Mother of Parliaments Aborts Public Transparency

Parliament of Dhimmis.

It’s a good thing, in pragmatic terms, that the progeny of the British Empire are now doing their own thing, self-government-wise.  The US, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand – a long list of us who have Mother England to thank for our democratic traditions have been self-sustaining in that regard – in fact, self-directed – for years, decades, or centuries.

But it’s still a profoundly sad thing to see Our Mum doddering into oblivion, suffering old-age dementia, political Alzheimer’s, whatever metaphorical tag we want to put on it, as the 2010 Pageant of the Absurd rambles on.  I’m not talking here about David Cameron’s impolitic communications in Turkey – the truckling reference to Gaza as a “prison camp” – but about the less-reported visit of Arab-Israeli members of the Knesset to a committee of the House of Commons on Wednesday, 28 July.

At the hearing held in their honor, the Israeli Arabs reportedly “launched a blistering attack on the Jewish state and its Parliament,” with one informing members of the Commons’ “Palestine Solidarity Campaign” that “Israel is much worse than the apartheid regime in South Africa. There were no ethnic cleansing policies there, but there are those policies in Israel.”

Yada-yada.  You can read the rest at the link.  The visit and the charges made amount to the usual boilerplate, but Parliament’s handling of the event was appalling, by the very standards which that once-admirable body long pioneered and exemplified.  It turns out that public attendees who were expected, in advance, to be critical of the agenda advocated in this hearing were denied access to it.

Here is the story of one blogger who was removed by the police – not because he behaved improperly or had any history of doing so, but before he was even in the hearing chamber at Westminster, and because he was known to blog from a pro-Israel standpoint.

Here is the story of another pro-Israel blogger denied access to the same hearing.

This report recounts that a third individual, who was admitted to the hearing, spoke in support of Israel and was afterwards “surrounded and intimidated in an incident witnessed and recorded by the police.”

This kind of thing can’t be spun as the misinterpretation of another culture’s charming customs.  This is our culture.  And this is our culture under the quasi-pharmaceutical influence of a wildly radical “political correctness” – a PC so extreme that it sets the police on anyone who is merely suspected of not being in agreement with it.

There is nothing Western, rational, reasonable, liberal, or empirical about ejecting skeptics from political hearings.  There is no prized, quintessential Western tradition in which this is acceptable or makes sense.  Parliament failed, in this case, to live up to Western standards of political discourse and public transparency.  This is a matter for regret and anger, and the blame for it cannot rationally fall on the culture and traditions of the West.  They neither prompt nor excuse such actions.  In fact, the Western liberal tradition requires, as evidence of bona fides, that political deeds and words endure critical public scrutiny.

No, this is a matter of one the West’s iconic, centuries-old institutions behaving in a decidedly un-Western, illiberal, non-transparent and culturally foreign manner.  No special circumstance like civil war, dueling aspirants to the monarchy, or societal upheaval excuses this lapse in peaceful transparency.  We could debate how much of a dividing line there is between this and collectivist-Marxist repressions of political liberty.  But given the topic of the hearing in question, it would be fatuous to a degree of idiocy to dismiss the concept of dhimmitude from critical examination.

Cross-posted at Hot Air.

4 thoughts on “Mother of Parliaments Aborts Public Transparency”

  1. There has been compelling evidence, for quite some time that the UK and other European nations have a strong strain of dhimmitude active within their populations.

    If successful, the UK’s PM Cameron recently calling for Turkey’s inclusion within the EU, would be the death knell for Europe. Removing the final obstacle to the completion of the Islamization of Europe.

    Even without Turkey’s inclusion within the EU, Europe is headed for violent civil unrest. Demographically, Europe will be 1/3 Muslim by 2020 and then the proverbial ‘caca’ will hit the fan. Sharia law, already tolerated in the UK, will demand its installation as a full alternative to legal codes in all European countries in which Muslims make up 1/3 or greater % of population.

    Once Muslims make up the largest minority, their demands will escalate and once they are the majority they will demand inclusion within the Umma and the relegation of all non-Muslims into official dhimmitude.

    This ia a long established pattern that Islam follows with nations outside the Umma.

    1. “Demographically, Europe will be 1/3 Muslim by 2020”

      Where did you get that number? It sounds high to me even though I’m pretty alarmed about the trend in Europe.

      1. It is high and I apologize for inadvertently misstating the projected statistics.

        I was working off memory and rechecked the numbers. A number of statisticians project that the Muslim population in Europe will double by 2015.

        In 2009, there were about 52 million Muslims living in Europe, when Russia is included. It is estimated that if demographic trends continue, by 2050 Europe will be 25-35% Muslim and by the end of the century, Majority Muslim.

        European Muslim birthrates are declining but European societies need to maintain their social entitlements means that immigration will have to be maintained, so the demographic trends may even accelerate, especially if Turkey becomes a member of the EU.

        In a number of major European cities, Muslims are already in the majority and the actions that I elucidated are already occurring… Shariah law is already a legal if limited, alternative legal system in Britain.

        As the Muslim minorities numbers grow, so will the pressure to increase the displacement of European legal systems with Shariah laws for Muslims.

        That pressure will come from radical Muslims with acquiescence from moderate Muslims. That acquiescence stems from Islam’s proclamations that a 1/3 minority has the right to demand a Shariah legal system for themselves and, once in the majority Muslims have the right to demand a country’s inclusion within the Umma with the relegation of all non-Muslims into second-class dhimmitude, with essentially no legal rights.

  2. Geoffrey,
    I was just questioning the statistic. I have no argument with your analysis, although I think Europe will kick back against Muslim pressure at some point in its building process. I don’t think that will be pretty.

    You cite, though, one of the favorite red herrings of the open borders crowd when you write “European societies need to maintain their social entitlements means that immigration will have to be maintained.”

    The notion that immigrants, handicapped by lack of language skills, on average less educated than natives, and immediately able to import spouses and have children who will need to be educated at great expense to the state, are going to be able to support welfare state entitlements with their taxes is preposterous.

    It might work if immigration were limited to fully educated software engineers and such but in fact most immigrants (again because of the language skill issue and their typically poor education) don’t rise much above manual labor in the first generation. Importing manual laborers makes sense only if seen as charity.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: