Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail

Thought I would just put up excerpts from this very important article, but proved impossible to be selective. So here's the whole thing, as I'm also not sure the Daily Mail website keeps things up permanantly:

Blair. The veil. And a new low in politics

Great sea changes of thought or opinion are rare in British public life, taking place perhaps only once or twice in a generation.

But there is abundant evidence that we are undergoing one now.

Until only a few months ago, mainstream British politicians were extremely cautious about articulating the fears and resentments felt by many ordinary people on the subject of mass immigration.

Those who spoke out publicly (Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech is the notorious example) were ostracised. Political parties which raised the issue were thrust beyond the outer margins of debate - the fate of the National Front and the BNP.

This self-restraint has now vanished. Practically every day for the past two weeks, another minister has insulted the customs, habits or religious beliefs of Britain's Muslim minority.

The most recent assault, which came just hours after the subject was discussed at a Cabinet meeting in Downing Street, was launched by Hilary Armstrong on Question Time and came with the full authority of the Prime Minister.

Harriet Harman, Tessa Jowell, Peter Hain, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Ruth Kelly and a number of other frontline Labour politicians have also entered the fray.

It is now clear that Jack Straw's comments on women who wear the veil were not, as seemed likely at the time, the result of some random rumination. He surely set out with the intention of putting in motion a national campaign.

In other words, Labour has made the extraordinary decision to place the politics of religious identity at the centre of public discourse, in the same sort of way that Jorg Haider's Freedom Party does in Austria and Pim Fortuyn's List Party did in the Netherlands

Criticisms of this tactic in the Press - which was so derogatory about Michael Howard's timid excursion into similar terrain 18 months ago - have been few and far between.

On the contrary, Jack Straw's comments have liberated the media to follow suit. It seems every day now brings forth news of an outrage allegedly perpetrated somewhere by a Muslim.

Many of the stories - such as the front page claims two weeks ago that a Muslim man had shouted abuse in a hospital at a British soldier wounded in Iraq, or the allegation that a terrorist suspect used the veil to evade detection - are impossible to substantiate and may well turn out to be fabrications.

Some people will feel glad that the subject of Islam is being widely aired at last. And it is perfectly true that many of the comments made by ministers, whether Jack Straw on the veil or Ruth Kelly on the need to keep an eye on 'extremism', contain grains of good sense.

But cumulatively this litany of condemnation has turned into an anti-Islamic crusade. I am a practising member of the Church of England and if we had come under the same wave of condemnation for our practices and traditions I would by now be affronted beyond belief.

If I were Jewish, with the experience of the 20th century to look back on, and came under the same weight of hostility I would be terrified.

There is a whiff of the lynch mob about the wave of attacks over the past fortnight, and it is no surprise to learn that the new national mood sparked by Jack Straw and sanctioned by Tony Blair has indeed led to a number of assaults on British mosques, including one firebombing.

There have also been reports of a sharp rise of physical assaults on Muslims.

It is nothing short of appalling that the Blair government has been ready to countenance this change in public culture, but I think three main factors lie behind Labour's campaign against Islam.

The first is a genuine belief that it is extremely difficult to reconcile Muslim fundamentalism with full membership of British society. I know from many personal conversations -that Phil Woolas, the minister for race relations - who last week intervened in the row over the classroom assistant Aisha Azmi by calling for her to be sacked - has long held this view.

At last year's General Election Woolas - who unlike his colleagues has the merit of being consistent - put the Union Flag on his campaign literature and highlighted 'anti-white racism' as a vital issue in his Oldham constituency.

Many experts expected that Woolas would lose this marginal seat, but his tactics ensured that his vote surged, an outcome that was carefully noted by the Millbank electoral machine.

My guess is that Labour strategists have now calculated that the Muslim coalition of voters, which was so stalwartly behind the party in 1997 and 2001, is now lost for ever as a result of the Iraq War.

Rather than try to win them back, Labour has cut its losses, and decided instead to stir up racial tension as a means of appealing directly to the white working-class vote. Labour activists tell me Jack Straw's remarks have proved 'incredibly resonant' on the doorstep.

This callous strategy has one extra attraction: it confuses the Tories. In the 1997 and 2001 elections, William Hague and Michael Howard rather hesitantly raised the abuse of the asylum system only to be denounced by Labour for running 'racist' campaigns.

As a consequence of this experience, the Conservatives plumped for David Cameron and swore a self-denying ordinance on the subject of immigration.

With awesome cynicism, Labour has now moved directly into the ground vacated by the Conservatives, only with far greater assurance. It is now engaging with issues that Michael Howard would never have dared even to mention.

So far the Conservative response has been impressive. To his credit, David Cameron has braved internal criticism by refusing to join in some kind of bidding war with Labour.

Instead, the Tory leader has gently rebuked Labour for victimising Muslims. I hope he will speak out much more strongly on the subject in due course.

That said, it must be admitted that this is very clever stuff from Tony Blair. There is every sign the strategy is working and I am sure that Labour will continue to deploy what used to be called the race card right up to next year's May elections and beyond. But playing politics with Islam is reckless beyond belief.

In the wake of last year's London atrocity, the Prime Minister promised to engage with the mainstream Muslim community. He never really tried to do so - the 'working parties' set up in the wake of the July bombings met just two or three times, they were not listened to, and their recommendations were ignored.

Now Tony Blair has allowed a campaign that is bound to undermine moderate Muslims and encourage extremism, whether from white supremacist parties like the BNP or within Islam itself.

