The way in which different European countries respond to the debate over Islamic face coverings for women is beginning to offer important insights into how well they are mentally and culturally equipped to deal with the continent’s ever expanding Muslim populations.

After the French parliament almost unanimously approved a ban on the burka on July 13, the focus of attention in Europe has now shifted to Britain where Conservative MP Philip Hollobone is introducing a bill to parliament which would forbid the wearing of the burka or the niqab in public places.

It has now emerged, however, that the deeply entrenched forces of multiculturalist political correctness in Britain have already begun to mobilise. Hollobone is being threatened with legal action under the Equality Act for refusing to hold meetings with voters in his area who insist on wearing their veils.

He argues, reasonably, that proper interaction with women wearing face coverings is not possible and suggests that if they want to raise an issue with him they send him a letter instead. According to the BBC, the multiculturalist civil rights group Liberty has pledged to offer legal representation to any Muslim woman whom Hollobone refuses to meet.

But the fact that such groups would leap to the defence of a practice that would have been considered oppressive to women in the England of the Middle Ages is no longer surprising. The real story here is the way that Conservative Party ministers in the new British government are right behind them.

Caroline Spelman,the Environment Minister, last week said “the burka confers dignity” and even went on to describe it as “empowering” to the women that wear it.

“I take a strong view on this, actually,” she told SKY News. “It is part of their culture, it is part of understanding that they choose to go out in the burka and I think those that live in this country, if they choose to wear a burka, should be free to do so”.

Yes, indeed. It is part of “their” culture. But it’s not part of our culture, and it is our culture that must have primacy in our country if we are to sustain and reinvigorate the liberal-democratic tradition that we have cultivated over centuries. That, of course, is a point that the multi-culturalist mindset finds impossible to understand.

And the core issue here is that multiculturalist assumptions have become so deeply embedded in British society that they now set the default position on such subjects even for powerful sections of the British right. Spelman is not alone among senior Conservatives in her truly bizarre approach to this matter.

Conservative Immigration minister Damian Green also came out strongly in favour of the burka recently describing a ban on it as being “at odds with the UK’s tolerant society”.

In a previous article I said the following about that utterly specious line of argument:

“Quite apart from the inherent oppression of women, the central point here is that cohesive Western societies operate under certain unwritten rules which make interaction between strangers manageable. First among these is a skill which we start to learn as babies and develop as adults: the range of human reactions to the body language of others, the language of facial expression in particular.

“It’s an inexact science and some are more proficient at it than others. But the unspoken assumption that we all have the right to a fair crack at understanding the intentions of others is the only way our societies can exist without the kind of extreme levels of police control or the stifling social conventions that exist in alternative forms of society. This is how a free society can and must operate in the public domain.

“That is why — if it started to happen — we would not allow sections of our youth to walk around our city centres wearing commando-style balaclavas, with three holes for the eyes and mouth. That is also why no supporter of liberal-democratic values is remotely concerned about Muslims wearing headscarves on the street — covering the hair challenges no-one’s ability to interact normally with others”.

I repeat, the multiculturalists will never get the point here. The Guardian in an editorial at the time of the French burka ban vote actually suggested that the burka was no more threatening to a free society than the wearing of “sunglasses”. But the Guardian is a long-standing opponent of the open society, and we expect little better.

What is truly frightening is that people who really should know better appear not to. And when that happens, free societies start to degenerate.

For those that are not aware of it, Jose Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain and one of Europe’s most distinguished elder statesmen, has launched a major global initiative to bring reason and decency back to the discussion of Israel.

I would encourage readers to go the new website by clicking here.

The website will explain who is involved and how you can help. It is the most important initiative of its kind for decades, and I would ask all of you to send the link to the website to everybody on your email list.

A major new survey by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research suggests that British Jews are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, with a very large proportion indicating that Israel forms a significant component of their Jewish identity. The report simultaneously represents a devastating blow to anti-Zionist Jews who are given huge prominence in the British media — particularly in the BBC and the Guardian — in order to give the impression that significant sections of Britain’s Jewish community are as hostile to Israel as much of the non-Jewish population.

The survey was conducted among 4,081 respondents in January and February 2010. The following are selected results taken from the report.

** “For 82% of respondents, Israel plays a ‘central’ or ‘important but not central’
role in their Jewish identities”.

** “90% believe that Israel is the ‘ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people”.

** “72% categorize themselves as Zionists; 21% do not see themselves as Zionists,
and 7% are unsure”.

** “An overwhelming majority (87%) agrees that Jews are responsible for
ensuring ‘the survival of Israel’— over half (54%) the non-Zionist respondents
also agree”.

