Debunking the "Islamisation" myth

Via Five Chinese Crackers, I find that Edmund Standing has produced a report called "Debunking the Islamisation myth" (PDF). It is well worth a read.

There are issues with the report. 5cc mentions Standing's naiveté in believing the press about "white liberal do-gooders," though from my own perspective it's the lack of class analysis and the vague, civic nationalist undercurrent that is most worrying.

Nevertheless, the conclusion is worth quoting as it is a point I have made before;

The widespread acceptance of the ‘Islamisation’ myth illustrates the ascendancy of cultural pessimism in the West, at a time in which we actually have more to be happy about than at any other period in history. In the past hundred years, overall living standards and wealth have increased greatly in the West. We no longer live in fear of diseases such as diphtheria, polio, and typhoid; tap water is safe to drink; good sanitation is the norm; cheap food is widely available; life expectancy has risen hugely from 45 years for males and 49 years for females in 1901; all children receive an education; overseas travel is no longer something just for the rich. Yes, of course there are many problems in society, but at what period in human history has that ever not been the case? Each new generation seems to look back to its childhood as a better time, or to an idealised past in which things supposedly ‘weren’t so bad’. Yet, objectively speaking, no period in human history has been as good as the one we currently live in.

There will always be cultural pessimism, and there will always be those who want to turn back the clock. Indeed, we Brits seem to be experts at holding a gloomy view of the world. The ‘Islamisation’ myth is based in an outlook of despair, an almost apocalyptic fear that an old world is dying and a terrible new age is dawning, but in this there is nothing new. As noted earlier in this text, theatre, poetry, books, novels, newspapers, photography, the music hall, television, and so on, have all been seen by successive generations of pessimists as harbingers of doom.

Today’s pessimists, when they’re not engaged in attacking many of the same things that have been attacked for centuries, are busy working themselves into a frenzy about ‘Islamisation’ and the death of the West. Yet, as I hope I have demonstrated, such panic is not rationally grounded. Islam is not a powerful global force on the verge of ‘taking over’ Britain. Muslims are not a powerful group in society, or indeed in the world as a whole, and besides, the majority of Muslims in Britain have no interest in creating an Islamic State and imposing Sharia law, even if they did have the power to do so.

That the ‘Islamisation’ myth is growing in popularity should be of concern to those who seek a more rational world. It is not the irrationalism of Islam that poses the greatest threat (or even any significant threat) to Britain, but rather the growth of a culture of despair, for despair creates an environment in which the irrational, the violent, and the oppressive really can flourish. Undoubtedly, the pace at which change progresses is dizzying for many, and the collapse of some of the old institutions such as the Church that once gave society a unified narrative has created something of a void, as has a loss of faith in the political process.

However, the answer to a rapidly changing world is not to sink into despair and perversely comforting myths of grand conspiracies and inner enemies. Anyone with an awareness of Twentieth Century history should know where a society based on belief in hidden powers and scheming minorities can end up.

Through thousands of years of wars, plagues, and natural disasters, Britain has survived and stood tall. Despite losing more than a million of its citizens in two world wars, Britain has survived and prospered. Are we now to seriously believe that Britain is finished because a religious minority, many of whom are poor and powerless, and very few of whom are found at the heart of our economy and our political process, has arrived on our shores? And are we to seriously believe that the majority of the population has a collective death wish and will idly sit by and allow a handful of religious fascists led by the likes of Anjem Choudary take over the country and create an Islamic State? Is this what we have come to?

The ‘Islamisation’ myth is fallacious, dangerous, and pathetic. Islam is not taking over Britain, nor will Britain ever be an Islamic State. The extremists can scream their mantra ‘Islam will dominate the world’ as much as they like, but in fact it can’t, and it won’t.

It's just a shame that, due to the propaganda model under which the media functions, the vast majority of people will never even hear this argument made.

Quote of the day...

...comes from Joseph Ratzinger;

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the Twentieth Century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a reductive vision of the person and his destiny.

Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. 

The "atheist extremism," of course, is the Nazis. And as a Vatican spokesperson confirmed, as a former member of the Hitler Youth, the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about." Which is why we can only conclude that "Benedict XVI" is being purposefully dishonest.

After all, he must surely have been privy to Hitler's speech at the Reichstag on 30th January 1939;

Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration:

1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views (Einstellung), nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted....

The Churches are the greatest landed proprietors after the State... Further, the Church in the National Socialist State is in many ways favoured in regard to taxation, and for gifts, legacies, &c., it enjoys immunity from taxation.

It is therefore, to put mildly-- effrontery when especially foreign politicians make bold to speak of hostility to religion in the Third Reich....

I would allow myself only one question: what contributions during the same period have France, England, or the United States made through the State from the public funds?

3. The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service. It has not exercised any pressure upon the doctrine nor on the profession of faith of any of the Confessions. In the National Socialist State anyone is free to seek his blessedness after his own fashion....

There are ten thousands and ten thousands of priests of all the Christian Confessions who perform their ecclesiastical duties just as well as or probably better than the political agitators without ever coming into conflict with the laws of the State....

This State has only once intervened in the internal regulation of the Churches, that is when I myself in 1933 endeavoured to unite the weak and divided Protestant Churches of the different States into one great and powerful Evangelical Church of the Reich. That attempt failed through the opposition of the bishops of some States; it was therefore abandoned. For it is in the last resort not our task to defend or even to strengthen the Evangelical Church through violence against its own representatives....

But on one point it is well that there should be no uncertainty: the German priest as servant of God we shall protect, the priest as political enemy of the German State we shall destroy.

This quote comes from the site nobeliefs.com, which offers an extensive argument in favour of Hitler being a Christian. Albeit, of course, an extremely mental and evil one hardly representative of the faith. And the ability to make that distinction, incidentally, puts both myself and that site on the moral high ground over Ratzinger.

As a spokesperson for the British Humanist Association pointed out;

The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis that led to their extremist and hateful views or that somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.

The notion that it is non-religious people in the UK today who want to force their views on others, coming from a man whose organisation exerts itself internationally to impose its narrow and exclusive form of morality and undermine the human rights of women, children, gay people and many others is surreal.

It is, perhaps, an understatement to point out that The Pope Is A Dope.

The Pope's visit and the case for a secular world

From Thursday, the people of Britain will be - ahem - "graced" with the presence of Joseph Ratzinger. Or, Pope Benedfict XVI, if you prefer. Needless to say, and for a broad variety of reasons, a number of people aren't too happy with this.

