Christmas at Madame Tussauds

Becks With Us

‘Tis the season to be surly, if the reaction of leading churchmen to a nativity scene at Madame Tussauds is anything to go by. The nativity pictures David and Victoria Beckham as Mary & Joseph, camp comedian Graham Norton, Samuel L. Jackson and Hugh Grant as shepherds, Kylie Minogue as an angel, and Tony Blair, Prince Philip and George Bush as the three wise men.

Whoops! More religious people have been offended. That’s happening a lot these days. This week there was also a Sikh protest about a play because it includes a scene of murder and rape in a Sikh temple. Apparently that’s offensive to their religion, so they protested about it before breaking into the theatre and destroying several thousand pounds worth of property. Despite being worried that people might go to the play and think that this is what Sikhs are like, they decided to allow TV to beam pictures nationwide of a protest that degenerated into acts of aggression and vandalism. Genius. Trying to sound reasonable, representatives of the Sikh community said that the play was offensive because the events happen in a Sikh temple. They suggested that the play change its setting - perhaps to a community centre. However, what of all that waffle about people thinking that this is what Sikhs are like? It doesn’t matter whether it’s a temple or a community centre - the characters are still Sikhs. And, lets face it, murder and rape are fairly horrible regardless of where they take place.

The play has now been cancelled for fear of further violence. What a depressing end to a rather sorry tale. And it won’t be the last time something like this happens because religious folks get irritable. This episode has sent out the message that violence will be rewarded. The message that should have gone out is: “The police will by all necessary means ensure that peace is kept and law-breakers arrested and charged.” Perhaps if this was a BNP protest that’s exactly what would have happened, but it wasn’t.

This is a symptom of a cultural trend in which criticism and offence to religions is becoming taboo. Aren’t religious folks a real bunch of thin-skinned killjoys? They really need to grow up a little.

Anyhow, back to Madame Tussauds we go.

Regarding the nativity scene at Madame Tussauds, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor was rather distressed at the “denigration” of Christian symbols at Christmas time: “It seems incredible that Christianity, particularly Christmas, is displayed in a way that is so tasteless.” Continuing, he stated that: “[Christianity is] part of the mosaic of religion in Britain. . .The British people have a tolerance and a respect for religious values. . .the secularity of Britain is not averse to hearing the voice of religious people. . .To have a very special part of Christianity depicted in this way and its most precious symbol, which is the coming of God into the world in Jesus Christ, seems to me to be not just disrespectful to Christians, it is also disrespectful to the heritage of Britain and also does damage to the culture of this country.”

There we go. And my first response is: Bollocks. This is not about disrespecting Christian values, and even if it was there is nothing about any value system in existence that warrants inherent respect. Nor is this about being averse to hearing the voice of religious people. Religious people can have their say just like anyone else. Of course, no one is obliged to listen, but they can have their say. And what’s this nonsense about the nativity being a “precious symbol.” I’ve rarely heard it being referred to except at this time of year. I do, however, agree with one thing - the waxwork is tasteless. However, this isn’t because of the content of this scene - it’s simply inherent in the tacky nature of waxworks generally. But, come on, is the point really so hard to see? Perhaps Mr Murphy has been drinking far too much communion wine, but it seems fairly obvious to me. This nativity scene is in no way a mockery of the Christmas story, and nor is it as glorification of celebrity. It is, in fact, a mockery of our celebrity culture. George Bush as a wise man? Is that not evidence enough? Even his supporters consider him a little bit dim.

But, this was totally lost in a wave of emotive outburst in which some folks seemingly forgot to put their brain in gear. I think the Rev Jonathan Jennings gets first prize for this piece of insightful commentary: “There is a tradition in which each generation tries to re-enact the nativity, but oh deary deary me.” Yes. Deary deary you, oh golly-gosh, jeepers creepers. Thanks for that. I think we’re all the better for it.

Continuing my trip through bizarre-world, I arrive at the Reverend Rob Thomas, who is slightly more coherent than deary deary Jonathan. He believes, “Anything that invites us to laugh at what God did is something that He will take very seriously. In the Ten Commandments we are told not to make any images of God. This scene shows how wise that commandment is.” And yet this scene doesn’t make an image of God. Nor does it invite us to laugh at what God did. Is it just me or is God beginning to sound a little like a cosmic Victor Meldrew, with a gripe and a grumble about virtually everything, with not so much as a smile or a giggle. I wonder is Mr Thomas equally scathing of school nativity plays in which God is played by a plastic doll with one eye missing, and dropped on the floor at least 8 times before the end?

Anyhow, the collective mental spasm went beyond strictly religious folks. Even the Times leading article weighed in with a little piece of twaddle itself. In a pompous little sermon of religious blabber, it stated that the Tussauds nativity causes offence “in the spiritual domain.” Oh really? Do tell, where exactly is the “spiritual domain?” Slightly to the right of Andromeda? The Leader continued with: “It is a pity that they did not ponder for rather longer before initiating this distasteful “exhibit”.” Why is the word exhibit in invert commas? Is this not really an exhibit? Is the wax false wax, or the images some form of clever hallucination? At this point I’m beginning to ponder whether or not the writer of this leading article should have appeared alongside GWB.

