Reflections on Brexit and the moral presumption of the EU

Well that was a surprise; like most people I’d presumed that the British people would “always keep a-hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse” and so vote, grudgingly, to remain in the EU. Among the acres of comment on this topic I’m not going to argue the pros and cons of Brexit — I have mixed feelings and would have preferred to stay in a reformed EU, if that were on offer — instead I’m going to completely ignore the economics and reflect on just one aspect: the presumption that joining in with and being part of a larger state is somehow morally virtuous in its own right, rather than being something to be decided on pragmatic considerations or purely by cultural preference.

“I’m sure the deserters will not be welcomed with open arms” said Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, as though membership of the EU were a moral obligation from which non-compliance would be rightfully punished.

The presumption that “ever closer union” of Europe is morally mandated has had dire consequences, including the notion that the righteousness of the project justifies doing it badly, and — more seriously — that its righteousness overrides the lack of democratic assent. Thus the EU’s leaders are currently anxious to prevent further referendums — preventing their people from having any say — since that might reveal deep dissatisfaction with the EU much more widespread than the UK. No matter, the democratic will of the people is less important than the moral principle of ever closer union.

Britain is no more a Christian nation than a White nation

Sometimes I pine for the days when British politicians did not “do God”. They realised that, in a nation where only half of us now believe in God, such talk is unnecessarily divisive. But David Cameron is reckoned to have undergone a religious renaissance after the death of his young son, Ivan, and nowadays regularly “does God” and pronounces the UK to be a “Christian nation”.

In one sense this doesn’t matter, since he’s entitled to his opinion and his words can be ignored by those who don’t share his beliefs. But, on the other hand, as Prime Minister he often speaks for the nation as a whole.

By calling Britain a “Christian nation” he presumably refers to the fact that around half the nation identifies as Christian, though often only as a vague cultural affinity. Only about one-in-five are Christian in the sense of regarding it as important in their lives, or in the sense of being church-goers. The rest share some of the cultural heritage, and might attend church weddings and funerals, and perhaps the occasional carol service, but otherwise don’t “do God” in their daily lives.

David Cameron’s speech on “extremism” and segregation

David Cameron has recently given a major speech on “extremism”, and the full transcript can be read here. Here is my reaction to parts of the speech.

The title states that “Prime Minister David Cameron set out his plans to address extremism”. What sort of extremism? Well, we all know that we’re referring to extreme versions of Islam, though many politicians are reluctant to spell that out. Let’s see how Cameron fares.

Early on he declares that “Today, I want to talk about … how together we defeat extremism”. It is another nine sentences before he overcomes the “Voldemort effect” and actually names it:

“And because the focus of my remarks today is on tackling Islamist extremism — not Islam the religion — let me say this.”

Well done! Islamist extremism (even if it is accompanied by the hasty and obligatory assurance that Islamism is nothing to do with Islam).

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg joins those trying to silence secularists

With only 50 days until a UK General Election I’m running out of parties to vote for. On solely economic concerns I’d likely vote centre-right Tory, but Cameron’s government has been giving full rein to evangelical Christians such as Local-Government Minister Eric Pickles, who seem to regard the non-religious as second-class citizens whose feelings don’t matter.

The Conservatives’ whole pitch is aimed at UKIP-voting Christians with no sign that they want the vote of the non-religious. They rejected humanist marriages, which would cost them nothing, just because they see it as a minority concern. Behaving to type, they are pushing through a bill enabling Christians to impose prayers on Local Council meetings, even though 55% of the public don’t want such prayers, with only 26% in favour.

Labour are little better of course. They could readily sink the council-prayer bill if they wanted to. And in 13 years of office up until 2010 they did much to promote and entrench “faith” schools. With Opus-Dei-member Ruth Kelly as Education Secretary, they renewed the legislation that compels school children to worship the Christian god, while their flagship legislation, the 2010 Equality Act, contained a specific exemption allowing state-funded schools to continue to discriminate over religion.

Are a quarter of British Muslims really extremists?

I hope not to write again about Islam for a while, having already written three pieces since the Charlie Hebdo killings. I aim that this will be the last for a while.

But, suppose that, in a poll of British UKIP voters, a quarter had shown support for violence to achieve their ends. You can bet that the BBC would broadcast that statistic with the highest condemnation, painting the whole UKIP party as extremist.

Well, in the BBC’s poll published today, out of 1000 British Muslims who were asked, two hundred and forty four disagreed with the statement that “acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammed can never be justified”. Scaled to the British population that is 800,000 Islamic believers who think that violence against those who merely draw cartoons can indeed be justified.

How did the BBC present this finding? Its headline was “Most British Muslims ‘oppose Muhammad cartoons reprisals’.”. Is the idea that most Muslims are not violent now sufficiently remarkable that it becomes the headline? Are we so used to the idea that Muslims are violent that saying that they are not so is now news? Or is this spin, aimed at avoiding emphasis on the fact that a whole quarter of the British Muslims are sufficiently extreme that they do indeed accept violence against what is mere speech?

Note the BBC’s word “reprisals”, which didn’t feature in the actual wording of the poll. “Reprisal” means the “act of returning an attack”, and its use implies that violence is somehow an equivalent retaliation to drawing a cartoon.

Mainstream Islam is not moderate

As I write this thousands of Muslims are marching through London to “Defend the Honour of the Holy Prophet” and denounce the “insulting depictions of our Holy Prophet” by Charlie Hebdo.

They have every right to do so, of course. They have every right to voice their views, even though they would deny that right to others, if they could. It is also entirely within their rights to regard this issue as a more urgent reason for taking to the streets than, for example, the activities of ISIS. Does burning people to death, beheading children, and selling girls as sex slaves — when done in the name of Islam by the Islamic State — not demean the honour of the Prophet of Islam?

The media are quick to label ISIS and their fellow Jihadi Islamists as extremists, which they certainly are. But the implication is that mainstream Islam is moderate. Let’s consider some basic principles of any “moderate” worldview in the West nowadays.

Secularism in the UK, a year-end round-up

Americans are used to politicians openly mixing their faith with their politics, but British politicians usually “don’t do God”, to quote the advice offered by Tony Blair’s spin doctor. This convention, though, is breaking down, with David Cameron’s Conservative-led government increasingly being proud to “do God”. Such religiosity is meeting a mixed reception in a nation that is increasingly secular and which is no longer in tune with the traditional privilege afforded to religion by the British establishment.

It is said that Prime Minister David Cameron found consolation in his Christian faith after the death of his disabled son, leading to a much more overt Christianity. Further, the Conservative Party fears that the anti-EU, anti-immigrant UKIP will siphon off votes at the forthcoming election, letting Labour in. It is thus pitching its appeal at older, more-Christian, UKIP-leaning voters, and perhaps it is calculating that there are not enough secularist Tory voters to worry about losing any.

Cameron has declared the UK to be a “Christian country” while his Christmas message says that “giving, sharing and taking care of others” are “very Christian values”, adding that “we [the nation?] celebrate the birth of Christ”, despite the fact that only 13% regard Jesus as an important aspect of their own Christmas.

Eric Pickles and Britain as a “Christian Nation”

On Baroness Warsi’s resignation from the UK government, David Cameron would have done best to drop the “Minister of Faith” role that he had created for her, but instead handed it over to Eric Pickles. Pickles, we recall, is another minister who thinks that Christians should still have special privileges in the UK. Informing us that Britain is a “Christian nation” and that atheists should “get over it”, he gloated that he has “stopped an attempt by militant atheists to ban councils having prayers at the start of meetings”.

As ever, anyone who believes in church–state separation and a secular, religiously neutral government is a “militant”, while handing ever more state schools over to be run by churches, awarding them an exemption from the Equality Act, thus allowing them to discriminate against non-religious families, and passing laws violating religious liberty by requiring school kids to worship the Christian god, is merely defending “traditional British values”.

Thus The Telegraph, defending compulsory religion in schools, against the wishes of the majority of parents, and school governors (and indeed the Church of England!), states that “There can be few things in life less harmful than the gentle Christian values learnt by children during school assemblies” and that “the British values of which we hear so much are based on ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs and the teachings of the Bible”.

Britain needs to value free speech

Here is a joke:

What’s the difference between Mark Bridger and Santa Claus?

You can work out the punchline from the fact that Santa comes in December.

Sick? Tasteless? Funny? Offensive? All of those? Or is it so bad that it is criminal — literally? (If you’re not aware of the context of the joke try here.)

The answer, according to magistrate Bill Hudson is that it is criminal, literally, and worthy of a 12-week jail sentence.

“The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive.”

And the “crime”? It was someone posting the above joke (plus milder ones) on their own Facebook page, a page that “was available to a large number of people”. That’s all.

So who decided that making a tasteless and offensive joke in public was criminal? Parliament did, in passing Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This act was passed before Facebook and Twitter took off, and was aimed at television and radio networks. The relevant wording is:

“A person is guilty of an offence if he sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

Even more of a catch-all is the following section:

“A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he … persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.”

Annoyance is a rather weak word; according to the concise OED to “annoy” means to “make slightly angry”. Yes, making someone slightly angry is criminal, if you use the internet “persistently” for that purpose. So, if you were discussing a controversial topic with someone on the net, and the exchange of posts lasted for a few hours and got a bit heated, then all it takes is for someone to get “slightly” upset at what you are arguing and you are then a criminal.

Britain seems to have sleep-walked into a situation where sick jokes are criminal, where merely offending or upsetting someone is a criminal act. Isn’t it accepted that free speech is valuable, that it is precisely speech that offends someone that needs protection, and that there is no right to never be offended?