Yes, it is about politics

So far I have kept out of the burkini row, considering it as a vast red herring, designed to take our attention away from more important matters, such as the spread of of Islamist ideology and also of unacceptable aspects of Islamic community behaviour such as the growth of Sharia courts. However, it has become such a big question that some comment needs to be made even though the Economist thinks that the row will now start dying down with the holiday season coming to an end. The Economist has been known to be wrong before in its predictions and, in any case, also thinks that this issue, which has now become linked to the whole subject of French identity in the light of terrorist attacks is likely to be important in the forthcoming presidential elections.

They are not wrong on the latter. Nicolas Sarkozy, who has announced his candidature, seems to be proposing a change in the French Constitution with an article that would ban burkinis. I cannot help feeling that is going a little over the top even by Sarkozy's standards.

First of all, I should like to get this out of the way: those burkinis are truly hideous and stupid garments. Why would you go to the beach or into the sea if practically every inch of you skin is covered? Possibly because you have been bullied by the men in your family and community (who, incidentally, do not cover themselves up but prefer to wear cool and open garments) or possibly because you have somehow accepted that this is of vital importance to the Muslim religion. Certainly, the link that has been displayed by protesters between a ban on burkini on beaches and Islamophobia would indicate that those people certainly believe that covering women from top to toe is central to their religion. A good many non-Muslims, either on the left or among supposed liberals and libertarians appear to support this point of view.

Apart from many articles on the subjects there were a few interesting developments. Hizonner the Mayor of London took it upon himself to lecture the Mayor of Paris (who, not having a beach handy, had not actually issued a ban) that women must not be told by anyone what they can and cannot wear. That is, of course, absolute piffle. Women and men are frequently told what they can and what they cannot wear in public places. I am sure Hizonner would not be too happy if any women decided to wander round in Nazi uniforms or KKK hoods (not that I am advocating that they should) though, I am equally sure, he would see nothing wrong in them wearing Maoist caps, Red Army insignia or t-shirts with pictures of that mass murderer Che Guevara.

In any case, is this the same Mayor of London whose first decision was to ban certain ads on the tube because he did not think women could be trusted to be able to deal with certain images of bodies without either getting impossibly depressed or rushing off to emulate the pictures? It would appear that Hizonner's thinking on the subject is somewhat erratic while his understanding of his own position and of the French constitutional structure non-existent.

So then we had the supreme French administrative court overturning the ban at Villeneuve-Loubet, which could have had implications for the other towns where it had been imposed except that those Mayors insisted on it continuing. Most people will leave those beaches this week-end at the latest with les vacances coming to an end, but not all. Will the row continue despite the Economist's prediction?

There is many an indignant comment from human rights organizations, Islamic groups and various so-called liberals and libertarians as well as those on the left who can be relied on to produce the usual waffle that these bans have nothing to do with security and everything to do with politics. Indeed so. But then the wearing of the burkini is a political decision. You may think that it is not worth getting excited about but let us not pretend: it is not a fashion or lifestyle choice, it is a political point made rather obviously and forcefully.

Consider some other garments whose use has grown in the last ten - fifteen years. It so happens that I have lived for years in areas where there have always been many Muslim families, shops and businesses. Most of them are either immigrants from the Indian sub-continent of their descendants. Until about fifteen years ago the women often wore traditional clothes that were light and comfortable and covered their heads, if at all, with a loose scarf. We did not even know the words hijab and niquab as they were of no importance in the societies we lived in. Any women in veils (niquab) or burquas (another word we have had to learn) were to be seen around Harrods or Harley Street. They were visitors.

All that has changed, partly because there are now more people here who have arrived from the Arab Middle East and North Africa but most importantly because clothing is being used to make political points. Far more women now wear tight scarves and even veils; even little girls are now covered up and wear those scarves. Those are not fashion choices. They may be lifestyle choices but, above all, they are political statements, as are the burkinis. They say something quite definite: we do not want to integrate, we insist on keeping in our separate communities and, most importantly, in those communities women are hidden away one way or another, unequal in their lives.

As it happens, there are certain complexities even in that. There are a good many young Muslim women of different backgrounds in Britain who do wear often highly colourful and excitingly patterned headscarves and wear what might be called "modest" clothing, i.e. trousers and long coats and jackets. They are also highly educated, in jobs and careers. It seems that hose headscarves are a matter of identity for them and the way they can reconcile their integration into British society with their background. This is a relatively new development and one cannot quite predict how it will work out. One knows young women who then marry equally advanced Muslim men or even men outside their religion and continue along the path of complete integration; one also hears stories of young women of that kind being put under pressure and worse by thir families and being forced to retreat into oppression and backwardness.

Should we fight the burkini? It's not precisely a problem in Britain but France is not that far away. On the whole, it is not quite as poisonous as the wearing of the niquab, that should be, at the very least, considered on the same level as any other clothing that hides the face. People are not allowed to wear motorcycle helmets? Then they should not be allowed to wear niquabs either. That seems fair enough. Of course, the veil is a symbol of the oppression of women and always has been. Should we legislate against it? That raises all sorts of other issues but the general move in opinion in a number of European countries is towards legislation, precisely because it is a political issue.

