The Spectator's Notes

It's time for Muslim agitators to stop suing and start debating

Plus: Learning at the feet of Michael Oakeshott

10 May 2014

9:00 AM

10 May 2014

9:00 AM

Not long after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich last summer, I wrote a piece in the Daily Telegraph criticising the concentration on the alleged backlash against Muslims. In particular, I attacked an organisation called Tell Mamma, run by Fiyaz Mughal, for appearing to suggest that the unpleasant EDL was as monstrous as al-Qa’eda. Later in the piece, I wrote that, when you publish on such matters, you are all too often ‘subject to “lawfare” — a blizzard of solicitors’ letters claiming damages for usually imagined libels’. So it proved. Along came a solicitor’s letter from the firm of Farooq Bajwa, saying that I had described Mr Mughal as an extremist. Last week, I attended a court hearing. Was the complainant right about the ‘natural and ordinary meaning’ of my words? This week the judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat, determined that he was wrong, so we won. Mr Mughal, who is, indeed, not an extremist but seems to be a fool, has now lost two legal cases (including mine) and a PCC case on related matters. What is depressing is the habit among some Muslim groups of seeing ordinary unfavourable comment as something to suppress through the law. Why can’t they debate, not litigate?

The pop star Brian May complains about his rich, ‘selfish’ neighbours doing endless building work all round him in Kensington. What do good West Country people think of their rich neighbour Brian May on his land down there as he tries to prevent badger culls which would save their cattle from TB?

One of the best things that happened to me when young was that I came to know the great philosopher Michael Oakeshott. His philosophical approach was manifest in his life in the most delightful way. The idea of ‘conversation’ is central to his thought, famously expressed in his essay ‘The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind’. The word can be used in a rather arch, genteel, Lord Chesterfield sort of way, but that is not what Michael meant. He was interested in conversation because of its lack of exterior purpose or ambition, its interaction of human sympathy and human independence, its potential for joy and surprise. This was part of his wider thought. He wrestled constantly with the overwhelming fact of mortality and the accompanying perception that human life is ‘neither long, nor short’, rightly lived neither for the fleeting minute nor for some unreachable future. Michael’s own conversation unselfconsciously accorded with his beliefs — its unexpectedness, charm, egalitarianism, amusement, interest in others, disinclination to talk for victory or to achieve a specific result, its air of having all the time in the world. He must have been 75 when I first met him, and I 18, but he made nothing of this difference except to express his envy. Everything he said was wise because, to use an Oakeshottian paradox, he never tried to be. So it is a thrill to read his recently published Notebooks 1922–86, edited by Luke O’Sullivan (Imprint Academic). The best thing is to quote them. I can hear Michael talking.


Here are some examples:
‘Anyone who has been touched at all deeply by the instinct for life must love “fashion” & find a peculiar fascination in it.’
‘a new dark age of enlightenment’
‘Revolutions design to demolish cathedrals, but like earthquakes, they are apt also to fracture the main drain.’
‘At parting, it is the one who is not in love who makes tender speeches.’
‘You need to be well-mounted for leaping the hedge of custom.’
‘If I went with a prostitute, I should want to bring her flowers.’
‘The bourgeois holds the world together for the poet.’
‘Nelson was sea-sick from the first time to the last time he was afloat. What would a vocational director make of that?’
‘Culture implies cultivation; it’s not to be acquired in a seed shop.’
‘In pretty girls moral qualities are not so awfully relevant.’
‘God died, not in battle or in peace with his dogs around him, but by treachery.’
‘Everything is penultimate.’

Oakeshott’s attitude to politics was both wary and interested. He was famously against ‘Rationalism in Politics’. In his Notebooks, he writes, ‘Progress leads to planning. Civilisation is humbler…’. ‘Politics is a suitable subject for conversation; perhaps that is all it is suitable for.’ He prefers democracy because it is ‘politics become conversible’. He is the constant critic of power, without being an advocate of anarchy. Serving in the war, he hated applying it to peace: ‘The politics of peace conceived in the categories of war… — “labour front” — “D-Day in the schools” — “five year plan” …is a false politics: Germany, Russia.’ He preferred the more modest achievements of mankind: ‘Great ages, like great men, are apt to be hard; they are out of touch with mortality.’