However, the madness is not over yet: “There is no doubt that many seasonal visitors to London of all faiths will be surprised if not outraged by the elevation of a footballer and his partner to the status of mother of the Messiah and her husband.” Elevation? Were Mary and Joseph somehow divine? Joseph was a carpenter and Mary wasn‘t much to write home about either. But, maybe the author has access to some secret religious knowledge about a caste system of professions, with journalists no doubt at the bottom, just below lawyers. Of course there are obvious differences between Mary & Joseph and David & Victoria. Granted, David & Victoria Beckham aren’t poor, righteous, and living in a stable. Nor was Victoria inseminated by the third person of the Holy Trinity. But, I think we’re being a little pedantic here.

“It would be no surprise if they responded by taking their money elsewhere to other attractions.” What, after all the publicity you folks have provided?

“In this case, the Vatican may not be overreacting by suggesting that the scene verges on the blasphemous.” Oh for fuck sake! Firstly, even if it did border on the blasphemous Madame Tussauds is under no obligation whatsoever to remove it, as the Times Leader demands. But, secondly, what is even remotely blasphemous about this image? Perhaps an English lesson is required here: Blasphemy is “profane or sacrilegious talk about God or sacred things.” A nativity scene is neither God nor a sacred thing. It’s a portrayal of an event. If it were truly sacred then there would be equal uproar about nativity plays in schools, and those stupid tacky little plastic ones that sit under our Christmas trees. What is blasphemous is to suggest, by implication, that God is utterly humourless and as easily offended as his supposed representatives are. What is clear to me is that these critics seem to think God is just like them: sharing their religious convictions, tastes, likes and dislikes. I reckon God might be a tad more pissed off at being created in the image of conservative Christians than He would at a certain portrayal of the nativity. The former is far more blasphemous than the latter.

I think that Madame Tussauds should round up all these critics and put them into the nativity scene - weren’t there a bunch of donkeys present at the birth of Christ also?

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons).

Down With The Nazis

DOWN WITH THE NAZIS!

A bunch of racists. . .a band of thugs. . .a pack of hate-filled bigots. I agree with all such descriptions of the British National Party (BNP), and such opinions could only be reinforced by a BBC documentary a few months back that brought us some rather nasty undercover footage. Of course, for many people, making a documentary exposing racism and thuggery in the BNP was a little like making a documentary to expose elements of fundamentalist Islam in Saudi Arabia, but I think most of us were shocked at much of what we heard.

On the back of comments made in that documentary, the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, was arrested this week on suspicion of incitement to racial hatred, only to be released on bail pending further investigations. The party's founding chairman, John Tyndall, was also arrested on suspicion of the same offence. He too was freed on bail pending further inquiries. Griffin was questioned about alleged incitement offences under the Public Order Act, and is the most high-profile figure to have been arrested and questioned regarding incitement. Interestingly, the police say that, since July, a team of officers has been working 10 hours a day, five days a week, watching videos handed to them by the BBC. Is there so little crime in West Yorkshire that they have nothing better to do with their time? Is this the future of policing if new incitement laws are introduced? Will there be a bunch of Thought Police sitting reading every piece of literature and watching every film deemed to have a smidging of potentially offensive racist or religious comments?

Griffin landed himself in trouble with these comments about Islam: “This wicked, vicious faith has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it is now sweeping country after country.” Continuing, he added: “You will find verse after verse after verse [in the Qu’ran] which says that you can take any woman you want as long as they are not Muslim women; any woman that your right arm can own - that is the sword arm, the fighting arm, the arm you hit a white lad with a baseball bat. Any woman they can take by force or by guile is theirs.” After his arrest Griffin repeated his belief that Islam was “wicked,” but added that this was not directed against Muslims: “I was talking about the menace of Islamic fundamentalism to this country and, until next year, thank God, that is still not against the law.”

Although the Government plans to extend incitement laws to cover religious hatred, it is currently not a crime to incite to religious hatred. So, any case against Griffin would need to show that he had behaved in a way likely or intended to stir up racial hatred. His comments above, however, were not racist at all. Islam is not a race - it’s a religion - and, as Griffin himself pointed out in an interview, there are also white British Muslims, who, presumably, would be just as offended by such remarks.

I studied Islam as part of my degree in philosophy and theology, and, admittedly, I have some sympathy for Griffin’s view that Islam expanded from “a handful of cranky lunatics.” At least he mentioned nothing of Mohammed having sex with a 9 year old girl, Aisha, when he was 53, right after she finished playing with all the other boys and girls. Anyhow, regardless of whether Griffin’s comments are right or wrong, true or false, accurate or misleading, edifying or offensive, I certainly find it downright dangerous that in our modern culture the expression of such comments could be made illegal. It would be most unfortunate if we reacted to the BNP’s views and comments by fleeing to another extreme which, although sounds more sanitised and civil, is highly dangerous and potentially disastrous. I refer of course to the mindset that refuses to level criticism at any religion, culture or life-style.

