1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
Can we split the difference?
Most Muslims absolutely are not the problem. Secular Muslims are not a problem.
The problem behind Islamic extremism though is Islam, just as the problem behind Christian extremism in the past (and still for many today) is Christianity.
Thankfully Christian countries went through the Enlightenment and thankfully today most Christians in Europe at the least are more secular in their views and disregard the extremist elements of Christianity.
We need Islam to undergo the same Enlightenment. Many Muslims are indeed enlightened and take their faith with appropriate grains of salt - that is not encouraged by people pretending that there is no problem in the religion itself - any more than it helps if people pretend there's no problems in the Bible itself.
Indeed. A good analogy is Germany during the Nazi era
Most Germans weren’t evil Nazis. Germany was a great nation with a magnificent cultural heritage. But a peculiar and unfortunate sequence of events allowed a small group of evil men to deceive a wider group of Germans into supporting them and they then bullied the rest of the nation into submission. And Nazi Germany was born
Most Muslims do not support islamism. Islam is a great religion with a magnificent cultural heritage. But a peculiar sequence of events has allowed a relatively small cabal of fundamentalist freaks to pervert Islam to violent ends - and a lot of Muslims are bullied into silence by them, and thus entire nations have been captured - Iran is the classic example
As both Mao and Mussolini observed, you don’t need vast armies to seize power over many millions of people, you just need a reasonable number of extreme, disciplined and aggressive fighters - the complacent majority will acquiesce in favour of a quiet life
Sorry but I disagree with you. The problem is not that the cabal of freaks have perverted Islam to be violent. The problem is that Islam (like Christianity and other organised religions) is violent.
The quran, like the Bible, is full of rotten, evil, horrid stuff that is appalling to modern, secular tastes. Thankfully most enlightened people disregard those elements, or even laugh at them.
The problem is they are there, and the extremists are taking their instructions literally.
Islamic extremists are beheading people not because they've twisted an angelic faith, but because the quran says to behead your enemies. Its there in black and white.
The West Wing portrayed this excellently with Christianity, responding to those who latch on to some passages for eg homophobic reasons by going for even more extreme Biblical passages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc
The same that has been done with the Bible can be with the Quran - the zealots are those taking what does exist within the religion seriously, rather than with the appropriate and modern grains of salt.
The modern way is to pervert religion to being something more secular and enlightened by disregarding the horrible passages. Lets not pretend they're not there, because they are, and being dishonest just isn't helpful.
Some fair points, however Islam has not always been like this - literal, brutal, primitivist. That’s why the movement that is islamism was BORN in the 20th century - to take Islam back to some half-imagined purist past, severe and dogmatic, the religion of the baking desert
There have been other Islams - much more tolerant and urbane. The Islam of Omar Khayyam and his jug of wine. The Islam of Al Andalus and the great Muslim scholars. The Islam of the Sufi mystics
Islamism is ONE interpretation of Islam, barbaric and pugnacious. Unfortunately it is ascendant
Maybe we should set-up a 'Mosque of England' that follows its Christian equivalent by minimising the religious part of religion to the fullest extent possible...
That's not actually a stupid idea. Create an established Islamic church, train the Imams, licence them, and ensure only they get funded by the state.
I confess not to know what to think about this stated plan - there's no definitive answer on what ratio of electors to representatives you should have. I mean, there are local councils with well north of 100 councillors. The New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 for 1.4m people whilst Utah has 75 for 3.2m
If Westminster were expanded in the way planned for the Senedd it would have more than 2,000 MPs, Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt has argued.
I suppose the big question is how does raising by 36 make the Senedd more modern and better able to represent Wales, as the Welsh government states? Are the boundaries really bad?
There must be examples when an elected (or unelected...) representative has proposed changes against their, or their parties, advantage?
Gladstone in 1884 conceded boundary changes to the Conservatives if he could keep control of the franchise. However, that probably was just idiocy instead of generosity.
In 1928 the Conservatives brought in votes for women despite claims it would hurt them electorally. It is worth noting this was not the view of their own campaigning staff.
...but one of the reasons why we are so badly governed is lack of representation. How do we expect our MPs to represent their constituents if there are over 100,000 of them? We need to stop doing things that are obviously stupid, and this is an example.
Perhaps increasing the number of MPs to several thousand is the kind of radical idea we need. It would increase the relative anonymity of being an MP which would make it a more attractive proposition for many professionals, but at the same time would increase their accountability.
1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.
Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent
2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.
We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.
3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.
Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.
Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.
My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.
Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.
Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
I suggest it is sometimes necessary to be quite blunt about Islamic extremism being a real problem that needs tackling. I would also suggest that is best achieved by politcians being very careful to make it clear that it is the extremist part that is the problem, not Islam or most Muslims. And it is that, that is missing from Jenrick's statement.