I was excited to find Oakeshott express a thought long at the back of my mind: ‘an intelligent countryman can quickly grasp the life of the town, its complexity. No townsman can ever fill the gap caused by the failure to live in the country and grow up in it.’

On religion (by which he chiefly means Christianity), Oakeshott is subtle. He is religious, but avoids truth claims. He deprecates the doctrine of a future life, not as being impossible, but because it distracts people from the unique importance of the life they have. Yet he also says that ‘A true religion is the integration in each individual of his attitude to death.’ Last week, in our village churchyard, we buried my beloved mother-in-law (nice, and rare, to be able to use that adjective with that noun), Ann Baxter. ‘The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’, said one of the Sentences from the English book in which that integration most fully takes place.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Bonkim

    Do Muslims understand the rules of debate?

    • cartimandua

      Apparently not. Apparently ones views are put forward with force legal or otherwise. Turning reality on its head (that Muslims are always the victims) will increase risks to all not diminish the risks.
      Ethnic minorities are over represented in the prison system so there are clearly a lot of victims of people in those groups quite apart from

    • Shazza

      How can you debate with people whose ideology is firmly rooted in the 7th century?

      An ideology whose core belief is rooted in totalitarianism and it’s major tenet means ‘submission’.
      An ideology that mandates it’s followers to unquestioningly impose it’s beliefs and laws on ‘non-believers’ by whatever means, including violence.
      An ideology that instructs it’s followers to lie under the guise of ‘taqiyya’ to promote said world domination.
      An ideology whose irrationality refuses to accept modern science (evolution) and denies basic human rights to 50% of the world’s human population.
      An ideology which when examined scores spectacularly in the promotion of primitive beliefs and practices.

      Islam and Western secular values can never, ever survive together. The reason why our cowardly ‘leaders’ are in total denial about this is simple – if they finally acknowledge that we have a major problem with this aggressive ideology, then they will have to do something about it.

      Therein lies the rub.

      • rtj1211

        You can say the same about Christianity if you pick the appropriate lines from the Bible.

        Plenty of contradictions in other parts of course.

        You’ll be telling me next that the Christian marriage vows didn’t order a woman to ‘love, honour and OBEY’ next.

        It’s a very, very recent phenomenon that Western women have earned emancipation.

        It didn’t come from their religious masters, that’s for sure.

        It appears to me that ‘the time of man’s innocence’ has come to an end in the West.

        Perhaps philosophies grounded in adulthood must emerge to replace religions grounded in childhood??

        • Shazza

          I agree with you regarding the Bible and Christian marriage vows. The difference is that Christianity has reformed itself and offers a choice to it’s followers and does not advocate the death penalty for apostates and people who disagree with their beliefs.
          Regarding the emancipation of Western women, we are not quite there yet but we are getting there – all Western freedoms, not just women’s, are at risk from islam, just that the laws applied to women are far more draconian.
          Cannot agree with you more regarding religion.
          The Golden Rule should be the basis of an adulthood type philosophy and taught to children, all children and that it should be applied to all people regardless of race or gender.

          • Bonkim

            Can people re-interpret God’s word to suit his changing view of the world? May be Muslims are the true believers going back to the source – only the world around them has changed, not their fault.

            May be time all Muslims returned to their Middle-East homelands and established their heaven on earth.

          • jesseventura2

            Islamic hell without welfare benefits?

          • Bonkim

            You look after your brother – no need for state welfare.

          • Liz

            It hasn’t reformed itself that much. In Christian marriage a woman is given by her father to her husband at which point she loses her father’s name and takes her husband’s. And the certificate only records her male parent’s name.

