The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 97: 12 October 2005

Contents

Repression - Blair Vs. Clarke

Islamophobia - Banning The Qur'an? Or The Bible?

REPRESSION

REPRESSION - BLAIR VS CLARKE?

Fresh from Blair vs Blair, we now have reports of a split between the two men in charge of repression in the UK: 'Blair and Clarke split over three-month detention plan' says the Independent (page 10), as does the Telegraph: 'Blair and Clarke at odds on detail of Terrorism Bill':

'The Prime Minister vigorously defended plans to give the police extra powers to hold suspects for up to three months without charge, compared with 14 days at present.'

'But while he was speaking at No 10, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, was telling MPs that he might be prepared to compromise over the time scale...'

'Mr Clarke, in evidence to the Commons home affairs select committee, also accepted the case for a three-month detention period but, unlike Mr Blair, he suggested that there was room for manoeuvre.'

' "I completely recognise there is a concern,'' he said. "Three months is not a God-given amount and that is why I indicated flexibility to deal with that in the proper way." '

But hang on, the Guardian, reporting the same event, says: 'Clarke stays firm on holding terror suspects for 90 days':

'The home secretary, Charles Clarke, last night signalled that he intends to push ahead with his plan to allow the police to hold terror suspects for up to three months without charge. He told MPs yesterday it was now "highly unlikely" that a cross-party compromise could be reached over the extension of the current 14-day limit on detention without charge.'

What seems to be happening is that Mr Clarke is proposing as a compromise a new way to achieve the three month detention, rather than a willingness to actually reduce the target God-given (or Tony-announced) figure:

'However in an attempt to placate critics Mr Clarke said that he was happy to see a high court judge, rather than a more lowly district judge, having responsibility for deciding whether the police should be granted extensions on a week by week basis up to three months under the new power.'

So if the period of internment mounts up week-by-week, each separate authorisation of detention without charge will be shorter than currently (14 days), but the total will be the holy 90 days, which will defeat terrorism and make us safe.

The two men seem to still be agreed on the goal, but, as the FT pointed out, there was a 'difference in tone' between the two Ministers for Repression. Mr Clarke is trying to appear emollient. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is spoiling for a fight, as he has indicated on many occasions, including at the Labour Party Conference:

'at his monthly Downing Street news conference yesterday, Mr Blair said it would be "irresponsible" to ignore police calls for the extension to 90 days. He said that, in the aftermath of the July 7 bombings, "we need to make sure that we give ourselves every possible opportunity to prevent such terrorist acts occurring".'

'Mr Blair's backing for the extension appeared tougher in tone than the commitment made earlier in the day by Charles Clarke, the home secretary. Mr Clarke told the Commons home affairs select committee that the proposed three-month limit was "not God given".'

'He also said he would look at the Law Society's suggestion that the new detention powers should be overseen by a High Court judge rather than a district judge. He indicated he was prepared to consider whether all prosecutions brought under the bill should be sanctioned by the attorney-general.'

'However, here, too, there was a difference in tone with Mr Blair. The prime minister did not believe there was any real danger that police would use the power indiscriminately, saying: "I don't agree that the police would simply bang up anybody they wanted to bang up." ' (FT, page 5)

Of course not.

Because if they did that, and then, say, the banged-up were acquitted, and the jurors in the case expressed amazement at the weakness of the case against the banged-up, and the recently-unbanged-up got banged-up again by the chief banger-upper because he didn't want the bang-up to look like a cock-up, it would be a maximum threat level-up.

ISLAMOPHOBIA

BANNING THE QUR'AN?

'A Protestant evangelical pressure group has warned that it will try to use the government's racial and religious hatred law to prosecute bookshops selling the Qur'an for inciting religious hatred.'

'Christian Voice, a fringe fundamentalist group which first came to public prominence this year when it campaigned against the BBC's broadcasting of Jerry Springer The Opera, was among the evangelical organisations taking part in a 1,000-strong demonstration against the bill outside parliament yesterday as the House of Lords held a second reading debate on the measure.'

