The Telegraph’s shocking—no, not shocking, but standard liberal—editorial about the Islam threat and those who oppose it

James P. writes:

Faced with an actual Muslim invasion, the first concern of the Telegraph is a totally imaginary “populist right-wing” reaction! The fantasy enemy on the right is, as always, far more threatening than the real enemy, who represents nothing more than an opportunity to demonstrate Britain’s heritage of “Christian tolerance.” Note especially the hilarious contention that “the fact that many terrorists are Muslims may lead to unfair assumptions about the loyalty of British Muslims.” In reality, Muslims in Britain have repeatedly attacked British buildings, transportation systems, and people. For anyone not completely deluded, this should lead to the fair and totally justified conclusion that the loyalty of British Muslims is to Islam, not Britain. At one time, the Daily Telegraph was regarded as a right-wing newspaper. From this editorial, it is clear that the Telegraph is just another font of insane leftist dogma.

Here is the Telegraph editorial that James sent, with his bolding of key passages:

David Cameron must face the challenge of Islamisation Telegraph View: Halting the erosion of freedom may prove just as important a challenge for the Coalition as easing the pain of cuts

The leader of Ukip, Nigel Farage MEP, must have groaned when he learned that the French National Front is now modelling itself on his party. Marine Le Pen, who is poised to take over leadership of the Front National (FN) from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, describes it as a “patriotic” party that has more in common with Ukip than the BNP. Given the sinister resonances that the words “National Front” have in Britain, Miss Le Pen has presented Ukip’s opponents with a seasonal gift. “Ukip—backed by the French National Front” is a rhetorical swipe worthy of David Cameron’s description of the party’s supporters as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.”

We should not, however, be too quick to dismiss reports that a sanitised Front National has succeeded in reaching out to a new constituency. The FN’s selling point is its opposition to the “Islamisation” of French public life—but not, it is careful to add, to Islam itself. Miss Le Pen claims that pork is being taken off the menu in French schools and that state funds are being used to build “ostentatious mosque cathedrals.” She may never be elected president, but over a quarter of French voters approve of her; at no point in the history of the Fifth Republic has an aggressive right-wing party enjoyed such support among the middle classes.

It may seem inconceivable that British politics could move in the same direction. But we should not be too relaxed about the fact that populist right-wing parties have never broken into the mainstream of our politics. Two points need to be made.

First, that Muslims have migrated to Britain in enormous numbers over the past 40 years; one of the heaviest waves of immigration was encouraged by the last government. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimates that there are 2,869,000 Muslims in Britain, an increase of 74 per cent on its previous figure of 1,647,000, which was based on the 2001 census. No demographic statistics are reliable in an era of open borders, but such an expansion is unprecedented.

The second point is that—different political traditions notwithstanding—Britain is beginning to experience French-style anxiety about Islamisation. The fact that many terrorists are Muslims may lead to unfair assumptions about the loyalty of British Muslims.

But, at a time when—according to some surveys—around 40 per cent of the Muslim community support the establishment of Sharia, fears of social fracture are understandable. Meanwhile, government attempts to ease tension by empowering to unelected “community leaders” have caused huge resentment. It is worth noting that the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election next month was caused by the disqualification of a Labour MP caught stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment.

Tensions must not be allowed to grow, especially when collapsing party allegiances could create space for right-wing populism. Responsible politicians must accomplish a difficult double manoeuvre. On the one hand, they should resist the anti-Muslim dog whistle that Phil Woolas allowed to be blown on his behalf. The Front National is not an appropriate model for a political party in a country whose heritage, unlike that of France, is explicitly Christian and tolerant. We trust that Mr Farage will repel Miss Le Pen’s advances. On the other hand, the Government needs to start dismantling an Islamisation that threatens the freedoms of ordinary Britons—including Muslims who are confined to ghettos that can be difficult to leave, especially for women.

In the long run, halting this erosion of freedom may prove just as important a challenge for the Coalition as easing the pain of cuts. Few subjects are more difficult to discuss without causing offence. Even so, this particular conversation is long overdue.

LA writes:

The Telegraph says:

“The fact that many terrorists are Muslims may lead to unfair assumptions about the loyalty of British Muslims.”

Yet in the next sentence the editors acknowledge that 40 percent of Muslims in Britain support the establishment of sharia. By definition, a Muslim who supports the establishment of sharia in Britain is not loyal to Britain.

This editorial, with its denial of these obvious meanings, bespeaks an extreme liberalism, an extreme intellectual decadence. It repeatedly acknowledges that Muslims threaten Britain institutions and freedom, and it repeatedly switches the focus and says that the main threat is not Islam, but the people who oppose Islam. Islam must be tolerated, because of Britain’s tradition of Christian tolerance. But if Islam is tolerated, Britain’s Christian tradition will be marginalized—by Islam.

It is hard to see the people who wrote this editorial as human beings. Their humanity, their rationality, has been wholly replaced by liberalism, specifically by the left-liberal principle of refusing to judge negatively or discriminate against even those who seek our destruction.

- end of initial entry -

December 29

Jeff W. writes:

Something I always think about as I watch the British suck up to the Muslims is that Britain has a bank-dominated economy. The U.S. is bank-dominated too, but Britain is even more so.

The Arabs are very important bank customers. The banks will grovel, bribe, debase currencies, rig laws, or do whatever else they have to do in order to keep making the billions in commissions, interest, and fees they make from Arab oil wealth.

Britain was once a proud manufacturing nation that produced quality products sold worldwide. In those days, the British did not have to grovel to make a living. But banking is a different kind of business. All banks basically sell the same kinds of services. As a result, banks compete in a number of ways that are distasteful to ethical or self-respecting human beings. One of those ways is by groveling.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 28, 2010 03:33 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):