Taken together, such figures are indeed devastating to the claims of anti-Zionist Jewish groups in Britain such as Independent Jewish Voices that they speak for significant sections of Britain’s Jewish community. Given the kind of attitudes represented above, they would be hard pressed to claim the support of more than 10-15 percent of British Jews. In other words, they are very much on the fringes of the Jewish community with the percentiles in which their opinions fall being roughly similar to those of people in wider British society who sympathise with the far left or the far right.

On policy issues in Israel, British Jewish opinion tends be slightly more dovish than Israeli opinion. Nonetheless, their views fall well within the Israeli mainstream. Here is a selection of other findings from the report:

** “Two-thirds (67%) favour giving up territory for peace with the Palestinians;
28% disagree”. Religious respondents are less likely than secular respondents to
agree”.

** “Almost three-quarters (74%) are opposed to the expansion of existing
settlements in the West Bank (Judea/Samaria). Even among those who define
themselves as Zionist, 70% are opposed”.

** “A large majority (78%) favours a two-state solution to the conflict with the
Palestinians; 15% are opposed, and 8% are undecided”.

** “Just over half (52%) think that Israel should negotiate with Hamas, while
39% do not”.

** “Half the sample (50%) agrees that ‘Israeli control of the West Bank (Judea/
Samaria) is vital for Israel’s security’, while a sizable minority (40%) disagrees.

** “There is still stronger support (72%) for the view that the security fence/
separation barrier is ‘vital for Israel’s security’”.

** “Most (72%) agree that the Gaza War was ‘a legitimate act of self-defence.’
Religious and Zionist respondents are considerably more likely to agree with
this than secular and non-Zionist respondents”.

** “Fully 87% of respondents agree that ‘Iran represents a threat to Israel’s
existence’”.

** “A large majority (80%) feels that ‘Democracy is alive and well’ in Israel.

** “By contrast, 67% agree that ‘there is too much corruption in Israel’s political
system.’ Only 13% disagree, while 20% are uncertain”.

** “About three-quarters (74%) think that ‘Orthodox Judaism has too much
influence in Israel’s society’. Close to half (45%) of ‘Religious’ respondents also
agree with this assertion”.

** “60% of respondents agree that Jewish minority groups in Israel, such as people
of Russian or Ethiopian origin, ‘suffer from discrimination’, and only 20%
disagree. Similarly, 56% agree that non-Jewish minority groups ‘suffer from
discrimination’ in Israel, while 27% disagree”.

** “Over three-quarters (76%) of the sample feel that Israel is relevant to their
day-to-day lives in Britain. Even so, 67% do not feel any conflict of loyalty
regarding Britain and Israel”.

** “Just over a quarter (26%) say that they ‘feel uncomfortable living in Britain
because of events in Israel’. Respondents living in parts of the country with
fewer Jews are the most likely to feel uncomfortable”.

** “A majority (60%) says that Israel is either not an issue or only one of several
issues that influences their voting behaviour. 36% say that Israel is either ‘the
central issue’ or a ‘high priority issue but not central’”.

** “Almost a quarter (23%) of the sample had witnessed some form of antisemitic
incident in the previous year. Of these, over half (56%) believe that the incident
was ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ related to the abuser/assailant’s views on Israel.

** “More than one in ten respondents (11%) said they had been subjected to a
verbal antisemitic insult or attack in the 12 months leading up to the survey.
Over half of the victims (56%) believe that the incident was ‘probably’ or
‘definitely’ related to the abuser/assailant’s views on Israel”.

** “Over a third (35%) think that Jewish people should ‘always’ feel free to
criticize Israel in the British media; a further 38% say that there are some
circumstances when this would be justified. Only a quarter says this is ‘never’
justified”.
————————

The eminent Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz frequently provides a useful analogy about Israel’s predicament in the tribunals of international law. It is analogous, he argues, to the position that black people faced in the American south of the 1930s. The legal system would work fine in judging a case between a white man and another white man. A black man facing another black man may get a lesser degree of justice due to the insouciance of the system, but a reasonable degree of fairness could still be expected. Put a white man against a black man, however, and the black man never stood a chance due to the weight of the prejudices against him.

Dershowitz’s analogy is powerful and striking. But a decision taken in a British court this week suggests that analogies with America in the 1930s are no longer necessary. Bigotry against the Jewish state is now so entrenched in contemporary British society that juries have begun to acquit criminals merely if they can show that they acted against Israeli interests. No other defence is necessary.

