Cameron won’t speak to me, Murray whines

Blackballed by Cameron | The Spectator

Some years ago Douglas Murray gave a speech in the Netherlands in which he called for sweeping restrictions on Muslims, among them an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a deportation provision for any number of speech crimes. In the present edition of the Spectator ([1], [2], [3], [4]), he whines that he has been shut out of the inner circle of the Conservative party on the basis of it. He complains that the current Tory party are basically self-hating, carrying old-fashioned prejudices against the “nasty party”. However, in the two examples he gives, he hides obvious and important facts.

He alleges:

A perfect example arose three years ago when the shadow minister of homeland security, Patrick Mercer, gave a newspaper interview in which he mentioned the fact that he had heard racist comments while he was in the army.

Even a cursory glance at the interview showed that Mercer was reporting — and deploring — these comments. But Cameron didn’t bother with a glance. Here was an opportunity to show the new Conservative party. So Cameron described Mercer’s comments as ‘completely unacceptable’, issued soundbites about the evils of racism, smeared and sent to the back benches a much better man than himself.

Well, a brief look at any news report at the time reveals that Mercer did not just mention that he had heard racist remarks; rather, he claimed that he had met a lot of useless soldiers from ethnic minorities who used racism as an excuse, that being called a “black bastard” was a normal part of Army life, and that in his regiment, most black soldiers would have reported that they had indeed been called a nigger at some point. While some might say that this kind of banter is to be expected, much outright racist bullying has been reported and Mercer’s remarks could easily be seen as giving comfort to those who think racist (or any other) bullying is acceptable and normal.

As for his own remarks that led to his being “blackballed”, he claims:

I was asked to address the question of what we should now do in Europe to deal with the increasingly problematic Muslim communities. I advocated a number of things. Among them was that mass immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop if the problems of integration were not to get worse. I advocated a tougher approach to self-appointed Muslim leaders and called for there to be no special privileges or protections provided in law or welfare for the feelings of Muslims. And I argued, as Nicolas Sarkozy and others have done, that if people plotted against the country into which they had come it should be possible for them to be sent back to their country of origin.

Apparently his speech was too extreme for the Social Affairs Unit, which has since deleted it from their blog, but various anti-Islamic sites still keep copies of it up, such as the “Militant Islam Monitor”. The speech was called “What are we to do about Islam?” and he did not bother making much distinction between Muslims in general and “militants”, delivered a standard diatribe against “dhimmitude” in which non-Muslims call our Prophet (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) “The Prophet” when they do not believe he is one and judges apologise for forcing a Muslim to court on a religious holiday. He complains of a war which the soldiers are winning on the battlefield but which is being lost at home, mentioning media disasters such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. This is very reminiscent of the “stab in the back” ramblings from an earlier era: the soldiers would have won the war but for defeatism at home.

I wrote a more comprehensive response to Murray’s speech at the Sharpener at the time (which you can read here), but the short version is that he proposes stopping all “mass immigration” from Muslim countries (in fact, there is no mass immigration anymore) with genuine refugees given asylum on a strictly temporary basis, while “Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the West (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the West or Western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin”, which may be the country of their parents’ or grandparents’ origin in the case of a Muslim born here. This would effectively prohibit Muslims living in the West (who seem to be assumed to be all immigrants or descended from immigrants) from freely expressing their opinions in the event of any dispute between any western power and any other country or faction anywhere (he does not even mention that it has to be a Muslim country or faction). This is far beyond removing any “special rights”, as if Muslims had any special rights to begin with; it is also far beyond removing all those who “plotted against the country into which they had come” as merely condoning a foreign party resisting an aggression from one’s home country is not the same as plotting against one’s home country, but in any case, we did not all come here, many of us were born here and have no other home country.

So, why is it that David Cameron and his inner circle won’t be seen dead talking to Douglas Murray anymore? Perhaps it’s because he has a coalition partner to keep, who certainly won’t be seen dead with Murray and his ilk? Or perhaps it’s because, in government, one has to keep an air of statesmanship, and that means not talking to bigots and extremists. Given his economy with the truth in the Spectator, one wonders why anyone would bother listening to him anyway.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

You may also like...