The big reason is the child abuse scandal. The Church, and the present pontiff, have a case to answer on their complicity in and cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests across the globe.

Johann Hari, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others have made the case several times for criminal charges to be brought against him. I weighed in on the debate here, here, and here. I remain convinced of the solid case for his arrest.

The Pope has his apologists, of course. But all they can offer is "but what about" obfuscation and ill-conceived accusations of "religious hatred." This is a tactic that has also been employed by the Church, and it is at best callous and insincere. If Ratzinger his innocent, then the proof should be presented openly in court. If the Church was a secular institution, there would be no question of that point.

Another argument against the Pope's visit is the cost to the taxpayer, currently estimated at £10-12 million. The cost of policing the trip is an extra £1.5m on top of that.  More than three quarters of the public are against forking this out, many on the grounds that he is a religious figure.

It could be argued that, as a state visit, such funding is a wholly expected cost. But then you won't catch Nicholas Sarkozy or Barack Obama travelling to Glasgow to deliver open air mass.

However, amidst these more common objections, it was this point from Ben Goldacre that caught my eye today;

In May 2005, shortly after taking office, the pope made his first pronouncement on Aids, and he took the opportunity to come out against condoms. He was addressing bishops from: South Africa, where somebody dies of Aids every 2 minutes; Botswana, where 23.9% of adults between 15 and 49 are HIV positive; Swaziland, where 26.1% of adults have HIV; Namibia (a trifling 15%); and Lesotho, 23%.

This is ongoing. In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy “that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.” In May 2009, the Congolese Bishops’ Conference made a joyful announcement: "in all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/AIDS. We say no to condoms!"

This is not a remote problem. The pope’s stance has been supported, in the past year alone, by Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster. “It is quite ridiculous to go on about AIDS in Africa and condoms, and the Catholic Church,” says O’Connor. “I talk to priests who say, ‘My diocese is flooded with condoms and there is more AIDS because of them.’”

Some have been more imaginative in their quest to spread the message against condoms. In 2007, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique announced that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting condoms with HIV to spread AIDS in Africa. Out of every 8 people in Mozambique, one has HIV.

It was cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo of Colombia who most famously claimed that the HIV virus can pass through tiny holes in the rubber of condoms. Again, he was not alone. ‘The condom is a cork,’ said Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Spain, ‘and not always effective.’

In 2005 Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, explained that scientific research has never proven that condoms ‘immunise against infection’. He’s right, they don’t. They stop the virus which kills you from being transmitted during sex. Which is very, very useful of them.

How effective are condoms? It’s wise not to overstate your case. The current systematic review of the literature on this question published by Cochrane found 14 observational studies (because it’s unethical to do a randomised trial where you actively stop people using condoms, since you know that they work, but just want to find out how well they work).

These studies generally looked at HIV transmission in stable couples where only one partner has HIV. Many of them looked at transfusion patients and haemophiliacs. Overall, rates of HIV infection were 80% lower in the partners who reported always using a condom, compared to those who said they never did. 80% is pretty good. I’d like 100%, for everyone’s sake. I have 80% (although condoms do also protect against cervical cancer, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and more).

In fact, there is no single perfect solution to the problem of Aids: if things were that easy, it wouldn’t be killing 2 million people every year. Telling people to abstain doesn’t make everyone abstain, and telling people to use condoms won’t make everyone instantly and consistently use condoms.

You do everything all at once, urgently, because 2 million people are dying every year. ABC is a widely used prevention acronym in Africa: abstain, be faithful, use a condom. Picking one effective measure out and actively campaigning against it is plainly destructive.

Ratzinger has proclaimed that “The most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS is in fact the Catholic Church and her institutions.” This is a ludicrous claim. They’re the only major influential international political organisation that actively tells people not to do something that works, on a huge scale. Their own figures show that their numbers are growing in Africa, even faster than the population does.

I don’t mind what anyone believes, I’m happy for you to suggest abstention. But sabotaging an effective intervention which prevents a disease that kills 2 million people a year makes you a serious global public health problem.

In this, Ratzinger is hardly alone or novel. His predecessor Karol Wjotla (John Paul II) was equally culpable in actively campaigning against sexual protections which could save lives. His support for George Buss II's  "Global Gag Rule" being perhaps the worst of his crimes.

All of which brings home the point that the issues which surround the Pope go further than just one man. Or even one Church.

Yes, Joseph Ratzinger is personally culpable in the global child abuse scandal and should face charges. Equally, the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for in both that scandal and the issue of AIDS in Africa, amongst other things.

But we should not forget that none of this could have happened without religious belief being able to wield the influence it does on the political stage. Whatever model we advocate for a fairer world, to be truly just it has to be unwaveringly secular.

There's no "honour" in killing for morality

From yesterday's Independent, Robert Fisk offers this powerful dispatch;

It is a tragedy, a horror, a crime against humanity. The details of the murders – of the women beheaded, burned to death, stoned to death, stabbed, electrocuted, strangled and buried alive for the "honour" of their families – are as barbaric as they are shameful. Many women's groups in the Middle East and South-west Asia suspect the victims are at least four times the United Nations' latest world figure of around 5,000 deaths a year. Most of the victims are young, many are teenagers, slaughtered under a vile tradition that goes back hundreds of years but which now spans half the globe.

A 10-month investigation by The Independent in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank has unearthed terrifying details of murder most foul. Men are also killed for "honour" and, despite its identification by journalists as a largely Muslim practice, Christian and Hindu communities have stooped to the same crimes. Indeed, the "honour" (or ird) of families, communities and tribes transcends religion and human mercy. But voluntary women's groups, human rights organisations, Amnesty International and news archives suggest that the slaughter of the innocent for "dishonouring" their families is increasing by the year. 

Iraqi Kurds, Palestinians in Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey appear to be the worst offenders but media freedoms in these countries may over-compensate for the secrecy which surrounds "honour" killings in Egypt – which untruthfully claims there are none – and other Middle East nations in the Gulf and the Levant. But honour crimes long ago spread to Britain, Belgium, Russia and Canada and many other nations. Security authorities and courts across much of the Middle East have connived in reducing or abrogating prison sentences for the family murder of women, often classifying them as suicides to prevent prosecutions. 

