Published in Emel Magazine, April 2011
By Sarah Joseph
The Baroness of Dewsbury has taken on the media, Islamophobes, her own party and extremists all within a year of taking office. Sarah Joseph and Aisha Mirza catch up with her following her bold headline grabbing speech on the rise of anti-Muslim diatribes.
Upon entering the Conservative Campaign HQ, where we are due to interview Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, our crew—a mix of Pakistani, Indian, Bengali, Jamaican and English heritage—brings a certain noise and colour to the otherwise unremarkable offices at Millbank. Silent workers in neat suits look up curiously from their screens to watch us pass. There are no glamorous works of art, just a few pictures of the cabinet. No sign of the plasma screens or the blue colour scheme we had envisaged. In fact, we are the most striking things there, until Sayeeda Warsi arrives bringing more colour, a northern accent and shalwar kameez.
In her 2006 emel interview, Sayeeda was extremely positive about the changes taking place among the Tories, namely greater inclusion and better understanding of the issues facing the non-Etonian members of society. But now, with 18 millionaires in the cabinet, whether the party has succeeded in this aim is arguable. What is clear though is that Sayeeda has risen to the forefront of the party, and established herself as a prominent and independent-minded person who at times speaks for women, Asians, Brits and Muslims alike.
Ranked by the Daily Telegraph as the 23rd most influential right-winger in Britain, Sayeeda has travelled to Sudan with Lord Ahmed to help negotiate the release of a British teacher who was bizarrely jailed for naming a teddy bear ‘Muhammad’; she has been pelted with eggs in Luton by members of Al-Muhajiroun; met the Pope; led a British delegation to Hajj; and was named as the most powerful Muslim woman in Britain by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. She also appeared alongside Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, on an episode of Question Time that saw her widely praised for the way she took him down. Sayeeda is now a Minister without Portfolio—a “unique role framed by me and the prime minister,” and co-chairman of the Conservative party, which “takes up 80% of my time.” She is very keen to point out that this makes her the first Muslim full-cabinet minister regardless of gender, and offers her a platter of responsibilities that does not leave her much time to “take loo breaks… or do my eyebrows,” as she puts it.
She describes the endless meetings that leave her with “no time to think or read,” and the “gruelling” schedule that often leaves her “sleep deprived” and feels she is “trading away some sort of normality.” Her description is such that you wonder whether a politician’s lot makes for effective government. However, she is still finding time to cause a stir. We meet Sayeeda in the aftermath of her speech in Leicester addressing inter-faith dialogue. “Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table test,” she declared. “A phobia is an irrational fear. It takes on a life of its own and no longer needs to be justified. And all this filters through. The drip feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice.” Her speech caused a furore and generated a thousand articles.
For some of us, the notion that Muslims have increasingly been the targets of prejudice and misrepresentation by the press and the public is not novel or particularly shocking. We’ve seen the headlines: ‘Muslim students back killing in the name of Islam’, ‘Muslim plot to kill Pope’, ‘Muslims force Brits to eat Halal meat’. But as Sayeeda’s speech made headlines of its own, and the comments from the public reached their vitriolic frenzy, it became obvious just how important it is for a prominent politician to be making the point, fearlessly and articulately, using her platform to bring into public discourse something that is important to her and the communities she wants to reach out to.
“I wasn’t shocked by the furore… I was shocked by how many people wrote about it without reading it!” Sayeeda exclaims. Indeed, many opinion pieces chose to divert attention to the idea that Islam is not open to debate or criticism, and until that is achieved there will be no tolerance of it. This is something that was addressed directly by Sayeeda, and she stands by her thoughts. “Islam is a religion and everyone has a right to question, criticise, disagree with, and object to other people’s religions… but where you have an approach of hatred towards a community because of the religion they belong to… that’s what I am saying is wrong.” She laughs at “the back peddling” once people had begun to read the actual speech, but there was some notable lack of fulsome support. David Cameron himself only offered the contribution that it was “important to debate”, as Sayeeda was torn apart by columnists and the blogosphere; and no other cabinet member publicly expressed any support. If she was disappointed by this, she does not let it show. “These are issues which David and I have discussed and debated for many years now. He is supportive, but this was not a big announcement of government policy; this was an academic lecture given at a university where I was going through the arguments, posing questions and challenges. It is not an end point. We are on that journey. David is on that journey.”