What of the burkini? My argument with people who are determined to get that hideous garment banned is that this is not a battle we could ever win. So, do not let us fight it. Beyond that, while I dislike the garment and really dislike the political point it makes I cannot help feeling that the women who go to the Riviera do have more privileges than most of their co-religionists. If they do not want to use those privileges to fight for their own and others' freedom and equality, as many very courageous women do in far worse circumstances and if they want to look like particularly inelegant versions of seals, maybe we should just leave them to it and concentrate on other battles.

Lord Pearson's memorandum

About ten days ago I wrote about Lord Pearson's Memorandum, Shall We Talk About Islam?, and promised to put up a link as soon as there was one. It is now up on the website Can We Talk About Islam? and you can read find either through that site or just go directly to the document here.

This is a paper for discussion and people are encouraged to respond. Should any of this blog's readers want to do so on it, they are very welcome to do so. Obviously, courteous and rational comments are more welcome than the other kind. In fact, anything truly courteous and rational will be passed on to the authors.

Meanwhile, Lord Pearson has also been active in the House of Lords, as have a number of those pesky unelected members. On November 17 a Statement was made in both Houses about the G20 meeting and the Paris attacks, which took in various measures that HMG is proposing in order to deal with the problem of Islamic extremism that all too often leads to terrorism. It is probably worth reading the whole Statement and the subsequent debate. Naturally, these are only proposals and none of us can predict with any accuracy which, if any of them, will be implemented.

Lord Pearson asked:

My Lords, in that vein, I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to inspect and shut down any educational institutions which teach Islamist intolerance and, I presume, violence. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this policy will include all evening madrassahs and, indeed, our mosques, where so much of the poison is spread?

To which HMG in the form of Baroness Stowell of Beeston replied:

My Lords, it will include any establishment where this kind of extremism — non-violent and violent — is being pursued. We can no longer tolerate a situation where it is okay for somebody to espouse extremist views and stop short of inciting violence. Because of that, we are committed to taking all necessary steps. As the noble Baroness said a moment ago, we have to ensure that people are not in a position where they are influenced by or attracted to this kind of ideology, which is so damaging and dangerous.

I am not quite certain what is meant by non-violent extremism but, as I said above, we shall have to see what is actually achieved.

Other news from the House of Lords - 2

Meanwhile, Lord Pearson of Rannoch is conducting his own campaign, which consists of two aspects: firstly, it is time we started talking about Islam seriously and without fear and, secondly, the moderate or anti-extremist Muslims should be drawn into that discussion. The campaign has not advanced very far as yet but it is moving forward slowly.

On November 5 (one wonders whether the powers that be recognized the appropriateness of the date) the noble Lord had a Starred Question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, as part of their counter-extremism strategy, they will encourage a national debate about the nature of Islam, including whether the Muslim tenet of abrogation remains valid today.

Sadly, I have to report that the brief debate that followed the Question was not on a particularly high level, consisting largely of statements disguised as questions about how shocking and divisive such a suggestion might be.

While this blog agrees with the notion that the state has no place in organizing religious debates and discussions, the Question refers to "encouragement" rather than "organization". There are many debates going on about major and not so major religions and nobody thinks that they are divisive. Why exactly should Islam be excluded?

As to why it might be a good idea to include such a debate or discussion in the "counter-extremism strategy", it would be hard to deny that the terrorist threat we face at the moment is tied in with certain groups in the Muslim community. For that very reason the many other Muslims should have a chance to take part in such a discussion and distance themselves from the extremists, their supporters and propagandists and not just the terrorists.

As it happens, I do know that there are many Muslims in this country who are actively fighting the good fight and they are not given nearly as much support either by HMG or by the media, especially not the BBC, though they are often in real danger.

Lord Pearson has also, with the help of a couple of experts on the subject, produced a paper, entitled Shall We Talk About Islam?, which, I am assured by his office, will be on-line very soon. As soon as that happens, this blog will link to it. In the meantime, let me quote the introductory paragraphs:

Have you noticed that when we try to discuss Islam, we are immediately accused of stirring up religious hatred or of being Islamophobic bigots etc? But we can say what we like about any other religion?

We are surprised by how little our friends and acquaintances know about Islam, which contains perhaps the greatest threat facing our Judaeo-Christian civilization.

So here is a memo on some of the basic facts about Islam. It may be controversial, but we hope it will encourage a long overdue national debate.

What follows is a number of points about Islam and the Qur'an, with references to the accepted texts.

The memo has been sent to members of the House of Lords and to Opinion Formers with a suggestion to the Guardian newspaper, in particular, given their previous attacks on Lord Pearson that they preside over a serious debate. It does not have to be the Grauniad. Any other media outlet could do it.

It all matters

Yesterday was rather varied in activity. I was interviewed on the BBC Russian Service about the last PMQ of this Parliament and about PMQs in general. The aim of all these interviews, I suspect, is to explain to the Russian audience (which is not as big as it used to be since the Russian Service was taken off short wave radio and left solely on the internet) about real Parliaments and real constitutionalism. I also suspect that most Russians know that what they have is a shame but the big question is to what extent and to whom that matters.

As far as I was concerned there was one benefit: for the first time in years I actually watched PMQ and very entertaining it was, too. When they are back, I should do it more often. It must be admitted (says she with gritted teeth) that the Boy-King did rather well and the Leader of the Opposition, one Ed Miliband, did not. It also struck me that the Labour MPs were a little subdued in their reaction to the proceedings. Make of that what you will.