          • Rtd Colonel

            Complete rubbish as my wife of 23 years will testify – down to personal choice – she has always retained her original name. Quite poignant as the only one of 3 daughters to do so, her father having recently died the family name lives on with her and as part of our childrens’ surnames

          • jesseventura2

            Mrs Balls?

          • Bonkim

            You can keep your name if you wish. No compulsion to adopt your husband’s.

        • Bonkim

          Christian Ladies wore veils, were not allowed to own property of attend colleges in Britain until the 20th century. Church Law prevalent in the Middle Ages Europe was no different from justice dispensed in Saudi Arabia today – Trials were by ordeal – walking on fire, etc, easy to label someone a witch and burn at the stake, etc. You can however add that the Christian Churches adopted many customs from the Islamic East following the Crusades –

          • David Goldblatt

            Erm, no. the Church was actually the one that prohibited trials by ordeal in the West in 1214-1215 (4th Lateran Council). That’s what led to the emergence of trial by juries in England, to replace trials by ordeal.

          • Bonkim

            Yes the Pope banned Church trials and in time Jury trials were established in England. The Norse traditions of debate and basic democracy influenced English Law.

            However that did not stop the barbarity.

            “After 1275, a law was introduced which allowed people to be tortured if they refused to go to trial before a jury.

            If you were found guilty of a crime you would expect to face a severe punishment. Thieves had their hands cut off. Women who committed murder were strangled and then burnt. People who illegally hunted in royal parks had their ears cut off and high treason was punishable by being hung, drawn and quartered. There were very few prisons as they cost money and local communities were not prepared to pay for their upkeep. It was cheaper to execute someone for bad crimes or mutilate them and then let them go.”

            The Law although evolving with the times was often in the hands of the powerful and manipulated to suit the whims of those in control – until the last century.

            Jury trials were always influenced by the people selected/local prejudices, etc. Look up the court cases in the US for example over the past two hundred years and the large numbers of Negroes executed in relation to their proportion in the population.

          • David Goldblatt

            No doubt it continued after 1215, but outside the power of religious institutions (here: the Church), and that was the whole point of the comment (role of Christian Church vs Muslim clergy).

          • Bonkim

            Many Islamic people still live in their Middle-Ages shell – only Christians by and large except a few sects have come out and only pay lip service to the Bible and their religion. I bet in the not too distant future the vast majority of Muslims will come to realise they have been mugs listening to their idiot Mullahs – and come out same as many came out of the dark ages Christianity in the last century or two. Like it or not sizeable populations across the Globe still live in their holes and one needs to ignore the ignorant lot.

          • Bonkim

            It all depends on if you have a choice – Victorian Ladies had to put up with their lot and society around told them they should be happy someone is looking after them.

            Conversely don’t see many women from Britain wishing to emigrate to Saudi Arabia unless some rich Sheikh makes an offer they cannot refuse. Slavery has its rewards I suppose.

          • Pootles

            ‘were not allowed to own property of attend colleges in Britain until the 20th century’. I think you mean 19th Century.

          • Bonkim

            Thanks Pootles Married Women’s Property Act 1870
            but women were still handicapped in many ways in law and in education, etc until mid-20th century. Unmarried/single mothers or those that wanted to be independent on man suffered until latter half of the 20th century. Even today the social handicap continues even if equal under law.

          • Pootles

            Indeed. But, focusing on today, the West is still a far, far better place to be a woman than in the Islamic chunks of the planet. Or, for that matter, the Islamic patches of the West – cf, ‘honour’ murders, FGM, Sharia family law.

          • Liz

            But Christianity was another Middle Eastern, misogynist religion imposed through tyranny and assimilation. Once that happened, women became the legal property of men and punishments for adultery were introduced. We ought to have learned our lesson.

          • Bonkim

            through tyranny and assimilation – and forced conversions too. Human societies have common roots and learn from each other. Some of what you say continue in many parts of the world today.