Iqbal Sacranie, of the Muslim Council of Britain, supports a new law against incitement to religious hatred because, “defamation of the character of the prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) is a direct insult and abuse of the Muslim community.” It is questionable whether a law against incitement to religious hatred would prevent defamation of the character of Mohammed, but the law itself would set a precedent that could plausibly lead to the banning of remarks taken to be offensive by religious folks. What Iqbal Sacranie seems to want is an extension of our libel laws, to make them effective beyond the grave, and for religious belief to be granted the sort of protection extended to no other creed or ideology. And, where do we draw the line on defamation of the character of Mohammed? I think Mohammed was a liar who filled the heads of gullible desert folk with tales of visitations from the angel Jibrail. Some scholars of Islam have argued that Mohammed was possibly a madman who suffered from epileptic fits and delusions. Others will label him as a paedophile. Is that defamation of his character? Is it defamation of his character even if it’s true? Is truth therefore less important than defending and protecting the honour of a dead guy?

May I be so bold as to suggest that what the Muslim Council of Britain would really like is for Islam to begin enjoying something of the same legal privilege as it has in Middle-Eastern countries. After all, it is largely Muslim groups who are actively supporting such legislation. In some Islamic countries people who reject or insult Islam have no rights, and in many others apostasy warrants the death penalty. In Pakistan, if you so much as even accidentally defile the name of Mohammed you’re mince. By calling for legal protection of Mohammed’s character the Muslim Council of Britain are, in effect, taking steps to have Islam protected from criticism by law, on the grounds that it is offensive to Muslims. Such an intellectually redundant position belongs in the Dark Ages, or, perhaps, the Middle-East - not in a society that values education, freedom of thought and of speech.

Despite the fact that Muslim groups are happy that the same protection be extended to other religions, we should be concerned that our freedom to attack religious beliefs could be eroded. We must never treat criticism of religions, cultures or lifestyles as anathema. It is, and should be, acceptable to describe a religion in the way that Nick Griffin spoke of Islam. Of course, Griffin must be prepared to argue his case, but he should not be silenced or punished for expressing his opinions. Those who seek to silence others in such matters are at least as dangerous to a liberal democracy as any (inaccurately named) ‘far-right’ bigot. Attempting to define the boundaries of acceptable political and religious speech is a highly dangerous path to tread. Eventually nothing other than the most warm, fluffy, deadening benign language would be acceptable. We need to recapture the spirit of the Enlightenment: we may not agree with what someone else says, but we will fight to defend their right to say it.

Ironically, many oppose the BNP on the grounds that it is ‘fascist.’ However, what they actually end up doing is adopting the very tactics of the fascists they despise: seeking to censor other opinions by an act of law, and engaging in violence when it suits. This was highlighted in the furore caused by the visit earlier this year of Jean Marie Le Pen, French National Front leader, to a BNP meeting in Britain. The irony could not have been missed by anyone with more than two neutrons flying around inside their skull. Here we had bricks and bottles thrown by anti-fascists (you know, the kind of peace-loving “can’t we all get along and respect each other” folks) at “far-Right thugs” (you know, the kind of thugs who throws bricks and bottles) who, lets admit it, behaved themselves all day. Apparently these anti-fascists were concerned about potential violence caused by the visit. Indeed. The truth is they were concerned about potential violence in a way that a serial killer is concerned that there’s going to be another murder. Seeking to censor the views of the BNP because they are deemed to be fascist is itself a form of fascism. What good is it to attempt to rid society of fascism using the very tools of the fascist? These people aren’t anti-fascist at all - they’re anti-fascist fascists.

We must also defy the increasing trend that offending people is an inherently bad thing. In an interview, Richard Dawkins was challenged that it was offensive to describe religious people as “deluded.” His reply was memorable: “I don’t care if it’s offensive – because it’s true.” Whilst I disagree with Dawkins that religious people are all deluded, I greatly admire his “truth comes first” spirit. God-forbid we ever reach a point in our societal evolution when it becomes wrong to proclaim something we see as the truth simply because someone is offended. The pursuit of truth must be protected above hurting the feelings of a minority of thin-skinned, sensitive souls. Freedom of speech is the lifeline of truth, without which the path to truth would be blocked, the proclamation of truth impossible, and the challenging of competing ideas, each claiming truth, hindered. It is important also to recognise that our freedom of speech is inexorably bound up with the freedom of speech of those we disagree with - they stand or fall together. Freedom of speech means nothing at all if we can only express views approved of by the Government, or those that nobody finds offensive. If the term is to mean anything, it must include the freedom to be offensive. Saying that Elvis is dead is offensive to certain loon-bins (as is calling them loon-bins).