Later on I went to the launch of a joint report by the Bow Group and a new Austrian think-tank, Die Österreichische Gesellschaft für Politikanalyse (ÖGP) on the subject of abuse, much of it physical, that Muslim women face in the UK. A Parallel World - Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today was written by that doughty campaigner for human rights, Baroness Cox and is very well worth reading (though I should issue a warning about some of the accounts: they can be horrific). The link will lead you to a PDF version. There is also a very useful analysis of the situation with regards to Sharia courts and the Bill that Baroness Cox has been trying to put through Parliament for some years. (And an explanation of the difference between Sharia courts and Beth Din ones, a subject that I read up on when I was doing some research for the Baroness.)

Moving right along, I come to a few articles that were handed out after the launch. I thought they might interest readers of this blog. One was by another highly admirable and awesome (in the true sense of the word) woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, published in the Wall Street Journal last Saturday but, miraculously, freely available on the internet. It seems to be a summary of her latest book that was due out in the States earlier this week.

Her theme: Islam needs a Reformation very badly and it needs it now. Her arguments are, as ever cogent and I was particularly interested in her division of Muslims across the world into three distinct groups:

The first group is the most problematic. These are the fundamentalists who, when they say the Shahada, mean: “We must live by the strict letter of our creed.” They envision a regime based on Shariah, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version. What is more, they take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else.

I shall call them Medina Muslims, in that they see the forcible imposition of Shariah as their religious duty. They aim not just to obey Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, they do not hesitate to condone it.

It is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly veiled.

The second group—and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world—consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence. I call them Mecca Muslims. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every day and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, Mecca Muslims focus on religious observance. I was born in Somalia and raised as a Mecca Muslim. So were the majority of Muslims from Casablanca to Jakarta.

Yet the Mecca Muslims have a problem: Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

Trapped between two worlds of belief and experience, these Muslims are engaged in a daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges their values and beliefs at every turn. Many are able to resolve this tension only by withdrawing into self-enclosed (and increasingly self-governing) enclaves. This is called cocooning, a practice whereby Muslim immigrants attempt to wall off outside influences, permitting only an Islamic education for their children and disengaging from the wider non-Muslim community.

It is my hope to engage this second group of Muslims—those closer to Mecca than to Medina—in a dialogue about the meaning and practice of their faith. I recognize that these Muslims are not likely to heed a call for doctrinal reformation from someone they regard as an apostate and infidel. But they may reconsider if I can persuade them to think of me not as an apostate but as a heretic: one of a growing number of people born into Islam who have sought to think critically about the faith we were raised in. It is with this third group—only a few of whom have left Islam altogether—that I would now identify myself.

These are the Muslim dissidents. A few of us have been forced by experience to conclude that we could not continue to be believers; yet we remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. The majority of dissidents are reforming believers—among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.

Not being an Islamic scholar I cannot pronounce on the theological problems she raises but I have listened to a sufficient number of such people to realize that the article simplifies those problems somewhat. It is obvious even to a non-expert that a closer analysis of the Quran and the Haditha are needed for that Reformation to take place; it is also true that such analyses are taking place despite the fact that the people who are carrying them out are in some danger but, so far, the results are little known.

What we, outsiders, need to do and Ms Hirsi Ali says so in her article (also very well worth reading in full and is considerably less stressful than the pamphlet) is to support people who are willing to risk much to spread ideas of freedom and reform in the Muslim world.

And that brings me to the problem we are facing with our own officials and Ministers who have, on the whole, aligned themselves on the wrong side of this debate though there is some indication that they are beginning to realize that.

Two more articles, one published in the Sunday Telegraph on February 22 and a more recent one on Lapidomedia. The latter, by Dominik Lemanski, may well have taken the former, by Andrew Gilligan as the basis with some extra research added.

Andrew Gilligan's article is entitled Islamic 'radicals' at the heart of Whitehall and puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of Baroness Warsi who allowed entryism by people connected with radical Islamic groups into Whitehall and, particularly, the "cross-Government working group on anti-Muslim hatred".

Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to sit in Cabinet, handed official posts to people linked to Islamist groups, including a man involved in an “unpleasant and bullying” campaign to win planning permission for the controversial London “megamosque” proposed by a fundamentalist Islamic sect.

He sits – alongside other radicals or former radicals and their allies – on a “cross-Government working group on anti-Muslim hatred” set up by Lady Warsi and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

Some members of the group are using their seats at the table to urge that Whitehall work with Islamist and extremist-linked bodies, including one described by the Prime Minister as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”. Some are also pressing to lift bans on foreign hate preachers from entering Britain, including Zakir Naik, who has stated that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.

Fiyaz Mughal, a former member of the working group, told The Telegraph that he had resigned in protest at its activities. “I was deeply concerned about the kinds of groups some of the members had connections with, and some of the groups they were recommending be brought into government,” he said. “It seemed to me to be a form of entryism, by people with no track record in delivering projects.” Mr Mughal is head of Tell Mama, the national organisation for monitoring anti-Muslim attacks.

Another member said: “The working group was Sayeeda [Warsi]’s personal project and she was responsible for the appointments. There was very little transparency about who was put on.”