          • oldestel

            “But Christianity was another Middle Eastern, misogynist religion imposed
            through tyranny and assimilation. Once that happened, women became the
            legal property of men and punishments for adultery were introduced.”

            I admit I haven’t checked in detail, but I presume that these rules were common across most cultures at the time and early christians were just codifying the prevailing social norms.

            I don’t argue that it is acceptable now, just that I doubt it was particularly christian in origin.

          • greggf

            “We ought to have learned our lesson.”

            Who are the “We” Liz?
            Men, Muslim men, politicians or who?

          • jesseventura2

            How many christian churches were advocating sewing up female vaginas and cutting off their clitoris?

        • mandelson

          I got married in a Roman Catholic ceremony – there was no mention of love honour and obey. Do C of E use it?

        • vieuxceps2

          You are probably right about Christianity.
          But what has that to do with a discussion on Islam?

        • jesseventura2

          And muslim grooming gangs,honor killings,FGM etc.etc.?

      • Bonkim

        Western secular values? are these compatible with say that preached by the Church or Rome or many other so called Christian Churches? Would you get into an argument with say a gun-toting evangelist from Alabama on abortion? Islam may still be buried in the Dark or Middle-Ages, but there are many Christians who believe in the Flat earth Theory or believe that God created everything in seven days, and that we are living through the last days. Not sure you can speak for western Secular values – first will have to define what they are and why we should accept your interpretation.

        • Shazza

          I certainly have no truck with the Christians you describe. As an atheist I would have no hesitation in engaging in debate with them and for the large part would not be in fear of my life or risk physical attack as is expected from the followers of the RoP.
          The point I was making is that people like that are in the minority and Western secular values dominate in majority Western civilisations, i.e. North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc. If moslems wish to live under sharia and inflict their beliefs on their own people, then I have no problem with them doing so in their own islamic countries.
          Western secular values? How about the Golden Rule, how about freedom of speech, equality before the law regardless of race, religion or gender?

          • Bonkim

            You are assuming the world is perfect – all the values you describe are modified by people in practice and we all are prejudiced one way or the other. Groups expect all in to conform including where that entails explotation of minorities. Whistle-blowers are usually got rid of.

            Inter-racial marriages were forbidden by law in many parts of the world including in the US until the latter half of the 20th Century, still socially not accepted today in many parts, non-Europeans were not allowed to emigrate in Australia, the US, etc, until recent decades, minorities are discriminated/exploited if not in law but socially and by consent of the majority, etc, etc.

            Get real Shazza, we live in an unequal world, the point was do you go to work to argue about religion or politics with your employer? Usually people at work try to get along with each other regardless of their differences and western secular values include tolerance even for idiots and those you don’t agree with – politely ignore them.

          • Shazza

            Bonkim, don’t patronise me. I adhere to the ‘live and let live’ mantra as most of us do.
            Tolerance should be a two way thing. Unfortunately, islam does not do tolerance. That is the point I was trying to make.
            The ideology has form. Look at it’s history and you will get a glimpse of the future that awaits us.
            Look at the halal situation. Circa 5% of the population is moslem and the remaining non-moslem 95% of us have had this unknowingly foisted upon us. Can you imagine what will happen when the moslem population reaches 10%? 20%???
            We ain’t all going to live happily ever after together.

          • Bonkim

            As an Atheist one believes there are many crazy religions around all think their God is the one and only true God and all powerful. If they didn’t believe that they won’t be believers.

            Regards Sharia and halal meat – no one is asking you buy that – if the Supermarkets are not abiding by UK/EU abattoir regulations and importing contraband it is for the regulator to sort them out. Is there much difference from the consumer’s point of view?

            You will find this is not a sinister Islamic plot but commercial decisions by the exporting countries. Countries like New Zealand export most of their animal produce to the Middle East and commercially makes sense to have a single rule – now if that does not meet EU/UK regulations – complain like hell. The worse aspect is all the low grade meat that is in circulation in the fast food circle that is harmful.

