Tuesday, February 26, 2008

David Cameron: No to Shari’a and no to multiculturalism

The BBC all too hastily bemoans the ‘blogger silence’ surrounding David Cameron’s speech speech on ‘Extremism, Individual Rights and the Rule of Law’, and complains that ‘Conservative bloggers have not bitten at this story so far’ (just a few hours after he made it!). But this is not because, as they assert, the bloggers ‘feel it has all been said’, but quite simply because His Grace is not in receipt of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money with which he might employ sundry secretaries, researchers and copyrighters to produce a perpetual stream of his intelligent and erudite verbiage.

Good grief, it is rich of the BBC to criticise the humble and impoverished blogger for failing to comment upon important speeches and events when their entire recent history has been one of strategic silence in areas with which there is institutional prejudice (like coverage of the EU Constitution, for example, or even EU matters in general, or maybe just matters in general).

But the BBC is not the topic of this post.

This speech by the Conservative leader is most welcome, though not for his intervention on the Shari’a debate – which he has profoundly misunderstood - but for his repudiation of a doctrine which has spawned more Socialist twaddle, lefty hogwash and politically-correct claptrap than any other single policy in recent history, and beaten an indigenous white population into submission to the point of feeling ‘alienated, threatened and voiceless’ (and that’s from a ‘BBC boss’!).

Mr Cameron rejects any expansion of Shari’a law in the UK, saying it would ‘undermine society and alienate other communities’. Indeed it would, but the Archbishop of Canterbury was not proposing this. He also said that two laws working side by side ‘would be dangerous’, insisting that ‘all citizens are equal before the law’. This is good, because they are precisely the points made by Dr Williams. British law already permits individuals to settle private disputes in different ways - but under the ultimate jurisdiction of English law. Nothing that the Archbishop said conflicts with Mr Cameron’s assertion.

So shame on him for saying that the Archbishop's ideas could create ‘legal apartheid’, and that they were ‘dangerous and illiberal’. Dr Williams may not be much of a politician, but neither is Mr Cameron a purveyor of spiritual edification or religious truth. One gets the impression that either he has not read Dr Williams’ speech, or, having read it, has misunderstood it or is purposely misrepresenting it for political gain. Or (most likely) he has simply trusted the matter to some superficial speech-writer for whom the subject matter is way beyond his competence.

Cranmer would like to know if Mr Cameron is aware that there are already Shari’a principles at work in the Treasury – in the form of Shari’a compliant mortgages, Shari’a bonds, and a welfare and benefits system which acknowledges polygamy? To re-work Mr Cameron’s speech, do these not ‘alienate others not subject to preferential treatment’, demoralise non-Muslims, or ‘provide succour to separatists’? And would he repeal these in order to ‘strengthen our collective identity’? For adherents of which other faiths may go abroad, acquire four wives, then live off the state with each wife being legally recognised?

Mr Cameron said ‘the big challenge facing the country is how we end state multiculturalism’. Indeed it is. And the surest way is to repeal New Labour’s acts of bland uniformity and reinvigorate genuine diversity – not to create multiculturalism but an infinite variety within a single culture. The United Kingdom (and - dare His Grace say it? - the British Empire and Commonwealth) has a long and successful history of achieving this, and one must begin with the language. What unites the Anglosphere must be the fundamental building block of Mr Cameron’s vision, so let us cease translating every government document into Panjabi, Arabic, Turkish, Polish, Romanian, for this truly weakens the British collective identity ‘to the point of encouraging...separate lives’.

If multiculturalism has had ‘disastrous results’ and ‘fostered difference between communities’ it is important for the Conservative Party to be united as a national party. The ‘broad church’ metaphor may be somewhat cliché, but it is nonetheless wholly applicable. The Party could learn much from the via media of the Church of England, which, for all its faults (or those of its leaders), remains at the spiritual heart of the nation.

And the BBC further bemoans the silence emanating from Lambeth Palace, goading the Archbishop with accusations of reluctance, or being ‘loathe to reignite the row’.

Cranmer’s advice, for what it is worth, is not to cast pearl before swine.

16 Comments:

Anonymous firefox_user said...

