GAZA today and Belgium 100 years ago: this has been a week
dominated by wars. I am writing just as the news has come through
of Baroness Warsi's resignation over the Government's policy about
Gaza. The first surprise is that she found that it had one. But
this must be a watershed moment because, once the jokes are over,
everyone will understand the kind of inarticulate sense that
something must be done, which animates her, and which she helps to
animate.
That it has positioned her effortlessly as Britain's leading
Muslim politician cannot have harmed her decision. None of the
others has sacrificed any part of his or her career which anyone
can remember for the cause - unless you count going on Big
Brother, in George Galloway's case; and most politicians would
rather lose their dignity than their job.
In the long run, I cannot see that any good will come of this
for anyone. The one thing to be said in favour of the Government's
Middle Eastern policy is precisely that it does not exist. We have
very limited influence there, and such as we have can really be
exercised only to make things worse; so the best thing to do is
simply to shut up, and be grateful that we are here, and not
there.
THE OBSERVER had a possibly more constructive view,
with the news that: "The Church of England has demanded that the
British government offers sanctuary to thousands of Christians
fleeing jihadists in northern Iraq, warning that ignoring their
plight would constitute a 'betrayal of Britain's moral and
historical obligations'."
This may come as news to the Church of England. Although Mark
Townsend had found three bishops to sign up to this admirable
sentiment, there does not seem to have been any kind of official
announcement. I don't think this kind of imprecision does any real
harm. You wouldn't, I hope, get any bishops signing up to send the
refugees back to the horrors that they came from.
On the other hand, it is likely that many congregations would be
less enthusiastic. The Observer story goes on to say that,
"On Monday, France responded to the so-called religious cleansing
by publicly granting asylum to Christians driven from Mosul," which
suggests that someone in France has calculated that their chances
of making it alive across the intervening territories are so small
that the gesture is affordable. But suppose they reached France in
large numbers, and then wanted to come to England? You can write
the headlines we would be reading in the Mail already.
THE last time any British Government really acted on that kind
of moral obligation was when it took in the Asian refugees expelled
by Idi Amin. That worked out exceptionally well, enriching the
country in many ways. But it would be electoral suicide today.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Williams was back in
the news, talking to some of the descendants of that exodus:
according to The Times, he announced that Islam was
promoting British values. This is a great news line, but the story
itself seemed to offer the usual spectacle of contestants in a
supposed debate galloping on their hobby horses quite happily past
each other:
"Yesterday, Dr Williams, who stood down as the head of the
Church of England to become master of Magdalene College, Cambridge,
in 2012, told the Living Islam Festival in Lincolnshire that
Christianity and Islam were shifting British values back towards
the community.
"He said that Britain was an 'argumentative democracy' where 'we
are not just individual voters ticking boxes but individuals and
communities engaging in open, honest and difficult public
discussion. One of the greatest gifts of the Muslim community to
the UK has been that they have brought that back to the
people.'
"Asked if he meant that Islam was rejuvenating British values,
Dr Williams said: 'Yes. I'm thinking of the way in which, for
example, in Birmingham we have seen a local parish and a mosque
combining together to provide family services and youth activities,
both acting out of a very strong sense that this is what
communities ought to do.'"
So off the paper trotted for an anti quote, which was not far to
seek: "Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist
Association, warned that the speech could undermine the UK's social
cohesion: 'Narratives that promote the view that religious
belonging is necessary for social responsibility may be comforting
to those for whom the promotion of religion is a profession, but in
the UK they are totally unsupported by evidence,' he said."
This seems to me quite close to arguing that secularism is
necessary for social responsibility and social cohesion, which is
perfectly arguable, but deepens my sense that English humanism is
really an Anglican heresy, which puts forward a vision of England
based on a tolerant, rational, and established unbelief, to which
everyone must at least occasionally conform.