A protest beyond parody

15 October 2012

Yesterday 10,000 Muslims travelled from across Britain to the London offices of Google to demonstrate that they do not understand anything about the country they live in.

The protest was one of a number planned against a film uploaded onto Youtube some months back. One of the organisers, Sheikh Masoud Alam, described the film thus: ‘This is not freedom of expression, there is a limit for that. This insult of the Prophet will not be allowed.’


Sadly, for him, the Sheikh is wrong.  What he terms ‘insult’ of a historical figure is most certainly allowed and judging by the quality of their argument, it seems unlikely Mr Alam and friends will persuade anyone of the contrary anytime soon.

Some banners carried by the demonstrators yesterday read: ‘Freedom of Speech = Hatred to Muslims?’ To be fair, that’s the sort of drivel you can read any day in the left-wing press, but it is a distinctly minority opinion. Others banners were more innovative, claiming for instance that Google ‘Supports Terrorism’. Some in the crowd, interviewed by journalists, took part in the usual threats and blackmail, one, for instance, telling a reporter: ‘If you push people too far you will turn the peaceful elements into violence.’ I have always loved this one: ‘Humour me by saying I am peaceful or I might become violent.’

Masoud and his friends hope to draw a million people to a demonstration in Hyde Park soon. I hope they fail. Not least because it seems like such a waste of a weekend. If those considering attending would just read the following paragraph they could save the time and either wash the car, spend some time with the family, or read something about British history or law.

Most people in this country are not Muslim. Therefore we don’t think that Islam is true. We don’t mind if you do, but most of us don’t.

I’m currently reading Salman Rushdie’s memoir, Joseph Anton. Isn’t it amazing that more than twenty years after The Satanic Verses affair this country still has people with no idea whatsoever about the country they are living in?

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • Margita

    a week before this protest I witnessed another one on the grounds of Westminster Abbey, around the statue of George V, right in front of the Parliament…judge for yourselves

  • Andy Gill

    Let these raging twats march all they want. I hope Google stands its ground. If they then turn violent they will further besmirch brand Islam, and awaken yet more people to the danger it poses to our hard-earned freedoms.

  • Michael Harris

    Their own Kemal Ataturk described the muslim religion as ‘perfectly fitted for seventh century desert dwellers’.

  • Occasional Clown

    Quite a lot of things upset Muslims. Didn’t the Saudi government seriously consider banning the letter ‘X’ a couple of years ago because some Muslims complained it looked like a cross that had fallen on its side? So without x’s Muslims can’t play jazz (no sax), can’t count past five (no six), or transmit documents (no fax). Their kids have fewer video games (no Xbox) and that’s assuming they will be able to have kids (no sex). What a bunch of fruitcakes!

  • Colonel Mustard

    “Most people in this country are not Muslim. Therefore we don’t think that Islam is true. We don’t mind if you do, but most of us don’t.”

    If only that drove the debate but it won’t. The majority in Britain are beset by the clamouring and lobbying of minorities for their right to determine how they should be treated which inevitably results in legislation governing the majority as to how they must behave. And we have politicians only too ready to pander to this inversion and cynical agendas only too ready to exploit that pandering to increase their power over us. The whole country is awash with minority “causes” of one sort or another which attract public debate far in excess of the merit of their numbers but Britain has fully embraced the politics of lobbying and marketing. No-one is going to shove this particular genie back in the bottle, cork it and say this country cleaves to its majority and that the minorities should step back and STFU.

  • cremaster

    You’d be forgiven for not knowing about this protest, because it was scarcely in evidence either in print or on the airwaves.

    Yet another gagging job. But how are they going to conceal the planned million-muslim march in Hyde Park? And why the dickens are they doing it in the first place? The protesters obviously wanted publicity and this does nothing to appease them.

  • Enoch Thatcher

    A British horror story slowly unfolds. Welcome to hell. Thank you Westminster for condemning the people to hundreds of years of civil war and bloodshed. And people wonder why Scotland wants to be free from Britain.