            Best avoid buying ready made meals ot takeaways from cheap outlets.

          • Alexsandr

            halal meat is not always stunned. that means the animal is stressed so get a load of adrenalin in its blood that taints the meat.
            and as an atheist i don’t want someone chanting mumbo-jumbo over my food, thank-you.

          • Bonkim

            How do you know someone hasn’t spat or blown his nose over the meat you are eating?

          • Rtd Colonel

            Sikhs are not permitted to eat Halal or Kosher meat – how many have done so without knowing? Is that fair? They’re only Sikhs though so wrong type of ‘Asian’ to have rights.

          • Bonkim

            I suppose Sikhs that are hung up on their religion will take the precaution to check the source of the meat and avoid suspect supplies. Conversely what you don’t know does not hurt.

      • jesseventura2

        Referendum on muslim immigrants a sure fire winner?

    • tjamesjones

      Here’s a thought experiment for you: imagine you work with a muslim person. Would you walk up to them and say “do muslims understand the rules of debate?” Could you just have the decency to use the formulation that Charles Moore uses ‘some groups’? Not everybody on the spectator site are content to simply sling mud at whole racial or religious groups without qualification.

      • Bonkim

        Regardless of religion, why do you wish to debate theology with your employer? The Spectator site is open season for discussing contentious topics and letting one’s spleen rupture – don’t take it seriously. Everyone is allowed to have his/her views however unpalatable they may be to others.

        • tjamesjones

          That’s a pretty empty formulation. If the best defence you’ve got for a position is that everyone is entitled to their views however unpalatable, then perhaps you could reconsider your view. Life’s too short for lazy racism.

          • Bonkim

            If my employee wasted time discussing his religion or politics at work, he/she will be kicked out post haste.

          • tjamesjones

            You really are determined to duck this issue aren’t you. The point isn’t the work environment, or whether it’s your boss, or your employee. The point is that, given your original statement (“do muslims understand the rules of the debate”), I’m assuming you don’t spend a lot of time socialising with “muslims”, so I’m asking you to think about how you would to relate to a muslim person if circumstances led that way. ie when it’s a real person, rather than some group to be attacked on the spectator comments section.

          • Bonkim

            Keep away from Muslims or any other groups that are hung up on their culture, religion, or ethnicity. I believe in choice and not hanging out with any groups. Not ducking the issue – anyone living with Middle-ages culture/mindset – of any religion/culture or ethnicity repel me – as such don’t wish to associate with them, or travel to countries with preponderance of such characters. is that plain enough?

            Don’t wish to attack any group – I am sure various groups have their rights to believe/practise what they do as long as that does not harm or annoy others around them.

            You should ask the same question to say people in Muslim majority locations whether they will tolerate any women clad in a Bikini wandering around their Souks.

            You will find by and large Western people and lands much more tolerant and accepting strangers walking around in a Burkha or Saree than say people in Islamic and other lands of foreigners going about their native clothes.

      • Terry Field

        I am amazed anyone in the west can pretend Islam is a compatible civilisation. It is a powerful civilisation, but not compatible with the West. Is that not completely obvious, and if you doubt it, then justify yourself please.

        • tjamesjones

          Manners are a mark of civilisation, Terry. My thought experiment is a possibly failed attempt to remind people on this site that ‘muslims’ who are living in this country are just people, and for the most part pretty normal people. Charles Moore has correctly pointed out that there are Islamist advocates who attempt to use the court system when they ought to engage in debate. But the commentators on this thread seem to see that as an open invitation for some pretty lazy racism. I don’t know if you do work with someone who comes from a different culture than you, but do you really think it would be appropriate to somehow lord it over them face to face? Or do we engage in little private smear campaigns and then smile nicely at our immigrant neighbours?

          • Terry Field

            Thank you for the response. I would first say I think one should be prepared to discuss this and any matter face to face, and not act with hpocrisy. The issues are, of course, more difficult since the individual is not the same as the group. The individual and the group are not the same. The civilisation and its compatibility or incompatibility is a composite problem, not a difficulty in dealing with a particular individual.