It is difficult to remain unemotional at the vast and detailed catalogue of these crimes. How should one react to a man – this has happened in both Jordan and Egypt – who rapes his own daughter and then, when she becomes pregnant, kills her to save the "honour" of his family? Or the Turkish father and grandfather of a 16-year-old girl, Medine Mehmi, in the province of Adiyaman, who was buried alive beneath a chicken coop in February for "befriending boys"? Her body was found 40 days later, in a sitting position and with her hands tied. 

Or Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, 13, who in Somalia in 2008, in front of a thousand people, was dragged to a hole in the ground – all the while screaming, "I'm not going – don't kill me" – then buried up to her neck and stoned by 50 men for adultery? After 10 minutes, she was dug up, found to be still alive and put back in the hole for further stoning. Her crime? She had been raped by three men and, fatally, her family decided to report the facts to the Al-Shabab militia that runs Kismayo. Or the Al-Shabab Islamic "judge" in the same country who announced the 2009 stoning to death of a woman – the second of its kind the same year – for having an affair? Her boyfriend received a mere 100 lashes. 

Or the young woman found in a drainage ditch near Daharki in Pakistan, "honour" killed by her family as she gave birth to her second child, her nose, ears and lips chopped off before being axed to death, her first infant lying dead among her clothes, her newborn's torso still in her womb, its head already emerging from her body? She was badly decomposed; the local police were asked to bury her. Women carried the three to a grave, but a Muslim cleric refused to say prayers for her because it was "irreligious" to participate in the namaz-e-janaza prayers for "a cursed woman and her illegitimate children". 

So terrible are the details of these "honour" killings, and so many are the women who have been slaughtered, that the story of each one might turn horror into banality. But lest these acts – and the names of the victims, when we are able to discover them – be forgotten, here are the sufferings of a mere handful of women over the past decade, selected at random, country by country, crime after crime.

The list which follows makes truly astounding, and horrifying reading. The article which accompanies it, telling the story of a rape-victim called Hanan, goes beyond heart-rending.

It is important to note, as Fisk does, that this doesn't boil down to one religion or one country. Rather, it "must be recognised as a mass crime, a tradition of family savagery that brooks no merciful intervention, no state law, rarely any remorse." And it shows how far the movement for women's liberation still has to go.

Is there a solution? That is much harder to say. The key element of campaigning must be to put pressure on the legal systems which allow such crimes to go unpunished. But, as Fisk details in a follow-up report today, it is not an easy path to tread.

Our moral outrage will not stop these unspeakable crimes. But, as in so many areas, consciousness raising and solidarity make vital support mechanisms. The more people who make themselves aware of what is going on, the less that those campaigning and suffering do not do so under the weight of global ignorance.

The Independent's investigation into "honour" crimes continues tomorrow and Thursday. Everybody who professes concern for human rights, womens' rights, and equality would do well to read them.

Burkhas, state bans, and womens' rights in other cultures

In a rare display of common sense prevailing over authoritarianism, Tory immigration minister Damian Green has said it would be "undesirable" for Britain to follow in the footsteps of France and vote on a burkha ban.

Talking to the Sunday Telegraph, he said that this would run contrary to the conventions of a “tolerant and mutually respectful society.” Though that idea was somewhat undermined by his desire to send a "message around the world that Britain is no longer a soft touch on immigration."

Green's views on immigration aside, as I needn't rehash my opinions on the idea that Britain was ever a "soft touch" on immigration, whether or not to ban the burkha is an interesting question.

Views are rather polarised on this subject. On the conservative and nationalist right, the broad consensus is for a full ban on burkhas, and often goes beyond that to other forms of Islamic dress and even architecture. Whereas liberals, multiculturalists, and Islamic conservatives feel that wearing the burkha is a right or even (in the case of the more hardline amongst the latter group) an obligation.

Which is not to mention the extremes on both sides, fascists and Islamists.

For my part, I find myself in agreement with the assesment offered by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown;

White liberals frame this sinister development in terms of free choice and tolerance. Some write letters to this paper: What is the problem? It is all part of the rich diversity of our nation. They can rise to this challenge, show they are superhuman when it comes to liberty and forbearance. 

They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled or their sons became fanatic Islamicists and imposed purdah in the family. Such converts are springing up in Muslim families all over the land. Veils predate Islam and were never an injunction (modesty of attire for men and women is). Cultural protectionism has long been extended to those who came from old colonies, in part to atone for imperial hauteur. Redress was necessary then, not now. 

What about legitimate fears that to criticise vulnerable ethnic and racial groups validates the racism they face? Racism is an evil but should never be used as an alibi to acquit oppressions within black and Asian or religious communities. That cry was used to deter us from exposing forced marriages and dowry deaths and black-upon-black violence. 

Right-wing think tanks and President Sarkozy of France scapegoat Muslims for political gain and British fascists have turned self-inflicted "ethnic" wounds into scarlet propaganda. They do what they always have done. Self-censorship will not stop them but it does stop us from dealing with home-grown problems or articulating objections to reactionary life choices like the burqa. Muslim women who show their hair are becoming an endangered species. We must fight back. Our covered-up sisters do not understand history, politics, struggles, their faith or equality. As Rahila Gupta, campaigner against domestic violence, writes: "This is a cloth that comes soaked in blood. We cannot debate the burqa or the hijab without reference to women in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where the wearing of it are heavily policed and any slippages are met with violence." What happened to solidarity? 

Violent enforcement is evident in Britain too. A fully veiled young chemistry graduate once came to my home, her body covered in cuts, tears, bites, bruises, all happily hidden from view. Security and social cohesion are all threatened by this trend – which is growing exponentially. 

As for the pathetic excuse that covering up protects women from male lasciviousness – it hasn't stopped rapists in the most conservative Muslim nations. And what a slur on decent Muslim men, portrayed as sexual predators who cannot look upon a woman without wanting her. 

We communicate with each other with our faces. To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity. Unreasonable community or nationalistic expectations disconnect essential bonds. Governments should not accommodate such demands. Naturists can't parade on the streets, go to school or take up jobs unless they cover their nakedness. Why should burqaed women get special consideration? 

Their veils are walls, keeping them in and us out.

Where I disagree is where she says "dress codes can be imposed in public-service interactions for a greater good."

Yes, it is undoubtedly true that "whether opted for by the woman or pushed on her by others, the inherent message of the veiled woman is that femininity is treacherous." I also agree that "the overwhelming argument against the burka ... is that there is such a thing as society."

However, it does not follow from this that the state should have the right to dictate what people can and cannot wear. We need to fight for public consensus, not state sanction.