  • Nick

    This is what happens when 12th century mentality & culture,practised by modern day savages is allowed to flourish in a modern thinking country.The UK used to be a modern progressive nation,which by the way has been multi cultural for thousands of years.But now it has become a place where lunatics,terrorists & modern days savages thrive.
    Why? Why would the Labour government want the UK to become a dumping ground for savages,Romanian Gypsies & terrorists?…..Why?

    • Ron Todd

      Why? because they will vote for them.

  • David Barnett

    They know what kind of a country they live in and they can’t wait to change it. I do SO wish they’d all go away.

    • trevor21

      Ultimately I think it will take a little ‘persuasion’.

  • Cranston292

    Am telling u u can can call me a racist or watever but britains getting over run by muslims

  • Kevin

    Surely free speech includes the freedom to demand government censorship? Otherwise speech is limited.

    Similarly, democracy includes the freedom to vote for the abolition of democracy (as the British electorate apparently did in 1975 in the first and only referendum on transferring sovereignty to the EEC).

    It seems a weak argument, if it is an argument at all, to thumb one’s nose at a minority population and say, “This is not how we do things here”. How “we” do things is, apparently, to advocate absolute freedoms, including speech (e.g. “Kill a cop for fun”), democracy and immigration.

    If these are the only ground rules of Great Britain, then, to adapt Voltaire, “God will be on the side of the most fertile”.

    • T. Botham

      There is no absolute freedom. That is a meaningless concept. To tolerate the intolerant is self-contradictory and illogical. To vote for the end of voting would similarly be illogical – though it happens, because the half-educated believe that voting itself, not the institutions which ensure power change, is what confers legitimacy. Voting in despotism does not legitimize it.
      The demand for government censorship – blasphemy laws – is allowable speech. No-one suggests otherwise when they say such a demand is illegitimate, or unconstitutional. To say that blasphemy laws would be repugnant to the British institution of free speech is also allowable speech. But demanding that people (“minority” or not) rise up to commit violence upon someone for being what he is or for saying something he is allowed to say – that is incitement, possibly sedition, and is not allowable – is in fact criminal, and should be stopped. The fact that the law against proscribed speech is not enforced as it should be is what is eroding freedom of speech and other liberties. Every angry, murderous Muslim mob allowed by the police to threaten violence undermines our national institutions of liberty. An entirely reasonable and tolerant response to such a mob would be “Leave the Country.”

      • Baron

        well put, T. Botham, and undeniably true from top to bottom, but then we no longer have liberty as we had before, it had to be curtailed to accommodate the rainbow MC.

        One’s hard put to figure how we can square our and their take on societal governance, we derive authority from the will of the many, they from the musings of a man born in times of darkness. Sooner or later the one or the other will have to lose out.

    • Daniel Maris

      You are confusing two things: freedom of speech and freedom of action. People are free (or should be) to argue that democracy should be replaced by Sharia, but democracies should not allow such people to use the tools of democracy to conspire against democratic government. There will always be arguments over where the line lies. But there must be a limit.

  • Sam Barnes

    Well, perhaps your EDL chums can do a counter demonstration, Dougy.

  • Baron

    In hundred years or so after the Romans left around 410AD Britain experienced an invasion by the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, all rather primitive people, certainly more primitive than the society the Celts enjoyed under the Latin occupiers, most of the unearthed evidence suggests that by and large the invaders were neither particularly industrious nor vicious, (there’s little evidence of blooding battles), nor did they arrive in massive numbers.

    What’s puzzling historians is why then did the Celts who didn’t leave gave up on the luxuries of life they had enjoyed before, the comfortable houses, the sanitation, the running water, the law and order and stuff and switched to essentially living in halls together with animals, adopted a religious creed by far less enlightened that what they worshiped before.

