There came a cry from the citizens of this land that our politicians should decide what ought to happen in a war between two forces in a far-off land. And they all decided that we should send arms and ammunition to Ukraine to fight off the Russian aggressor.

But then there came another demand from the citizens of this land, or at least some of them, that our politicians should decide what ought to happen next in a war between two forces in a different far-off land. And this proved to be a bit more complicated. This, because they were being asked to decide whether there should be a cease-fire, a temporary cease-fire or a temporary cessation of hostilities for humanitarian purposes. The difference being...? Isn’t a ‘cease-fire’, by its nature, a temporary cessation of hostilities?

But the Scottish National party went further: their motion [see below] condemned the "collective punishment of the Palestinian people" – a war crime, with overtones of Nazi policies.

The Labour motion added that Israel "cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence" and called for a diplomatic process to deliver "a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state".

So then an attempt by the SNP to cosy up to the extremist Palestinian supporters and, more particularly, to put Labour in a bad light. And an attempt by Labour to continue to show that it was no longer an anti-Semitic party whilst hoping not to upset the Palestinians.

It was an ‘opposition day’: in this instance for the SNP. And so the SNP had the right to put forward a motion for debate. But the Speaker decided, against precedent, to allow the Labour amendment to the SNP motion to be debated and voted on as well. This, even though Labour had not previously put forward a motion about Palestine on one of its own opposition days – probably because they didn’t have unanimity as to how it should read.

The result was chaos, with allegations that the Speaker (a Labour MP) had given in to Labour pressure in order to rescue them from a situation in which many of their members would have voted for the SNP motion and those who didn’t would be portrayed as anti-Palestinian. All in an election year when it is thought that the Muslim vote will be important.

The Speaker later explained that he had taken the decision because of the threats made to MPs as part of an aggressive campaign against Israel and in favour of the Palestinians by various extremist groups – mainly Islamist.

Islamist demonstrators outside Parliament had called for more people to join them so that Parliament would have ‘to lock its doors to keep them out’. Echoes of January 6th on Capitol Hill. He said that he felt that all three versions (there was also, as is normal, a Tory amendment to the SNP motion) should be voted on so that everyone could express support for their own motion. A worthy thought, but one which has put the Speaker’s position in doubt. And shown that Parliament can be intimidated into taking action.

Religious ambiguity has been a hallmark of the British way of life for many years. This is perhaps because Britain seceded from the Catholic church for not very doctrinally-based reasons. And so its followers have largely been more concerned with the social aspect of belonging to the state church - being seen in church - rather than engaging in heavy duty Christianity. Which means that dealing with people of other religions who have strongly-held religious views is rather out of their comfort zone.

But it’s even more strange when people, not known for their religious practice, start to complain about the displacement of Christian values in this country by those of ‘other’ religions. They say that those other religions breed hatred and so something should be done to control them, with bans on demonstrations and such-like. It all starts to look and feel a bit racist.

Last week, former Home Secretary Swella Braverman said: “Islamists, extremists and antisemites are now in charge of Britain”. Later in the week 30p Lee Anderson (former vice chairman of the Tories) said “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, who has “given our capital city away to his mates”. A much more moderate and far from racist position!

We also have an extremist tendency in non-religious protest movements.

Extinction Rebellion and various affiliates believe that their cause is so self-evidently just that no rational person could object to their protests. Such arrogance.

In fact, we now have a case before the Court of Appeal following the acquittal of protestors who had sprayed offices with paint or smashed plate-glass windows. The protestors had told the jury that they believed that if the property owners had known about the impact of climate change they would have consented to the damage.

There is a statutory excuse for causing what would otherwise be criminal damage if you believe that the property’s owners would have agreed if ‘they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances’.

This wording would allow fire-fighters to break into a burning building or passers-by to rescue a dog locked in an overheated car or even to put down a badly injured animal or demolish a building which had become dangerous.

But if the protestors are right, then as the Attorney General says: ‘the more strongly a protester believes in the justice and importance of their cause, the more easily they may be able to assert a belief that others, if only they were properly aware of the cause, would agree to any actions they chose to commit in protest’. And that would include ‘delusional and potentially objectionable fringe opinions’ just as much as it would to mainstream views... It allows a protester to act based on their presupposition that others would inevitably be persuaded to their cause if they were to fully engage with it.’

But, if persuaded to their cause, why would I then want to damage my own property? Why would I want, in effect, to punch myself in the face rather than doing something constructive?

The arrogance which underlies the likes of Extinction Rebellion is actually the bedrock of fascism. It allows of no dissent. And the narrow nationalism and intolerance which are the hallmarks of fascism are very much on the rise.

We find this in dictatorships such as Russia and China and also  in theocracies, such as Iran, where their particular version of Sharia law is the foundation for their constitution and legal system. Democracy cannot flourish because the Ayatollahs who have the arrogance to believe in their own infallibility will not allow the people the opportunity to go against the tenets of Islam as defined by them.

We see a similar tendency in India, a nominally secular state, but with an increasing emphasis on the Hindu religion. Vast sums of money have been spent for example on what has been called the Hindu Vatican, replacing an ancient mosque destroyed in a Hindu riot in 1992, and now complete with its own international airport and train terminal to allow access for tens of millions of Hindu pilgrims. All this accompanied by an increase in tension and attacks by Hindus on people of other religions.

But the same arrogance can be seen in the ever constricting grasp of Christianity in the laws of the USA. The democratic representatives of the gun-toting and capital punishment approving Christians of Alabama have legislation which has been interpreted by their Supreme Court in a novel way. It means that stored, frozen embryos, created for IVF patients, even though ‘extra-uterine’, are ‘unborn children’ and so can never be destroyed. Which means that all IVF programmes there are finished. The Chief Justice said:

Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness. It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5.

He evidently sees himself as an Ayatollah rather than a judge. I despair.


Paul Buckingham

25 February 2024

Gaza debate - the Commons 21 February 2024

Motion put by SNP:

That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.

Amendments to the SNP motion put by:

Labour

That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.

Conservatives

That the House supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.”