Alibhai-Brown gives an example of this herself;

A traditional Pakistani friend of mine – who always wears the shalwar kameez – recently refused service from a burka-ed librarian in one of our big libraries. The next time she went in, the face was no longer hidden.

Imposing rules from above inspires an attitude of defiance, as was the case when the headscarf became the symbol of the Iranian revolution. Overtly racist violence or intimidation, such as tearing the veil from peoples' faces, creates a fear which sees the oppressed close ranks with their oppressor against external aggressors.

Raising public awareness, especially in tandem with liberal, reformist, or secular muslim groups, is none of these things. It is about consciousness raising, defiance against patriarchy, and solidarity with women.

In a secular society, people are free to practice the religion of their choosing, but also to not practice religion as they see fit. In a truly free society, the one restriction on liberty is that you cannot harm others or limit their freedoms, because basic human rights are universal.

We cannot shrug off these principles, or our opposition to patriarchy, coercion, and authoritarianism, in the name of "diversity" or "tolerance."

The Church's callous hypocrisy as Pope rubs salt in the wounds of abuse victims

From today's Independent;

Pope Benedict XVI is looking into organising a private meeting with victims of clerical abuse during his upcoming state visit to Britain later this summer. 

Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster and leader of Catholics in England and Wales, said today that “careful consideration” was being made by the Vatican into holding some sort of private meeting during his four day visit. 

...

Archbishop Nichols was keen to emphasise that any decision over meeting abuse survivors would not be made to assuage the media or the church’s critics. 

“There will be, as you have seen in previous visits, careful consideration given to whether it is appropriate for the Pope to privately meet with people who have suffered abuse,” he said. “It’s very important that, if such a visit was to take place, it is not seen as a way to use those who have suffered – whose pain is intense and continuing – to satisfy some kind of public agenda or public curiosity. Nobody should be pressing the pope to meet victims of abuse in order to get a good photograph.”

That last sentence smacks of the most brazen and insensitive hypocrisy.

Given that the Catholic Church, right up to the Pope himself, has been involved in the deliberate cover-up of these abuses precisely to prevent bad publicity, it is cynical at best to suggest that it is critics who are after "a good photograph."

That aside, as I've argued before, there should be no question of Joseph Ratzinger even of coming to Britain, let alone meeting the victims of his priests. Especially at our expense.

If Ratzinger wants to meet the victims of abuse conducted by his priests and deliberately covered up by him for "the good of the Universal Church," then should only be allowed to do so at the Hague, wearing shackles.

To repeat myself;

As Geoffrey Robertson argued in the Guardian, this is a case for "international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity." The case must be made that "acts causing harm to mental or physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority" are crimes against humanity. On those grounds, Joseph Ratzzinger must be arrested.

The One Law For All campaign blotted out by the propaganda model

Last Saturday, several hundred people marched on Downing Street as part of the "One Law For All" campaign, "to demand universal rights and secularism."

Members of Islamist sect al-Muhajiroun appeared as part of a counter demonstration, and there were also several people from the EDL hanging around. Yet I missed this. Despite the event being related to a media hot-button issue, and featuring an appearence from known media hate figures, it wasn't covered by the mainstream media.

The reason why soon became clear.

In the words of One Law for All Spokesperson, Maryam Namazie;

The fight against Sharia law is a fight against Islamism not Muslims, immigrants and people living under Sharia here or elsewhere. So it is very apt for the Islamists to hold a counter-demonstration against our rally. This is where the real battleground lies.

With a few members of the far Right English Defence League also there to showcase their bigotry, it became abundantly clear to everyone why our Campaign is fast becoming the banner carrier for universal rights, equality, and one secular law for all in this country and beyond.

In other words, the campaign is not born out of jingoism, reaction, or "patriotism," as the EDL is. There wasn't a national flag in sight, the issue being entirely religious.

That is why this event got little to no coverage. The media sells copy by building up a black-and-white version of this issue, all stereotypes and no substance. A protest by those who are neither with the bearded, freedom-hating extremists nor the flag-waving, quasi-racist nationalists simply doesn't fit the script.

But then, it's not meant to. In contrast to the EDL's crusader image and desire to "represent our culturally rich, “patriotic” and nation-loving populace," One Law For All ask only that "in a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law."

The EDL want to "highlight the danger of appeasing those who wish us harm, those who happily take from our welfare system, yet hate our country, our people and way of life." Removing the right-wing vitriol, One Law For All assert more calmly that "rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs."

There are problems with the One Law For All campaign, of course.

As an anarchist, I would wish that it were not so intently focused on action by the Government and changes to the law. It should recognise that appeals to authority and legislation don't resolve the underlying issues. I would also welcome a class perspective on religious law and authoritarianism.

However, the campaign addresses the core issues well. It articulates perfectly that the issue at hand is liberty, equality, and human rights. It is about "defending the rights of everyone irrespective of religion, race, nationality." Not patriotism and waving the flag.

This is a point worth remembering as the mainstream media ignores such campaigns and instead draws the battle lines between "extremists" and "patriots."

Addressing the problem of the English Defence League

This should have been resolved by now. The debate continues about how to address the problem of the English Defence League (EDL). The only problem is that both sides of the debate are wrong.

In yesteray's Independent, Rob Williams said that "as reprehensible as the ideas the EDL/WDL are, they are not a serious threat to the social cohesion of the UK." As such, "the argument could be made that letting the police treat the WDL protests as a public order issue, whilst the rest of us to stay out of it is the best approach."

This is a common argument from liberal statists and centrists. For them, "this isn’t the 1930s, and this isn’t the rise of Nazism or Fascism." Groups such as the EDL can be safely ignored on the grounds that, like a two-year old, they thrive on the attention.

To a degree, this is true. The EDL, as the BNP, gain support by presenting themselves as the voice of opposition to the establishment. They want to build up a black and white image in peoples' heads that it's the ruling class, the anti-fascists, and any other bogeyman of their choosing, against them. Press coverage helps them build that picture, ignoring the more complex reality in order to build up the idea of everyone versus fascism in some kind of a cataclysmic showdown.

But this is a question not of attention but of propaganda. All the attention levelled at fascists may help their cause, but it also helps the establishment - as I argued with Nick Griffin's appearence on Question Time.

The answer is not to ignore them, quite simply because those the EDL appeal to are the ignored and marginalised of society. Some may side with this rag-tag organisation because they're racists looking for a barney, but most harbour quite genuine grievances and - in the absence of anything else - turn to the EDL because they're saying the right things.

