Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Phillip Shipley MP Wants Union Jack on Mosques


Me likey Phillip Shipley. Me likey very much....................

"Issues that Philip feels particularly strongly about are maintaining law and order, tackling asylum and immigration problems, ....... in October 2005 became the first Conservative MP to openly state that Britain should withdraw from the EU. Philip is also the Parliamentary Spokesman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness!"

And he is putting his mouth where his mouth is on the Muslim problem/

"An MP today urged Muslims across the country to fly the Union flag on mosques to show their unity and commitment to Britain.Shipley MP Philip Davies wants Muslim communities to adopt the measures after similar demands were made in Australia.He argued that such a move would "publicly show everyone that those in the Muslim community are very keen to integrate "
Yes me also likey Australia where such things are happening already and have said so much lately .There has been a range of responses

THE PREDICTABLE

Ishtiaq Ahmed, spokesman for Bradford Council of Mosques, described the suggestion as "grossly insulting"."Where will it end? Will people want us to wear the Union Jack on our clothing to prove we are loyal."


AND SOMEWHAT MORE THOUGHFUL


Rashid Awan, president of the Pakistan Society of West Yorkshire,. He said: "It is unthinkable and unwise. To fly the flag does not really resolve the problem ( He admits there is one )................People could fly the flag but still be being fed the wrong message and breeding hatred inside. We have to win hearts and minds...."Flying the flag is a wonderful thing and can create unity, but mosques are a place of worship and house of God and does not belong to one nation, but every nation.”

Now I think that is not unbalanced except as we know Mosques are not only places of worship and Islam is inherently aggressive and political as a religious requirement. In fact they belive that every nation belongs to Mosques .Nonetheless I have the pleasant feeling that someone in the Muslim community has noticed that we have had enough.

8 comments:

james higham said...

I'm already in trouble with the Gracchi over this sort of thing. I daren't comment.

electro-kevin said...

Doubtless there are quite a few Anglican churhes where the Union flag is unlikely to be flown too.

The Ludingtonian said...

N -

I am admittedly somewhat of an extremist when it comes to freedom of speech, but if you're really endorsing this fascistly illiberal idea, then I don't think I'll be able to respect you in the morning.

Freedom of speech is really about freedom from coercion. We usually think of it as freedom to say that which is not officially mandated. But if the freedom is to mean anything at all, it must also include freedom from speech - the freedom not to say that which is officially mandated.

This isn't about being pro- or anti-muslim or pro- or anti-British. It's about the freedom to say (or not say) whatever one damn well wishes. To require any group, muslims or otherwise, to declare their allegiance is coercion, pure and simple.

If, for example, you were to require me to declare that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party in order to continue to frequent your blog, then I would have to just go elsewhere. I would not be willing to say what you require me to say to remain here, simply because you made the speech mandatory.

Yes, of course I want Britain's Muslim communities to embrace our Enlightenment values, but to require outward conformity is not the way to do it.

tory boys never grow up said...

I agree with the ludingtonian this is cheap gesture politics on behalf of Phillip Shipley - it won't change anything or do anything to address any of the problems which you perceive are happening in Mosques (in fact if Al Quaeda were running a cell in a mosque they might try to fool evryone by flying a Union Jack as a cunning plan to fool everyone). Perhaps Mr Shipley shoud leave the sertious politics to the big boys.

Why not tell synagogues and non-confromist churches to fly the Union Jack as well in fact everyone - didn't the Soviet Union and evry other tyrannical regime do the same thing.

Interesting how you identify one of the Moslem spokesman making a concilatory to this idea - perhaps he's one of those modertate Moslems you were arguing never existed.

PS re our on going debate Orwell never deserted the left - I could qoute pages from his latter journalism (rather than a glib throw a way reference) - but his wikipedia entry has a short and i believe reliable section on his political views. You'll particularly like the comment about his strong support for a federal Europe! Chaucer was fairly heavily influenced by Boccaccio' Decamerom and the English Literature you eulogise (quite correctly) appears to stop with the Elizabethans and before the novel - some mistake surely. I agree Shakespeare was great - and somethings are improving my daughter is enjoying being taught Much Ado About Nothing (set in Sicily) which is something that my grammar school could never manage. You economic analysis was very flawed as usual - E- must try harder - learn basic facts state spending as a % of GDP was higher than present in 1945-48 and in many years of Mrs T (very ugly woman by the way)'s reign.

Croydonian said...

TB yadda yadda - Higher spending in 45-48? Well knock me down with a feather. Post-war reconstruction, a massive programme of expropriation of private assets, an Empire to run. Fancy. As to the Thatcher incumbency, there was the small matter of significantly higher defence spending, inter alia.

Newmania said...

LUD-I am admittedly somewhat of an extremist when it comes to freedom of speech, but if you're really endorsing this fascistly illiberal idea, then I don't think I'll be able to respect you in the morning. Freedom of speech is really about freedom from coercion. We usually think of it as freedom to say that which is not officially mandated. But if the freedom is to mean anything at all, it must also include freedom from speech - the freedom not to say that which is officially mandated.



