This article is rather bizarre in that it uses very anecdotal evidence to suggest that the British are appeasing Islam, while ignoring general British policy. It neglects the fact that the UK currently has many thousands of troops in two Muslim countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, if the UK, as the only country to be standing to this degree with the US in the Middle East, is to be called an appeasing state then where does that leave the rest of the world?
To address its points: the changing of phraseology in addressing terrorism has nothing at all to do with a fear of Muslim riots in the streets. For goodness sake, we have military forces in Muslim countries. The term ‘War on Terror’ (which is still used in the UK despite the statement in the article that it was stopped in the UK in 2006?) is logically flawed. Firstly, it gives the thugs and murderers that we face the false, unjust honour of bearing the name ‘soldier’. Secondly, phrasing our current struggle in these terms is not helpful. Its like declaring a ‘War on Crime’: when will it ever end? When could victory be declared? Changes in phrases used elsewhere (which I have also yet to hear) would be aimed to encourage more moderate Muslims to make a stand against the fanatics.
The Rowan Williams row goes to show that the UK population will not tolerate any intrusion into the integrity of British law. The British governent criticised William’s remarks and stated that there was no place for Sharia law in the UK. How is it fair to judge the UK on the comments of one man?
I think there is the same war in the UK as in the US, between the usual lefty idiots who happen to have the mike, and the sane people.
The Home Secretary, the Foreign office and the Archbishop - especially the Archbishop - have come out of this looking like idiots. (No doubt if Prince Charles had been asked for a quote he would have said something squishy and shameful as well).
But the public excoriation of Williams has frankly been heartening.
Well, UKSUPPORT1, I read your thoughtful post to the Dan Pipes article. Mr. Pipes is a thoughtful and knowledgeable foreign affairs analyst — and has been for decades.
He sites the apparent recognition of bigamous marriage by the British government. Is that inaccurate?
I am a US citizen currently in Mexico. Daily I see the difference between Spanish and British Common Law. You would renew your appreciation of the legacy of Blackstone and basic fairness that flows from that British mainstay if you witness what I witness daily. Why a supposedly thoughtful archbishop wants to integrate a retrograde legal system (retrograde if you are a woman or an infidel) into that “fabric” is not “anecdotal.”
And the British government “de-linking” jihadi terrorism from its source is also adverted to in the article. It puzzles us on this side of the Atlantic that the source of violent jihad (Islam as expounded by more than a few British mullahs) is irrelevant.
What we see developing is more than disheartening.
I certainly do not wish to start a flame war about this, and I trust you understand my points here. We have similar trends in the US, though not as pronounced.
It seems to many that Britain is simply unwilling to call a spade a spade. That just deepens the hole being dug.