Christopher Caldwell dissected

Reflections on the Revolution in Europe“Caldwell’s essential argument is that Enoch Powell’s predictions have been proven to be mostly correct and that European elites naively – and unnecessarily – entered into a new era of mass immigration after World War II, without thinking through its long-term consequences. As a result they have paved the way for the implantation of a Muslim ‘adversary culture’ in the heart of Europe that now threatens to engulf the continent demographically, culturally, politically and even sexually….

“All the essential elements of Islamic threat narratives are here; the empty church pews versus burgeoning mosques; Europe’s decadence and crisis of spiritual values versus the confidence and power of Islam; the dire warnings of an ageing Europe that is being out-bred by more virile and fertile Muslim immigrants; the failure of multiculturalism and the subsequent proliferation of parallel societies and ‘ethnic colonies’ characterised by female circumcision, honour killings, criminal violence and terrorism, gang rape and the oppression of women.

“… the uncritical reception given to this artful anti-Muslim diatribe in liberal circles is a depressing reminder of the extent to which its essential assumptions have moved from the political margins to form a new mainstream consensus.”

Matt Carr analyses Christopher Caldwell’s book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West.

IRR website, 2 July 2009

Inside a Pakistani school where children are being brainwashed into terrorists

Thus the headline to a piece by John Humphrys in the Daily Mail. In fact, Humphrys presents no evidence whatsoever that the Jamia Binoria madrassa he visited in Karachi, and whose hospitality he has abused, is brainwashing its pupils into becoming terrorists.

Last year a CNN investigation into Jamia Binoria quoted a US State Department spokesperson as saying that the madrassa was “known to U.S. officials as a moderate institution, favored by Pakistani-Americans for its moderate and tolerant Islamic instruction”.

It is clear that Humphrys hasn’t bothered to carry out the most basic background research into a subject of which he knows nothing. This is a man who blithely informs his readers that there are “relatively few Wahhabis compared to the Sunnis and Shias”, evidently oblivious to the fact that Wahhabism is a variant of Sunni Islam.

Now Christopher Hitchens supports a ‘burka ban’

Christopher Hitchens“Last week French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced his support for legislation to ban the burka, the dark, heavy and not-too-comfortable garment worn by many Muslim women. The question arises: Is this forcible French secularism run amok, or a prohibition that Americans, who often believe we have struck a better balance between church and state, might entertain? I would say the latter….

“It is quite plainly designed by men for the subjugation of women. One cannot be absolutely sure that no woman has ever donned it voluntarily, but one can certainly say that, in countries where women can choose not to wear it, then not wearing it is the choice they generally make. This disposes right away of the phony argument that religious attire is worn as a matter of ‘right’. … Western masochism about other people’s ‘culture’ often obscures this obvious fact.

“Think of the things that we all have to do now, like submitting to humiliating searches at airports, or showing our ID to people who have no ‘probable cause’ for demanding it. Can we turn up at airport security wearing a bag over our heads? Can we produce a photograph that shows only our eyes through a slit? Of course not….

“And don’t force me to say this, even though I will: One reason we have to undergo such indignities is because of faith-based suicide attacks on our civil aviation, and so far the perpetrators of this nightmare have not been caught wearing crucifixes or Stars of David around their necks….

“It is depressing that our President, in addressing the Muslim world, takes the most reactionary religious practice as the symbol of rights and identity. The klansman’s hood, remember, is also the symbol of a white Protestant religious ‘identity’ movement.”

Christopher Hitchens in the New York Daily News, 1 July 2009

More anti-Muslim nonsense from the Express

“The Daily Express is an odious little right-wing newspaper owned by a pornographer. Its coverage of Muslims makes me laugh out loud, although I have no doubt the intention is to fan anti-Muslim hatred, including Police Give Muslims in Cells Compasses To Pray Towards Mecca. At 30p each, there is clearly an issue pertaining to the use of public resources here, especially given that 10% of male prisoners in England and Wales are Muslim (cost = £2500 approx). That would buy a Tory MP nearly two duck houses.”