Mature, adult discourse thrives in a climate of free speech. Truth should be our goal, and since truth and the pursuit of truth rely fundamentally on freedom of speech and expression, we need to accept that banning the expression of ideas – even the most abhorrent ones – is a threat to truth and the greatest threat to democracy. The expression of ideas – any ideas – allows them to be challenged, confirmed, refuted or modified. Did John Stuart Mill teach us nothing?

What anti-fascists need to realise is that their tactics have done little other than help the very groups they oppose. They have drawn attention to them, and even created sympathy where there was only disinterest. In short, they have helped expand the very platform they seek to dismantle. If they’re not crippled by the time they stop shooting themselves in the foot, anti-fascists would be better off running a different course. Allowing fascist groups to air their views could actually help the anti-fascist cause, since people will hear just exactly what it is that these people stand for. It also gives the opportunity for reasoned criticism, argument, scorn and public ridicule, which is far more helpful than the usual approach of creating manic hysteria. Fighting fascism with fascism is like fucking for virginity.

At present, I am far more worried by the hordes of politically correct lunatics running around vomiting all over society than I am about the BNP and their ilk. When I named this article “Down With the Nazis” it wasn’t the BNP I had in mind.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Mr Burglar vrs Mr Homeowner

Tea & Biscuits Mr Burglar?

Ladies and gentlemen! In the blue corner, armed with a crowbar and the will to steal, kill and destroy, please give it up - ALL of it - for Mr Midnight Intruder! And in the red corner his opponent, armed with tea and biscuits lest he should be sued for a lack of hospitality, don’t applaud at all (for Mr Midnight might see and hear you) for Mr Peaceful Home-dweller!

It seems that this is the common perception: home dwellers have no rights to defend themselves and judges will always side with the criminal in those cases where someone attempts to resist an intruder to their home.

There is indeed a slightly worrying trend developing. Some lawyers have, laughably, spoken of a “duty of care” owed by a home-dweller towards an intruder. Hence the possibility of being sued if a burglar trips over a video lead whilst making his exit with the widescreen TV, or slices his hands on barbed wire on a wall whilst making his entrance. Moreover, some on the political left tend to blame “society” for “creating” those “people we call criminals,” and question the very notion of punishment, preferring instead to speak of rehabilitation as though criminality is merely an illness to be cured, and criminals dealt with adequately by a little bit of hug therapy: “There, there now, you’ve had a tough life, it’s not your fault, no, no, poor baby.” Robert Fisk of the Independent once wrote about how he stoically took a beating in the Middle-East because, after all, you can’t really blame such people for behaving this way towards Britons. Of course, contrary to the impression that he was trying to create, Robert Fisk was not engaging in philosophical reflection while he was getting an ass-kicking, but was more likely shitting himself and hoping to survive the ordeal with his major organs intact. But, his later thoughts do portray something about the political left, since many speak of crime in a similar way to Fisk’s description of his beating: we, “society,” should not seek to punish the criminal in the ways that we do, because the criminal isn’t ultimately to blame - we are to blame, and we should do less bitching about it and more “empathising.”

Despite this mildly concerning trend, we shouldn’t get too carried away, not yet anyhow. In the vast majority of cases the homeowner will be vindicated in court. However, it is right to have this debate, since there are a few legal oddities that must be cleared up, and a wider culture of support for self-defence generally to bolster.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Sir John Stevens, the outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said that the public were uncertain about their rights, because the current law is unclear. His proposal is that the law be changed to allow home-dwellers to use whatever force is necessary against an intruder, even if that means killing him or her, without facing prosecution for so doing. Like Sir John Stevens, most advocates for a change in the law altogether have stated their desire for the use of the words “all/any necessary means” rather than the current “use of reasonable force” in the legislation. However, these really isn’t much difference between these two phrases. The purpose of taking on an intruder is to get him or her our of your house at minimum risk to oneself. But, since this is the case, what is necessary is also what is reasonable. There really is no distinction. If killing a burglar is all that one can do to stop him or her then that is perfectly reasonable. It’s hardly reasonable to disable the intruder to an extent but stop at the point at which he has to limp out with the Playstation rather than run.

Most advocates of law change argue that only “extreme” cases of “gratuitous violence” should be prosecuted. What they seem to have in mind are cases like that of the farmer Tony Martin. Tony Martin shot a 16 year old burglar in the back with an illegally held shotgun, and thus even if the law were to have been different, in the way Sir John Stevens proposes, he would probably still have faced prosecution. The reason is that Tony Martin would be judged to have used force beyond that which was necessary to remove an intruder from his property. The 16 year-old was on his way out, thus to shoot and kill him, was not a necessary action.