The working group, set up in 2012, has continued after Lady Warsi’s resignation last summer in protest at the Government’s “morally indefensible” policy on the Gaza crisis. It is based in Eric Pickles’s Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and includes officials from there, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Foreign Office and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Among its most prominent non-government members is Muddassar Ahmed, a former senior activist in the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), an extremist and anti-Semitic militant body which is banned from many universities as a hate group.

During Mr Ahmed’s time, MPAC campaigned heavily against “Zionist” MPs, in particular Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Lorna Fitzsimons, the former Labour MP for Rochdale. She lost her seat after MPAC sent thousands of leaflets to local Muslim voters saying they should sack her because she was “Jewish”. She is not Jewish. MPAC has stated that Muslims are “at war” and that “every Muslim who does not participate in that war is committing a major sin”.

Mr Ahmed maintains that his MPAC days are long over and he had nothing to do with various unpleasant events that his present PR company is supposed to have been connected and one might believe him. Nevertheless, one has to ask why he and people like him were singled out by Baroness Warsi for various appointments. Unfortunately, the evil that men (and women) do lives after them and the people promoted by the Baroness, herself seriously over-promoted as everyone knew all along, are still there and still active.

Dominik Lemanski raises the question whether it is the influence of Baroness Warsi's appointees that has pushed back the most recent decision on the Megamosque in Newham over which the battle has been going for a considerable number of years. Of course, I do not rule out the possibility that the decision has been pushed back for reasons of political pusillanimity.

News from the House of Lords

On July 22 both Houses heard a Statement about the so-called Trojan Horse scandal in Birmingham, a story that has been covered more or less adequately in the media and, therefore, needs no repetition from me. It is worth reading the Statement, though, because it sets out some of the facts in order and with cogency as well as giving some idea of what the government and the local authorities (these are schools that are or have been for most of their existence, part of the state education structure, inadequate in many ways but rarely so scandalous) intend to do.

I think we can discard the usual bleating about better training of governors, here produced in the first place by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. Does she really think that it is lack of training that caused people to institute a system whereby any head teacher who opposed a noxious ideology was eased out of position? Was it lack of training that turned Birmingham councillors into pusillanimous collaborators? I think not.

The following contributions are of some interest, too, and probably worth reading but they do not convey anything of great value, except for Lord Rooker's perfectly sensible suggestion that Birmingham should really be turned into three local boroughs instead of one, though how that would have solved the twin problem of the determined promoters of an intolerant ideology and of pusillanimous collaborators is not clear.

We then get to Baroness Hussein-Ece, a new name to me, possibly explained by the fact, that she is one of the enormous cohort of peers nominated by this government that has been even better at packing the Upper House with people who are unlikely to stray off  message than the previous one. Her career in the purely administrative and minority rights related parts of the public sector, does not inspire one with great confidence. And, indeed, her comments are exactly what one would expect:

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for the Statement. It is a relief that this applies to a very small number of schools, however important it is, and to note that there are serious problems of governance. It is important to underline that there is no evidence, as we saw in the lurid headlines, of a “plot” or of violent extremism.

We know that there is a difference between religious conservatism and extremism. That has not really come out in a lot of the narrative from these schools. It has been quite damaging. Can the Minister comment on that? Does he agree with me that when we talk about values, we need a shared level of standards, values and accountability for all schools, be they faith schools, free schools, academies or private schools? Would he also agree that we need to refrain from the generalisation that we have seen that stigmatises whole communities and faiths. This has been very damaging and will make it more difficult for moderate people in Muslim and other communities who want to get engaged in public life to become school governors and councillors, and to play a full role in British civic society.

Naturally, one has to agree that whole communities and faiths should not be stigmatized and that Muslim moderates should engage in public life and to make their moderate ideas very clear, indeed. Some, undoubtedly, do though the noble Lady seems to have been less than active on that score. But it is time for more members of that community to engage and to make their voices heard. Historically, the silent majority achieved very little against a vocal and ill-intentioned minority. We then come to Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a great favourite of this blog, as readers will have realized and he has tried to widen the question:

My Lords, do the Government agree that this scandal, like Muslim segregation and Islamist violence more generally, is a problem that arises from within Islam and can be cured only from within Islam? Given all that is happening in Africa as well, why do the Government go on intoning that Islam is a religion of peace?

There are two issues here: one is the obvious one, raised above that it is the "silent majority" of Muslims that needs to speak out "from within Islam"; the other is the ridiculous insistence on that moniker, "religion of peace". No other religion is described consistently as such, in the teeth of all evidence. As we look round the world, we have to say that while the vast majority of Muslims are not violent and are not terrorists, most (though not all) of the violence and terrorism comes from people who use their adherence to Islam as the reason for it. Indeed, the few Muslims who do speak out against that trend say so, themselves.

Sadly, the Minister, Lord Nash, (and here) found it impossible to depart from the script that his minions had prepared for him:

I think that what has happened in Birmingham is unacceptable to all the communities there, including most of the Muslim parents and teachers. I do not recognise the noble Lord’s analysis of the religion of Islam, which I see as a religion of peace. I do think that there are issues in relation to developing counter-narratives to extremism, but I do not think that there is time to go into that here.