This is why Unite Against Fascism's (UAF) approach is also ineffective and even counter-productive.

All of these issues are lost in cries of "Nazi scum off our streets" by a group which is happy to align itself with anybody from the leader of the government which is currently attacking the working class to openly bigotted Muslim "leader" Iqbal Sacranie. They really do want an alliance of everyone against the fascists, no matter how unsavoury some elements of that "everyone" may be.

A prime example is the recent protest in Tower Hamlets. The EDL were due to protest an event held by Islamists called "The Book That Shook The World." Local groups issued a statement "against fascism in all its colours," which denounced the EDL and the Islamic Forum of Europe with "their very reactionary version of political Islam." By contrast, UAF called the event "a peace conference, organised by a Muslim charitable foundation and aimed at building understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims" and those who thought differently (such as the Whitechapel Anarchist group) were soon accused of racism.

This is why the EDL hold credibility when they claim that UAF "support Muslim extremists." The group, essentially just a recruiting front for the Socialist Workers' Party, is so desperate for its "broad and common front" against fascism to work that it won't criticise anybody but the EDL and BNP.

The English Defence League is a reactionary organisation which serves to divide the working class against itself. But so, too, are the groups on the Islamic far-right. The only sensible response, as the locals did in Tower Hamlets, is to unite the working class to "be on guard against Fascism in whatever form it occurs."

In the words of the WAG;

The wellspring of unity lies in the common ground that we share and the action we are prepared to take in the fight for a better future for all; regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religion. Solidarity is our weapon and our message is clear: CLASS WAR NOT RACE WAR!

I couldn't agree more.

The militant antifascist tradition tells us how to deal with Islamic wingnuts

On Tuesday, a march by the Royal Anglian Regiment was disrupted by Islamist protesters. A previously unheard of group called "Muslims Against Crusades" echoed the actions of the now-defunct Islam4UK, chanting "murderers, murderers," and "British troops go to hell."

This repeat performance was met with more resistance than last time. As the Evening Standard reports "about 100 men — wearing English Defence League T-shirts and shouting “scum”, “Muslim bombers off our streets” and “Allah, Allah, who the f***k is Allah” — surged out of the nearby Barking Dog pub and surrounded the Muslims." The clash ended when the Islamists were driven behind a steel barricade and eventually led away to the train station.

Just as happened in Luton, there has been a massive media outcry.

The Daily Mail led with "into the jaws of hate," describing the Islamists as "screaming hate and brandishing vile placards." The Daily Star insists that, despite no corroboration in other press reports, the group "spat at" the soldiers. The Sun called the protest "sick." Nile Gardiner, writing for the Telegraph, demands that "it’s about time that Muslim leaders in the U.K. actually took a stand and denounced en masse extremists like this, as well as pay tribute to the sacrifice of British forces fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Before anything else, I must repeat the point I made after the Luton protests;

If this is a democracy, then the absolute right to protest anything and to say anything - even if it is offensive, ignorant, or wrong - should be a basic, universal benchmark. If it is not, then we cannot claim to be living in a democracy or to have freedom of speech.

This is not just a point of principle, but of practicality. Islamism doesn't exist because Muslims haven't been told sternly enough they're not allowed to be extremists.

It exists, like nationalism and fascism, because people lack an outlet for very real grievances or concerns. It is a reactionary movement which preys upon those concerns and twists them to suit a divisive and authoritarian agenda.

As with far-right groups like the BNP, censorship only gives them credibility. By playing the card as martyrs to free speech, suppressed by the current system, they are able to appeal to those disenfranchised by that same system. The more we try to deny their opinions a public airing or even ban them from existence, the more their message resonates with those who (for very different reasons) are fed up with the authorities doing the banning.
But if this conservative approach is doomed to failure, so too is the more liberal approach. Trying to reason with so-called "extremists" from the point of view of the dominant power structure is an exercise in futility.

Yet again, we have parallels with antifascism. People aren't drawn to the BNP because the conservative mainstream isn't offering a "moderate" form of fascist policies nor because middle-class liberals haven't shouted at them and called them "nasty" and "racist" loud enough. They are drawn to it because it offers an answer to the problems caused by the dominant political class. That this answer is fascist and built upon racist scapegoating is entirely irrelevant when there is nothing else to replace it with.

Likewise, Muslims don't turn to Islamism because they lack "moderate" forms of the bigotry and cultural imperialism that ideology offers. Nor do they do so because they haven't been told by flag-waving non-Muslims how "evil" it is and that they should "pay tribute to the sacrifice of British forces fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."
The Sun quotes Muslims Against Crusdaes leader Abu Assadullah thus;

We are quite disgusted by the fact these murderers that raped our people are coming back and they are being honoured for doing something wrong. These people have been killing and raping and pillaging in Islamic countries and they should not be welcomed home. As Muslims, we wanted to make a stand.

The families of the soldiers are not the only ones with feelings. We also have feelings, our fellow Muslims are being butchered. Islam is not a violent religion but we will use violence if necessary to defend ourselves. Democracy is failing, that was clear as this year we had a hung parliament. Islam is the alternative.

People in this country are very patriotic. They support Britain even if the country has done something wrong. We want to show that there is an alternative. Sharia law would provide an alternative, it would provide balance in the UK.

People say ‘don’t take it out on the soldiers, they are just doing their jobs’. But how it when Osama Bin Laden blows up a plane or a building he is a terrorist. It is not that he is just doing his job – this is a double standard. They are both killing.

A large part of this argument is dominated by the rhetoric of the batshit crazy.

There is no serious argument for the idea that Osama bin Laden is "just doing his job." He is, after all, an ideological leader of the al-Qaeda network. This was almost certainly not a position offered in the jobs section of the Helmland Echo, and as heir to a vast oil fortune he could more than afford to not be involved in terrorism.

Soldiers, on the other hand, are working class. They have to sell their labour in order to feed and clothe themselves and their families, and it just so happens that their labour has been bought by the armed wing of the state. Are they culpable if, as individuals, they commit attrocities? Absolutely. And, as with the Bloody Sunday inquiry, they should be held accountable. But to say that they are responsible for the war itself, illegal though it may be, is utterly absurd.

But within this rhetoric are more reasonable points which deserve to be addressed. The idea that the military "are being honoured for doing something wrong" will resonate with everyone who has objections to the war.

