Terrorism in all its forms, including the promotion of fear, should not be tolerated even in a society as tolerant as the UK. The terrorists must be stopped. Also, the promotion of a culture or religious teaching which promotes violence against sections of society should not be acceptable.
For some weeks now UK values and the good things of UK society, especially freedoms and tolerance, have been under serious attack. Extremists, who would use these freedoms in order to destroy them and who have been allowed to peddle their violence and divisiveness, are responsible for poisoning the democratic well. Freedom of speech is of the essence of UK society and is to be guarded and defended, but it is an abuse of that freedom to incite hatred, violence and division beyond mere expression of opinion. Such abuse and its perpetrators have to be stopped: tolerance does not mean being soft on those who would destroy society.
MULTICULTURALISM DEPENDS ON INTEGRATION
Multiculturalism is a feature of the UK, a good example to the world, even though it is imperfect. Today, a number of people are questioning whether the UK is succeeding in the creation of a truly multicultural society, with factions for example suggesting that the UK is systemically racist (untrue) or Islamophobic (untrue) or xenophobic (untrue), anti immigrants etc. (untrue). The PM, Rishi Sunak, remains an optimist and considers himself a good example of the success of integration of immigrants who join the UK society: in this area his positivity is surely to be welcomed, however one may regard his achievements as, or suitability as, PM. But, arguably a number of people in minority groups do not really join UK society but remain in communities peopled with those of the same origin or religion, and are really interested in their narrow sphere, not the nation as a whole. In some areas faith schools for example ensure that there is little mixing of different religious groups, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim.
The UK is a multi-faith society. However, to what degree is it really appropriate to have religious laws being enforced privately which may run counter to the values and principles of freedom in the UK? Accordingly, there is a good argument for ending the power of Sharia law running parallel with the law of the land and for ending Sharia marriages. Also, Hindu or Sikh forced marriages are contrary to women’s rights. Faith schools are not wholly regulated by Ofsted but should be. Schools should perhaps be prohibited from expounding extremism such as Islamism and of course extreme left or right wing philosophies. It is known that certain mosques and Islam preachers advocate Islamist ideals – again should that be permitted as it is bound to lead to indoctrination and radicalisation? It is reported that the Government is looking at a clampdown on visa entry into the UK of those who are inciters of hatred. Where it is known that a mosque or Imam supports Islamism and the destruction of UK society or a group of people, such as Jews, should that be stopped?
Culturally too an interesting observation has been long made and was repeated In the Sunday Times of 3 March: in the UK, a recent report suggests that between 38% and 59% of British Pakistanis marry first cousins, and it is suggested by Matthew Syed, the product of a Pakistani and Welsh marriage, that this practice of marrying cousins should be banned. This practice merely cements a closed community, ruled by patriarchs applying a different rule to that of the UK generally. Integration, which requires compromise from all sections of society, is essential. Perhaps all practices which cause or cement division or hinder integration need to be unearthed and condemned generally across society. The new definition of “extremism” published by UKGOV on 14th March represents an acknowledgement of the current dangers to freedom. Its proper application remains to be seen, as do any unintended consequences.
ISLAM, A FORCE FOR GOOD, UNLESS ISLAMISTS RULE
It is assumed that most Muslims living in the UK respect its multiculturalism and are not committed to its destruction, but rather wish to contribute to the UK’s success.
An Islamist may be defined as an extreme Muslim who wishes to impose Sharia law and Islam as the governing rule of nations, and to disrespect and pull down values of democracy and freedoms of opinion, expression and action, unless as directed by their interpretation of Islam. For an Islamist the end justifies the means, and they may be willing to terrorise and violently hurt or kill people who stand against Islamism in the UK. Perhaps Islamists are not just to be criticised but are to be strongly resisted in the UK? Just as Nazis or extreme right-wing nationalists or left-wing extremists, if they advocate the destruction of multiculturalism or democratic institutions, or promote hate such as antisemitism, need to be opposed and not tolerated.
In that case those Islamists need to be identified and treated appropriately.
Rishi Sunak, the PM, was right to deliver a focussed speech against division and extremists, which, as he sees it, threaten democracy. Legitimate marches, which express disapproval of the Israeli attacks on Gaza to destroy Hamas and which disapprove of Hamas’ barbarism against Israelis on 7 October, are within citizens’ rights, provided they are not inciting hatred or violence against a person or groups of people. Those so-called protesters who expound death to Israel or Jews are surely illegitimate, and the promotion of antisemitism has to be condemned. Threats against MPs and councils are illegitimate, as are calls to lock the doors of Parliament or calls “From the river to the sea” if that is properly understood to call for the death of the State of Israel. Yet that is what the Palestine Solidarity Campaign does: illegitimate protest, creating division and hatred. Do Islamists run the protests? Do Islamists join the protests? Do Islamists incite threats and violence in the UK? Almost certainly yes. Rishi Sunak calls upon the police and UK institutions to call these people out and disassociate from them. Surely, should not the police arrest protesters who commit serious and obvious criminal offences of violence, rather than stand back for fear of escalating tensions? Law enforcement is still their job.
To the extent Islamists (or indeed other extremists such as Nazis) have infiltrated society and are influencing opinion, should they be stopped? Who are Islamists and their supporters? Are the Muslim Brotherhood? Are the leaders of Iran? Is ISIS? Are The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)? Is Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND)? Is Hamas? Is Hezbollah? Apparently, the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, certainly Islamist, in relation to organisations such as MEND and MCB and the Muslim Association of Britain is clearly established. The UK Government has banned engagement by government representatives with the MCB.
IMMEDIATE HARD ACTION REQUIRED, NOT JUST WORDS
It is not necessary to agree with every word of Rishi Sunak in his speech decrying the hatred mongers and calling for unity to combat the poison of division, but the message needs to be taken on board by all people who value UK democracy and freedoms. It is right that Keir Starmer welcomed the message. But the words are easy. At least Government can lead by implementing the message across all sectors and through every public services employee. The police should heed the demand for enforcement against the disrupters and destructive extremists, whether Islamist, extreme left or extreme right wing where they evidently wish to see the breakdown of a tolerant multicultural society . This surely cannot wait.