Plimfix at Talk Islam, 1 July 2009

‘No to sharia law in Britain’

The Guardian for some reason sees fit to provide the discredited Denis MacEoin with a platform.

Meanwhile, over at the Independent, a generally balanced article, entitled “How do Britain’s sharia courts work, and are they a good thing?”, nevertheless includes the following bizarre assertion:

“On International Women’s Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: ‘No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all’.”

A huge demonstration? Give us a break. This is a reference to a sectarian stunt organised by the loopy Worker Communist Party of Iran which turned out to be a complete flop.

Update:  Inayat Bunglawala replies to Denis MacEoin.

Toube demands an apology

DavidToubeSpare a thought for poor, maligned David Toube. Today he posts an indignant article complaining that Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition has misrepresented him and his fellow bloggers at Harry’s Place. She can only get away with this, Toube writes piously, because she knows that “as a matter of principle, I will not sue for defamation”. Given that Toube regularly denounces Muslim activists he disagrees with as racists and fascists, and once described Inayat Bunglawala and myself as the “ideological wing” of the terrorists responsible for the attempted car bombing of Glasgow airport, perhaps he should be grateful that his opponents apply the same principle when responding to his attacks on them.

Continue reading

Veil is ‘a direct and explicit criticism of our Western values’

“Hats off (or should that be chapeaux off?) to French President Nicolas Sarkozy for calling for a ban on the burkha in France…. No British politician would be brave enough to do what Sarkozy did or to follow through with what will almost certainly be a nation-wide ban on the burkha. Our politicians are, unlike our European amis, too cowed by political correctness and misguided multiculturalism to speak out on such a difficult topic and risk offending the two-million-strong Muslim population.

“Except the burkha isn’t a Muslim issue. It’s a British issue. It doesn’t just demean the woman who wears it, it also demeans the men and women who have to see her wearing it…. The idea of a ban is certainly not preposterous…. As Sarkozy pointed out the burkha is a political, not a religious, statement…. It is a direct and explicit criticism of our Western values and belief in the equality of men and women.”

Julia Hartley-Brewer in the Daily Express, 29 June 2009

Continue reading

More hysteria about Sharia courts

Sharia Law CivitasAt least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted.

The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts. However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.

The Civitas study said the Islamic courts should no longer be recognised under British law. Its director Dr David Green said: “The reality is that for many Muslims, sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat.”

The Muslim Council in Britain condemned the study for “stirring up hatred”. A spokesman said: “Sharia councils are perfectly legitimate. There is no evidence they are intimidating or discriminatory against women. The system is purely voluntary so if people don’t like it they can go elsewhere.”

Daily Mail, 29 June 2009


It comes as no surprise to find that the”expert” behind the Civitas report is our old friend Denis MacEoin, author of the notorious and discredited Policy Exchange report The Hijacking of British Islam.

We were about to suggest that if MacEoin wants to write fiction he should stick to his day job as a novelist, but apparently that hasn’t been going too well either.

Update:  See also ENGAGE, 29 June 2009

Further update:  Predictably, MacEoin’s report finds favour with both the British National Party (“Get your sensational copy of Sharia Law or ‘One Law For All’? from Excalibur now!”) and the National Secular Society.

‘Veiled threat’

“Among European liberals the burka is seen as a symbol of female subservience. And the freedom to opt for such deplorable status runs counter to other liberties regarded as more important in the hierarchy of freedoms: openness, transparency, equality and opportunity. Within Western society, the covering of the face negates all such fundamental rights….

“Tolerance of the practice is also a licence for intolerance. Too often extremists try to exploit this bogus symbol of Islamic piety to create Muslim ghettos where they assert their own personal power. Too often the issue is a deliberate provocation to challenge the values and mores of Western society. An absolute ban on the burka is unnecessary and unenforceable. But civic education and religious debate – here, in France and in the Muslim world – are the best way to consign to the dark ages this symbol of darkness.”

Editorial in the Times, 26 June 2009

Continue reading