German Socialist Eurocrat warns of Eco-totalitarianism

“I am increasingly worried by all kinds of legislation regulating peoples’ private lives. We are approaching a situation which I would call lifestyle-regulation. I don’t want a society in which people are told how to live in the privacy of their own homes. We must not deprive our citizens of the right to make independent decisions.” (source)

These are the words of Günther Verheugen,

What is wrong with Fitna – the Movie?

Well, here is Fitna. If there is anything wrong in the way it portrays Islam, surely the proper reaction would be to point out calmly where the mistakes lie.

I have just watched it, and I can spontaneously think of the following flaws:

Some developments are presented as obviously undesirable (at least by implication) when it is not always clear why: Fitna bemoans the availability of Sharia compliant loans; why is this a problem rather than simply a new but voluntary contractual arrangement catering to a new customer group? Why is it a problem if an Islamic school sponsors a trip to Mecca?

Other points are more controversial, but there is still plenty of room for disagreement. The film points out, for example, that the Burka is not banned in the Netherlands. Why should it be? There may be a case in some scenarios (e.g. where hiding your face constitutes a security hazard) and in those cases no religious dress-code should give rise to a special exemption. Beyond this, I predict that opinions on the desirability of a ban will be strongly divided.

Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch claims the film is accurate. I haven’t read the Quran and couldn’t read it in Arabic at any rate; like many, I have no way to check whether the translations in the subtitles are accurate.

I expect that a lot of Muslims and multiculturalists will now be offended –I don’t think that greatly matters. What interests me is whether there are any factual errors, misleading interpretations etc. So if anyone reading this knows of any, feel free to use the comment function to point them out.

Update: Germany’s Der Spiegel points out that the film –which is supposed to illustrate quranic verses put into practice– wrongly attributes female genital mutilation to the Quran. (This crime is regularly committed in some Muslim societies but apparently has no foundation in the Quran itself.)

Sharia in Britain: What is Dr. Rowan Williams’ Vision for Society?

The archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks on sharia have, to some degree, been simplified in public discussion. However, a full understanding of Dr. Williams’ argument does nothing to improve his message and does not weaken the conclusion that a partial adoption of sharia is unlikely to be feasible. Full knowledge of the lecture delivered at the Courts of Justice merely defines Dr. Williams’ outlook as collectivist and authoritarian.

Dr. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury has this month destroyed what little was left of his reputation by calling for the formal acceptance of parts of sharia in British law. It is worth noting that he was not the first to do so. Dr Suhaib Hasan, a Muslim Council of Britain spokesman, had done much the same thing in late January.

I will not elaborate on how and why official recognition of a separate body of religious law is incompatible with the notions of a secular state and equality before the law. Others have done so extensively and more prominently.

There are two aspects of this discussion which are worth pondering in more detail:

1. If there is a move towards the acceptance of sharia, can it remain partial in scope? and

2. What do the archbishop’s remarks imply for the social order more generally?

Positive liberty is a misleading concept: reflections on Jack Straw, Labour and Liberty

Back in October, Jack Straw demanded a ‘Bill of Rights and Responsibilities’. I anticipated at the time that positive rights would receive more emphasis in such a project –at the expense of negative rights constraining the power of the state. Straw’s recent comments in the Guardian appear to confirm this prediction.

The notion of positive rights or positive liberty is popular with many genuinely

Does the UK need a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities?

Jack Straw argued during a lecture in Cambridge, that the UK should draft its own Bill of Rights and responsibilities. In doing so it should go beyond the Human Rights Act, which co-opted the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British law.

In the first two thirds of this lecture, Straw comments on similarities between the ECHR and the German Constitution’s Basic Rights, he also elaborates on the need to respect human rights while fighting terrorism. On the whole, this part of the lecture does not seem unreasonable. The last third of the lecture then demands a UK Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. This part of the lecture is much less specific, but for a number of reasons

Wise words on a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

A quote of the year? This comment was posted by some Ian B in the telegraph online comments section and deserves more attention than one of many comments usually gets:

“

“The aim of our British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will be to clarify and explain the obligations which come with rights,“

Dear God Jack, you don’t understand what a Right is, do you? Go and read the American Constitution and Bill Of Rights. The rights they enshrine are *protection FROM government* not *responsibilities TO government*. Can you not see the difference?

Quote of the Day

“Pledge allegiance to Britain?! What the flying fuck is going on? This is the mindset of Nazi Germany, of Iran, of the inbred, half witted parts of the USA. Not Britain. People here should be free to be patriotic. Or free to be not patriotic. Because they are free. Pledging allegiance to the country does not make people patriotic, and actually should make us feel there is less to love about this country.”

The nameless one, in his beautifully poetic analysis of Cameron’s national service proposal.

Cameron’s National Service

Cameron announced (again) that he wants all 16 year olds to do a voluntary national service lasting six weeks. The actual proposal so far seems to amount to little more than an extra layer of work experience. So long as this is voluntary for all participants, it should be unproblematic too It is unlikely though that such a scheme, whatever the details, will do much to “mend our broken society”.

The whole project sounds less pleasant once

Criminalising Stupidity

Udo Voigt, leader of Germany’s thinly disguised neo-Nazi party NPD is facing charges for suggesting Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Heß for the Nobel peace prize.

Germany’s equivalent of Nick Griffin is undoubtedly a politically unpleasant character and this is undoubtedly a very stupid idea. Aside from being

Fear of Sociology: Freedom of Speech and Anti-Terrorism in Germany

Firebombing a country’s army is usually seen as more than a lack of good manners. A nascent terrorist organization in Germany –the ‘militante gruppe’- has been doing just that and several of its suspected members have now been arrested. Two of these arrests, however, have sparked international protests from colleagues in the UK and the USA as well as Germany itself. Strange as this may seem, it is an event of which readers in the UK should take note.