It seems that “necessary” or “reasonable” force is about what it takes to remove an intruder. Once the intruder is on his way any further use of use is, presumably, “unnecessary,” “unreasonable,” or “gratuitous.” On Question Time last week, Germaine Greer related a conversation she had with local policemen. They asked her why she lived in the area that she did, since it was an area with a high number of burglaries. She replied that she simply liked the area, and went on to describe what she would do if she caught an intruder in her house. I’ll not related the details, (although it did involve hitting the intruder until his brains splattered onto the wallpaper), but she asked the officers what she should say to the police investigators who arrive on the scene after such an incident. They told her to say that she caught the intruder coming in. Seemingly, if the intruder is on the way out, running away, and you run after him or her, catch them, and proceed to kick them into the spirit world, your chances of criminal prosecution will rocket. On the other hand, the chance of prosecution after defending yourself from an intruder coming in is negligible.

However, even the words “reasonable” or “necessary” force are not quite sufficient boundaries when determining whether or not to prosecute someone acting in self-defence against an intruder. There must be a realisation that people who awaken to find an intruder in their house will not primarily think, “shit, what does the law say again? Can I just threaten this guy or crack his skull with a baseball bat?” If I were to awaken at 3am to hear people in my house I doubt my rational faculties, or those of anybody else, would function quite so well. Like most people I think I would lift the nearest available weapon, in my case a solid wood conga, and crack as many unwelcome skulls as I could. I doubt very much whether I’d stand calculating just how many swings of a conga amount to “necessary” or “reasonable” force in the eyes of the law. I’d swing until there was nothing else to hit, or until I was incapacitated myself. My use of force may not be strictly necessary, but is it not “understandable?” Perhaps, therefore “understandable” is a better term than either “reasonable” or “necessary.” And, courts need to take the situation and context into account. In my opinion, when Tony Martin shot an intruder his actions were understandable, even though they went beyond reasonable or necessary force.

For good or ill the Tony Martin case has become a central talking-point in this debate, and the question of gun ownership enters in with it. Some commentators have criticised any change in the law because they fear it may lead to a wider culture of owning guns, even if only for self-defence. Even Sir John Stevens doesn’t want things to go this far. He says: “I’m not talking about [people owning and using] guns, but people being allowed to defend themselves and use whatever is necessary to defend themselves against someone who may well be armed with a knife.” This is the major inconsistency in the position of John Stevens. If people should be allowed to use “necessary” force, even if this means “the death of an intruder,” why should guns be ruled out? Is it any more moral or righteous to kill a burglar with a solid wood conga than with a bullet? If killing the intruder is “necessary,” why shouldn’t this be done with a gun? And, although John Stevens uses the case of an intruder armed with a knife, what if that intruder is himself armed with a gun? As proud as I am of my percussion instruments, there isn’t a single one that would put me on a par with an armed intruder. A bodhran is hardly a shield of steel.

Given what I have said, I am inclined to support the position that home-dwellers be given an unqualified right to self-defence, and this right must take into consideration the fact that home-dwellers are often too frightened to act in the highly rational way presupposed by phrases such as “the use of reasonable/necessary force.” In my short but colourful life I have nearly died on 2 occasions. In one of these cases instinct took over and saved my life - not reason. My first reaction to the Tony Martin case was that he was a trigger-happy nutcase who should be locked up, since he did after all shoot a teenager, who was running away from him, in the back. However, the intruders in this case had tormented Tony Martin for a long time, and he was in a very frightened state when he acted as he did. At best he should have been charged for unlawful possession of a firearm. Your mental state when your life is under threat, or even when you simply perceive that it is, is one in which you will do all manner of otherwise extreme things if you think they help ward off the grim reaper. The Criminal in such cases should have little or no recourse. Once an intruder breaks into someone’s home we should recognise that they leave all their rights at the back door. Courts should have no sympathy for those who are badly injured or killed in the process of criminal activity.

Some opponents of an unqualified right to self-defence have argued that the criminal will simply evolve to counter any changes in law or culture. In other words, if home-dwellers are more likely to be armed, then criminals will more than likely bring weapons with them.

What a defeatist argument. For one thing, it could equally apply to the disarming of security personnel. Should they give up their weapons because they encourage criminals to get armed? Secondly, although criminals might be more likely to come armed, would they actually take the risk of being killed? In the USA, where householders typically have an unqualified right of self-defence, it seems that burglars are less likely to break in to an occupied house. Only 12% of burglaries happen when the householder is present. In Britain, well over 50% of burglaries take place when the occupants are in their home. It seems that criminals would rather not break-in where they risk losing their lives. I would much rather face an armed criminal with a gun of my own than face a criminal carrying a knife with my wife’s furry slippers.

Of course, such measures as I advocate will not solve the problem. More policing and stronger punishments for criminals are also desirable as deterrents to crime (at the minute the average sentence for burglary is 3.8 months, with aggravated burglary getting barely over 4 years). But, an unqualified right to self-defence is essential, because no matter how many police roam our streets, and no matter how severe the punishment is, there will still be violent criminals. Unfortunately the police aren’t always going to be there to help, and when they aren’t the Law of Nature should apply.