Organisers and supporters claim that parades and events which honour "our" troops are non-political and separate from the question of whether we should have gone to war. But the idea that soldiers are "fighting for freedom" or are - by virtue of their very uniform - "heroes" is a political statement. Can one fight for freedom in an illegal war of aggression?

That stating the above will be met with instant fury by many "patriots" only emphasises Assadullah's statement that people "support Britain even if the country has done something wrong." This, too, is an area of concern for those alienated from the system or ostracised for being critical of the actions of the state. Organisations like Muslims Against Crusades appear because the only people articulating these concerns add that "Sharia law would provide an alternative, it would provide balance in the UK."

And, of course, this suits the ruling class fine. If those who do dissent are most often pulled into reactionary movements, this means that genuinely radical organisations cannot emerge to challenge the status quo. Moreover, the hatred and fear that such extremists (understandably) evoke fuels the aggressive patriotism that cements the position of those in power.

This is why opposition to Islamism should not come from the state or from "patriots." It should come from ordinary Muslims, not out of a demand for patriotic loyalty but with the support and solidarity of antifascists. Moreover, it has to be couched in the tradition of militant, working class self-defence.

If we are made to choose between the "patriotism" and "extremism," we should strongly reject both.

Violence, murder, and economics in Somalia

Today, via Anok, I came across this story in the Guardian;

An Islamist rebel administration in Somalia has had a 13-year-old girl stoned to death for adultery after the child's father reported that she was raped by three men.

Amnesty International said al-Shabab militia, which controls the southern city of Kismayo, arranged for 50 men to stone Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow in front of about 1,000 spectators. A lorry load of stones was brought to the stadium for the killing. 

Amnesty said Duhulow struggled with her captors and had to be forcibly carried into the stadium.

"At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue," the human rights group said. It continued: "Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander."

Amnesty said Duhulow was originally reported by witnesses as being 23 years old, based on her appearance, but established from her father that she was a child. He told Amnesty that when they tried to report her rape to the militia, the child was accused of adultery and detained. None of the men accused was arrested. 

This is, absolutely and unequivocally, beneath contempt.

There simply aren't words to describe how horrendous this act is. One cannot contemplate just how warped somebody's priorities must be that they judge "adultery" to be a greater crime than rape, even when forced. By what insane and barbarous logic is hurling stones at a terrified young girl, who has already suffered an unimaginable ordeal, until her spirit breaks and her body dies considered any form of justice?

As David Copeman, an Amnesty International campaigner in Somalia, said, "this was not justice, nor was it an execution ... [it] is yet another human rights abuse committed by the combatants to the conflict in Somalia." It is also proof of the stateent that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit attrocities.

But that is not all that is wrong with this picture. Recently, Time magazine asked "whether the international community is willing to take the political risk of accepting the emergence of a Taliban-like authority in Somalia" in order to tackle the problem of piracy. The answer, because "the transitional government and international community have to start dealing with all the actors that regular Somalis identify as part of the nation's life," appears to be yes.

Though the US intervened in the country to topple the Islamist government in the early 1990s, those same religious fanatics have now become preferable to the pirates whose success in taking hostages and claiming ransoms is unprecedented. Officially, western backing is with the transitional government against which the Islamists are rebelling, but it is clear that these rebels - fighting for the politics of reaction - are preferrable to the pirates whose motivations are rooted in the interest of ordinary Somalis.

That interest, of course, is defence against toxic waste dumping and illegal trawling, and it is an unanswerable condemnation of western foreign policy that the world's powers would back maniacs who kill rape victims in the name of justice against those trying to prevent depletion of food sources and destruction of the environment.

Perhaps that is why they are a "global threat," the focus of an international conference on Somalia taking place next week,whilst religious fanatics do not get a mention.

The latter do not so obviously threaten "Somalia's private sector, international businesses, and governments," whose plans "to launch new initiatives for reconstruction and job creation" will probably follow the standard IMF model of "structural readjustment." The anarcho-capitalists of the Ludwig von Mises institute were quick to rave about this when it was tried three years ago, and yet neither the "small number of international investors" not the "burgeoning" telecommunications industry boosted prosperity for anybody but themselves, and people continue to flee war, tyranny, and turmoil in record numbers.

The solution to this problem is not clear. What is apparent is that supporting Islamists to get rid of pirates does nothing for those caught up in this vicious cycle of violence. Improvements will not come until the "security" of business and investors is no longer put ahead of the basic welfare of Somalis.

Seeing Muhammad in a bear suit harms nobody

Yesterday, an Islamist group warned Trey Parker and Matt Stone that they could face violent recriminations for an episode of South Park which features Muhammad ibn 'Abdullāh - the Prophet of Islam - in a bear suit.

On the blog of the American group, Revolution Muslim, they said this;

This past week South Park aired an episode which insulted three of our beloved prophets: Musa (Moses), ‘Isa (Jesus), and Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Not only did they do this, but within the episode the makers of South Park made it very clear that they knew how the Muslims would feel and potentially respond to their show. In an effort to cover their actual intention to incite, the creators of South Park carefully contrived a plotline that they believed could only stump those Muslim extremists that may arise to defend the honor of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). They wished to degrade and mock a man who is held in highest regard by Muslims and many Non-Muslims alike, and indeed many have categorized Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the most influential human being that ever walked on Earth.

By placing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a bear suit, the creators of South Park sought to insult the sacred, and show their blatant and general disregard for religion. By insulting our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) without the outright depicting of his image, the creators of South Park thought that they had found some loophole in the Muslim faith for them to mock.

Except Parker and Stone weren't looking for a loophole. They were just mocking. As they said in an interview with BB Video, "it would be so hypocritical against our own thoughts to say 'okay, well, let's not make fun of them because they might hurt us.' That's messed up to have that kind of thought process, y'know. Let's rip on the Catholics cause they won't hurt us, but let's not rip on them cause they might hurt us. That's not us."

But the point, as ever, is lost on the Islamist wingnuts. Revolution Muslim find it "hard to understand how one can feel self-righteous while defending somebody as an “equal opportunity offender." This argument, they say, must "emanate from a selfish culture in which the suffering of the many is justified by the enjoyment of the few." Except, of course, that there is no suffering - at least not until the many who believe in free speech are attacked by the few who subscribe to Islamism.

Ah, but, "free speech is a vital tool in the staving of oppression, but this function has its limits." But then, most sensible people would argue that threats of violence are more worthy of censorship than cartoons of a long-dead, illiterate desert dweller. 