            I agree about the petty racism observation. This is always lurking under the surface; I do not believe however, that you or anyone else I have ever met is not predisposed to favour their ‘group’ over outside ‘groups'(since we seem to be all of a single race with more or less skin pigmentation) People who deny this are, I believe, deluding themselves or just plain lying. This means we have to conciously overcome the prejudicial actions we would otherwise unthinkingly take to reinforce our ‘group’ identity.Most immigrated groups and indigenous groups seem to do this really quite well in the UK; that is a strength of the country, but I would ask if that is the case in respect of the Moslem community. It is an important matter. I do not know the answer. Social harmony may depend upon it.

    • Keith D

      They do although the rules are a tad different. Disagree with them and they’ll saw off your head.

    • amicus

      They like the cutting edge.

  • Terry Field

    It would be better still if they emigrated to Saudi or Iran depending upon their particular version of bigotry and then lobbed missiles at each other. Hopefully with considerable accuracy.

  • Hood

    And we continue to be force-fed halal meat by stealth. We tolerate too much.

    • rtj1211

      Speak for yourself. I don’t.

      Ours comes from a local butcher who sources his meat from local farms run by white Britons.

      No sign of Halal preparations there.

      • FrenchNewsonlin

        Been to ASK or PIzza Express or Subway lately?

        • Alexsandr

          no

      • Alexsandr

        OK your butcher gets his meat locally. but where was it slaughtered and by who and how?

      • Bonkim

        Check what has been left in the trough overnight – Unadulterated Halal – you have been converted.

    • Bonkim

      Until you start speaking in Arabic.

  • Trapnel

    Perhaps Islamic theologians and so-called community leaders such as Fiyaz Mughal would do well to linger occasionally in the works of Michael Oakeshott. A tall order admittedly as anything outside the Koran, sunnah or hadith barely registers it would seem.

  • JoeDM

    Our culture is being further undermined by having unlabelled Halal meat being imposed on us by Tesco, M&S, etc.. and we have NO choice !!!!

    Is this (and other examples: Birmingham schools, etc.) a form of “Cultural Terrorism”?

    • rtj1211

      So don’t buy your sodding meat from supermarkets you numpty!!

      • Alexsandr

        quite. find a butcher of who you can ask questions as to the provenance of the meat.

  • Guest

    opp

  • tjamesjones

    Although I agree with the point about muslim litigation, I found the Michael Oakeshott survey far more interesting. I need him broken down into bite sized pieces, my copy of ‘Rationalism and politics’ remains largely unread, though within reach still. We need more Tory politicians like him, thoughtful and conservative, keen to avoid over-reach by the state, and a bit less ranting about muslims who by and large are just normal people and often good people. However someone came to live in this country it’s just rude not to be polite in the absense of a particular offence. But isn’t Brian May perfectly annoying, I wish we could send him back to Iran or wherever.

  • Keith D

    Its time for muslim agitators to get the f..k out my country.

  • helicoil

    debate, litigate, how about integrate?

  • cartimandua

    If decent ordinary Muslims wish to be seen to support British values there are things they could do.
    They could dress normally and not in some kind of tribal fancy dress.
    They could have prayers said for the military and the Queen in Mosques.
    They could actually do things which would show a rejection of extremism without putting themselves at risk.