What is missing from this account is the unseemly row that broke out in the House when Lord Pearson put his question. (Well, what do you expect will happen when even the Upper House, the last bastion of this country's constitutional edifice that is more or less standing, is packed to the extent it has been?) There were demands that the Minister should simply ignore the comment as it was so seditious and more than sotto voce suggestions that the noble Lord was obviously mad. So, in a way, it is to Lord Nash's credit that he preferred to give a measured though unilluminating response and did not, unlike the councillors of the good city of Birmingham, succumb to the hysteria.

Of the subsequent discussion [I am afraid people have to scroll down to read all contributions but it is not a long debate] Lord Bew's comment and question about the teachers, criticized in Peter Clarke's report is the most interesting one.

Press Association picked up the story on the same day and cobbled together a reasonable article, which was published by the Daily Mail on line. The Guardian, as so often, managed to muddy the issue in this piece.

Spreading

Across the Middle East where yet more people have been killed and even to London where, astonishingly enough, two people have been arrested. Amazing, how many people across the world have seen a film that nobody has even heard of until a few days ago.

Michelle Malking calls President Obama "the Hip-Hop President". One can't help feeling she has a point. She quotes various sources (so the links are there) that say the same thing - there were warnings, this was a prepared operation for 9/11 and ... the President has been skipping intel briefings. The country and, indeed, the West is in the very best of hands.

Taranto puts it better than anyone

Once again, James Taranto puts the arguments more coherently than anyone else. The idea that the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and many other official bodies as well as newspapers (if one may still use that term) like the New York Times should repeatedly criticize that wretched film instead of looking a little more closely at what is going on in the Middle East is nothing short of moral and political insanity.

As he points out, the rioting, even assuming it was caused directly by a little known film that has been available for a couple of months, the point is not that the mobs consider it to be "insensitive, inflammatory, intolerant and insulting" but that they consider it to be blasphemous and want any material of that kind banned across the world. Or else.

This, Mr Taranto points out, sets up an irreconcilable conflict between those advocating Islamic, that is Sharia law to be applied to all countries on certain issues, and the US Constitution, which affirms freedom of speech and which cannot tolerate anti-blasphemy laws. The President of the United States, at his inauguration, swears to uphold the Constitution.

Even worse than we thought last night

I opened my e-mails and saw the following report from the Washington Times: 

Libyan officials say the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans have been killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

The officials say Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff. The protesters were firing gunshots and rocket-propelled grenades.

All of the officials — three in all — hold senior security positions in Benghazi.

They are deputy interior minister for eastern Libya Wanis al-Sharaf; Benghazi security chief Abdel-Basit Haroun; and Benghazi city council and security official Ahmed Bousinia.

This is not good news for President Obama. He ought to think about President Carter and Iran.

News from around the world - 1

Most of us probably spent some of the day remembering that fateful one in 2001. I can recall with extreme clarity what I did all day in what order. However, some people took a slightly unorthodox way of remembering.

In Cairo the anniversary was remembered by a group of, one assumes Islamist extremists and quite possibly Muslim Brotherhood supporters, storming the US embassy, tearing down the flag and burning it. It seems that they were protesting about a film that has been produced by a group of US-based Coptic Christians who, one assumes, escaped from the growing anti-Coptic violence in Egypt. It is said that the film "demeans Islam and the Prophet Mohammed". Whereas completely insane behaviour supposedly in Islam's name does not demean it, I suppose.

Many of the more Islamist-leaning protesters had answered calls by Salafist leader Wesam Abdel-Wareth – who is also the president of Egypt's ultra-conservative Al-Hekma television channel – to protest the film 'Mohammed's trial' at 5pm outside the US embassy in Cairo's Garden City district. 

Abdel-Wareth, for his part, denied that protesters had managed to breach embassy premises, claiming that the American flag had been torched in front – rather than inside – embassy grounds. 

The Al-Hekma channel's official Facebook page, meanwhile, has posted a photo of a group of young men removing the flag outside the embassy with a comment that reads: "Ultras Zamalek tear the American flag in front of the embassy." 

US embassy spokesman David Linfield, for his part, confirmed that protesters had been able to enter the embassy and remove the flag. He went on to deny rumours, however, that shots had been fired at demonstrators or that anyone had been injured or killed. 

According to one Ahram Online reporter at the scene, no one had been injured in the ongoing demonstration. Despite the tense atmosphere, security forces deployed at the scene appeared relatively relaxed, with many of them sitting on the sidewalk.

Right, that's Egypt. Then there is the other great example of the Arab Spring, Libya. Remember Libya? The country that would probably be still under Gaddafi's rule if it weren't for NATO forces, specifically American, British and French ones?

Well they had an anti-American riot as well. This one seems to have been a little more serious.

Militiamen in Libya have stormed the US consulate in Benghazi, the country's second largest city. 

Reports say they were protesting against a US-made film that is allegedly insulting to the Prophet Muhammad, and set fire to the building. 

The building is said to have burnt down. It is thought nobody was in the consulate at the time.

Reuters says that

Gunmen attacked U.S. consulate offices in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi on Tuesday, and fought with security forces in protest against a U.S. film they say is blasphemous, a security official said.

He said a fire was burning inside the consulate and that staff had been evacuated.

