Sharia law determines UK housing policy

Many Muslims in the West say they would prefer to replace their secular governments with an Islamic one, run according to Sharia Law. One group advocating this, Hizb ut Tahrir, has declared: ‘All Muslims in the world already want to live in a Caliphate, under Sharia law… It will be a huge state, a very powerful state. Even now you are all afraid of us - America, Israel, you in the UK too.’ One may understand why the Home Secretary is moving towards outlawing the group in the UK.

Yet its aims are already being achieved as British culture adapts to accommodate the demands. There was no real concern when UK banks adjusted their financial dealings to accommodate Sharia constraints, but it is a significant shift when houses and prisons are being built in accordance with Qur’anic demands, and therefore specifically to accommodate Muslims who constitute just 3% of the population. Hizb ut Tahrir explains why this must be attained: ‘Allah gives an answer to every possible question: how to deal with friends and neighbours, how to bring up children, even how to use the toilet - it's all in the Koran.’

And it is the Islamic toilet policy that is affecting British prisons and housing. Prisons are remodelling their toilets in order that they face away from Mecca, after complains from some inmates that they are forced to sit sideways. As Mohammed said: ‘If you go to defecate, do not face the Qiblah nor turn your back toward it. Instead, you should turn to your left side or your right side.’ One prison officer responded: ‘If we weren’t paying for it as taxpayers, I’d laugh my socks off.’

While it may be a concern that prison toilets are being conformed to the demands of the Sharia at the expense of the British taxpayer, it is even more significant that new housing is being constructed with up to seven bedrooms, to accommodate large family visitations, bathrooms that face away from Mecca, and kitchens that comply with halal demands.

According to Hizb ut Tahrir, an Islamic super-state will be created through evolution, not revolution. Such apparently trivial examples indicate that this is more a question of when, not if.

Rome fiddles while Lebanon burns

It is impossible to be unmoved or unconcerned at the appalling suffering and loss of life in southern Lebanon and northern Israel (the latter rarely features in the media). However, the charade of diplomatic efforts witnessed yesterday in Rome, chaired by the ever-charismatic and politically-dynamic Romano Prodi, focused on whether the word ‘immediate’ should be attached to its call for a ceasefire. In the end, there was no such demand, simply a call for an ‘urgent’ ceasefire, which Israel has interpreted as tacit support for a continuing offensive: ‘We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation,’ Justice Minister Haim Ramon said.

European leaders could hardly assert anything further. EU leaders have become so accustomed to declaring obfuscational, soporific waffle, that the crisis caused by the need for a statement on a war (for that is what it is, despite the BBC’s avoidance of the term) embodies everything that the EU is not equipped to deal with. There is no unified foreign policy, and despite the trumped-up aspirations of Javier Solana, no EU foreign minister. The strategic and security interests of EU members are too diverse and disparate to ever be considered an area of ‘harmonised’ EU competence, and situations like the present are proof of the impossibility of genuine ‘ever closer union’ in this area.

All war is a tragedy of human failing, and the result of innate sin. However, demands for the present conflict to be terminated immediately, as demanded by the Pope, display an ignorance of history, an avoidance of the realities of terrorism, and a failure to comprehend human nature. Israel has long tolerated the bombardment of its northern territories by Hezbullah (‘Party of God’) kaytusha rockets. There seem to be about 12000 of these in southern Lebanon, courtesy of Syria and Iran. The usual procedure has been that Israel responds with a token retaliation, which, because Hezbullah locates its bomb-making facilities in populated areas, results in civilian deaths. The BBC then broadcasts this ‘slaughter’ to the world, the terrorists are portrayed as the underdogs, and Israel is condemned. America then tells Israel to cease, and the terrorists live to fight another day – usually the very next one.

This cannot and should not continue. This time, there must be a long-term solution rather than a short-term fix. Too many have died for this tragedy to simply revert to the status quo of the previous impasse. The timing of Hezbullah’s recent action is noteworthy, coming hard upon Iran’s demand for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’, just as pressure was mounting for Iran to suspend its nuclear programme. Al-Qaida today warned they would not stand idly by while Israeli shells ‘burn our brothers’ in Lebanon and Gaza; for them, ‘all the world is a battlefield’. Israel’s enemies are therefore Europe’s enemies; they are jihadists in the mould of those who bombed New York, Madrid and London. They are possessed of a warped Islamofascist extremism, intoxicated at the thought of 72 virgins, and with whom there is no reasoning. Any truce would be temporary, since for Shi’ite Muslims the battle is theological, ushering in their own Armageddon and the coming of the twelfth Imam, Mahdi. Israel must therefore continue until the terrorists are eliminated. In an imperfect world of conflict and tension, this war has to be the lesser evil.

