You are here:   Columns >  The Outsider's Diary > Facing Up To The Fanatics
 
There wasn’t so much progress the week before when I took part in an Intelligence Squared debate on taking action against IS alongside General John Allen and against Ken Livingstone and Rula Jebreal. Aside from talking over her opponents incessantly, the strangest thing about Ms Jebreal was that she began her case by complaining about having to listen to “two white men” on our side. She seemed to have fewer problems with the other person on her own side, who was not just white and a man, but also — crime of all crimes today — old. I hope that in my lifetime the use of someone’s skin pigmentation will become unacceptable as a means of attack. But for now it appears to remain fine so long as it is in one direction. It leads me to wonder if there are things I would not say against an opponent. I think so. For instance Ms Jebreal is married to an American multi-millionaire, a fact some people might suggest undermines her strident pose as a poor suffering Palestinian. But — as when debating left-wing heirs and heiresses far richer than I shall ever be — I always think this too personal a point to make.

***

The closure of the Independent is sad for the editor and staff, but the paper itself is not a loss. Though the final editor reined in its worst excesses, it is hard to forgive the organ’s shift from independence to extreme far-left activism. During the 2000s in particular, it was an unrelenting source of anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism and anti-Semitism. Everybody has their favourite example, but my own will always be their correspondent Robert Fisk’s description of being beaten up by a mob in Afghanistan. Only a journalist at the Independent in those days could have been attacked in such a way only then to write a piece explaining why he — as a Westerner — deserved it. I am sorry for the loss of jobs but cannot be sad that the masochistic tendency in our press has been reduced.

***

How polite our European partners are suddenly being. In discussions with Germans I am now told that they need the UK to stay in the EU to protect them from the French. The French, by contrast, tell me that they would like Britain to stay in the EU to protect them from the Germans. The Scandinavians and Southern Europeans, meanwhile, say they need us to remain to act as a ballast for them against the French, Germans and each other.  From being vilified as headbangers, we outers are suddenly being not just pandered to, but wooed. We should enjoy it while it lasts, because however Britain votes in June, this flattery will not last much longer.
View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Lawrence
April 14th, 2016
4:04 PM
One can only hope the Guardian goes the same way as the Indie. Murray as the intellectual and Tommy Robinson as the working class hero and Pat Condell as the biting subversive black comedy truth teller to Power. 3 British heroes. The UK needs more of them if it is going to shake off the shackles of left-wing fascism.

Graeme Thompson
April 8th, 2016
5:04 PM
Douglas Murray is one of the pleasures of life.

Dan
April 6th, 2016
2:04 PM
I am not always fan of his, however, Rod Liddle, would certainly enlivened the Independent's fortunes had he been appointed editor in 2010. With regard to Maajid Nawaz, his ever-shifting movement towards secular western liberalism are hard to reconcile with his Islamist doublespeak in 2006-07 after his prison release. Quilliam feels like a business looking for funding streams surfing the prevailing winds of change as they blow. Maybe the best people to fight the case for western liberal values are people who've always believed in them.

bobmypal
April 5th, 2016
12:04 PM
Anonymous. so a "shift of position" indicates "final failure". And "work outside the UK", where he says Muslim extremism is less bad, indicates "expensive failure", because in the UK he is "unable to engage" owing to his "shift of position" which has rendered his expertise "alleged". Would I be right in guessing that to you any "shift" must be all of: logically false, dishonest, meaningless? I wonder what your "scope for a critical engagement" is.

Anonymous
March 29th, 2016
4:03 PM
Douglas. Whilst there is undoubtedly scope for a critical engagement with Islam, Maajid Nawaz's apparent shift of position does not reflect a victory of truth. It merely indicates the final failure of an individual with no credibility whatsoever, unable to meaningfully engage in his chosen field of alleged expertise. It is quite telling that Nawaz has increasingly sought to situate his work outside the UK whilst stating, '(...) by comparison with America, Britain has a disproportionately large problem with Muslim extremism' [1]. Despite all the hype, and without questionable funding streams, the Quilliam Foundation would be held to exemplify an expensive failure. 1. Harris S, and Nawaz, M, (2015). Islam and the Future of Tolerance, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.