The intolerance of intolerance

Great Britain and indeed much of Western Europe has found itself in a paradoxical paradigm that manifests itself in an intolerance of intolerance. As Christopher Caldwell presciently argued in the April edition of the magazine Prospect, 'The values that were supposed to liberate Europeans had left them paralysed'. Indeed, the politicians and special interest groups of Europe, in their pursuit of secularism are walking all over the graves of John Locke and Hegel.

Following centuries of European bloodshed from the Napoleonic wars through to the second world war and the colonial counter insurgency campaigns of the post-war period, Europe has sought a departure from the ideological germs of its past. The concepts behind this departure were designed to be antithetical to the nationalism, militarism, chauvanism, racism and racialism that tore Europe apart in the late nineteen thirties and throughout the Second World War. As such, European political institutions sought to construct post-modern ideals of indivdualism, relatavism, democracy and human rights. Arguably, such concepts were there to act as a buffer against any emergent extremist ideologies that could once again throw the continent back into its bad old ways.

However, such ideologies did arise but their potency were tempered by the healthy macro-economic framework of the post-war years and a desire amongst the majority of Europeans and their political classes to move on and forget. So where then would this antidote for the elimination of extremism find its medicinal role in Europe? Following the demise of the European empires prior to and after the second world war, the western European states, notably Great Britain, France and Denmark experienced a reverse migration. Many nationalities of the former colonial states sought economic relief and sanctuary from the turmoils decolonisation by emigrating to Great Britain, France and Denmark. It was in these waves of migrations from the former imperial domains that the antidote to racism and fascism finally found its purpose, the intolerance of discriminatory attitudes towards the new immigrant citizens of Europe.

In 1949 the far left Movement against Racism and Friendship (MRAP) among the peoples was founded in France as a reaction against the anti-semetism of the Vichy regime in France and Nazi Germany yet over the decades its remit has slowly changed. With Nazi war criminals now in their frail years and scattered to the four corners of the earth, the fight against European anti-semitism was beginning to loose its allure to the left. By 2002, it was clear that the anti-racism movement in France had found its new cause; racism. Oriana Fallaci, a prominent and respected Italian journalist wrote The Rage and The Pride as a polemical examination of her perception of a conflict between Islam and western liberal democracy. Oriana Fallaci found herself on the wrong end of an MRAP lawsuit filed on the basis that her book constituted incitement to racial hatred. In the same year, a Swiss judge issued an arrest warrant for her trial in Switzerland for her alleged violation of article 261 of the Swiss Criminal code. Both cases demonstrate that a post-enlightenment critique of religion, specifically Islam in these instances, is regressing in the face of the intolerance of any alleged intolerance.

In Great Britain, Islam is on the rise whilst Christianity is experiencing the inverse due to the rise of secularism and the degree to which it is promoted at the behest of Christianity. During the Israeli incursion into the Gaza strip in early 2009, young Arab men were allowed to chant 'death to Israel' outside the Israeli embassy in London. In February 2009, on the streets of Luton, muslims belonging to a banned terrorist group were allowed to shout abuse at soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment returning from a tour of duty in Iraq. Seemingly, the religion of the 'minority' must be upheld free from persecution, even if that may be at the behest of the freedom of speech, morality and the sensitivities of the majority. Indeed, this is quite apparent when examining the inept handling by Merseyside Police of a conversation between a muslim woman and the two owners of the hotel in which she was staying. One of the hoteliers, during a conversation about their respective faiths suggested to the muslim woman that Mohammed was a warlord. However, the muslim woman has appeared to have taken umbridge against such an opinion and has thus lodged a complaint with Merseyside police force. The Christian Institute who are providing support to the Christian hoteliers commented that, "If we are really saying that someone can't express their opinions without having their collar felt by the police I think we are in a very worrying situation for freedom of speech".

One factor that is certainly not helping in the struggle of Chrisitanity to hold in Great Britain is the rise of secularism. Secularism is not an ideology that is advanced by a specific legal system in Great Britain, rather its advance is pursued by anyone and anybody and is imbued with a serious dislike of anything that may run against the grain of intolerance towards 'equality'. There are now a multitude of laws in the UK, both codified and uncodified, that cover gender and racial equality and any attempt to wander to closely to these laws often results in very stern treatment. In the case of the two Christian hoteliers referred to above, Section 5 of the Public Order Act (causing, harrassment, alarm or distress) has been invoked by a police authority in dealing with an innocuous private conversation between two individuals. Several years ago in the UK, two evangelical christians were interviewed by police for nearly an hour and a half after the police were informed that the literature being distributed by the two christians demonstrated a potentially homophobic attitude. The Bible, much like the Koran, can be construed as homophobic when homosexuality is discussed. In Sweden, a Lutheran preacher was jailed for a month after declaring that homosexuality was not morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Subsequently, the rise and protection of the secular notions of morality are pursued with little regard for the freedom of speech and at the behest of the ancien religion of Europe.