Can we split the difference?
Most Muslims absolutely are not the problem. Secular Muslims are not a problem.
The problem behind Islamic extremism though is Islam, just as the problem behind Christian extremism in the past (and still for many today) is Christianity.
Thankfully Christian countries went through the Enlightenment and thankfully today most Christians in Europe at the least are more secular in their views and disregard the extremist elements of Christianity.
We need Islam to undergo the same Enlightenment. Many Muslims are indeed enlightened and take their faith with appropriate grains of salt - that is not encouraged by people pretending that there is no problem in the religion itself - any more than it helps if people pretend there's no problems in the Bible itself.
Indeed. A good analogy is Germany during the Nazi era
Most Germans weren’t evil Nazis. Germany was a great nation with a magnificent cultural heritage. But a peculiar and unfortunate sequence of events allowed a small group of evil men to deceive a wider group of Germans into supporting them and they then bullied the rest of the nation into submission. And Nazi Germany was born
Most Muslims do not support islamism. Islam is a great religion with a magnificent cultural heritage. But a peculiar sequence of events has allowed a relatively small cabal of fundamentalist freaks to pervert Islam to violent ends - and a lot of Muslims are bullied into silence by them, and thus entire nations have been captured - Iran is the classic example
As both Mao and Mussolini observed, you don’t need vast armies to seize power over many millions of people, you just need a reasonable number of extreme, disciplined and aggressive fighters - the complacent majority will acquiesce in favour of a quiet life
Sorry but I disagree with you. The problem is not that the cabal of freaks have perverted Islam to be violent. The problem is that Islam (like Christianity and other organised religions) is violent.
The quran, like the Bible, is full of rotten, evil, horrid stuff that is appalling to modern, secular tastes. Thankfully most enlightened people disregard those elements, or even laugh at them.
The problem is they are there, and the extremists are taking their instructions literally.
Islamic extremists are beheading people not because they've twisted an angelic faith, but because the quran says to behead your enemies. Its there in black and white.
The West Wing portrayed this excellently with Christianity, responding to those who latch on to some passages for eg homophobic reasons by going for even more extreme Biblical passages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc
The same that has been done with the Bible can be with the Quran - the zealots are those taking what does exist within the religion seriously, rather than with the appropriate and modern grains of salt.
The modern way is to pervert religion to being something more secular and enlightened by disregarding the horrible passages. Lets not pretend they're not there, because they are, and being dishonest just isn't helpful.
Some fair points, however Islam has not always been like this - literal, brutal, primitivist. That’s why the movement that is islamism was BORN in the 20th century - to take Islam back to some half-imagined purist past, severe and dogmatic, the religion of the baking desert
There have been other Islams - much more tolerant and urbane. The Islam of Omar Khayyam and his jug of wine. The Islam of Al Andalus and the great Muslim scholars. The Islam of the Sufi mystics
Islamism is ONE interpretation of Islam, barbaric and pugnacious. Unfortunately it is ascendant
Maybe we should set-up a 'Mosque of England' that follows its Christian equivalent by minimising the religious part of religion to the fullest extent possible...
That's not actually a stupid idea. Create an established Islamic church, train the Imams, licence them, and ensure only they get funded by the state.
I've had around 8 Afghan Uber drivers over the last year in London. All the previous ones opposed the Taliban, whereas last Saturday's said things had been getting better and more stable since they took over.
Both things can be true. Corruption is much Less under the Taliban, as is petty crime. It doesn't mean a good government.
I confess not to know what to think about this stated plan - there's no definitive answer on what ratio of electors to representatives you should have. I mean, there are local councils with well north of 100 councillors. The New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 for 1.4m people whilst Utah has 75 for 3.2m
If Westminster were expanded in the way planned for the Senedd it would have more than 2,000 MPs, Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt has argued.
I suppose the big question is how does raising by 36 make the Senedd more modern and better able to represent Wales, as the Welsh government states? Are the boundaries really bad?
There must be examples when an elected (or unelected...) representative has proposed changes against their, or their parties, advantage?
Gladstone in 1884 conceded boundary changes to the Conservatives if he could keep control of the franchise. However, that probably was just idiocy instead of generosity.
In 1928 the Conservatives brought in votes for women despite claims it would hurt them electorally. It is worth noting this was not the view of their own campaigning staff.
How was it against their political interests to strengthen the army officer corps?
It was against their self interest in collecting a… commission on everything that went through their army commands. While not actual turning up for the fighting bit.
So the source is the New York Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams. The specific claim is "over one year ago, summer of 2022, she was in NYC meeting several big hedge CEOs, and said, “I am running, and I am asking for your support".
Comments
New Thread
Also related:
https://bsky.app/profile/criminalerin.bsky.social/post/3kkc2k4kabs2d