It is quite the nastiest and most irresponsible politics I have seen from a mainstream political party in my life, and we will all pay a horrible price for such cynical opportunism.

Comments

[Abu Sahajj]

"Until only a few months ago, mainstream British politicians were extremely cautious about articulating the fears and resentments felt by many ordinary people on the subject of mass immigration."

Unfortunately, the empathy that is being shown to public fears by British Politics is being applied with little discretion concerning civil liberties, unless by definition civil liberty suprecedes and lawfully disregards the individual as in matters of public interest.

But that raises an even bigger question, because if that is the case (at least with respect to civil rights) how is British politics different from the oligarchy of the Thirty Tyrants that ruled Athens after the Peloponnesian War? I find it ironic that those very tyrrants deemed themselves democrats, the original proponents of Democracy!

[.]

Given Oborne's numerous links to the Tory party, maybe he ought to do his bit and perhaps persuade David Davis from sticking his oar in, rather than just complaining about Labour in a rather partisan way, as much as I agree with him.

[Fred S.]

Abu,
What "civil liberties" does Islam offer? Civilization has the right to defend itself against those who would destroy it from within.

What a fatuous article! Of course Jews and Anglicans aren't subjected to the same scrutiny a Muslims. They don't strap explosives to themselves and blow up their fellow citizens, foment race riots, demolish homes rented by British soldiers, commit a hugely disproportionate number of the nation's rape, etc. ad nauseam. If they did, then they would be.

I recall "moderate Islam". It told the gov't that Britain could fight terror by totally acquiescing to the political demands of the terrorists. I suspect the scum whose drivel I read on this site (Sadat springs to mind) are indicative of the tenor of "moderate Islam": totally supportive of the terrorists' means and ends but unwilling to take part themselves.

[ainelivia]

Interesting. A cycnical opportunity for one political view to hit out at another, more tit-for-tat journalism.

The sad part is just how much this leaves me despairing of any politician, elected or otherwise, lobbyists and political factions with their spin, hidden agendas etc, etc.

Personally, I'm more moved by the Fisk's efforts in the Independent 14.10.2006, entitled "Let me denounce genocide from the dock". Just how do we humans manage to keep repeating our inhumanity with unswerving devotion to denial.

[ainelivia]

"I find it ironic that those very tyrrants deemed themselves democrats, the original proponents of Democracy!"

You are in good company. So did Michels, german sociologist, his Iron Rule of Oligarchy mirrors you assertion.

[joe90]

They don't strap explosives to themselves and blow up their fellow citizens, foment race riots, demolish homes rented by British soldiers, commit a hugely disproportionate number of the nation's rape, etc. ad nauseam.

- apart from the usual obsession about people who strap explosives to themselves (altho you could say bomber pilots, tank crew etc 'strap themselves' into their exposives and weaponry paid for by taxpayers, £6.5 billion so fare for Iraq alone),
everything in the above statement is true of what serial Tony Blair, New Labour and the British Government are doing in Iraq with 100s of 1000s of innocent defenceless Iraqis murdered -
- the same goes for Israel's attacks on ALL of its neighbors, same is true for the US government the world over -

Still,
lets obsess over a few people strapping themselves to explosives which is about as rare as Tony Blair not telling a lie.

[joe90]

As New Labour attempts to steal the racist middle ground recently vacated by the Old Tories,
more news on the 'Explosion Trial', as the BBC are hailing the largest ever find of explosives and sundry terrorist material on mainland Britian.

Obviously, BNP-types with huge amounts of terrorist materials (in contrast to having Walter Mitty delusions and fantasies about committing terrorist atrocities) are just the sort of voters that war criminal and mass-murderer Tony Liar and his New Tory Party are trying to attract in the forthcoming election -
- hence the reason why they are only being charged under the Explosives Substances Act 1883, and not the Terrorism Acts of recent times -
- if you misuse fireworks, you can be charged under the old Exploives act, which doesn't have quite the same ring of importance about it, as say, being charged with terrorist offences.

The two charged with possessing explosives were due in Preston Crown Court on 24 October -
- I haven't heard any news about it.

I wish they wore veils, or were going to use baby-bottles and the like, then news of the trial wouldn't be off the BBC News or out of the British tabloids, radio - neighbours would be getting interviewd, shocked work-mates would be expressing disbelief, fellow party activists would be thin on the ground and living in denial etc etc - and I would know what was going on!

[tc]

Thanks for posting. I always feel it's better to assume stupidity before malice, but Oborne's argument is compelling.

[Usayd]

Oborne, while a Tory, has always been pro-faith. I don't think its fair to consider this electioneering or politiking, I believe his piece to be genuine.

[DrM]

Well said Joe, took the words out of my mouth.

[Ted]

"Still,
lets obsess over a few people strapping themselves to explosives"

Another brainless classic. The British Government should monitor British soldiers for fear they may commit crimes against British citizens rather than a section of the community that actually has!

Joe, are you married to your sister or summat?

[joe90]

Another brainless classic

Really, another one?

Remind me again of some others, such as -
- Judaism isn't a religion, its a race of humans
- and, Tony Blair isn't guilty of 'unprovoked aggression' against Iraq, the same crime as Hitler is guilty of

That's the problem you have,
you have to leave the world of surface appearance and your own little world that surrounds you - you have to start dealing with the principles, applying them to individual instances of phenomena, looking for differences and similarities -

- its all bit too abstract for the likes of you - I don't blame you for sticking to what you know, inconsiderable as that is

[joe90]

As always DrM,
I salute your indefatigueability and your impeccable taste in commenteers,
please keep it up!

Always yours