Not a good week for Islam

Not a good week for Islam (again).

The Gibbons case in Sudan has brought a welcome condemnation from the Muslim Council of Britain, which claims to represent the Muslim community in Britain. They are “appalled” and have demanded that Mrs Gibbons be released. I agree. They then continue:

“This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense. There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith,” (my italics)

I must say, that does rather imply that had she deliberately set out to insult Islam then the MCB would be happy to see her whipped. It is sad that the MCB isn’t criticising the principle of a criminal code which includes an offence of insulting a religion.

Not that I would condone someone in an Islamic country going out of their way to insult the religion - but I say that simply on the basis that it is bad manners in a foreign country not to respect (to a point) the host culture. I certainly, though, do think that criminalising blasphemy is one more step on a slippery slope – the next stage being criminalising political dissent. Why should insulting a religion be any worse then insulting someone’s politics?

But of course, Sudan isn’t exactly a haven of free speech or defender of human rights, is it?

Remember David: the mob still rules

Over the weekend I watched the film The Queen. I was a little disappointed, given that little new came out from the film, though the plaudits for Helen Mirren were deserved. I expected liberal helpings of dramatic licence, given that so much of the film covered scenes where no-one outside the protagonists would have known what went on. Even so, The West Wing meets Buckingham Palace it isn’t. However, the period covered by the film still echoes today, and that’s not just in view of the upcoming tenth anniversary of Princess Diana’s fatal last tour of the Paris underpasses.

The last few days have underlined how little has changed in how the mob can override intelligent assessments of a situation. In 1997, the mob – aka “the public mood” - demanded that the flag at Buckingham Palace fly at half mast. Of course, the protocol is that the Royal Standard either flies at full mast (when the monarch is resident) or not at all. There is never a reason to fly at half mast because the nation is never without a monarch, succession being instantaneous on a monarch’s death or abdication. There was also the questioning of why the Queen was still at Balmoral in the first few days of September.

Yet the Queen had to be seen to emoting with the public. I think this Dianafication has been evident in the criticism of David Cameron and his “failure” to rush back to Witney in the light of the flooding. It is ironic that the reason he wasn’t there is because he was demonstrating publicly his concern over global poverty and the genocide that took place in Rwanda thirteen years ago.

Now I feel there are two valid viewpoints here: that in the modern media environment, it would have been advisable to have been seen in the constituency, even if it was on the Saturday or Sunday, being briefed on preparations for the floods. David Cameron and his team know this, so it seems odd that they didn’t make such last minute arrangements.

However, it is equally correct to question what, had he cancelled or postponed the African trip (which only lasted a day or so anyway), he could actually have done of any use in Witney, other than he and the press getting in everyone’s way in the effort to get his picture taken? Also, whilst it is natural for many people to expect a future PM to put home affairs first, is it really wrong for a future Conservative government to take an interest in foreign affairs, including the causes of “push” immigration, international political instability and encouraging global trade and the better chances such work gives to peace and security for all?

Finally, one other point, being someone uninvolved in the MSM: it does seem to me that there can be a gulf between the footsoldier hacks and their editors. Iain Dale, covering the last few days in Rwanda, has noted how typically (and understandably) cynical journalists have realised that the work being done by MPs and activists in Rwanda is more than a stunt. Shame no-one has told the majority of headline writers.

Zimbabwe: They’re getting there

An interesting, if depressing, piece in the Economist . I can see what Scott Wickstein at Samizdata (hat-tip) is getting at when he says that the battered country still has a long way to fall yet. The basket case that is Zimbabwe is discovering that the well it’s fallen into is proving surprisingly deep before it hits the bottom.

I’m not sure why I have even a passing interest in Zimbabwe – after all, I have no connection with the place. I am a Conservative and therefore am not supposed to care about Africa, especially where there isn’t any oil. Us right-wingers’ interest in Zimbabwe should be limited to some Colonel Blimpish comment about “look what happens when you give the natives their independence”, while Guardian/Independent-reading “progressive” lefties wring their hands over Iraq or Darfur.

Perhaps it’s because here is a clear case for international intervention but where, yet again, that sacred temple of teeth-gnashing – the UN - has proved itself scoring around the chocolate teapot range in the usefulness stakes. Of course, one can add Darfur to the current litany as well. Running refugee camps is one thing, stopping the massacres before the savage nutters run out of victims is a harder job, but will serve humanity far better in the long run.

Perhaps it’s because Mugabe has proved the embodiment and logical extension of so many favourite lefty principles – land and property confiscation, a heavily controlled economy, anti-colonialism – which are visibly and catastrophically failing.

Recently, as a result of the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, Mugabe has decided to simply “outlaw inflation” by imposing price controls. Maybe next month he will ban bad weather.

Many have expected the situation to result in the end of Mugabe. I can remember talking to a South African who said that in ten years Zimbabwe would be another Ethiopia. That was ten years’ ago. As the Economist reports:

A local businessman repeats the widely-held prediction that the current system will collapse within six months—and that Zimbabwe, under new management, will become Africa’s fastest growing economy. “Then again”, he smiles, “we have been saying this for years.”

They probably also said the same about Cuba and North Korea once.