The Vatican confronts Islam

The Roman Catholic Church has confronted the threat of Islamofascism head on. Monsignor Velasio de Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, has effectively ditched the teaching of Jesus by declaring: ‘Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves.’ The Vatican is, of course, no stranger to the convenient rejection of scriptural commands when it suits it, but de Paolis is simply voicing what many are thinking: ‘The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century … and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights.’ It is time for the Church to speak up and defend its own; time to confront the enemies of Christ with something other than quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement.

There are some 40 million Christians living in countries dominated by Islam. They have dwindling rights, face daily persecution (even death), and suffer economic decline. The Vatican has observed that they are simply second-class citizens, discriminated against in education, employment, and the courts. As a result, millions are fleeing their ancestral lands, and the number of Christians in Muslim countries is in free-fall. For the first time since the Early Church, neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem have Christian majorities.

There is no reciprocity between the two traditions. While Muslims can build mosques, proselytise, and worship freely in the Western world, such rights are not granted to Christians in the Islamic world, and consequently Islam is winning in the West. Pope Benedict XVI has articulated the crucial difference between the Judeo-Christian tradition and that of Islam: For Jews and Christians, ‘God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world.’ Jews and Christians can therefore take what is good in their cultures and traditions, and the teachings of the Torah, Prophets, and the New Testament can be adapted and applied to new situations. The Qur’an, however, is something that ‘dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied.’ This immutability is the problem, because ‘Islam is stuck…with a text that cannot be adapted.’ It is a 7th-century religion with a 7th-century mentality, and we may be waiting centuries for adaptation and accommodation... We all remember what upheavals the Church had to endure before it reached reformation, and engaged with enlightenment.

The anti-Semitism of The Guardian

The Guardian has consistently conveyed a negative portrayal of the Jewish state of Israel for over 30 years; in fact, it has rarely missed an opportunity to vent its bile for the only democracy in the region. This cartoon by Martin Rowson was published by them this week. It is a manifestly racist slur, insulting to Jews worldwide, and constitutes a blatant denigration of the Jewish faith by abusing their sacred icon, the Star of David. It makes no mention of Iran or Syria. It makes no mention of the 1200 missiles that had been launched into northern Israel before these hostilities began, or of the traumas endured by Israel each day through the terrorist incursions of Hamas or Hezbollah.

The victim in this cartoon is a Lebanese child. Tragically, very tragically, there will be many. But the gross misrepresentation of Hezbollah as a mere ‘wasp sting’ is an insult to all those Jewish children who have been hurt, killed or maimed by a ceaseless campaign of hatred by terrorists and their extremist supporters. These are not scatty, disorganised insects, but an organised, well-armed terror force which has plagued Israel for years.

Cranmer considers this cartoon to be a further ‘faith crime’. Whatever the rights or wrongs in the current Middle East crisis - there is no excuse for the British press to resort to material which may incite hatred, and this is clearly designed to do just that. Such a cartoon simply feeds the prejudice that many Muslims already feel towards the Jews and Israel, and it clearly belongs to the era of Nazi propaganda.

Cranmer asks visitors to this site to consider complaining to:

The Guardian at letters@guardian.co.uk
The Commission for Racial Equality (UK) (Click at Google)
The Metropolitan Police, Diversity Division, (London, UK)

Does this advertisement constitute a ‘faith crime’?

The Gay Police Association (GPA) has produced this advertisement and published it in the national press. It juxtaposes the Holy Bible with a pool of blood, and states: ‘In the last 12 months, the GPA has recorded a 74% increase in homophobic incidents, where the sole or primary motivating factor was the religious belief of the perpetrator.’

