Douglas murray

This podcast is sponsored by Berry Bros, The Spectator’s house red. In this week’s episode of the Spectator Podcast, Isabel Hardman is joined by Douglas Murray and Haras Rafiq, managing director for the Quilliam Foundation, to discuss the Brussels attacks. ‘In the wake of a terrorist attack, everything barely worth saying will be said endlessly. And the only things that are worth saying won’t be said,’ said Douglas, writing for The Spectator after the attacks. So what can be said? And what can be done to stop Isis striking again? In his cover story this week, James Forsyth looks at the Conservative crack-up.

Let’s put the question very bluntly: do British Muslims affirm British values, or are they outsiders to our way of life? Or, even more bluntly: can we trust them? It is important that we learn to answer this question with nuance, and not in a self-righteous and simplistic way. A week before the Tunisian carnage, David Cameron implicitly raised the question, when he said that too many mainstream Muslims were equivocating, seeming to condone Islamic State and to disparage the West –this 'paves the way for young people to turn simmering prejudice into murderous intent', he said. His comments, and his planned counter-extremism bill, were strongly condemned by commentators, and also by his former party chairperson Sayeeda Warsi.

I have been most interested in recent posts here by Alex Massie and Matthew Parris.  Here is a poll which might interest them both. YouGov recently carried out a survey in the UK which sought primarily to judge public opinions on the issue of posthumous pardons to people convicted of homosexuality. So far so hip, cool and with the beat. But the poll also asked respondents whether they think in general that homosexuality is 'morally acceptable' or 'morally wrong'.  What do you think the figures were?  Well in most regions of the UK those people who thought homosexuality 'morally wrong' sat at around 15 per cent.  About what one might have expected.  But what do you think the figure was in that enlightened beacon of progressive diversity which is our capital?

It seems that the laughably misnamed ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission’ did not like my last piece. Indeed the Khomeinist organisation has written to complain to my editor.  Here is their letter: Dear Sir, I note that Douglas Murray's article published on your website yesterday has several points of concern. Most pressing is the fact that he suggests that the charity wing of IHRC organised the Islamophobia Awards. You are providing your readers will [sic] false information as this is not the case. I trust you will therefore make the correction immediately by removing all references to IHRC as a charity in the context of this article, which is all about the Islamophobia Awards.

I have always treated the ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ event with the scorn it deserves. Not least because each year this fantasy prize for a fantasy concept is run by a British Khomeinist organisation laughably named the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission.’  The nominees include anybody opposed to the agenda of Islamic extremists, including Muslims.  Of course each year, whilst laughing at it, those of us who are regular nominees also regard it as being to our great good fortune that the IHRC is a British charity operating in the United Kingdom rather than an Islamic charity operating in an Islamic country.  If the latter were the case then rather than laughing at the IHRC every year, those of us who it annually attacks would be hanging from cranes.

It looks like this year’s Simon Hughes prize (awarded each year to the non-Muslim who does the weirdest impression of holding Islamic principle) must go to Lord Woolf. In a speech yesterday at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies the former Lord Chief Justice chose to explain why Muslim sensitivities should be especially respected.  He also used this pulpit to warn people in Britain not to exercise their rights as free citizens.  Here is an excerpt: ‘By now it must surely be appreciated that depicting the prophet in a derogatory way will cause grave offence among many Muslims and can lead to an explosive reaction with dreadful consequences.

I have spent most of the last fortnight debating Islam and blasphemy and wanted to take the opportunity to put down a few unwritten thoughts. In the immediate aftermath of the Paris atrocities most of the people who thought the journalists and cartoonists in some sense ‘had it coming to them’ kept their heads down.  I encountered a few who did not, including Asghar Bukhari from the MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Committee).  In the aftermath of the atrocity Asghar was immediately eager to smear the cartoonists and editors of Charlie Hebdo as racists.