A Reuters reporter saw three injured members of the Libyan security forces taken away in an ambulance. A Libyan security official who declined to be named said one U.S. security guard was injured in the clashes.

AFP reports that one American was killed and one injured. The latest Reuters report confirms this adding that several staff in the Consulate have been injured.

Reuters reporters on the scene could see looters raiding the empty Benghazi compound, walking off with desks, chairs and washing machines.

Unknown gunmen were shooting at the buildings while others threw handmade bombs into the compound, setting off small explosions.

Small fires were burning around the compound.

Passersby entered the unsecured compound to take pictures with their mobile phones and watch the looting.

Never let a good riot go to waste, say I, but use it to furnish your home. 

On another front

Taking time out from the Greek farce (I wonder when the satyrs, so indispensable to a farce, will appear) this blog wishes to call attention to the appalling case of the satirical journal in France that has been fire bombed for the appalling sin of laughing at Islam. Making fun of religion has been the prerogative of every French journalist since the days of Voltaire and is certainly taken seriously by the French literary establishment.

Well, mostly. When Charlie Hebdo transgressed last time by publishing those Danish cartoons (which the British main-stream media would not do)

Jacques Chirac, then the president, called it a “manifest provocation”. “Anything that can wound the convictions of others should be avoided,” he declared.

In my previous existence as co-editor of EUReferendum, I wrote about the subsequent legal case here and here. The legal case failed so the freedom-loving opponents of Charlie Hebdo have decided on another tactic. This time they annoyed even the French political establishment.

François Fillon, the centre-right prime minister, not only denounced the attack, but declared that “freedom of expression is an inalienable value”. Bertrand Delanoë, the Socialist mayor of Paris, deplored the “act of violence against the freedom of expression”.

French Muslim leaders are indulging in the kind of double talk we are sadly used to:

Mohammed Moussaoui, leader of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, an official body, condemned the attack, and stated his “profound attachment” to freedom of expression. But he also “strongly deplored the very caricatural tone” of the newspaper towards Islam.

Charlie Hebdo is satirical about everyone. That is what they do - they publish satire. Some people laugh, some shrug their shoulders, some get angry and some .... fire bomb offices and demand victim status on top of it.

What was that about?

As people in many parts of the world remembered what happened ten years ago, there were services across Britain (let us not forget that British people died there and other British people lost family, friends and colleagues) and a one minute silence outside the US Embassy.

The rather ridiculous and objectionable Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) used the opportunity to burn the American flag and to shout anti-American slogans. Altogether there are four things to be noted about this story.

One is that there were about 100 of them, which is anything but terrifying.

Secondly, another group of Muslims travelled some distance to show their dislike for this behaviour.

However, a small opposing group of Muslims - some of whom had travelled hundreds of miles to rebut the extremists - staged a counter-demonstration nearby, holding up placards reading "Muslims Against Extremism" and "If You Want Sharia, Move To Saudi".

Abdul Sallam, 41, who was waving a sign that read "Keep The Silence", travelled down to London from his home in Glasgow to show the strength of his feelings.

He said: "I'm a Muslim. What they're doing is bringing shame on all Muslims. This is not part of the teachings of Islam.

"Islam teaches you that when you see anything bad or evil, you should speak out against it.

"If the moderate Muslims all came out and spoke out, that would defeat them.

"I am proud to be British. I love my country. All these people are doing is breaking Britain apart."

Good for Mr Sallam who was not afraid to give his name to the journalists.

Thirdly, the police behaved somewhat stupidly by moving EDL demonstrators (all 60 of them) from their place in order to let the MAC stand there. How to ensure that you look biased in favour of the enemy, eh? Who on earth gave them the instructions?

And lastly, what are we to make of these pathetic gestures of defiance that are allowed only because members of the MAC live under the despised or hated Western legal systems? Today, naturally enough, I discussed the events of that day ten years ago with other people and asked what exactly had those attackers achieved. Answer was, nothing.

The United States is still the strongest power in the world and its problems, mostly economic though some political, have nothing to do with any Muslim attempt to destroy it. In fact, there is a sense of political renewal in that country that we, on this side of the Pond, can only envy.

The two (not counting Libya) wars have taken their toll, as wars always do, but they have not destroyed the country or its political structure and, despite the most stalwart efforts on the part of the American main-stream media, did not destroy the Bush presidency. Obama is doing his best to destroy his own, but that is another story.

The Muslim countries are not doing very well; nothing good has come out of the 9/11 attacks as far as they or Al-Qaeda are concerned. Ten years on, Islam is nowhere near taking over the world and the Khalifate is as far away as it ever was. What has been achieved? Nothing. If the West has problems with parts of the Muslim population that has nothing to do with those monstrous attacks ten years ago. The problems need to be solved but the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is the true impotence of the various Islamist organizations in the West, in this case in Britain. It is not surprising that they need to produce these ridiculous protests and desperate, almost hysterical outbursts. They are losing and it is hard to acknowledge.

Free speech is not for everyone

Or so it seems. This blog ought to have picked up on the story of Molly Norris a few days ago but better late than never. Here is the Washington Examiner on the subject:

Last week, the Seattle Weekly announced that Molly Norris, its editorial cartoonist, had "gone ghost." Put another way, she went into hiding. The FBI told her she had to because otherwise it couldn't protect her against death threats from Muslims she'd angered. Earlier this year, Norris started "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" to protest radical Muslims' violently stifling freedom of speech and conscience. Incredibly, her plight has drawn precious little media attention, even though it is infinitely more newsworthy than, say, a fundamentalist preacher in Florida threatening to burn Qurans.