In its bid to define a purpose for its post-war ideals of human rights, individualism and equality, Europe is slowly and willingly corroding freedom of speech and gagging itself for fear of upsetting those minority groups it so desperately tries to protect with its misplaced post-war revolution. What can be seen in these cases is the gradual establishment of a zeitgeist through the politico-judicial systems of the European liberal democracies that aims to regulate the boundaries of criticism that can be levelled against the so called 'minority religions' of Europe's new societies. John Locke who constructed the intellectual foundations upon which the Western world supposedly sits upon said this of the law, " The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom". It would appear then that the post war revolution of rallying against militarism, chauvanism and fascism has zealously disobeyed those sage old words of John Locke and long may we all regret it.

'Voters are just jealous'

In an interview with the World at One on 21st May Anthony Steen the MP for Totnes was unexpectedly candid about his conscience that failed to inhibit him from claiming £87,279 over the course of four years for his property in Devon. During the interview the MP described his behaviour as impeccable and believed that the interest in his expenses claim was jealousy. He even went so as as to say that the situation reminded him of an episode of Coronation Street, furthermore he asked what right did the public have to interfere in his private life. His answer to this was "none".

His home in Devon could hardly be described as modest or representative of the living arrangements of his constituents. It has a value of £1.5m and encompasses five hundred trees within the grounds, a separate cottage, gravelled driveway and a swimming pool. It is not the house of a man who is of modest means and is described by the MP as a 'very, very large house'. His claims for the property included tree surgery, maintenance of the cottage, an overhaul of the sewage system and an annual foresters inspection of the five hundred trees on his land.

On a de jure basis it can be construed that Anthony Steen did behave impeccably, after all his claims were processed by the fees office under the second homes allowance with only a couple of officials raising their eyebrows at some of his claims. For the financial year of 2004/05 one official did write to the MP to inform him that his claims for land management were considered excessive within the spirit of 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively on parliamentary duties'. However, his claims continued to be processed for another four years. If the argument is to be based purely on his uninhibited claims £87,000 for the upkeep of his 'very, very large house' and grounds then yes he did behave impeccably as he kept within the rules of the second homes allowance.

It is on his de facto behaviour where he is viewed in a less than favourable light. How can an overhaul to the sewage system and the continued maintenance of the grounds to what is his family home be aligned with the proviso of claiming for costs that are incurred 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively on parliamentary duties'? The truth of the matter is that tree surveys and a £1,318 wrought iron fireplace are in no way related to, or can possibly assist, in the discharging of an individuals duties as a Member of Parliament. Morally, Anthony Steen has acted in bad faith by charging the taxpayer just under the full annual value permissible under the second homes allowance for the upkeep of what in reality his family home.

Describing the anger against him as jealousy completely misunderstands the point of the matter. He is a man of wealth who has immorally used taxpayers money for the upkeep of his family home. Mr Steen may have a right to privacy, but in using public funds so extravagently on his large house in the country he nullified any right to privacy. The taxpayer has every right to know how their money is spent, particularly when such money is used for personal and not public interest.

Elliot Morley

In the words of the now suspended MP Elliot Morley, sloppy accounting was to blame for his expenses claim on the mortgage interest on his 'second home' in Scunthorpe. The mortgage expired in March 2006 and over a twenty one month period following the expiration of the mortgage he claimed for a total of £16,000.

When asked to provide evidence for the mortgage, on what was his 'second property', Mr Morley produced a bank statement and highlighted a standing order to the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society for an endowment fund for the value of £800. Using irrelevant evidence to justify his claim rather than any authentic documentation, which would demonstrate his fraudelent activity, suggests that he was trying to cover his actions.

In March 2008, Mr Morley was contacted by the fees office and informed that the existing documentation for his mortgage claim, namely his irrelevant bank statement was insufficient. Upon being asked to provide further evidence the MP said that this would be a bit difficult as his circumstances had changed. It is difficult to comprehend how a change in circumstances could affect his ability to forward on his mortgage agreement with the bank or building society to the fees office.

Failing to recognise that his account was being credited with £16,000 over a two year period, providing irrelevant evidence to the fees office and arguing that any further information would be difficult to obtain is not sloppy accounting or irredeemably stupid. It is suggestive of a general unwillingness on the behalf of Mr Morley to hand over any documentation that would nullify his false expenses claim. His actions can easily be construed as fraudelent, subsequently criminal proceedings should be brought against him under the Fraud Act 2006.