Not so Revolution Muslim. They "have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show." Hell, they go further and quote a supposedly renowned scholar as saying "if someone says that the button of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is dirty, then he should be executed!"

The outrage that I'm sure we all feel is somewhat muted by the fact that this is not new territory for South Park. I don't mean the episode where Cartman used the fact that Family Guy was going to depict Muhammad as an excuse to shut the show down. I'm referring to a much earlier episode, titled Super Best Friends, which had him as part of a deity-superhero council.

But, as Parker and Stone point out, that was before the "Danish cartoon thing." And even then, "if everyone had just, like normally they do in the news organisations, printed the cartoons and all rallied together," nothing would have happened. Instead, they "left him out to dry."

No doubt there would have still been an outcry, but solidarity would have reduced it to an irrelevant rabble and quashed the threat. Instead, we have a bunch of lunatics - who commit a grave logical fallacy by constantly quoting the Qu'ran in order to "prove" the message of the Qu'ran - threatening people with violence for the slightest perceive offence to the religion they claim to practice.

We would be better rid of these people. Their message is a reactionary one which offers nothing to working class Muslims except violence, hate, and false promises. More than that, these idiots offer fuel for the fire of their opposite numbers in the white nationalist movement. Neither side offers a solutions to the problems of capitalism, and unlike the fascists the Islamists don't even pretend to.

Why, for example, is depicting Muhammad worthy of death when the oppressive regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia aren't even worthy of comment? Ordinary Muslims, both in groups and as individuals, have spoken out vociferously against the crimes and oppression of Islamic regimes - see, for example Yasmin Alibhai Brown's opposition to Sharia law. But Islamists, as supporters and promoters of exactly this kind of brutality, remain silent.

That is important to remember when they talk about "suffering" in relation to cartoons. Whilst they support the "right" of the long-dead to not be caricatured, they do not support the right of the living to think freely or to live and love as they so wish.

Revolution Muslim finish by quoting Osama bin Laden, "if there is no check in the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions." In response, I finish by quoting Charles Bradlaugh;

Without free speech no search for truth is possible… no discovery of truth is useful… Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.

The case to arrest the Pope

Last Friday, the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal became even more explosive with the revelation that the Pope (head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of the incident) had signed a letter "delaying Church action against a paedophile priest." This is the most compelling proof yet of his complicity in the cover-up of child rape for the "good of the Universal Church."

This comes six days after journalist Johann Hari, on Dateline London, made the case that Joseph Ratzinger should be arrested for a conspiracy to cover up grave abuses (part 1, part 2, part 3). As he put it;

The paper trail goes to Ratzinger … The language of mistakes and repentance is wrong. This is a matter of criminal law. We’re talking about an international criminal conspiracy to cover up the rape of children that enabled that rape to go on for a very long period. It’s not enough to say sorry. If you’re sorry, hand yourself over to the police and let them investigate it.

Hari will be pleased to learn, then, that Professor Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have taken up his cause. The Times reports that they "have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church" using "the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998."

On his website, Dawkins has denied being so "personally grandiloquent" as to want to slap the cuffs on himself. However, he does wholeheartedly support the idea. According to him, the Catholic Church is a "profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution" and must be challenged. I won't hesitate to agree with this, or with Christopher Hitchens' assessment that the pope "is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."

Here, I wish to repeat my previous insistence that - in line with my wider views of crimes against children - what awaits Ratzinger should not be a baying lynch mob, and that the issue should not be drowned in hysteria. What is at issue here is the deliberate, institutional cover-up of child abuse, and those involved should face justice.

Vengeance is no more appropriate than overt protection for the "good of the Universal Church." As Geoffrey Robertson argued in the Guardian, this is a case for "international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity." The case must be made that "acts causing harm to mental or physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority" are crimes against humanity. On those grounds, Joseph Ratzzinger must be arrested.

Opposing the morally bankrupt Catholic hierarchy

Today "a leading Vatican cardinal has called for "housecleaning" as paedophile priest scandals from Italy to Ireland pile pressure on Pope Benedict," BBC News reports. Walter Kasper, head of the ecumenical council, has called for a "culture of alertness and bravery" and said that victims should come first. That he is the first leader to make such a pronouncement exposes the moral bankruptcy of the Catholic hierarchy.

After Joseph Ratzinger, now operating under the title of Pope Benedict XVI, issued an apology for a sex abuse scandal within the Church in Ireland, it emerged that he had failed to act on abuse reports in the 1990s. But this is only the tip of the iceberg in a global child sex abuse scandal which implicates not only those who carried out the acts, but a battery of prominent figures in Catholicism who either failed to act or actively protected the guilty.

Before we go any further, there is a need for rationality and perspective on this issue. Whilst the crimes themselves are utterly grotesque, in themselves they are an indictment only of the individuals who committed them. I am not for an instant suggesting that all Catholics, or even all Catholic priests, indulge in this behaviour. There is absolutely no need to resort to any kind of anti-Catholic hysteria, not least because the victims and their families are, themselves, Catholic.

Likewise, I am not calling for those who perpetrated the acts to receive any kind of barbarous retribution. I have previously been very outspoken against the mob hysteria that crimes against children can (quite understandably) evoke, and I stick by that. Whether these men are guilty, and what their punishment should be, should be decided in a fair trial by an impartial jury.

No, my point here is about the willingness of the Catholic hierarchy - right up to Ratzinger - to turn a blind eye to and cover up these crimes. Whatever their motives, this is nothing less than complicity, and those involved should face trial as accesories as surely as those who committed the original abuse should be tried. That they will not, due to the "respect" they command as religious leaders, is an indictment of our attitude towards organised religion in the West. It also puts the (remote) possiblity that Ratzinger could resign over the affair into perspective as a pale insult.

A further question that needs to be raised in this affair is the link between the suppression of sexuality in religious institutions and attrocious crimes. Such abuse is nowhere near as widespread in other Christian denominations as it is within the Catholic Church. The link has to be made between this fact and the vow of celibacy that ordained Catholic priests make. Especially given the strong possiblity of a link between sexual repression and rape.

Meanwhile, Joseph Ratzinger is due to visit Britain in September. The visit will be funded to the tune of £20 million by British taxpayers, and a movement has already arisen in opposition to this. But more needs to be done. The issue isn't that Ratzinger's visit is taxpayer-funded, but that it is happening at all. We should be making him accountable for his crimes, not rolling out the red carpet.