Could one beg his Grace for his thoughts on an issue that is potentially closely related to the multiculturalism debate. This is Turkey's modern day Islamic reformation, reported on by the BBC at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

26 February 2008 at 19:08  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

The root of all these problems is mass immigration. The more of any outside group there are here, the more they will go their own way. The alternative to multiculturalism is what? No-one will say: they seem to think bleating "Multi-culti bad" is an alternative in itself. That's when they're sincere: the likes of Trevor Phillips aren't. They're merely buying time for the flood to rise higher.

This speech by the Conservative leader is most welcome, though not for his intervention on the Shari’a debate – which he has profoundly misunderstood - but for his repudiation of a doctrine which has spawned more Socialist twaddle, lefty hogwash and politically-correct claptrap than any other single policy in recent history, and beaten an indigenous white population into submission to the point of feeling ‘alienated, threatened and voiceless’ (and that’s from a ‘BBC boss’!).

He has not repudiated it: he still wants more "minorities" in the Tory party, where they'll pursue their own interests rather than those of the party or country as a whole. He still claims mass immigration has enriched us, when it's done the reverse. A smarmy ex-PR man who has consciously modelled himself on Bliar is no person to save either the Tories or the UK.

26 February 2008 at 19:57  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace
Now I understand why you have a problem with the word 'multiculturalism'. I suppose I use it to mean what you say about diversity under one culture if I interpret you correctly. I would be interested to know what you mean my this. Does one culture mean one God? Does it mean everyone must eat pork?

Or does it mean that we should follow the same laws and respect each other's life choices as long as they don't harm our own? Your post on the call to mosque in Oxford was a good example of a minority asking for too much.

26 February 2008 at 20:47  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

This Egalitarian behaviour is widespread. India's eternal affirmative action program ... When India gained independence from the British ... The constitution provided 22.5 percent reservation in education and jobs for the "underprivileged group" ... for a period of 10 years, claiming that in that time these underprivileged "historically wronged" people will gain equality and join the mainstream, making affirmative action in the form of reservation unnecessary. ... After the first ten years, reservation was extended for another ten years and so on, and it continues ... Reservation is ubiquitous. Government, the parliament, health-care ... Reservation has been extended to various other groups, and now the total reservation stands at more than 50 percent and in some cases as high as 70 percent. ...

I would hazard a guess that no matter what pronouncements are made about Multiculturalism, they will not materially change the Diversity Industry. Affirmative Action has failed to level the playing field, but by the lowering of examination standards to the level that almost anyone can pass them, enabling quotas to be employed, the Diversity Industry appears bomb-proof.

26 February 2008 at 22:34  
Blogger paul ilc said...

Your Grace,

I have read The Archbishop's speech and carefully. My conclusion is that he is a confused and naive man: indeed, unfortunately for the position he occupies, he has been educated far, far beyond the level of his intelligence. In short, the man is foolish and out of his depth. And I say this as a committed Anglican.

As for HM's Leader of the Loyal Opposition, I can see where he is coming from. Such is the bridgehead of Muslim/Asian colonisation in the UK that the democratic system we have can no longer ignore the 'ethnic vote' and must be careful not to offend it. Mr C is to be applauded for starting from where we are, rather than where race-obsessives (eg Mr Nedsherry?) would like us to be, and for attempting to lead the nation back to cultural and societal unity.

Multiculturalism is, of course, absurd: any thriving culture can contain only one, dominant culture, though it can have a few sub-cultures.

26 February 2008 at 22:35  
Anonymous ode to multiculturalism said...

A guy who thought Muslims sincere
Said "There's nothing to fear from Taqiyya!"
But he found out he shouldna
Agreed to the Hudna
The day he got slit ear to ear.

26 February 2008 at 23:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As usual Cramer I agree with almost everything you state.

However I think you let the ABofC off too lightly.

You say that the ABofC is not much of a politician. Perhaps so. But this is precisely why his speech was so dangerous. Misinterpretation was the inevitable result. Much of this caused by the BBC and the rest of the media.

Certainly not David Cameron or his speech writers who are challenging the debate on what the public perception is and not what you, me or the ABofC may think it is.

This is because David Cameron is a politician. A politician being IMHO the moral equal of Satan and all his mates, multiplied by infinity. But there again, I suppose possibly wrongly, that someone has to do the job.

You say that "British law already permits individuals to settle disputes in different ways" ect.