This extraordinary moment in modern British legal history took place this week in the southern English coastal city of Brighton — a city known for its strong affiliations with the Green Party and other leftist causes. It transpired in a case involving five defendants who had broken into the EDO MBM owned arms factory in January 2009 at the time of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

The five admitted breaking into the factory — which was exporting military equipment at the time to Israel — and causing £180,000 ($275,000) worth of damage. Despite actually admitting to an offence that would usually carry a substantial jail sentence, the jury acquitted them, accepting their defence that although they had committed a crime they were doing so in order to prevent the greater offence of Israeli “war crimes”.

The Judge in the case, George Bathurst-Norman, was quite explicit in his summing up for the jury in encouraging them to employ their political prejudices against Israel in their decision:

“You may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time,” the Guardian quoted him as saying.

As the Guardian goes on to say: “The judge highlighted the testimony by Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, that “all democratic paths had been exhausted” before the activists embarked on their action.”

What we have here is yet another example of how the hysterical campaign against the state of Israel is not merely resulting in gross injustice against the Middle East’s only western-style democracy, it is undermining western-style democracy at home.

Bigotry does not merely cause pain and suffering to its victims, it degrades its perpetrators from within. The rule of law itself is now under threat in Great Britain, and judges and juries are applauding as it goes.

If there’s one thing that you should never forget when writing a review of someone’s book it is this: what you write will reflect just as much on you as on the book you are reviewing. Go over the top in praise of something that’s actually pretty run of the mill and it will make you look shallow. Start slamming something that’s a work of art and you’ll look like a philistine who couldn’t get the measure of a much greater mind. Start ranting and you’ll make an ass of yourself. Get personal and you look like a weirdo.

Enter John Crace, feature writer for the Guardian, who earlier this week reviewed
Melanie Phillips’ new book, The World Turned Upside Down. If you read the review you’ll learn nothing about Melanie’s book. But you will learn a lot about John Crace.

Here’s how he starts out, mockingly using the first person singular as if it were Melanie Phillips talking about her own reasons for writing her book:

“This book arose from a sense of perplexity that almost everyone in the world thought I was clinically mad. Everywhere I looked there were people who believed boarding a humanitarian aid convoy in international waters and murdering nine people was a little bit naughty. So I did what I’ve always done as a columnist for the Daily Mail; go where my bigotry leads.”

As the piece goes on he slips in just enough references to “the Old Testament”, going to “synagogue”, “Judaism” and the like to be absolutely sure that everyone knows Melanie Phillips is a Jew. Apart from that, there’s no real need to add anything more from his piece. It’s all variations on the theme of the first paragraph.

So what’s all this telling us about John Crace? The first thing is that he’s a weak writer. The clanking, leaden prose looks like something a teacher singles out to a creative writing class of 13 year olds to warn them about the dangers of mixing humour with personal animosity. It never works, and it’s foolish to try.

The second thing it tells us comes precisely out of that all too obvious personal animosity: Crace cannot deal with Melanie Phillips’ arguments, so he goes for her personality. But he can’t even do that with any panache. The “Mad Mel” line has got to be one of the most hackneyed lines in Lefty British journalism. To use it is pretty much like going to get your forehead tattooed with the words: “I’m a dimwit with nothing original to say”.

It’s also more than a little bit of a giveaway about his mindset: the charge of insanity against political opponents was one that was used to bang up Soviet dissidents in lunatic asylums. Crace will be much too shallow to have intended his audience to think along such lines. And he certainly won’t see the irony in his unconscious employment of totalitarian tropes against an anti-totalitarian writer. Nonetheless, it does illustrate with awesome clarity the sheer nastiness that lives inside him.

Which brings us to the third observation revealed by John Crace’s ugly little “review”: bigotry — the charge he makes against Melanie Phillips but which rebounds so spectacularly on himself and his views.

Here’s how my Oxford dictionary defines the word bigot: “A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a creed, opinion or ritual.” But that’s John Crace! (in fact that’s the Guardian and most of Britain’s liberal Left). Just look at his writing: packed full of lies and distortions (about Israel mainly); lies and distortions obstinately and irrationally held to regardless of evidence and contemptuous of countervailing views; lies and distortions which form part of a ritualised anti-intellectual agenda which has sunk its claws deep inside the new British establishment.

The real problem for John Crace is that he’s an intellectual pygmy taking on a giant. If he played the arguments rather than the person making them, it’d be a bloodbath and at some level he, like most of Melanie’s critics, probably knows it. That’s why he writes in the way that he does. Poor thing can’t help it. But what a state to be in….