And rightly so.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

No Honour About These Killings

No Honour About These Killings

The greatest love story ever told: boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy dedicates a love-song to girl on local radio, girl’s family aren’t best pleased, girl has her brains blown out by hit-man hired by psychotic relatives who considered her choice of boyfriend “shameful.”

True story. A 19-year-old woman living in Pakistan was killed by a hit-man hired by her family because they heard her boyfriend dedicate a love-song to her on the radio. Why? She had “shamed the family.”

Recent years have seen an increasing number of people fall victim to so-called “honour killings.” Sometimes the deaths are made to look like suicides, sometimes women simply disappear, and sometimes they show up with marks on their body - even hideous burns. Alternatively, under threat, some women do in fact kill themselves before Uncle Abdul, armed with an Uzi 9mm, kicks the door in. Thankfully police are paying increased attention to these cases, and the Crown Prosecution Service has started to focus on how to best handle cases of “honour” killings.

In a discussion about this matter I commented - entirely correctly - that virtually all such murders are confined to the Asian community. I was accused of racism (“that’s a bit racist”). I’m a racist for pointing out an empirical fact, apparently. But, I didn’t make any comment against Asians generally. I didn’t say that Asians were more prone to barbarism. I simply said that “honour killings” were a largely Asian affair. That I was called a racist for this comment shows how political correctness has infiltrated the minds of so many people that it’s difficult to make any critical comment about any person or group of people, besides white working class British men I suppose. It’s especially difficult to make any negative comment about Islam in the presence of left-liberals, with their unnerving ability to over-look and forgive some of the most heinous crimes committed in the name of that religion, on the woolly basis that they are trying to “empathise” with oppressed peoples.

We allow Islamic fundamentalists to preach their hate against us right in the middle of our city centres, while only a few months ago a prison officer lost his job merely because he made a joke about Osama Bin Laden (you remember him - the psychotic terrorist fuck-up with an insane hatred of all things non-Muslim) within earshot of 4 Muslim visitors to an English jail. It seems that the days in which a white man can speak of an international Arabic terrorist in terms that are anything less that utterly respectful and affirming are certainly numbered. Are days coming also when we are forbidden from condemning such acts as suicide bombings and honour killings, since to do so will inevitably make some backward folks a little uncomfortable, threatened and offended?

Well, if I may now be offensive to such types: honour killings are wrong. When 4 gun men dragged the newly-weds Shazia Hason and Mohammed Hason Solangi screaming to a cotton field and shot them dead simply because they married for love rather than accept an arranged married, they committed a gross crime; an utterly immoral, despicable, intolerable, inhumane act. The perpetrators of such acts need to stop living in the dark ages. Really, what sort of parent would sanction such an action against their own child? The couple really brought dishonour to your tribe or to your religion? Well, sorry to say it, no, wait, I’m really not sorry at all, but you bring dishonour to the entire human race and every positive value of humanity: a significantly worse crime than marrying for love.

Rukhsana Naz was a 19-year-old pregnant woman. Women frequently speak of the strong bond between mother and child, a bond that develops from the time a woman is aware of the baby inside her. Whatever bond Rukhsana Naz was developing with her baby it was abruptly shattered when she was brutally murdered: with her own mother playing a leading role in the killing. Rukhsana’s mother held her down on the ground while her brother choked her to death with a length of plastic flex. How’s that for maternal instinct? What was Rukhsana’s crime? She wanted to get a divorce. Perhaps Rukhsana’s mother was merely trying to fast-track her out of the marriage. Til death us do part?

Nearly 700 of such killings happened in Pakistan alone in the year 2003 (about 5000 worldwide), and most of these were carried out by relatives, or at least with the blessing of relatives. Even more sickening is that a woman might be sentenced to death in mock courts for the crime of “allowing herself to be raped.” Ummmmm…something’s askew with the definitions here. “allowing” and “rape” don’t belong in the same sentence. Perhaps these folks need a quick lesson: rape is the act in which a man has sex with a woman against her will. The very definition of rape excludes the possibility of it being “allowed.” It’s surely a topsy-turvy culture that considers murder as the restorer of honour, whilst being raped becomes a capital offence.

Now, of course, the law in Pakistan will allow for criminal prosecution, but, and this is the really cool bit, only if the family of the victim want to pursue prosecution. How neat! Somehow I can’t quite see Pakistani police stations getting inundated with family members coming forward to push for prosecution, since it would be folly to implicate yourself on a murder charge.

I can almost hear the high-pitched wishy-washy-liberal cries – “don’t criticise what you don’t understand.” But, I understand it quite well. Woman are being brutally murdered by relatives for what amounts to making members of some backward tribe or family a tad embarrassed or annoyed. Some things are actually quite clear, but unfortunately many weak-bellied liberals wouldn’t spot a gross act of murder if it came up, spat in their face and plunged a knife through their heart.