We, non-Catholic and Catholic alike, must demand to know why this man is being revered as an honoured guest whilst complicit in a massive cover-up of child abuse. If we get no answer, then the ony option left is to take to the streets in protest against him and the corrupt hierarchy he sits atop.

Why the right to die goes hand in hand with the right to live

A basic precept of individual liberty is self-ownership. You have the supreme authority over your own thoughts and actions, provided that you do not violate the rights of others, without interference from any governing power. As such, when the BBC ask "should assisted suicide be legal," the only answer I can give is "yes."

The question itself is motivated by two high-profile cases in point. Frances Inglis has been jailed for life for the murder of her son, who existed in a permanent, vegetative state. Kay Gilderdale, on the other hand, was acquited of attempted murder after assisting the suicide of a terminally-ill daughter who begged for death. Meanwhile, novelist and early-onset Alsheimers patient Terry Pratchett has volunteered to be a test case for assisted suicide tribunals.

There are important questions to be asked as we enter this arena. The idea of "tribunals" is a good idea because it allows for any potential abuse - i.e. the vulnerable being pressured into a suicide they do not want by family eager for an inheritance - to be rooted out, without leaving the long-suffering to beg for death and suffer unending agony before it comes. Looking towards the animal kingdom and the vetinary profession, it seems that, faced with intractable suffering before an inevitable death, we are the only species not to be spared the agony.

But, it seems, we have many reactionary hurdles to overcome before this is rectified. Typical of the "pro-life" lobby is M R Hall, whose sophistry borders on the obscene;

But what about the sufferers, don't they have a right to escape their pain? No, not if we believe that life is sacred. We've become so used to the idea that suffering is to be avoided at all costs, that the very notion that we might have to bear it is seen as a violation of some emerging right to a minimum level of comfort. But suffering has a positive purpose. Of course it's tough for the sufferer, but it's only through witnessing the pain and agony of others that we properly develop empathy and compassion. Many of us will suffer at our end, and for years beforehand; but, I would maintain, we have a duty to tolerate our suffering as a sacrifice for the respect our society has learned to accord to life generally: only through coping with and witnessing our suffering will rising generations gain true respect for the miracle of conception and all that follows it.

In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins recounts Richard Swinburne's attempts to use just such a justification for the Holocaust. Peter Atkins's response to Swinburne - "may you rot in hell" - is topped only by Devil's Kitchen's response to Hall. He "might be the biggest cunt in the world."

Likewise, flak-outlet Biased BBC's suggestion that those who support assisted suicide, especially the BBC, "love death like we love life" is nothing short of hysteria. Not least for the title "Death Panels."

From at least the most outspoken of its opponents, we can expect little to no rational debate on the subject of assisted suicide. And such sophisms as are on offer are not only an insult to reason, but also to those who face the realities of this subject every day and utterly below contempt. The moral crusades seen in the United States, where congregations of religious zealots use the legislature to keep people alive against their own and their family's wishes, are a potent example of this.

Pratchett, lucid, articulate, and wishing assisted death for himself when his suffering becomes too great, sums it up better than I can;

If granny walks up to the tribunal and bangs her walking stick on the table and says 'Look, I've really had enough, I hate this bloody disease, and I'd like to die thank you very much young man', I don't see why anyone should stand in her way.

Choice is very important in this matter. But there will be some probably older, probably wiser GPs, who will understand. The tribunal would be acting for the good of society as well as that of the applicant – and ensure they are of sound and informed mind, firm in their purpose, suffering from a life-threatening and incurable disease and not under the influence of a third party.

The right to live is an important one. Nobody should be permitted to take somebody else's life against their will by force or coercion, and this includes cases of terminal illness. But nobody is advocating such a thing. What we are saying, as opponents resort to hyperbole, superstition, and sophistry, is that though life is a right it is not an obligation. Alongside the right to live by our own volition, we should have the right to die under the same conditions. As Pratchett says, "my life, my death, my choice."

The trial of Geert Wilders and freedom of speech

Eight days ago, right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders went on trial, charged with incitement and discrimination against Muslims. According to the Times, "Wilders, who has made no secret of his ambition to become Prime Minister, has called his indictment a political trial but the Amsterdam Court of Appeal decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute him because his comments have been “so insulting to Muslims”."

Wilders is something of a hero to those who believe that Islam represents the greatest threat to freedom and civilisation, not least because of the martyr status attributed to him. This trial comes after the debacle last year in which Home Secretary Jacqui Smith attempted to ban him from entering Britain only, in an irony no doubt lost on anti-immigrant groups who support him, to have the decision overturned by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

Douglas Murray of the Telegraph sums up the sentiments of the Dutch MP's supporters;

There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.

...

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.

Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.

If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.

The trial, then, is one against freedom of speech. "The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with.  Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said."

It is no secret that I disagree entirely with the notion that the West either is or should be at war with Islam. Islam will not dominate the world, and those so preoccupied with it are usually motivated by either some form of bigotry or by the fact that they are - not to put too fine a point on it - batshit crazy. There are serious issues to be raised with Islamic countries, from the subjugation of women, the oppression of homosexuals, and suppression of basic freedoms to the very fact that Thoecracies still exist in the 21st century. And preachers of hateful and extremist doctrines, such as Anjem Choudary, need to be condemned as vociferously as are Christian hate preachers from the US and the fascists of the far-right.

But none of this amounts to a culture war. It certainly does not amount to a negation of workers' struggles, anti-capitalism, and anti-imperialism. And it is no excuse for being taken in by the crusading rhetoric of the US and Britain as they wage wars for control of strategic markets and resources. Wilders is no hero, boldly warning Europe as its culture is threatened from within. He is a reactionary with an axe to grind, dragging us away from the real struggles we face into the murky waters of single-issue identity politics.

However, just as his views are a distraction from reality, so is the legislative opposition to his views. Yes, he should be opposed, but that can be done with relative ease using only reason. As with the proscription of Islam4UK or the legal measures against the British National Party's "whites-only" constitution in Britain, his prosecution benefits only the state by granting it more power to suppress freedom of thought, speech, and association.

Even the most hateful and inflammatory of opinions, short of direct incitement to violence, must be recognised as within the mandate of free expression. Though, of course, agitating for a free and equal society requires that such views are opposed, and attempts to enforce them met with physical resistance, there must be no recourse to censorship.

If they are not universal, extended to even the most loathsome elements of society, basic freedoms such as freedom of speech mean nothing at all.