The Gray Monk

« Terror strikes home | Main | Ain't technology wonderful?! »

June 02, 2004

Day by day ....

Each day it seems that this government or one of its favourite think tanks comes up with some new piece of twisted and corrupted logic. Listening to the news this morning was a bad move for my blood pressure - there on the TV screen was a po-faced member of the team who pronounced in disapproving tones that the rise of "Islamophobia" since 9/11 in Britain will give rise to a backlash from disaffected Islamic youth. She proposed in all seriousness that the government should bring in a law to make it an offence to promote religious hatred!

Excuse me, but I thought we already had one. It has been used exclusively against Christians who have had the temerity to question or challenge anti-Christian statements or remarks about matters of Christian belief or doctrine. These prosecutions echo the perceived wisdom that only Muslims can be offended by remarks about their religion. Apart from anything else, if this group of PC fanatics get their way, it would be an offence to write what I am writing here today!

Let us look at the facts of this perceived "Islamophobia" and its causes, then let us ask ourselves if this is indeed something that should be addressed in law.

First, the link to 9/11 makes it plain that even the authors of this report acknowledge, even if it is in a backhanded and begrudging manner, that the poor image that Islam now enjoys is largely due to the FACT that the twin towers atrocity and the Pentagon (and possibly a third target) were all the work of Islamic extremists whose avowed aim is to drag the West into a perverted vision of Islam based on the 7th Century "Ideal" world they seem to think should be the model for civilisation. The ongoing fanaticism in the Middle East, the ranting of Abu Hamza, and several other Muslim "Clerics" all promoting a war on the West and the imposition of death sentences for offences against Islam on anyone who dares to challenge them or disagrees with them seems to have found no place in their reasoning in concluding that non-Muslims should be forced to accept the superiority of Islam over all other religions and stifling any debate.

Personally I find this offensive. This is primarliy because, under this present government, Islam is promoted as "preferable" to Christianity, more "peaceful", less threatening than all those nasty Christians who have imposed Christianity for so long on a reluctant population. The rise of Atheist and Humanist thinking and its promotion in our Universities and Schools is also a Government sponsored initiative - in fact anything that is non-Christian or anti-Christian is now "de riguer" in the minds of those in favour of promoting their "multi-cultural" vision. Sadly this is also true of the rising promotion of anti-semitisim which is a by product of promoting the anti-Christian and anti-Judeo-Christian standpoint.

So, what is the agenda, and why are most "thinking" people actually rather worried by the promotion of Islam to the status of "preference" by this government? Why is there a growing backlash against this promotion?

Well, let's look at the facts of the matter. Islam is a religion which allows no debate or interpretation - officially. That is to say that the Mullahs are the sole interpreters; what they say goes. It is also a religion that does not permit anyone to have second thoughts. There is a death penalty if you wish to leave it or change to something else. Women are chattels, there for the pleasure of men and the possession of men. I am always saddened by the teenage girls who chant the mantra of "my veil sets me free". Any one of them is a person who refuses to see that she is simply accepting her own imprisonment and allowing the view that her sex/gender makes her somehow inferior. (And I know that I will get a howl of protest for that one!). It is also a religion that proclaims itself a religion of peace - but has always been spread by war on anyone who does not accept it by any other means. It is a religion which proclaims that homosexuals should be stoned to death, that any deviation from the proclaimed will of the Mullahs should be punished by death, and a religion that breeds fanatics whose vision of heaven sounds remarkably like a brothel with a free pass for eternity to me. (And yes, I do know that there are Christian fanatics as well!)

Perhaps we should also draw a veil over the regular murder of women and girls who have "brought disgrace on their families" by dating non-Muslim boys or refusing to toe the line and marry some peasant boy from Afghanistan or Pakistan that the family have arranged for her. These are frequently disguised as "suicides" but those of us who have had to deal with the aftermath of these supposed "accidents" and "self-immolations" are all too well aware of the wall of silence and the deliberate untruths that are told by the relatives when these are investigated. In my book that makes it a religion which practices ritual murder.

Then we come to the attitude of the supposedly dissaffected youth. They have set themselves apart by adopting attitudes which are in conflict with the freedoms this society offers them. And by their espousal of the openly hostile preaching of men like Abu Hamza.

If there is a growing "Islamophobia" I would suggest that the place to start addressing it is not among the non-Muslim community, but among Muslims themselves. Let them ask themselves why so many people find their behaviour and their attitudes offensive. Let them first address the cancer that is promoting such a negative image of their religion that it is creating this loathing among those who are not "of the faith". Let them acknowledge that they are not the "victims" anymore but the creators of their own misfortunes.

This is not a situation in which another law will help. That is more likely to produce an even stronger backlash as people realise that their freedom of speech is being further eroded and extended to freedom of thought as well. Well intentioned though this report may be, it is likely to inspire the opposite effect. People are already angry at the erosion in the name of "fairness" of their rights; this may well be a step too far.

I hope that Mr Blair and his company of cretins think very carefully before they leap into legislation on this one - it may well produce a response far opposite to what they want.

Posted by The Gray Monk at June 2, 2004 11:30 AM

Comments

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at June 2, 2004 12:32 PM

Posted by: Laban Tall at June 2, 2004 09:44 PM

Posted by: IXLNXS at June 2, 2004 09:48 PM