    Who know, perhaps in around 4000 AD historian will wonder similarly about our society.

    • Daniel Maris

      Interesting ideas…though I am not sure they are borne out by recent scholarship.

      I think one can certainly make the case for the Labour Party being rather like the post Roman dictator Vortigern who invited the Saxons in to help out wth defence – and suffered the consequences.

    • trevor21

      Or,conversely,those very same historians might be recounting a glorious episode in our history when the nation was reborn .A time when a sickened people rose up to overthrow our corrupt leaders and expunge from the nation a dangerous ,murderous cult called Islam’. Just a thought.

  • David Lindsay

    The likes of The Spectator and the Daily Telegraph are now uncritically pro-Rushdie both above and below the line. But try to remember that, as the Daily Mail still manifests up to an admittedly limited point, there were once writers in this country, and not least under those mastheads, who, whether or not they had any affiliation to that relatively recent and
    largely Liberal thing, the Conservative Party, gave voice to that far older and far deeper phenomenon, the Tory sensibility: Hugh Trevor-Roper, John le Carré, Roald Dahl.

    They knew nothing of the absurd fiction of absolute “freedom of expression”, which is certainly not guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, not that that would have any application outside its own country even if did say such a thing. They had no time for a man who very openly hated this country but who had moved here in order to avail himself of her genuine historic liberties. And they felt no sympathy for him when he got exactly what he had wanted after publishing a wholly cynical device to make himself, previously a well-regarded but by definition fairly obscure author of high literary art, into the most famous living writer in the world, fabulously rich from the colossally increased sales of a book which hardly any of its new legion of purchasers would have read to the end.

    Le Carré and Dahl had a particularly legitimate grievance. If you want sheer fame and the attendant wealth, then you should write Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory followed by the screenplays to a Bond film and to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Getting it for the heady brew of magic realism and postcolonial politics is having your cake and eating it. That is what posh awards are for. Not chat show appearances, universally instant recognition in the street, and automatic conveyance to the best table in any restaurant on earth.

    • Daniel Maris

      David Lindsay –

      Rather than inflicting your “fit of the vapours” on everyone else you could possibly keep it to yourself.

  • John Nagle (USA)

    Religion often is politics. When a religion has, or seeks, political power, be it
    via guns or lobbyists, it’s in the political arena. It then can, and
    should, be criticized as severely as politicians are. Islam admits to being a political movement. As such, it is subject to all the normal political pressures, including satire. Mohammed himself was a political and military leader.

  • Daniel Maris

    Will they be back to protest in support of Malala, the poor girl shot by the Taliban for wanting to be free and educated?

  • Alex

    Apparently British women can’t wait to get converted my their Muslim boyfriends/husbands. This from your own article:

    Does not bode well for Britain.

    • trevor21

      I’m sure tickets could be provided for these erstwhile wives to journey with their repatriated husbands to take up residences in the homeland cess-pits. I wonder how long it would take for these ‘converts through marriage’ to come scurrying home?

  • Callen

    Get them to take off all their anti-semitic, any-gay, anti-western videos of YouTube, then come back and complain.

  • Mullah Lodabullah

    They defend their false prophet, who in turn mocked and blasphemed against Jesus Christ, the Son of God, denying His crucifixion (Sura 4:157). Their mocking and blasphemies come at a price; following a false prophet has consequences:

    “For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and give signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Mark 13:22)

    Politicians pander to muslim lies and blasphemies at their peril.

    • Torrero

      And the Gospel of Barnabas? Oh wait, its been conveniently removed!

    • Daniel Stoner

      Uh, no, they’re both false prophets. It just so happens that while Christianity is on balance, bad for the world, Islam is 100,000 times more horrible.

