be a black PM in Downing Street any time soon?

Adam Afriyie - the Conservative MP for Windsor (and tipped by Harry Phibbs as the nearest the Conservative Party has to Barack Obama) - has told The Times that he doesn't expect to see a black MP in 10 Downing Street during his lifetime:

“I do not believe we will see a black prime minister in my lifetime. In the US a fresh face like Obama can make it in one electoral cycle. In Britain it’s generally a gradual process of service and promotion over many years, and often decades, before leading a political party.”

Two immediate qualifications need to be made to Mr Afriye's statement:

• Long service isn't always required. Albeit exceptionally, David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party after just four years an MP. Nick Clegg rose even faster to head the LibDems (although that may not be an auspicious precedent).
• Margaret Thatcher famously remarked that she didn't expect to see a woman PM in her lifetime.  We all know what happened.

Mr Afriyie was speaking to The Times by way of response to Equality campaigner Trevor Phillips' attack on the British political system's "institutional racism".  Mr Phillips, Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and a former Labour member of the GLA, was particularly critical of his Labour:

“If Barack Obama had lived here I would be very surprised if even somebody as brilliant as him would have been able to break through the institutional stranglehold that there is on power within the Labour Party... The parties and unions and think-tanks are all very happy to sign up to the general idea of advancing the cause of minorities but in practice they would like somebody else to do the business. It’s institutional racism.”

The Conservatives have selected a number of ethnnic minority candidates since 2005.  They include Shaun Bailey, Helen Grant, Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones, Priti Patel and Paul Uppal.

Conservative frontbench reemphasises opposition to sharia law

Bridget Prentice, a junior minister at the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that Sharia councils will have the right to settle disputes between two 'consensual' parties, where they relate to money, property and access to children. By the letter of the law, these decisions and ruling will have no legal force. But in practice, where Sharia councils have ruled on a matter, English family courts will be now expected to rubber stamp their decisions.

Nick Herbert and Paul Goodman have both come out in strong opposition to this decision:

Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: "There can be no place for parallel legal systems in our country.

"It is vital that in matrimonial disputes where a Sharia council is involved, women's rights are protected and judgments are non-binding."

Another Conservative spokesman, Paul Goodman, the shadow minister for communities and local government, accused the Government of keeping the public in the dark and warned: "There must be one British law for everyone."

Neither are quoted explaining why Sharia courts should not to be welcomed or why women's rights should be a concern in them at all. David Green of Civitas is however quoted noting that such courts do not consider the voice of a woman equal to that of a man, nor treat men and women equally under the law.

9.45am: In his speech last month to the Conservative Party Conference, Dominic Grieve made clear the Tory position:

"For all its tough talk on terrorism, the government is dropping the ball on security and radicalisation. Lax on fanatical preachers. Silent on sharia courts. Let me make our position clear. Sharia courts can be given no authority over criminal and family law matters in Britain. Our law must reign supreme. The next Conservative government will make sure it does."

Boris believes election of Obama would represent massive breakthrough for race relations

Boris Johnson had already endorsed Barack Obama but he goes further today. In his Telegraph column the Mayor of London pays tribute to John McCain but repeats his belief that the Democrat nominee "offers the hope of rejuvenating the greatest country on earth in the eyes of the rest of us".  He describes Senator Obama as "talented" and "compassionate".

Mr Johnson ends his piece by focusing on what an Obama victory will mean for racial equality:

"Huge numbers of voters, whether they admit it to themselves or not, will hesitate to choose Barack Obama for President because he is black. And then there are millions of white Americans who will undoubtedly vote Obama precisely because he is black, and because he stands for the change and the progress they want to see in their society.

After centuries of friction, prejudice, tension, hatred - you name it, they've had it - America is teetering on the brink of a triumph. If Obama wins, then the United States will have at last come a huge and maybe decisive step closer to achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, of a land where people are judged not on the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

If Obama wins, then black people the world over will be able to see how a gifted man has been able to smash through the ultimate glass ceiling.

If Obama wins, then it will be simply fatuous to claim that there are no black role models in politics or government, because there is no higher role model than the President of the United States.

If Barack Hussein Obama is successful next month, then we could even see the beginning of the end of race-based politics, with all the grievance-culture and special interest groups and political correctness that come with it.

If Obama wins, he will have established that being black is as relevant to your ability to do a hard job as being left-handed or ginger-haired, and he will have re-established America's claim to be the last, best hope of Earth."

PS Within his piece Boris writes that he carefully studied Melanie Phillips' blog entries about Barack Obama's links with Bill Ayers but gave up "goggle-eyed and exhausted".  We quite like the idea that the Mayor of London studies blogs!  Here is a typical Melanie Phillips entry on Obama: "You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so."

Dominic Grieve challenges sharia courts

The Sunday Times today reported that the government has "quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence".

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

The decision has been welcomed by Inayat Bunglawala, the Muslim Council of Britain assistant secretary-general known for his past support and praise for Osama Bin Laden and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombers. But moves towards 'voluntary' sharia dispute resolution have been condemned by moderates as coercive, on grounds that anyone who decides against Islamic courts when they are made available risks being labeled an 'apostate'. Muslim women who rejected the sharia system - under which a man's testimony is valued twice as highly as a woman's - would risk being exiled from their communities, and violence.

Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary has today challenged the legal right of British courts to recognise the rulings of sharia courts:

"If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful."

"British law is absolute and must remain so."

Three cheers for PNJ

We're a little late with this but yesterday's intervention by Dame Pauline Neville-Jones on the Tablighi Jamaat proposal for a 40,000-worshipper mega-mosque for East London is worthy of note.  Paul Waugh covered it in yesterday's London Evening Standard:

"Ministers should review plans to build a "mega-mosque" in the East End in the wake of the airline bomb plot trial, the Tories urged today. Shadow security minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones said the case had shown that the group behind the mosque may have given cover to extremist activity. Tablighi Jamaat, which describes itself an Islamic missionary organisation, is pushing for the mosque to be built next to the 2012 Olympics site in Stratford. But the group was revealed in court as having links to some of the terror suspects, with several having passed through other mosques run by the group."

This is also an issue that Paul Goodman MP has rightly raised before.

Homeland security and community integration are emerging as two of the Conservative Party's most impressive (and very related) policy areas.  David Cameron's speech in March to the Community Security Trust set out the strength of the party's thinking.

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

This Steve Bell cartoon appeared in Tuesday's Guardian:

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

"The race relations circus"

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

This is Mr Uppal's latest post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warsi makes first big speech on community cohesion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his letter of resignation, Dr Lewis wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Cameron to challenge Saudi leader on funding of extremist literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Meet the shadow minister for militant Islam'

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

Labour get back into bed with Muslim extremists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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