The clear inference is that Christians have blood on their hands, and the Bible condones violence towards homosexuals. The heading ‘In the name of the Father’ drags the name of the Lord through the mud, and grossly misrepresents the message of love and forgiveness that was preached by Jesus. The advert appeared in the Diversity supplement of the Independent newspaper on 29th June, two days ahead of the Europride gay and lesbian parade in London. The statistic is without context, and while 74% sounds vast, it may simply represent an increase of something like four ‘homophobic incidents’ to seven.

A Christian minister, the Rev George Hargreaves, has made an official complaint, and Scotland Yard said the inquiry ‘centres on whether the advert constitutes a faith crime’. Cranmer will watch this case with interest, but would like to ask the GPA why it did not juxtapose the Qur’an with a pool of blood, under the heading ‘In the name of Allah’ (thanks to Mr Iain Dale for the graphic). If the ‘religious belief of the perpetrator’ was the ‘cause’ of these attacks, were all the perpetrators Christian? Certainly, the Qur’an contains some forceful condemnation of homosexual acts, but the GPA would not dare to produce an advertisement that might be deemed ‘racist’ or offensive to a religious minority. But the Christians? Well, they’re easy meat, and who cares if any of them are offended...?

The billion euro Babel

It is projected that next year the costs of translating speeches and documents into all the languages of the European Union will reach the astronomical sum of a billion euros. The increasingly complex sequence of linguistic permutations is being made even more complex with the addition of new translation and interpretation rights for the Irish language. There can’t be many Irish-Maltese or Irish-Greek speakers, and what few there are will be able to demand a hefty salary. And if Brussels is to avoid charges of racism from the various corners of the United Kingdom, it will soon have to add Welsh and Gaelic as well. All of this because the EU cannot agree on a lingua franca for the Union, principally because the French will not permit English to dominate.

It is worth revisiting Genesis 11:1-9. The Strasbourg parliament building was modelled on Bruegel’s Tower of Babel, in the symbolic hope of ending the curse of linguistic limitation of man ceasing to understand man. Without mutual communication through a common language it is impossible to cooperate either commercially or socially, so it is interesting to examine the origin of both towers. Genesis records the motive as ‘making a name for themselves’, which is a motive not so far removed from the entire EU edifice. The confusion of languages is a divine antidote to human arrogance, and the Lord saw fit to halt their grandiose construction project. The Babylonians’ desire was to displace God, to exalt their own name, and to scheme without reference to his declared will. The EU is an increasingly secular institution, it aspires to global influence ‘to counterbalance the dominance of the US’, and has eliminated God and acknowledgement of him from its constitution. The Lord destroyed the Tower of Babel, and scattered the peoples over the face of the earth. Does such a fate await the European Union?

The hypocrisy of Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor

According to The Times, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is refusing to sack an aide accused of having a series of affairs, one of which led to his girlfriend having an abortion. The Roman Catholic Church has been consistently and vociferously opposed (with good reason) to this infanticide, and participation in the process is considered a grave sin. Yet Austen Ivereigh, a former Jesuit novice and presently the Cardinal’s director for public affairs, is accused of ‘heinous hypocrisy’ after paying a girlfriend to have an abortion. He is one of the Cardinal’s most trusted advisors, readily leaps to the defence of the Catholic faith, and has recently been at the forefront of demands in the UK for tougher abortion laws.

Yet the hypocrisy is not only with Ivereigh. The Cardinal previously sacked his press secretary for no other reason than that he was gay. Stephen Noon was abruptly told that his sexuality was ‘incompatible’ with his position in the Church, and he therefore had to go. Since he was an official spokesman for the Cardinal, it was considered that there was no alternative because homosexual acts are regarded by the Church as a sin. It would be difficult to have a press secretary explaining that teaching, while at the same time violating it.

So, it seems that one may be involved in fornication, adultery and abortion, all against the teachings of the Church, and remain a spokesman for the Cardinal, but one may not be involved in homosexuality, against the teachings of the Church, and remain a spokesman. If the Cardinal would care to explain this to Cranmer, he would be appreciative.

Sikh funeral pyre challenges UK law

With all the attention going to the Muslims, and all the contingent concessions and pay-offs they have been winning, one may understand if the Sikhs have been feeling a little left out (not to mention the Hindus). They started getting bolshie last year when hundreds of them descended to riot on a theatre in Birmingham and force the closure of a play deemed to be disrespectful of their religion. This was militant Sikhism. Disgracefully, the police did not intervene, the play closed, and the Home Office asserted the rights of subjective religious sensitivities over artistic expression. Now they have challenged the law of the land with an open-air cremation of a young Sikh man, the first in the UK for over 70 years.