  • John Woods

    Look, I don’t want to sound like Nick Griffin here, but I am genuinely convinced that we, the indigenous peoles of Britan and Europe, will have to resort to some sort of extra legal force and paramilitarism in order to rid ourselves of these primitives. The police are paralysed by peecee, as their failure to stop the industrial scale rape of under age white girls accross the Pennine towns and West Midlands so viidly shows, and the Moslems are just getting bolder and bolder very day in their demands for separate schools, Sharia Law, censorship, polygamy, etc etc. They are here mainly to get dole money and reproduce. They know EXACTLY what kind of country they are in: one which is too cowardly to deal with them They bring nothing positive to the table, no good things to society, but breed while the white man feeds. We are heading for civil war: we are just gonna have to make sure we are the winners.

    • Baron

      John Woods, sir, we don’t have to resort to what you suggest, the country’s still governed by laws, thanks God, all we should do is isolate the extremists from the Muslim unwashed who side with ‘the winning horse’, and the ‘winning horse’ happens to be currently the extremists because those who govern us are scared stiff to hit them hard, in part because the laws they’ve enacted have to teeth, the punishment doesn’t inflict any pain. Just think, the extremists comes from countries where if you steal your hand gets chopped off, but here if you murder you get 9 year tariff in an institution where there’s free Sky channels paid for the taxpayer whilst our soldiers have to pay for it. Suicidal lunacy.

      • Daniel Maris

        I agree Baron. The point is that we haven’t rallied our resources to confront the Sharia gang yet. We should use the full force of the law to neutralise them. Then most Muslims I think would take due notice of our country’s serious intent and the vast majority would take seriously their obligation as citizens to follow the laws of Parliament and to integrate into the life of the nation. As it is, they think the rest of us aren’t serious.

        • trevor21

          If we really got serious about dealing with these enemies of the nation I doubt we would have to wait long to see a vast exodus to every airport for them to get out. Cut them off from the states teat and they would start running and they wouldn’t stop till they reached the Punjab.Like fleas jumping from the coat of a disenfected dog.

          • Ron Todd

            No they would just go undergound.

            • trevor21

              Then underground is where they would be pursued,with a price on them I doubt they would be running free for very long.

      • john

        Baron, you talk of extremists as if they are on the edge of Islam, and can be neatly cut away with a scalpel. Not so – they are at the very heart of it, like the core of the earth – true muslims, not extremists. They are doing nothing extreme as far as Islam is concerned, just going about perfectly permissible, everyday Islamic business. The so-called moderates are the marginalised ones, because they have no doctrinal back-up for their position. They are the ones on the periphery.
        “so long as there is this book, there will be no peace in the world” said William Gladstone of the Koran. He was right. Islam is the problem, full stop.
        I do agree that the law needs to be brought to bear properly on the situation first. Only if that fails will we see the emergence of non-muslim paramilitaries who will ‘deal’ with the problem their way…

    • trevor21

      Correct. I must say that I would challenge anyone to point out a single good effect that the influence of Islam has had upon Britain? My old home town of Rochdale is now a veritable cess-pit. A rather famous chap once said that one day they would have the whip-hand. In Rochdale that has been achieved.

  • Gareth

    They know that they live in a country where the police don’t enforce the law in Muslim ghettoes. They know they live in a country with a long history of giving in to terrorism

  • Eddie

    But these Muslims do not march on London or even complain at all when other religious groups – or for that matter anyone who is gay, or atheist, or an ex-Muslim – is insulted and abused in the press. Maybe because its is the media in Muslim countries and imams here who incite hatred against all those groups.
    We already pander too much to Muslims demanding special treatment and that their ‘prophet’ (a 7th century warlord and murderer who forced people to covert to Islam or die, and who had many wives, one at the Jimmy Savile penchant kind of age) be given immunity from citicism, humour or analysis.
    Time to treat Muslims like anyone else – we need to respect Islam less, not more, and I sincerely hope the BBC and the British media get their guts back soon and stop appeasing the facists of our age.
    The BBC can start by stopping saying ‘The Prophet Mohammed’ in every report and saying ‘Mohammed the Muslim prophet’ instead – and then it can show the Danish cartoons on TV in a discussion programme.
    How dare these Muslims attempt to silence debate and criticism – there should be NO limits to free speech, other then perhaps to stop the incitement of violence (which Muslims go in for). Time to stand up and be counted.
    Would the institutions of this country appease and kowtow to white non-religious people holding views as bigoted and extreme as these Muslims scumbag fascists? No – so therefore, the appeasement of these Muslims is racist because it is treating people differently because of their race.
    Multiculturalism and the tolerance of the intolerable caused this problem. Would any leftwing so-called liberal tit who supported such policies say how they suggest solving the problems their dogma created?