And these sorts of killings are not just limited to a handful of backward Arab states. There have been cases right here in Britain of this very thing, perhaps as many as 12 last year. A Muslim man, Abdalla Yones, killed his 16-year-old daughter, Heshu Yones, because she slept with an 18-year-old Christian man. Thankfully the full weight of our law came down on his primitive ass and he was sentenced to life imprisonment at her Majesty’s, and, I must say, my own, pleasure. That to me is a fitting punishment for stabbing your 16-year-old daughter 11 times in the chest before cutting her throat (well, it’s a close second behind capital punishment for such types). The only shame is that his subsequent suicide attempt was unsuccessful. Seemingly he found more success in slashing his daughter’s throat than he did his own, and jumping off a 25-foot balcony regrettably didn’t do much good either.

Abdalla Yones apparently despised the Western lifestyle that his daughter was living. Well, my friend, if you want to live by your own murderous culture, go and practice it where you and it came from. Keep your vile practices out of my country. This is not just a clash of cultures. It’s matter of right and wrong. He was wrong, plain and simple. There really isn’t much of a case to be made in his defence. His defence lawyer simply offered that Yones had no idea how the knife got into his hand. Well, golly-gosh, please allow me to shed some light on the matter here: he picked the bloody thing up. That’s typically how knives end up in hands just prior to homicide.

If you don’t like Western culture – don’t live here. Do the honourable thing – the real honourable thing – and stay away. Don’t misunderstand me - I’m not saying people of certain races or cultures should not be allowed in to Britain or should be deported. I’m simply expressing a desire to see a decrease in the number of unstable, homicidal nut-jobs running around the place wielding knives with no recollection as to how they got into their hands.

The really sad fact is that when faced with the sorts of things I have said a sizable number of people will shout “Islamophobia!” or “racism!” or engage in anti-Western rhetoric rather than make an attempt to subject this sort of culture to criticism. God forbid that we criticise honour killings, the stoning to death of adulterous women, the second-class status of women, female genital mutilation, the lack of accountable government. We should not make excuses for these practices on the grounds of “cultural diversity” or “religious imperative.” They’re plain wrong, backward, immoral and barbarous; and we need to start shouting this loudly, from the rooftops if necessary. Brutality under the banner of ethnic identity is still brutality.

Without a significant change of collective mindset we will be left with a war to fight on two fronts: against those who perpetrate these acts, and against those who naively excuse them and forbid criticism - the politically correct Nazis, the speech-police, the high-sheriffs of freedom of thought.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)

Live and Let Die

LIVE AND LET DIE

Writing in the Times last week, Jane Campbell, Commissioner for the Disability Rights Commission, questioned the recent High Court decision lifting an injunction banning a “suicide” trip to Switzerland by a chronically sick woman (Mrs Z) and her husband. Unfortunately her column contained little new and made the same mistakes that have dogged virtually all anti-euthanasia commentary. The most fundamental error she made was in supposing that the choice of one person to end their life is a threat to others in a similar condition who want to continue living.

The column began with an incident that happened to Ms Campbell when she was admitted to hospital for emergency treatment. Ms Campbell suffers from spinal muscular atrophy and had recently caught pneumonia. She said that her consultant had unquestioningly assumed that should she go into respiratory failure she would not wish to be resuscitated, and that when told otherwise he “looked puzzled.” This was, understandably, a very frightening experience in which Ms Campbell felt that she couldn’t fully trust the medical staff to comply with her wishes.

In her line of work Ms Campbell has seen several cases similar to her own. She argues that it reflects the view of society that people with certain ailments and conditions live flawed and unsustainable lives, and that death is preferable to living with certain severe impairments. She goes on to question decisions such as that made last week in the High Court because she thinks that little attention is given to people who feel incredibly threatened by the “move towards a right to die when what they actually want is the right to live.”

It should be noted that only a few months ago the High Court also granted Leslie Burke (who has the same condition as Mrs Z) the right to continuing medical assistance, no matter how bad his condition gets. That the same High Court granted the wishes of each person with differing desires, yet similar conditions, is surely a cause for celebration and encouragement rather than worry. This is exactly as it should be. One person wanted to continue living and was allowed to do so by order of the High Court. Another person wanted to end their life with assistance and had legal obstacles removed from their way. Different approaches for different people.

I agree that what happened to Jane Campbell in hospital was awful. But, it would be equally horrendous if someone with the same condition were to go to hospital hoping not to be resuscitated in the event of respiratory failure only to be told, in effect, that: “In the event of respiratory failure we’ll do everything we can to bring you back, regardless of how much pain you are in, how low your quality of life will be, how much you suffer, what you wish or what any member of your family think.” This too is a denigration of a person. Ms Campbell rightly laments that the views and wishes of some people should not be imposed on others, but fails to recognise that this argument is a two-edged sword: her desires and wishes should not be imposed on anyone else. She should perhaps embrace the equality and diversity that she rambles on about.

