masthead

Powered byWebtrack Logo

Links

Western society’s war within

IT may begin with a chuckle, but it could easily end in tears. At least, if we are not careful. One may be tempted to scoff at the demand to legalise polygamy made recently by Khalil Chami of Sydney's Islamic Welfare Centre. But with the recent announcement by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that the adoption of sharia law in Britain seems unavoidable, the joke may turn out to be on us.

Britain provides an instructive lesson on the interaction between increasingly radicalised sections of the Muslim diaspora community and its Western host society.

From Dundee to Dover, traditional British values, already weakened to the point of collapse by a decades-long elite infatuation with mushy multiculturalism and cultural relativism, cannot provide resistance against the growing tide of extreme demands by radical self-styled community spokesmen.

The same way that the claim of racism has been used to shut down any debate on cultural identity, immigration and social cohesion, so is Islamophobia increasingly used to silence dissent. To merely raise certain issues is to give offence, and offending sensibilities is a hanging offence in our postmodern times.

While radicals agitate, a politically correct establishment, at pains to prove how enlightened and tolerant it is, even if it means tolerating the intolerance of others, usually stands on the sidelines, if not actively cheering on another challenge to the ostensibly oppressive, hegemonic Western culture and polity.

In January last year, Britain's Channel 4 television broadcast a documentary on jihadi incitement in mosques throughout England. The material revealed by this undercover investigative report was quite incendiary in nature. One Saudi-trained imam called for British Muslims to "dismantle democracy" by "living as a state within a state" until they are "strong enough to take it over".

Another Islamic radical praised the Taliban for killing British soldiers and argued that women who declined to wear the burka should be beaten into submission.

After the program was aired, British authorities wasted no time springing into action. The West Midlands Police lodged criminal charges, not against the extremist imams but against the TV network. Responding to a complaint by the Muslim Association of Britain, the police accused Channel 4 of inciting racial hatred by means of an ostensibly distorted documentary that demonised Islam. When the Crown Prosecution Service ultimately declined to pursue the matter, police referred the complaint to the British government broadcast oversight agency, OFCOM.

Earlier this year, an officer from the Wiltshire Police ordered a motorist to remove England's flag of St George from his automobile because it was "racist towards immigrants".

Stand-up comedian Ben Elton recently asserted that fear of "provoking the radical elements of Islam" caused the BBC to censor jokes about Muslim clerics. "There's no doubt about it," Elton said, "the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass."

This comes on the heels of a legion of other examples of often pre-emptive surrenders to yet unvoiced radical demands, such as some British banks withdrawing toy piggy banks or public institutions turning Christmas into an amorphous Winter Festival, all for the fear of offending Muslim sensibilities.

All this is rather ironic, since under the twin dogmas of multiculturalism and cultural relativism, all cultures and beliefs are meant to be equal. Like George Orwell's animals, however, some seem to be more equal than others. Commitment to cultural diversity all too often seems to disguise contempt for the dominant national culture that historically bound the society.

No wonder such large sections of the British establishment don't offer any resistance to the claims of fundamentalist radicals.

The case against Channel 4 was ultimately dismissed and the broadcaster won a pound stg. 100,000 ($206,000) civil judgment against the West Midlands Police. But even if sanity prevailed after much time and expense, the totalitarian echoes of this affair clearly have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. While a TV network has the requisite resources to wage a vigorous legal defence, less well-heeled victims of the thought police would be in real strife.

All this is worrying to the silent majority of Muslims who are not interested in political agitation but simply want to rear their families in peace, freedom and prosperity, so often lacking in countries where they or their ancestors have come from. It's hard to blame the moderates within the Muslim community for not speaking out more against the extremists when they see the establishment and the authorities so often and so easily buckling to radicals.

In Australia, federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland summarily dismissed Chami's demand for the legalisation of polygamy. But lest we feel too comfortable, it should be noted that the example of Britain demonstrates how quickly a national sense of cultural self-confidence can erode. Britain serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unrestrained political correctness and cultural relativism.

After all, if Westminster democracy and Wahhabi theocracy are ethically equal, there is no reason to resist when freedom comes under assault from feudalism.

The essential question we face is not about the rule of law but about which law is to rule. Events in Britain teach us that Chami's proposal represents the thin end of the wedge in the creeping campaign to introduce Islamic jurisprudence into our legal system.

A nation with two legal systems, reflecting conflicting social and political philosophies, is a house divided and, as history shows, it cannot stand.

We must be culturally self-confident enough to assert that the monopoly status of common law and democracy in Australia is entirely non-negotiable. As Peter Costello said not so long ago: "If a person wants to live under sharia law, there are countries where they may feel at ease, but not Australia."

Liberal Brett Mason represents Queensland in the Australian Senate.


# reads: 191

Original piece is http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23984418-7583,00.html


Print
Printable version

Tell us what you think


I agree basically with Nadia. I do however not agree that it is politically correct to change our practices to suit them. It is completely PC to say to them we make the same conditions for you that we have already made for other groups, the Jews, Budhists etc. In this respect we have some of the most liberal practices in the world, we will work with you, as we have done with others, but we do not change our fundamental social and legal values for anyone. We could also say that if you try to change us to Islam you will fail. We accept equal rights for women and expect you to do the same if you stay here. We dislike the concept of Sharia law, we like drinking alcohol, don't fool yourself with false hopes.

Posted by Peter C on 2008-07-08 06:19:33 GMT


I am not surprised at all to see the west so scared of Islam the way it is. They are scared of bombing, of suicide bombers and of court cases. What the west is forgetting is that a Jew or a Christian has no right in a Muslim country. The only way to deal with the problem called Islam and Muslims, is simple, IF THEY DO NOT OBEY THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY THEY MOVE IN TO, THEY LEAVE, SO SIMPLE. What we need in Australia is to forget about what politillicly correct is and what is not and concentrate on how to build a safe future for our families without ISLAM. What the western need to know also that they should be strong enough to accept no hogwash from any Muslim and stand up to them, you know what? They will back off. Apart from that its time for the government to take a firm stand, if Muslims do not like and agree with the law her they are free to go back to where they have come from!

Posted by Nadia on 2008-07-08 04:12:40 GMT


Certainly I agree that Islamism represents a threat to our society, one which we must meet. I do see a connection between that sad and dangerous religious extremism and the communists and the also the Nazis. However we must not be paranoiac about it, that helps no-one. Exaggerations and cherry picking for incidents that appear to prove your point simply do not help. I object to the Union Jack on our flag I see it as an insult to us Jews, and more so to the aboriginal people, to me it is a sign of British domination. That does not mean I wish to destroy Australian society. The incident with Channel 4 was decided in their favour, the police and Muslims will now think twice about about objections to that type of material, the law has been made clear, Islam can be criticised in the UK. Is that a sign of capitulation,I think not? It might be the ambition of some Muslim clerics to introduce Sharia law in UK bit by bit, what are their chances of success? The whole article should have been a wake up call, because of the hysteria it looks like the rantings of an old conservative man.

Posted by Peter C on 2008-07-08 01:22:19 GMT