    • Torrero

      You have your views based on media reports without any FACTUAL knowledge.

      1. Over fourteen hundred years ago, Islam gave women rights that women in the West have only recently began to enjoy. In the 1930’s, Annie Besant observed, “It is only in the last twenty years that Christian England has recognised the right of woman to property, while Islam has allowed this right from all times. It is a slander to say that Islam preaches that women have no souls.” (The Life and Teachings of Mohammed, 1932).
      Men and women all descended from a single person – the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him). Islam does not accept for either of them anything but justice and kind treatment.

      2. Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in “Young India”, 1924:
      “I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”

      3. The following is from Michael Hart’s book and lists Prophet Muhammad as the most influential man in History. A Citadel Press Book, published by Carol Publishing Group
      Ranking of the twenty from the list of 100:
      Prophet MuhammadIsaac NewtonJesus ChristBuddhaConfuciusSt. PaulTs’ai LunJohann GutenbergChristopher ColumbusAlbert EinsteinKarl MarxLouis PasteurGalileo GalileiAristotleLeninMosesCharles DarwinShih Huang TiAugustus CaesarMao Tse-tung

      • WoodstockWastrel

        So in 1910 women weren’t allowed to own property in England?- I never knew that, thanks for educating me.

        • Eddie

          Yes, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I were just so oppressed and dispossessed.
          Sadly, such an ISLAMOCENTRIC, and ETHNOCENTRIC (ie anti-Eurocentric revisionist views) agenda is taught as history in our pc schools, and promoted as revisionist ‘inclusive’ history through our TV screens.
          Thanks, BBC…

      • DAniel Maris

        So if Islam was responsible for introducing the notion of women owning property, how come was Mohammed’s first wife (older and far more successful than him) an independent businesswoman in her own right?
        That was during pagan times, before the supposedly enlightened Mohammed brought his prophecy to those parts.

      • Daniel Stoner

        Torrero, the “prophet” Muhammend had a 3 way orgy with a goat and his own grandmother (must have been on one of the days he wasn’t raping his 9 year old “wife”). Stalin and Hitler were influential too – so what?

      • T. Botham

        Where’s Nelson Mandela?