The funeral pyre of Rajpal Mehat, 31, took place in a remote field after Northumbria Police gave permission on ‘humanitarian grounds’. Since when was it for the police to grant discretionary permissions to break the law? Funeral pyres have been illegal in the UK since 1930, and environmentally with good reason. The 1930 Cremation Act prohibits the cremation of human remains anywhere except in a crematorium. But Superintendent Graham Smith said that his job was to ‘respect the values and beliefs of all faiths’. No, Superintendent, your job is to enforce the law.

It seems that when British law conflicts with ‘religious right’, the law may be set aside with the tacit support of the police. From how many British laws are minority ethnic groups to be exempt?

Conservatives to divorce EPP... but not yet.

David Cameron needs to look over his shoulder. To the delight of Ken Clarke, the great announcement ‘by the end of the month’ on the Conservative Party’s relations with the EPP, is simply that the issues has been kicked into the long grass until 2009.

Yes, that’s right, 2009.

Three more years of Conservatives in Brussels continuing to work towards Catholic-Socialist corporatism – along with full adoption of the Euro, the resurrection of the Constitution, common fisheries, common agriculture, implementation of a single army, a single air-force, a single navy, a single satellite spy network, EU broadcasting channels, an EU diplomatic service, single EU borders… a country called Europe?

The EPP constitutionally and financially commits itself to everything the Conservatives say they oppose when they’re in opposition, but seem to support and sign up for when they get into power.

Cranmer believed David Cameron was different - a Churchill rather than a Chamberlain. Does Mr Cameron really expect the Conservative Party to wait three whole years before he delivers on the one ‘bankable’ promise he made to win the Party leadership? If a week is a long time in politics, three years is truly an eternity. He seems to assume that Party members have the patience of Job. A commitment to leave the EPP in three years is no commitment at all, whatever piece of paper it is signed on. Mr Cameron can no more bind the Conservative Party to honour such a far-sighted commitment than Parliament can bind its successors.

Emerging Christianophobia?

As the Church of England tears itself asunder over the ‘gay issue’, the Government is busy legislating away on the issue in such a way that all faith groups will have no choice but to comply, all in the name of ‘equality’. There is much brewing about the Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations, which are due to be completed this autumn. These will render discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation illegal in the same way as it presently is for race or gender. Catholic adoption agencies, which refuse to place children with homosexual parents, may face closure, and Christian teachers who promote heterosexual marriage as the ‘norm’ may open their school to being sued. It seems that school assemblies, which are supposed to be ‘broadly Christian’, may also no longer include key Bible passages on marriage.

Cranmer is not being alarmist here. People have already been arrested for supposed ‘homophobic’ statements, or for carrying ‘homophobic’ placards at a protest. One if these simply stated that the practice was a sin, around which there was a minor altercation. Those involved in the brawl were not arrested, but the man carrying the placard was because he was the ‘cause’. It seems that people of faith are increasingly becoming intolerable to temples of relativist secularism sweeping the EU. Rocco Buttiglione, who was sacked as a Commissioner for his conservative views on abortion, the family, and sexual practice, led the way.

To outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a threat to freedom of conscience and to freedom of religion. Christian landlords will no longer have control over what goes on under their roofs, and religious newspapers will no longer be permitted to reject advertising from homosexual organisations on grounds of conscience. How can the law force people of faith to approve and cooperate with values that they can never in conscience accept? What persecution awaits the dissenters?

Islam occupies Alton Towers

In order to facilitate the integration of Muslims into British life, there is to be a Muslims-only day at Alton Towers on September 17th, when there will be no music, no alcohol, no smoking, and no gambling. The theme park is to be given over to the ‘Prophet’ and the Qur’an, with Islamic law prevailing. There will also be an abundance of prayer mats, the burgers will be halal, and rides will segregated... “Okay, this first coaster ride is for the men, because they’re superior. You women wait over there; you should really be at home cooking and cleaning anyway.” If such segregation occurred on any other day, it would be illegal under UK law.