  • MikeF

    The substitution of diktat for debate – and its enforcement through verbal abuse, physical harassment and increasingly sectarian lawmaking – is the leitmotiv of our times. It has been driven by the secular left not by Muslims though the latter have often been happy enough to ride along with the flow while the left in turn has used the spurious notion of ‘Islamophobia’ as a mock altruistic smokescreen for what is in reality the pursuit of a quite different agenda. It has been an alliance based on cynicism and a shared contempt for and fear of the most basic tenet of democracy – free speech.
    What is happening now, though, is that the more fundamentalist elements of Islam are cutting themselves free of those old ties and showing a willingness to impose their beliefs without reference to the left – the harassment of women and homosexual people in parts of East London is a prime example. Some elements of the alliance that has tried to destroy democracy, however, seem to be recognising that the situation is developing in ways they do not like and worse still from their point-of-view cannot control – Mr Tatchell’s article a few days ago is a straw in the wind. He is clever enough to recognise the situation but so far not honest enough to draw the conclusions needed to counter it.
    Just possibly, though, the contradictions of and dangers inherent in this odious alliance may also be starting to unnerve other people who were previously willing to play along with it. How all this may play out remains to be seen. But make no mistake what is involved is the existence or otherwise of the sort of political culture without which democratic procedures are mere role-playing.

  • Hippograd

    It’s time for Muslim agitators to stop suing and start debating.

    Why would they want to do that? Identity politics doesn’t work like that:

    Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism

    [The former Chief Rabbi Jonathan] Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.”

    “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.”

    Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism

    • cartimandua

      But he doesn’t “get it”. What people need to do is reject the idea for instance that a modern post Enlightenment culture in the West is no better than a primitive tribal culture.
      Of course we are better. Its not about victimhood its about saying these are our core values and they are better than “other cultures”.
      No culture which treats women as sub human is successful on any measure at all.

      • MikeF

        “post Enlightenment” – a favourite phrase of the left by which they mean a reversion to pre-modernism even if you don’t.

        • cartimandua

          Do you deny our culture is better? Multiculti is a grim failure but the chief Rabbi gives the wrong reasons for that failure.

          • MikeF

            Not at all – I am just pointing out that that phrase ‘post-Enlightenment’ is one that the left uses to mean something that in reality has nothing to do with proper Enlightenment values. We should avoid it.

  • cartimandua

    There is no problem upholding human rights for women and gays while rejecting the idea that “all cultures are equal”. They are very clearly not all equally successful at all.

  • Hubert Wagner

    “Why can’t [Muslims] debate, not litigate”?

    That’s a naive question. Muslims are not interested in debating the Infidel. They are interested in winning, i.e. turning the UK into an Islamic state ruled by the Sharia . Their willingness to lie, riot and threaten violence to achieve that end ought to be convincing enough.

  • wattys123

    “Islamophobia: a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”

    – Christopher Hitchens

  • Trofim

    Disclaimer: what follows is simply my opinion. I may be wrong.
    Islam is about subjugation and domination. They don’t do accommodation. The goal is to be in charge, and Muslims feel a constant nagging irritation when they are not top dog. Being second best is not in their worldview. It’s no use asking them to become debate, because all other ideas, apart from those in the Quran, are made by man and therefore imperfect. No use pointing to philosophers, systems of thought – your wasting your time and breath. But whether they like it or not, they have to engage in the marketplace of ideas to some extent, and that is where the battle should be, because all ideas can be exposed, ridiculed, negated. The vital thing is to get those subversive ideas into the most susceptible – the young.

  • mikewaller

    “I was excited to find Oakeshott express a thought long at the back of my mind: ‘an intelligent countryman can quickly grasp the life of the town, its complexity. No townsman can ever fill the gap caused by the failure to live in the country and grow up in it.’”

    This is largely self-delusional nonsense. I have lived in both town and country and, yes, there are differences. However, as in most things British, the great divide is class. So 95% of the above claim is an attempt by the rural “haves” to persuade the rural “have-nots” that they share a deep common bond. Rural deference encourages the latter to play up to the idea. However, if you privately ask a country person who is just scrapping by does he have more in common with his equivalent in the town or with the monied in his or her immediate environment, most will say the former.

  • David Prentice

    The Muslim (one who submits) views those who do not submit with hostility and suspicion. He’s not suing your words so much, as the very fact of your non-submitting existence.

  • jesseventura2

    Just tell us why fantasy allah is allowing a huge majority of muslims to live and breed like impoverished dogs?

Close