Indeed, it is more newsworthy, or ought to be. Here we have a clear example of an artist and journalist (good cartoonists are both) being silenced by threats from a vociferous minority and the media, so proud of its so-called courage when it is a question of flinging endless insults at Sarah Palin or the Tea-Partiers, is silent. (Molly Norris actually tried to backtrack from the whole Draw a Mohammed Cartoon Day but, clearly, that did not work.)

When The Examiner asked the American Society of News Editors for a statement on the issue, none was forthcoming. This despite the fact that the first sentence of ASNE's Web site describes its mission as supporting "the First Amendment at home and free speech around the world." We got a similar response from the Society of Professional Journalists, despite its dedication "to the perpetuation of the free press as the cornerstone of our nation and liberty."

The security services are at a loss and can do nothing but tell the lady in question to go into hiding and behave as if she is a criminal on the run.

Freedom of speech and press are in deep trouble when the American government thinks the best it can do to protect a journalist from death threats is to counsel her to go into hiding, and when the elite voices of American journalism can't be bothered to say anything in her defense. But it's actually worse than that. The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof thinks Muslims are owed an apology. "I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you," he wrote Sunday. "The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you."

Instead of telling the rest of us that we're all bigots, shouldn't Kristof and the rest of the journalism profession be outraged by what has happened to Molly Norris? And shouldn't they be angered that her government believes it cannot protect her? Imagine what they would be saying if white-hooded members of the Ku Klux Klan were threatening to kill Norris in Selma, Ala., instead of radical Muslims in Seattle. Would the FBI tell Norris she had to stop being a journalist and go into hiding? And would ASNE and SPJ look the other way as the First Amendment and freedom of the press were symbolically turned to ashes by flaming white crosses?

The reality is that the FBI fought the KKK at every turn, including when it threatened brave Southern newspaper editors who stood up against racism and violence. And from the start, journalists were prominent figures in the civil rights movement, courageously reporting the truth about the crushing stranglehold of segregation on life and liberty across the old South, often at risk of their very lives. It's time the present generation of American journalists found the same brand of courage many of their fathers showed in the 1960s.

Nor have we heard much from the President who was quick to say that building a mosque near Ground Zero is an example of the First Amendment (mind you, he was just as quick to retract).

James Taranto picked up the story a couple of days earlier and asked that very pertinent question:

Here's another question: Where is President Obama? Last month, speaking to a mostly Muslim audience at the White House, the president strongly defended the right of another imam held up as a moderate to build a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero. The next day, and again at a press conference last week, Obama said he was merely standing up for the First Amendment. As far as we recall, it's the only time Barack Obama has ever stood up for anybody's First Amendment rights.

Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?

Here is the news of Molly Norris being put on the hit list in July.

What do they do between rages?

First things first: I am against book burning. This may sound a very trite observation but I have had to argue my way through a number of forums in the last few days over the lunatic pastors in one or two strange churces in the United States who said that they wanted to burn the Koran. I don't need to link to the story as it was all over the MSM in a way, as a number of people have pointed out, that any old common or garden Bible burning would not be. Naturally, I am against that as well and, equally naturally, I dislike the double standards, the hyperbole (burning the Koran is very bad idea but it is not the same as declaring war or invading a country and it is not the worst thing that could have happened in the world). Nor am I absolutely certain that the publicity hungry pastors did intend to do anything of the kind.

Most rational people have come out against it. These include, randomly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sarah Palin. In fact, the Koran burning has been cancelled with the possible threat of it being revived at some later stage. Nevertheless, it is not going to happen unlike the Ground Zero Mosque, the plan for which seems to be going ahead despite the outcry against it across the United States and even in NYC.

What has not been cancelled is the rage. Well, it is a few months since we have had a good Islamic rage story and the wretched Koran burning threat has been a gift to the ragers.

Thousands demonstrated in Afghanistan against Koran burning, which is not happening, in some place in Florida most of them have never heard of. Eleven people have been injured.

In Pakistan only "hundreds" turned out for a party to protest and burn the American flag.

An AFP reporter in Multan said about 600 demonstrators - including clerics, political party workers and activists - held four protests in various parts of the central city of nearly four million people.

Despite the Florida-based American church saying on Friday it had decided against burning hundreds of Korans, the Pakistani protests went ahead to make it clear such acts would not be tolerated in future, organisers said.

600? In Pakistan? That's pathetic. Nevertheless, one expects the rage to grow in proportion to the speed with which reasons for it disappear.

A real reformist Muslim

This is very well worth reading: an article by Irshad Manji about the Ground Zero mosque Islamic community centre and prayer space, about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and about tolerance. Professor Manji suggests that whenever people feel inclined to support the building of a mosque in the name of religious tolerance they should ask where the men's side will be thus establishing whether it will be segregated and whether women will even be allowed into the building.