      • Eddie

        No – and you accusation is a typical Muslim LIE.
        I have plenty of knowledge and no, I do not just believe anything the media says – you no doubt would claim that it’s run by Jews and is a conspiracy and is unfair to Muslims; I actually see the media as being overly-positive about Muslims, calling Mohammed a ‘prophet’ as though that were a fact, sucking up to and appeasing Muslims all the time, and turning a blind eye to the facts (such as the polls that show 15% of British Muslims thought the 7/7 London bombing a ‘good thing’).
        I know more about Islam and its variations than Muslims who just swallow the lies their Saudi-funded imams brainwash them with in the local mosque. I know for example that Mohammed was a 7th century warlord who had 14 wives one who was 9 years old and who had all those who dared criticise him executed (by having their turbans nailed to their heads) and who spread Islam by the sword. Probably YOUR ancestors were converted like this, after being raped.
        Islam allows women to be beaten and raped and killed. Equal rights for women? BBC Islam progaganda. Women hade equal rights to property under Hwll Daa in Wales over 1000 years ago, and got property in a divorce; moreover, divorce was easy after a year of marriage with no children or if the husband (or wife) was violent or a drunkard or mental (like Sarah here). Anglo-saxon laws existed centuries ago, as did Roman and Celtic laws.
        The golden age of the Arabs (often wrongly called the golden age of Islam) in which Christians, Jews and others lived under Muslim rule (as 2nd class citizens) was based on the translations of ancient Greek and Roman texts by Jews and Christians actually – but at least back them, Muslims could separate faith and reason: now you can’t. How does it feel to be more backwards than Muslims over 1000 years ago then?
        Oh yes, and Muslims also drank alcohol – Mohammed himself drank wine. Really, the way you Muslims worship a murdering paedo called Mohammed is akin to any hero-worship – like that of Hitlet, Stalin or Mao. You really are idiots to worship such a disgusting murderous pig of history.
        And how CHILDISH and absurd to even try and argue who the most important person in history has been. I migh choose Darwin or Shakespeare; I certainly wouldn’t choose a murderer whose made-up religion allows slavery, rape and the killing of anyone who did not share my views.
        If you hate our culture and country so much, then why not – and here’s an idea – just FUCK OFF back to the desert hellhole in which your ignorant ancestors raped their child slaves?
        I dare say many here would chip in to buy your ticket. Maybe via Lockerbie too eh…

        • Eddie

          ‘Hitlet’ is of course the sweet little cloned Hitler who escaped to the USA after the war and got work at Disneyland as a dwarf…

        • trevor21

          Quite right. The sooner the better.

        • Ron Todd

          There is always a differance between what the official theology allows and what the culture that is associated with a religion at the more populist level does.

          How many women would rather live in 1930s England than in a modern Islamic country? Not many would be my guess.

          • Eddie

            Oh come off it! Your analogy is straight out of Islamofascist-appeasers’ weekly.
            My mum was a child in the 1930s and my grandmother worked (because yes, women back then did have the vote, own property and work).
            In an Islamic state – in 2012 – those women would have to stay at home as baby-machines to be raped by thsie 50 year old cousin whenever he came home stoned – and if they refused, they’d be beaten up in the name of Islam – and if they continued to want to demand the freedoms enjoyed by British women in the 1930s, then they really would be stoned! To death, that is.
            Why do you defend a culture that is so abusive, bigoted, racist and sexist – and indeed fascistic and utterly intolerant. Is it because the people who belong to it are brown-skinned? If so, then you are a proven racist. Would you tolerate white persons behaving like them then?
            Yep, there is a difference between theology (theory) and practice but Britain in the 30s was NOT a religious state with no man-made law and no democracy and no freedom.
            Moreover, your seeming tolerance of the most intolerant Muslims (common amongst lefties) means that the more tolerant Muslims get crushed so the Muslims in the UK get more extreme.
            But I agree with one analogy with the 30s: Appeasement of fascism was not the way then and it is not the way now. Sadly, appeasement of Islamofascism in the name of misplaced multiculturalism is standard learned behaviour for leftwing hyprocites and our socalled ‘liberal elite’.

            • Ron Todd

              Sorry got that slightly wrong what I acctually ment to say was that 1930 England would be choice of most women.

              Seperating culture from religon does not imply that I support either

              • Eddie

                Oh I see – which is the opposite of your post!
                It happens…
                Personally, I’d quite like to visit the 1930s, so long as I could not be a coal miner or living in poverty… Art deco is fab!
                But really, one would have to go a LONG way back – before Henry II, Before Hwll Dda or Anglo-Saxon laws, to find a time when women on these islands were as oppressed and abused as women are in islamic states by the dictatorship under which they live, sanctioned by law.

          • jackytreehorn

            Your guess is wide of the mark.
            Either that or you have your head stuck up your arse.