Cranmer is wondering why the Taleban tendency at Alton Towers hasn’t gone the whole hog and banned the songbirds as well. Will any of the rides be re-named? Will the Log Flume or the Black Hole become Suicide Plunge? Will all of the rides stop at prayer times?

Cranmer is not ignorant of Islamic theological matters, and can’t help wondering why music is considered haram, but not the rollercoaster. Either the Qur’an permits one to have fun, or it does not. And if you rely on the Hadith, there is no record of Mohammed ever going to a leisure park. Cranmer knows of no Muslim in Britain who adheres to the banning of music, while a great many who are deprived of music (or nicotine!) for a day will find it tortuous. And isn’t it all a bit dangerous on some of those ‘extreme’ rides with hijabs flying in the wind? Rides unsuitable for hijabs and burkas that carry no warning will doubtless lead to lawsuits: will Alton Towers then submit to Shari’a courts?

In order to keep out the kafir, tickets can only be bought through the organisers Islamic Leisure, and the Muslims are loving it. Can you imagine the fuss if there was a Christians-only day? Or a whites-only day? Quite how social harmony and cohesion are promoted by effectively closing the theme park to non-Muslims is a mystery. The Islamic occupation of Alton Towers, with the application of elements of the Shari’a, is as eloquent a statement of separateness, of apartheid, as one could imagine. If Muslims are really intent on integrating with the wider community, why promote an activity designed to alienate, exclude, or offend the indigenous population?

Cardinal says Turkey ‘not suitable’ for EU membership

Cardinal Kasper (see previous post) has been pontificating again. This time on Turkey’s suitability for EU membership. The reason? A Catholic priest has been attacked, and he is third to be ‘harassed’ by ‘Muslim fundamentalists’ in the past 6 months. It is strange that Cardinal Casper has never denounced the UK as being unsuitable for EU membership on the grounds that Catholic priests in Northern Ireland have been harassed by ‘Protestant fundamentalists’ for decades, and with a frequency that renders consideration of a brief 6-month period utterly insignificant. Could it be that his concern is more about the perpetuation of the EU as Christendom, into which an Islamic Turkey simply does not fit? If so, he has simply become the mouthpiece of the diplomatically-muted Pope, who in his former guise as Cardinal Ratzinger, vigorously opposed Turkish accession to the EU.

But the Cardinal’s solution to the problem is immensely illuminating. He demands for Turkey what Rome is trying to deny the rest of the EU. He says, ‘What is still missing (in Turkey) is a secular state capable of assuring religious freedom.’ The Pope’s constant refrain on the European stage has been to aggressively combat secular ideology, and replace it with true Catholic values. The Cardinal is effectively admitting that a Catholic state is no more capable of defending religious liberties than a Muslim one, and that the most trustworthy guardian of religious liberty is benign secularism. So what is Rome's problem with a secular EU?

The Last Rites of the Church of England?

Cranmer has been procrastinating on this story as he has had to consider the theological implications, and he is heartily glad not to be in the shoes of the present Archbishop of Canterbury, last seen lurking in the shadows praying for it all to go away. On 19th June, the Episcopal Church of the United States of America appointed its first female ‘Archbishop’ in nearly 400 years. Once again, as with the ordination of Gene Robinson, the Anglican Communion’s first gay bishop, it is America’s Anglicans that are pushing the boundaries of unity. Canada and New Zealand had already appointed female bishops, but not to this point of seniority. Bishop of Nevada, Katharine Jefferts Schori, becomes the first female to head the 2.3-million-member US church, and sets a direct challenge for the 26-million-member Church of England, both internally and globally. Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali commented: 'Nobody wants a split, but if you think you have virtually two religions in a single church, something has got to give sometime.' The Church of England is about to place a discussion paper before the General Synod in respect of female bishops, asserting that ‘admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ’.

Well, not according to Rome. Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has made very plain to the bishops of the Church of England that sacerdotal ordination should be a male preserve. This, he asserts, is faithful to Scripture and tradition. He has issued a challenge to the Church of England to side either with the ‘great churches’ of the first millennium, or with what he contemptuously refers to as the ‘communities’ of the sixteenth century Reformation.

He has threatened that if the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion ordains women to the episcopate, future discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England could not have unity as their objective.

Do I hear a shout of Hallelujah?