Lud - Many people who inhabit the Centre Right / Right area are in fact Libertarians with virtual .and usually only virtual , anarchic sympathies. I am not one of those . I am a traditional Conservatives although I like to think , reconfigured for the [resent day . I do not believe in “freedom” I believe in order because order is what frees us dorm slavery , the natural state of most men without laws , culture and love to bind them into common cause and responsibility. This is why sub state natural loyalties like the family and the country are important. The sort of things that the left are always trying to stamp out because they are the natural rival to the state. In fact I would not advocate forcing people to wear this or that . Of course Muslims do !.
I saw this piece as deliberately provocative and pointing out that we have an entire community that actively hates the country an to whom should you suggest a shown of patriotism would actually be repulsed. In fact the Liberal establishment would deny your right to even say such a thing . This is not acceptable . We cannot , in my view , tolerate a country within a country and if we continue to allow it eventually we will inevitably find all our freedoms disappearing .I may not have out that as well as I would have liked nby the way



eing pro- or anti-muslim or pro- or anti-British. It's about the freedom to say (or not say) whatever one damn well wishes.#

See above , this is only work-able within a coherent and cohered society. What you are suggesting is anarchy unless , like many , you mean people can say whatever they provided they have no intention of acting upon it ever . If you do not , substitute the word act . WE CANNOT have freedom to do whatever you like and word swapping ins something of an intellectual paroour game or a ,have your cake and eat it , exercise.


Yes, of course I want Britain's Muslim communities to embrace our Enlightenment values, but to require outward conformity is not the way to do it.

No but it makes a valid point about the nature of Islam here and raises questions about the value of the country and the value of loyalty to it . As Golda Meir out it . Every civilisation must negotiate with its values. Tried in the crucible , at Brownings dangerous edge , a lot of the assumptions abaou the limitless nature iof the Libertarian drinking horn will be discovered to be false .

In my humble opinion

Newmania said...

T Boy said agree with the ludingtonian this is cheap gesture politics . Perhaps Mr Shipley shoud leave the sertious politics to the big boys.

N said T Boy- It is a gesture but a valid one. I have answered this to the bestof my ability above

T Boy continued in his usual way -Why not tell synagogues and non-confromist churches to fly the Union Jack as well.

Or alternately why not allow a whole sub country to publicise their hatred for thwe country every day which is what we uniquely have now . I appreciate that you take the great blessings of out Democracy for granted but I don`t see a good reason for not standing up to these people and looking them in the eye . You would like to resolve the conflict in a soupy myth of freeness but it is not resolvable in this way . On the one hand we are threatened by the statist power hungry left and on the other by the theocratic fascists .Our defence against either is the love and commonality of the country , the family and the national culture. None for these have any value for you as we have previously discovered …( except your adolescent Orwell obsession )



Interesting how you identify one of the Moslem spokesman making a concilatory to this idea - perhaps he's one of those modertate Moslems you were arguing never existed.

They exist in small numbers despite you ,your appeasement and decadent weakness. Theyxist because they have been culturally defeated by the West , the only resolution that , in truth , you could yourself lve with.
Suppose they won T Boy. Where would you be then? I will be dying in a spatter if sub machine gun fire with the flag drape about my heroic corpse . You would be running around apologising for the states crimes.

PS re our on going debate Orwell never deserted the left - I could qoute pages from his latter journalism (rather than a glib throw a way reference) -

You have ignored my remarks about the irrelevance of this I assume because you have not understood them


You'll particularly like the comment about his strong support for a federal Europe!

Anachronistic - I would have voted for the common market my father is old enough to be convinced by the bogus Peace argument. Internationalism seemed the future to most along time ago .



Chaucer was fairly heavily influenced by Boccaccio' Decamerom

Yes and obviously by the Ancients but most obviously by the French Courtly Society in which he lived. In fact his choice to write in English at all is one that might nopt have been made Do you seriously want to discuss Chaucer with me T Boy . I would have to start from a very long way away to get to where you are …he is influenced by Boccaccio…well um yes……I don`t have the time but Have a think about the nature of “influence the possibility of not having “influence” and the status of “originality “ Literature and art . I hope your other remarks are not going to be on this level



and the English Literature you eulogise (quite correctly) appears to stop with the Elizabethans and before the novel - some mistake surely. I agree Shakespeare was great -

……( We are all tremendously relived T Boy …and I can discuss the novel if you like ) Fielding , Austin , Defoe Bunyan arguably Richardson is this the sort of thing you mean or the Gothic novels that were early mass literature George Elliot you might say was central Victorian. She is influenced by German Romanticism but if you called her a German Romantic you would be a fool . You seek to deny there is any integrity to the living tradition so you can conclude that it has no special place. Good luck , thus far you are getting nowhere ,. In the 20th century the picture is confused of course ,we do not have the perspective yet.




and somethings are improving my daughter is enjoying being taught Much Ado About Nothing (set in Sicily) ……” Set in Sicily…do you seriously think this is important !


which is something that my grammar school could never manage. You economic analysis was very flawed as usual - E- must try harder - learn basic facts state spending as a % of GDP was higher than present in 1945-48 and in many years of Mrs T (very ugly woman by the way)'s reign.


Well thanks to C for helping me out there. I assumed ,and missed the glaringly obvious special factors applying. Are you , by implication agreeing with me T BOY that reducing state spending as a proportion of GDP is a desirable goal and therefore agreeing with me that the accession of the Lying Scotsman is to be resisted by a broad coalition of all those who care about the county ? Your tactic of producing selected facts like white rabbits always give you this problem. You always accept by implication the premise of the opposing argument. Once again you have shot your self in the foot as you are destined to do until you outgrow this silly posturing

Newmania said...

Oh and Margaret Thatcher was a gorgeous vision of womanhood . If there is one thing this straange virtual meeting place has taught me is that clever women really are sexy.

She was the very pattern of perfection in all ways .

Gordon Brown is a mouth breathing gay egomaniacal psycho. Seriously could you spend more than a minute in his terrifying comonay.

David is such a nice chap. We often bump into eachother in Tescos

Blog Archive