A question for this blog's American friends and readers

Does your President have a political death wish? All politicians make stupid statements and, let's face it, the Boy-King of the Conservative Party is in the forefront of that movement. You will not see or hear me defending him. But, seriously, what possessed President Obama to reverse previous comments by Robert Gibb about that wretched Ground Zero mosque being a local issue and announce that he is in favour of its construction, citing the Constitution, which he has always dissed before, and the Founding Fathers as his support? (Ed Driscoll on Pajamas Media has a round-up of reactions and describes it, quite rightly in my opinion, as "unforced error".)

I wonder whether anyone has informed President Obama that NYC already has a large number of mosques and, therefore, Muslims have no problem in finding a place where they can worship. Or that traditionally mosques have been built in places where Islam achieved a victory over its enemies? Does he understand how awkward those Muslims who do want to be American must feel?

Above all:

This move puts the mosque (and community center) squarely into the midterm election debate. It is a bit difficult for me to understand the motivation behind this move. Was the President pressured by some of his Muslim friends present at the dinner? Is this a heartfelt statement of principle? Or is this some Alinskyite move, intended to heighten contradictions and "rub raw" (in Alinsky's words) the emotions of the public for yet-to-be revealed purposes? Certainly, from the standpoint of electoral advantage, it is not a logical move. Perhaps the President really does want a Republican Congress that he can run against in 2012.

I ask again: does he have a political death wish? Has the presidency turned into ashes as soon as he achieved it?

ADDENDUM: Claudia Rossett investigates the mysterious whereabouts of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the plan.

Something in common

Der Spiegel says that German authorities have finally woken up to a fact that has been known for some time in many other countries:

Until now, attacks on Jews, Jewish institutions and Jewish symbols have almost always been committed by right-wing extremist groups. In the first quarter of 2010 alone, the German Interior Ministry documented 183 anti-Semitic offences committed by right-wing radicals, including graffiti, inflammatory propaganda and physical violence.

The stone-throwing incident in Hanover, however, has finally forced the authorities to take a closer look at a group of offenders that, though largely overlooked until now, is no less motivated by anti-Zionist sentiments: adolescents and young adults from an immigrant community who are influenced by Islamist ideas and are prepared to commit acts of violence.

One wonders why it has taken them so long to recognize reality and how many of those incidents that had been attributed to neo-Nazi groups were, in fact, the work of Islamist ones. It is understandable that German police authorities, politicians, journalists and analysts should be terrified of a resurgent neo-Nazi movement and its anti-Semitism. However, times move on and much of the European anti-Semitism now comes from the Left and the Islamist groups supported by the Left.

Do I hear the word insane?

For obvious reasons I usually attack left-wing feminist organizations that tend to side with Islamist groups and states in their insane hatred for America, the West in general and Israel. In order to express that hatred they manage to ignore the way women are treated in Islamic societies and even Islamic groups in the West. In other words, they just do not care about Muslim women and their very basic rights to life and liberty.

There are other organizations of that kind around. The Guardian reports that organizers of the Gay Pride parade in Madrid have banned Israeli participants because of the events that surrounded the Gaza flotilla. Needless to say, that means there were no organized groups from the Middle East participating in the march because Israel is the only country in the region where you can have Gay Pride marches, where you do not run the risk of being tortured and murdered if you are openly gay. Yet the Madrid organizers side with the murderers of people like themselves. One can only surmise that they do not care about the fate of gays as long as they are Muslims. Can we call that racist?

Swedish artist attacked during lecture on free speech

Time to return to reality. No doubt I shall blog again about the new government as its membership becomes clearer. In the meantime we can all indulge in unholy glee as we watch the Conservatives repeating: Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better as people they denounced in vicious terms but a week ago are appointed to important positions and they have to rejoice.

For the moment, however, I shall turn to other matters, for instance an appalling episode in Sweden, though one must admit the Swedish police reacted well. I found the story on Instapundit and followed his links.

Zombie describes the scene.

Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist, sketched some caricatures of Mohammed as a dog back in 2007, and for his efforts earned himself a fatwa — a death sentence issued by the good clerics of Al Qaeda in Iraq for the capital crime of depicting Islam’s prophet. Today that death sentence was nearly carried out as Vilks was assaulted (by a Muslim screaming “Allahu Ackbar!”) while giving a lecture in Uppsala, Sweden about his experiences with censorship. Luckily, Vilks survived; unluckily, he was headbutted directly in his face by the attacker; Vilks’ glasses were smashed, but police were on hand to prevent the follow-up beheading which the fatwa-givers had called for.

I wrote about Lars Vilks over on EUReferendum (here and here) and admitted that I did not think the cartoon in question to be particularly funny. And so? I don't think Garland's cartoons are particularly funny. Should I be calling for his beheading?

Zombie sounds outraged that this should have happened in modern Sweden, the land of enlightenment but I am not sure that is quite as terrible as the blog implies. The fact that the police grabbed the man in question says good things and lunatics chanting hate chants from the Dark Ages is just something we have to accept. As long as they do no damage to anyone or anything except their own larynxes.

Zombie also lists the English-language media that picked up on the story. It would appear that only the BBC ran it of the main-stream media and no British blogs either. (No, I am not impressed by the need the BBC seems to have to refer to Mohammed as the Propher Mohammed every time. And no, they do not speak of Our Lord Saviour Jesus Christ.) At least they ran the story.