Which is of cause perfectly correct and has long since been the case.

So why did the ABofC feel the urgent need to make a public statement on this matter in the first place?

I have already stated that the ABofC was either being a deliberately divisive establishment stooge or an incompetent fool. Neither of which are good things.

I personally suspect the former. Which if so, is not just, not a good thing, it is a very bad thing indeed.

27 February 2008 at 00:05  
Anonymous najistani said...

More taqiyya:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

27 February 2008 at 01:10  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
i hope you caught the news that senior muslim scholars in turkey are looking to review the haditha and to remove the bits that are anti christian. it will be interesting to see how this takes , it feels like an olive branch , and i welcome the desire for a revision of the text .
i had not thought much of muslim scholars name because they seem to have so little influence in there own faith, we await to see how pope benedict responds.

as for mr cameron it is easy to assume he lacks the religous understanding to make useful comment, but considering that under this current labour the nations spiritual issues have been left to die in run down palaces , i welcome his change and nod of respect to faith and its bearings on a healthly society.

forced multiculturalism propogated under the red light of socialism has been a disaster , we have ended up liking curry , but little else .

i will not treat the christ as the 9th prophet not now not ever , and i have no wish to treat my fellow man as anything other than i would wish for my self. this insoluable nature of the problem for me , should never have been have been the split into which the "red wedge" should have filled. both islam and christianity have been politically insulted.

mr cameron perhaps can make amends to the deficeit and failiure that new labour has caused , but he should be mindfull of how carefully the archbishops were placed and constructed and he should certainly not leave speech writing to clever agnostic/ athiest speech writers .

i welcome his attempt , after all can anyone remember when such a thing last happend ?

27 February 2008 at 01:47  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

Yr Grace's remarks on the BBC are all too apposite. The truth is, they have become bloated and lazy. They long since stopped seeking out their own stories and making their own analysis: instead, they rely on us to come up with the goods, which they can then report on as a "story".

27 February 2008 at 07:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anarchbishop or not. Vote YES or NO at www.FreeEurope.info

27 February 2008 at 09:19  
Blogger dmk said...

For their own part the BBC were strangely silent on the publication of a poll of 50,000 Muslims, revealing they were possibly nicer people than the average Anglo-Saxon:
http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/02/24/sharia-law-gallup-poll-50000-across-muslim-world/

Of course, this cuts completely across the BBC editorial policy of seeing all issues around Islam in terms of the 'clash of civilisations', which is why they've ignored it in favour of pulling faces at Rowan Williams.

27 February 2008 at 10:30  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

"Of course, this cuts completely across the BBC editorial policy of seeing all issues around Islam in terms of the 'clash of civilisations'..."

Guardian-readers are very principled people. Their principle is: never use one word where ten are markedly much more satisfactory in terms of issues around bletherskiting. If you want to know why the C of E is dying, the prose of its clergy is a good place to start.

27 February 2008 at 15:15  
Blogger dmk said...

nedsherry: if you want to rephrase that criticism of the BBC in your own words, please go ahead. Even better, you could refute it. I'd love to have my trust in the Beeb restored but the last couple of weeks have dented it.

Now, where did I put my Guardian...

27 February 2008 at 17:17  
Anonymous billy said...

Your Grace, I too am in favour of stopping all this translating.
Anybody can learn English. I have taught some incredibly thick children enough spoken English that, coupled with their home taught grunts,they are able
to represent themselves at the magistrates court.
Furthermore, I've never had trouble finding English speakers abroad. Paris, Pontypridd and Paisley have all responded positively to parlez vous Anglais? To be fair, Paisley was a atd difficult.

27 February 2008 at 17:54  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

nedsherry: if you want to rephrase that criticism of the BBC in your own words, please go ahead. Even better, you could refute it.

'Of course, this doesn't fit the BBC's policy of forcing all stories about Islam into the "clash of civilizations"...'

The BBC doesn't seem to have a fixed policy on Islam. Muslims won't like some of their stories, but there's also a great deal of sucking up.

Now, where did I put my Guardian...

It's under your New Statesman, near that well-thumbed copy of Rowan William's thesis Whither Wet Liberalism? Interrogating Issues around the Destruction of the Church by 2020.

28 February 2008 at 17:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older