Cameron was right on ‘muscular liberalism’

First published in the News of the World on 20 February 2011

So now we know: if you’re against beating children and in favour of women’s or gay rights, that makes you intolerant. Or maybe even a racist.

That’s how ridiculous political debate has become in Britain in the second decade of the 21st century.

Take David Cameron’s speech last week in which he called for “muscular liberalism” and said that we should no longer engage with religious groups who don’t support western values of democracy, freedom and equality.

We all know what he meant. And he was right.

The overwhelming majority of British Muslims have no problem fitting in with life here. They vote, they respect our institutions, they have non-Muslim friends, they’re remarkably hard working.

But there are some high-profile “community organisations” who claim to represent ordinary Muslims but who disparage traditional British values. They’re contemptuous of sexual freedom, they want homosexuality to be made illegal, and think it’s okay to beat your wife if she needs disciplined. And often they believe it’s “un-Islamic” even to vote.

These organisations don’t explicitly support the kind of terrorism practiced by mass murderers like Osama bin Laden, but they’re quick to find justification for it.

The Prime Minister has said what many in this country have wanted a politician to say for years: we shouldn’t be doing business with such people. And we certainly shouldn’t be giving their organisations public money.

Old liberalism was all about not offending anyone, being careful not to pass judgment on other people’s “life choices”.

Cameron’s “muscular liberalism” is saying: that these values – equality, democracy, tolerance of others’ lifestyles – are not just important, they’re right. And if you don’t agree with them, you’re wrong, and we have nothing to talk about.

The PM’s speech should have been welcomed more widely. Unfortunately, on the same day he was speaking in Munich, the English Defence League were having a march to protest against the presence of Muslims in general.

Some in my own party believed that this fact should have prevented the British Prime Minister from making an important speech which had been planned months in advance. One Labour front bencher, Sadiq Khan, himself a Muslim, even accused Cameron of “writing propaganda” for the EDL.

Fortunately, another Muslim Labour MP, Khalid Mahmood, quickly endorsed what the PM had said, particularly welcoming his strong condemnation of forced marriage.

And a few days later, the Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme revealed shocking footage of children at one Islamic school being brutally beaten by a teacher, and pupils at another being taught that non-Muslims are “the worst sort of creatures”.

Now, to most reasonable people, these were clear cases of child abuse and indoctrination and therefore unacceptable.

But not to LibDem MP John Hemming. Oh no. According to the Birmingham MP: “this kind of documentary is ideal fodder for the EDL. Channel 4 is putting the safety of children at risk by criticising a school which is doing its job properly.”

“Doing its job properly”? Seriously? And this time the spectre of the EDL is used to stop journalists exposing – and stopping – child abuse.

It doesn’t matter what religion a faith school promotes. The only thing that matters is that if children are being abused or brainwashed with narrow minded, damaging lies, then someone has to put a stop to it.

In the past my own party has too often used the accusation of “racism” to prevent people talking about immigration or criticising multiculturalism.

That has to end.

It’s time we supported the concept of “muscular liberalism” and became a bit less tolerant of intolerance.