As it is, her column was little other than a puff-piece. Her approach is typical of so many other commentators: one size fits all. Ms Campbell seemingly thinks that by allowing one disabled person the “right to die” we are making a judgment about disability and disabled people generally. In fact we are simply making a statement about human autonomy.

Take the shocking case of Diane Pretty. Diane Pretty was suffering from motor neurone disease, and had decided that she wanted to end her life. However, being unable to do so herself she wanted her husband to assist her. Unfortunately, as the law would have it, assisting a suicide can land someone in prison, and Diane Pretty didn’t want this to happen to her husband. She went to every available court in the country and then to Europe, only to have her case thrown out each time. She died soon after from her condition.

Those who fully supported Diane Pretty were not making a general judgment about people who have motor neurone disease. It’s not as if we desire a Nazi “relocation service” to remove all disabled people from society and dispose of them in death camps. We simply supported Diane Pretty’s own rational decision and will to die. This in no way threatens any other person with the desire to live, for no one was advocating that people with motor neurone disease, or any other condition, should be killed against their will. On the contrary, we simply support the idea that people can choose for themselves. If you don’t want to eat meat, stick to vegetables - no one is going to force burgers down your throat. If you don’t want to have an abortion, then give birth to your baby - no one will force you into a D & C. If you don’t want to have your life ended, then express your will to live.

This is nevertheless not good enough for some of the most vehement opponents of euthanasia. Some disability groups still argue that the very notion of euthanasia sends out and reinforces the message to disabled people that it’s better not to have a disability. I’m not exactly sure how to deal with this point, except to completely affirm it: it is better not to have a disability. This statement may not be politically correct in a culture that would prefer to talk about the “visually challenged” rather than the “blind,” “the physically impaired” rather than “paraplegics:” a culture obsessed with “diversity” and “equality.” However, a quick show-of-hands should convince any sceptic of the validity of what I say. If given a free choice who would choose being blind over having sight? Who would rather be quadriplegic than able to walk and move? Would anyone prefer motor neurone disease over a healthy body? How many arms would you like - one or two? Would you like feet with your legs? Fancy a snapped spinal cord? No. I didn’t think so. The sentiment that I have expressed here is the very basis of health care. If sickness, disability and ailment are on a par with physical and mental well-being then bang goes the entire medical establishment.

Ms Campbell mentions a few other considerations. She speaks of misdiagnosis. She is herself a perfect example: as a baby she was given only a short time to live, and yet is still with us 40 years later. We are often told that “Doctors can get it wrong - they aren’t gods” (there goes my whole belief system), but this is a fudge. Of course doctors can get it wrong. So can High Court judges, but we still send people to jail on the back of their pronouncements. Pilots can get it wrong, but we trust we won’t end up slamming into the Alps on the way to Switzerland.

Doctors can also get it very right. Ms Campbell says that in diagnosing terminal illness, “More than a quarter of doctors who authorise assisted deaths in Oregon said that they were not confident they could give an accurate six-month prognosis.” This means that just under 75% could be confident. In the case of Diane Pretty there wasn’t a doctor in the world willing to give her a positive diagnosis. Her body would waste and wither away, she would lose all physical control, before her mind also succumbed to the disease. Doctors are there to heal, help and offer advise. On the basis of that advise Diane Pretty made her decision to seek an end to her life. What should we have said to her: “Ack! It‘s only motor neurone disease!”? “The doctors might be wrong.”? “You’re not really going to be all that bad”? “There, there now, you’ll be grand, dry your eyes, I’ll put the kettle on and we’ll watch Eastenders with a nice cup o‘ tea. Sugar?”

It seems fairly obvious to me that people should be allowed to decide whether or not their life is worth continuing, even if that means ignoring the diktats of a tyrannical minority of people who would say “I have a disability and I want to live therefore you should live too.”

Ms Campbell also invokes what I call the “Demon-possessed family” argument. Relatives might bully someone towards death, perhaps to benefit from a life insurance policy. There are indeed those people who would sell their granny for a fiver. However, with good euthanasia laws a person with their mental faculties can make their own decisions, and doctors can ensure as far as possible that people make their own decisions. In cases when a person no longer has his or her mental faculties a nominated person can act on their behalf. For instance, my wife could make the necessary decisions if I am on life-support after narrowly surviving a tragic blimp accident off the coast of Sicily. Although she stands to gain substantially from my death, it is my choice to trust her or not, and I could clearly state my intentions in a living will if we had good euthanasia laws.

Ms Campbell’s last worry is that any euthanasia bill would give out “the underlying message that death is the preferable solution for people severely incapacitated or in pain.” Well, perhaps it is. My suggestion is that we let people decide for themselves. Moreover, there is an even more important message that such a bill would give out: “it’s your life, make your own decisions” - a message that sounds more and more radical with every passing day of our current administration. Some people will wish to live, others would rather die. A good euthanasia bill would respect the wishes of everyone, and would be a welcome advance in reclaiming the notions of personal responsibility and individual autonomy.

Live and let die should be our motto.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)