      • anotherjoeblogs

        a few questions – why should a book by some guy called michael hart convince us that muhammed was the most ‘ influential ‘ man in history and have you heard of a bad influence ?
        one meaning of influence – influence (countable and uncountable; plural influences)

        The power to affect,
        control or manipulate something or someone; the ability to change the development of fluctuating things such as conduct, thoughts or decisions

      • Baron

        Torrero, sir, our miniscule little voices may indeed make no difference, your worshipping of the progressive Islam of fourteen hundred years ago may be spot on, the guy you bow to may rank number one and above except that you try and take a Bible into Saudi Arabia today, and when or perhaps if you get back we talk again about the enlightening Islam of the 21st century.

        How’s that for a deal?

        and this

        the ranking doesn’t differentiate between those who impacted humanity through their evil and those who did it through their contribution to the world’s knowledge, happiness. Hart’s and your choice of number one slots more comfortably with the likes of Lenin and Mao than Newton an dEinstein.

      • John

        Total bollocks. And very funny with it. Which particular lunatic asylum is allowing internet access nowadays?

    • trevor21

      Repatriation…if only.

    • Ron Todd

      Did ‘sir’ Jimmy like them as young as 9 ?

  • Mr Grumpy

    Empty bravado, I’m afraid, Douglas. They understand the Britain of 2012 all too well. If Muslims can be jailed for circulating a leaflet which offends Ben Summerskill (as in Derby earlier this year), why should they not demand some sauce for the gander? True, they are less well represented than the gay lobby in the upper eaches of the Establishment, but they have demography on their side.

  • S Brearley

    Sometimes I think that Douglas Murray is living in another country (or indeed another planet) where people are all clued up about Islam. The fact of the matter is that Britain (and the West) with its self censorial, tolerant and benevolent culture (and laws), whose people’s only knowledge of Islam are the BBC/Guardian and the Penguin book they had to read as part of RE at school is more suitable for Islam than even most Islamic countries. Britain is now at a stage where say India was in the early days of its Islamic invasion where a large docile and indifferent, but on the whole peaceful people were suddenly confronted by a tribe of extremely violent and bloodthirsty invaders for whom anything not Islamic was fit for butchery. People had neither seen or experienced anything like this before and quickly chose appeasement, slavery and surrender over a certain death. Ok, Britain is not exactly being invaded, much less ruled by a murdering Islamic conquering tribe, but nevertheless its capitulation is still very much inevitable. Thanks to the media, academia and politicians – who each has a vested interest in promoting Islam, perhaps a sword isn’t necessary especially when most people are clueless, lazy and docile, much like the aforementioned Indians. Come to think of it, I think we do deserve that Nobel prize.

  • Keith

    I don’t think it’s amazing either. Seems perfectly bloody logical to me.

  • WoodstockWastrel

    They know exactly what country they are living in- its the country they or their parents came to, the country that is not a fly blown cesspit where you can go about your daily business without fear or harassment from corrupt authorities. Its a country that tolerates all religions and creeds and doesn’t persecute adherers of weird cults based on medieval tribal brutality and the subjugation of women. Its also the country they came to for solely economic reasons.

    • Verk

      And it’s also the country they despise and wish fundamentally change for the (infinitely) worse.

  • Andrew Saint

    Regarding DM’s final sentence: no, it is not amazing at all. What do you expect when our ruling establishment parties continue to appease and pander to “disaffected” Muslims like the so-called “Sheikh”?

  • MikeF

    No – it is not amazing, it isn’t even mildly suprising. It is the all too predictable consequence of the policy of multi-culturalism pursued by government and various institutional sectors over the last 20-30 years and also of the inherent nature of fundamentalist Islam. The whole point of that policy is that what ‘most people’ think, feel and believe is deliberately trashed in order to facilitate the factionalisation of society through the creation of a grievance culture based on ethnic ‘identity’ the manipulation of which keeps a politco-bureaucratic caste in power. Hadn’t you noticed?

Can't find your Web ID? Click here