' Its director, Stephen Green, said the organisation would consider taking out prosecutions against shops selling the Islamic holy book. He told the Guardian: "If the Qur'an is not hate speech, I don't know what is. We will report staff who sell it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that unbelievers must be killed." '

 

BANNING THE BIBLE?

Er. Mr Green must be using a version of the Bible which has unaccountably left out Exodus and Deuteronomy, in which it is clearly stated that sacrificing to any other gods, following other gods yourself, and urging people to follow other gods, are offences requiring the death penalty, whether this involves members of your own family, or a whole city of people:

Exodus 22.20 'Whoever sacrifices to any gods, except the Lord alone, is to be set apart for destruction.'

Deuteronomy 13.1 "If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, 2 and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, 'Let us follow other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us worship them,' 3 do not listen to that prophet's words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. 4 You must follow the Lord your God and fear Him. You must keep His commands and listen to His voice; you must worship Him and remain faithful to Him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he has urged rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the place of slavery, to turn you from the way the Lord your God has commanded you to walk. You must purge the evil from you.

6 "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods'-which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other- 8 you must not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity, and do not spare [him] or shield him. 9 Instead, you must kill him. Your hand is to be the first against him to put him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery. 11 All Israel will hear and be afraid, and they will no longer do anything evil like this among you.

12 "If you hear it said about one of your cities the Lord your God is giving you to live in, 13 that wicked men have sprung up among you, led the inhabitants of their city astray, and said, 'Let us go and worship other gods,' which you have not known, 14 you are to inquire, investigate, and interrogate thoroughly. If the report turns out to be true that this detestable thing has happened among you, 15 you must strike down the inhabitants of that city with the sword. Completely destroy everyone in it as well as its livestock with the sword. 16 You are to gather all its spoil in the middle of the city square and completely burn up the city and all its spoil for the Lord your God. The city must remain a mound of ruins forever; it is not to be rebuilt. 17 Nothing set apart for destruction is to remain in your hand, so that the Lord will turn from His burning anger and grant you mercy, show you compassion, and multiply you as He swore to your fathers."

There is more along these lines in Deuteronomy 17 and 18.20.

BANNING THE NEW TESTAMENT?

It's not just in the Old Testament or Torah. What about this section in Mark 6 (King James Bible):

'7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; 8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money F14 in their purse: 9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. 10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. 11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.'

In other words, cities which reject Jesus' teachings will be completely destroyed on the Day of Judgement (which Jesus preached would come within the lifetime of those who heard him).

Incidentally, there is more bad news for those who think the New Testament is free from intolerance. For example, 2 John contains the injunction not to admit to your house or to welcome those who do not follow Jesus. Anyone who does not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh is a 'deceiver and the antichrist'.

If all this is not hate speech, we don't know what is.

Such elements can be found in all religious books. Does this mean that all religious scriptures should be banned? Hardly. Does it mean that the law on incitement to religious hatred should be abandoned? Yes.

The Government is seeking to buy off Muslim opinion by offering the false trinket of a law on incitement to religious hatred rather than a real anti-discrimination measure which would extend the protection of the law to Muslims of all ethnicities. (Currently, if Yusuf Islam [formerly Cat Stevens] is refused service in a restaurant because he is a Muslim, he would have no redress because he is white.)

And of course the real burning issue, the impact of British foreign policy on Muslim communities and nations around the world is completely off the agenda. Hence the trinket to offer the natives.

ISLAMOPHOBIA

What is problematic in all this is the self-righteousness of non-Muslims in stigmatising Islam as somehow uniquely a religion of hate. That is Islamophobia. None of the major religions is simply a 'religion of hate' or a 'religion of peace'. The followers of Jesus or Moses or Mohammed or Buddha choose the strands they believe conforms to God's will from their own many-stranded tradition, and their own complex set of scriptures.

The refusal to see Islam in context, and wilful ignorance of the similarities across Islamo-Judaeo-Christian scriptures and histories, are both wrong in themselves, and also, by deepening the alienation of Western Muslim communities, a threat to national security.

JNV welcomes feedback.