Recommended: Planet Politics

As a follow up to my piece last week on Nigel Farage's views on the burka and British society, I'd recommend this excellent piece by Stuart Winton where he contrasts the wearing of the burka with the Naked Rambler's ongoing battle with the law over his "right" to walk naked around the country.

A rather strange conflation of two divergent examples and yet the point he makes is interesting - the relationship between individual freedom, toleration and cultural norms and values. Well worth a read.

Read more...

Nigel Farage's Britain

I see Nigel Farage is doing his hopes of taking John Bercow's House of Commons seat no favours with his calls for banning the wearing of the burka and other face-covering veils by Muslim women. He reckons it is a symbol of "an increasingly divided Britain." Critics, including Schools Secretary Ed Balls, have said it is "not British" to tell people what to wear.

For me, I think Farage is wrong. I also think Balls is wrong - quite how something can be "not British" when you can't actually define what "British" means is beyond me - but that is a different debate. I don't think ANY government should intervene in personal religious choice (with exceptions in obvious cases of harm etc). Again, I guess that raises questions over whether wearing a burka is a choice and not forced. But again, that is another debate.

The question I really want to ask is this: how far must those who move to a country - any country - conform to that particular country's culture?

That question is at the heart of Farage's comments - and at the heart of this debate. In essence, Farage's comments suggest you should leave your religious/political and social baggage at the airport on your arrival in the UK. Multiculturalism is unacceptable to the former UKIP leader. Instead, immigrants should be forced to assimilate to the dominant culture within the UK - I guess just as soon as we work out what that is.

Now, I may be slightly exaggerating Farage's position - but that really is the end point of what he is suggesting. He makes a fair point about "divided society" (incidentally, a point Cameron's Conservatives have been making for several years) and offers his own solution, a solution which the liberal UK isn't quite ready for. Especially a liberal UK that is already fighting fascism in the face of the BNP.

I return to the question though. How much conformity are we looking for? Look at the US, a veritable salad-bowl (Standard Grade Modern Studies terminology) of cultures, immigrants retaining their own sense of identity and distinctive culture but becoming part of something larger. Look also at the levels of violence in the US, the cross-cultural trouble, gangland warfare and racial tension.

A multicultural ideal is just that - an ideal. A laudable aim. But the notion that all cultures can peacefully co-exist, without any cross-cultural tension is as wrong as it is naive. And that naivety is perhaps what Balls is looking for when he is defining what it means to be British.

Read more...

The world keeps turning

Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time then. I watched it, and so, I'll guess, did about 5 or so million other people. Yousuf didn't - and now wants to know what the outcome was. You can let him know here.

I'm not going to review it, except to say that I thought the politicians did well when they presented a united front against Nick Griffin - and floundered when they were attacking each other. Yet they attacked with respect and dignity - always "Mr Griffin said" this and "Mr Griffin did" that. And Bonnie Greer's tactics were spectacularly good - being a non-white face on the panel, she was seated next to the BNP leader and gently chided him throughout as "Nick". The audience, I guess, were a bit of a braying mob - though some of what Griffin said did get some sporadic applause (when he wasn't his true racist self). Iain Dale has a fine review here.

Anyway, the point I made before is the point I will make again. Those who were opposed to a Nick Griffin appearing on the show are entitled to their views but their attempts to fight fascism with fascist actions - stopping freedom of speech, ignoring the legitimacy of a democratic election - fall somewhat short of the standards they have set for themselves.

Peter Hain spectacularly misses the point when he says that the BBC have done the BNP a favour by granting them publicity when the reaction to his appearance on Question Time has done more to put him in the spotlight than anything the BBC has done. All the Beeb did was offer the guy a microphone - legitimately elected though that the guy is, he has a right to speak. It's up to politicians of all hues to dissect his argument - not the role of the BBC to censor.

Really interesting exchange between Scotland on Sunday editor Kenny Farquharson and Scottish Green co-leader Patrick Harvie on Twitter:

Kenny:

is confused about people who call themselves liberals - they'll let a mass murderer go free but won't let an elected politician on the BBC

Patrick:

@KENNYFARQ An elected *fascist* politician should not be treated the same as others. And Megrahi's not free. He's dying.

Kenny:

@patrickharvie So a vote for a fascist is worth less, democratically, than a vote for another politician? That's a curious democracy.

Patrick:

@KENNYFARQ The vote's worth the same. But the BBC's a public service broadcaster; exists to serve the common good, which BNP opposes.

I have to side with the journalist (for a change). It is a curious democracy when you are willing to overlook close to one million votes because you don't like what someone says. It is a dark day for liberal democracy when we go down that path.

Read more...

Unite against fascism - become a fascist

I had to switch off BBC news 'coz the protesters were driving me nuts. By all means make your point, protest, make a bit of noise. But don't make the argument that somehow you are standing up against fascism by trying to ban fascists from speaking. Surely that is a paradoxical position?

The BNP have had much more exposure from this furore than they would have gotten from just being on TV tonight - just as they did when student protesters stopped Nick Griffin from debating at the Oxford Debating Union.

All that these protesters are doing is providing him with a martyr role - and he'll exploit that no end. Iain Dale has a good take on this here.

Why can't you protesters exercise your democratic right this evening to switch off the TV when he's on Question Time? Just like I'm doing right now.

Read more...

Our democracy: just or well?

Or just Orwell?

I'm with my blogging comrade Scottish Tory Boy on this. Just as the use of counter-terrorism legislation in the wake of the Icelandic banking collapse was ludicrous, so too the heavy-handed arrest of Tory MP and Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green on charges of "conspiring to commit misconduct in public office" are ridiculous.

Basically the guy is doing his job as an opposition MP. He was arrested for making public information which the government wanted kept hidden away - not for reasons of national security but for political gain. He didn't release into the public domain launch codes for Trident missiles, he made public four pieces of information leaked from the government - two issues regarding illegal immigrants, one a list of "rebel" Labour MPs and one an embarrassing letter from the home secretary suggesting the recession may increase crime levels. None of those matters are of national security issue, and as far as I am aware, none fall under the category of terrorism against the state - therefore use of counter-terrorism legislation is neither warranted nor justified.

One issue that interests me though, is the question of knowledge on the part of the government. My understanding of the counter-terrorism laws - and I could be wrong about this - was that the Home Secretary was to be notified if they were to be used. IF that is the case, then surely Jacqui Smith should have known about it - and should, surely, have passed that information onto Downing Street? The Met Police informed London Mayor Boris Johnson of impending arrest. I find it difficult to believe that someone who holds the highest office of any Tory MP would be told of something of this magnitude but that the Home Secretary was ignorant of it.

Tom Harris, Labour's blogging MP, "shares some the concerns of the public" on the isssue, and concedes the effectiveness of Green as an opposition MP in tracking down information and using it against the government. He suggests that a member of the government probably knew about the arrest beforehand - but if that is the case, why are Government MPs saying otherwise? He has previously rubbished claims that we are living in an Orwellian state. I wonder how much more evidence he needs.

I think this is a worrying development - but, sadly, the natural progression of Labour's anti-terrorism legislation. I didn't think something like this would happen so quickly or to such a high-profile figure, but the evidence is there, should it be required, that the counter-terrorism laws have made it easier for the police not only to run roughshod over civil liberties but to arrest opposition MPs for doing what is basically their job - being critical of the government.

If this is democracy, what the hell are we fighting for?

Read more...