Cranmer thought that Rome’s previous tantrum about female priests had already halted the ecumenical road to unity, so it is quite likely that this posturing is merely a temporary irritation. Having considered the options, and in light of Galatians 3:28, the ecumenical goal of accepting the ‘primacy’ of the Pope is a far greater evil than the development of tradition to ordain female bishops. In any case, Scripture is replete with female prophets whom God raised up when the men failed, and men have manifestly failed the Church of England for the past 50 years, so why not a woman? Yet, perhaps not this one...

The EU proposes to take over Education

Cranmer has feared this for years. It has been hinted at, and the progress has been subtle, but now the full frontal attack has begun. The European Union has proposed that EU integration should become part of the National Curriculum, along with its unique understanding of ‘democracy’ and ‘cultural diversity’. The reality is that students in UK schools are already taught these things as a part of ‘Citizenship’, and for all its faults, it is mostly a balanced programme of rights and responsibilities (though the EU dimension is already appallingly one-sided). There is nothing to be opposed in the EU’s suggestion that students should master maths, other languages and technology, but Cranmer is baffled as to why Her Majesty’s Government is not considered competent to handle this.

Frankly, if health and education become an EU competence, there will be absolutely no need for national governments. The Conservative Party has described the idea as ‘pernicious’. It may be the beginning of a ‘euro-curriculum’ to forge what the European Commission regards as its ultimate goal - a common European identity. Controlling the education system is a classic strategy of a conqueror, mainly to ensure that its philosophies permeate future generations. History is invariably re-written, the truth is misrepresented and the nation’s history is subsumed to a larger world vision.

The Commission has already made significant inroads into the education system, under the guise of instilling a ‘European dimension’ in the schooling of all pupils. Provision is made for the creation of EU-approved cartoon strips, audiovisual presentations, pamphlets, ‘games’, magazines and booklets aimed at school children as young as five years old. Conservative Party Chairman, Francis Maude, confirmed as far back as 2000 that this was the first step ‘to creating a single EU curriculum’ (The Times, 7th August 2000, p1). One of the most insidious examples was a colouring book called Let’s Draw Europe Together, whose introduction made its purpose clear: ‘The title Let’s Draw Europe Together is intended as a call to school children as well as all of us to commit ourselves to achieving European unity.’ On the bottom of the page is a picture of an infant carrying a large EU banner and wearing a nappy emblazoned with the 12 stars of the EU flag. In further chapters, children are introduced to the many languages of the EU and are encouraged to translate a phrase into ten languages. There is, of course, nothing wrong in introducing 5 - 11 year olds to foreign languages, but the phrase they are asked to translate is the subtly indoctrinating ‘Europe, our future’, while their attention is deflected from the indoctrination by colouring cartoon characters.

This publication went on to describe what the EU does, with an agriculture section expounding the Union’s improvements and benefits, but telling nothing of the wastefulness and chaos of the CAP. Indeed, readers are completely misinformed about the effects of the CAP on food prices, and are told: ‘One of the first things the EEC did was to ensure the supply of foodstuffs to European consumers at reasonable prices.’ There were many such misleading statements and pictures in this publication, which culminated in the illustration of a young man kicking down a national frontier sign and erecting in its place a large EU flag. The spiritual battle was highlighted in the EU’s classroom publication ‘What Exactly is Europe?’, aimed at 11-14 year olds. In its table of religious affiliations, in the UK (which [as far as Cranmer is aware] still includes Northern Ireland) Protestants are amazingly numbered at nil. Yes, nil. Protestant affiliation is cleverly divided into Lutheran, Anglican and ‘Other’, in order to diminish the perception that Protestants have any sizeable presence in Europe at all. This is quite simply a continuation of the ‘divide and rule’ principle, in which no religion is shown in Europe as being anywhere near to challenging the authority and popularity of the Papacy. The table is clearly set out to give the impression that Roman Catholicism is numerically the ‘winning’ religion, and the one to which children should aspire to belong if they wish to be in the mainstream.

The Conservative Party’s spokesman for Higher Education, Boris Johnson MP, has stated that this education agenda is terrifyingly Orwellian. It would also be illegal under Section 407 of the 1996 Education Act which forbids primary school children being fed political propaganda of any sort, and requires that older pupils be given balanced views of controversial subjects, but maybe the European Commission considers itself above such inconveniences…