In this op-ed Sayeeda explains her views on action in Libya.
Last Saturday British forces went into action over Libya as part of an international operation at the request of Arab nations acting to enforce the will of the United Nations. It might surprise many people to hear that someone who marched against the Iraq War is prepared to take to the streets in support of military action in Libya. But the truth is that I am just as passionately in favour of taking action in Libya as I was opposed to the Iraq War. Why? It all boils down to three things.
One – it’s necessary. Colonel Gaddafi said himself that he was planning a violent assault on the rebels in Benghazi. He said every home would be searched and that he would show no mercy. That’s why I felt so strongly that we had to take a lead and stop this atrocity. And we have.
Two – it’s legal. Unlike Iraq, this time we got that UN resolution for military action. There’s no question this time of dodgy dossiers about weapons of mass destruction. This time the mandate from the Security Council couldn’t be clearer – a no-fly zone and the use of all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya.
Three – it’s got regional support. There are millions in the Arab world who want to know that the UN and the UK care about their suffering. The Arab League have asked us to intervene and to stop the slaughter – and we should answer their call.
Back in the 1990s, we failed to act in Bosnia. We stood by as thousands died. In the end the UK and the international community did act. We intervened to stop the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims. However, we were too late to stop the atrocities committed in Srebrenica where over 8000 people were killed. I’ve travelled to Srebrenica. I’ve seen the women who lost their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons. And more than 15 years on, they are still uncovering mass graves and burying their dead. We should never, ever let that happen again. That’s why I would take to the streets to support our action in Libya – and it is why Libya is right for many of the reasons that Iraq was wrong. This military mission is not about regime change: it is about protecting civilians. What is crucial is that the future of Libya is for the people of Libya to decide, aided by the international community. With this action the people of Libya have a much better chance of determining their destiny.
Eighty years ago, Winston Churchill warned the House of Commons that the Alternative Vote was “the stupidest, the least scientific, the most unreal” system of voting.
He predicted that under AV elections would be decided by the “most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”.
It is no big surprise that Churchill was opposed to AV.
After all, AV flies in the face of a fundamental British principle – one that has been the cornerstone of our democracy and a beacon to the rest of the world – the principle of one person, one vote.
Look around the world and you see the legacy. Some 2.4 BILLION people use our voting system to choose their governments. It’s the most widely used system in the world.
So what on earth will all these 2.4billion people think if they discover after May 5 that Britain has turned its back on two centuries of history and brought in a voting system which no one understands?
But for me personally, there is an even bigger problem with AV: It gives more power to extremists.
Why? The whole system is so complicated the problem is all too easily obscured.
But the fact is that under AV, some people have more votes counted than others.
Too often, those people tend to be the ones who vote for extremist parties.
This means AV could see candidates pandering to extremist voters – because to win a seat they will need to win the support of people whose first choices have already been eliminated.
It could have serious repercussions in constituencies where the BNP vote is bigger than normal.
Take Dewsbury, which I lost by just over 4,000 votes in 2005.
The BNP vote was 5,066 – more than the difference in votes between second and first place.
It’s not hard to imagine where AV could lead in places like Dewsbury – more inflammatory campaigns, and policies which appeal to extremists.
The second big problem with AV is that it risks giving parties such as the BNP more legitimacy.
Under AV, voters would be able to register a protest vote without considering the electoral implications and then transfer back to a mainstream party.
The long-term effects of that are clear: More votes, more power, more long-term legitimacy for the BNP and other fringe parties – so it is absolutely vital that we defeat AV.
Generations have been served well by the British system, because under the first-past-the-post system fascists and extremists have consistently been excluded from Parliament.
It is a record we should all be very proud of.
We would be crazy to abandon this tried and tested system – and that’s why, like Churchill 80 years ago, Britain should again say no to AV.
The Rt Hon Baroness Warsi, Wednesday 29th March 2011
Speaking at Toynbee Hall on the impact of AV
Salaam Alaikum, Shalom, Namaste! Thank you all for being here.
It’s a privilege to welcome you to this historic setting. Toynbee Hall is a great symbol of what building a fair, responsible and cohesive society really means.
Years ago, this hall stood at the heart of the British Jewish and Irish communities….
…and over time, its residents played an important part in London’s campaigns for fairness for ethnic minorities….
….standing up against fascism in the 1930s….
…and fighting for a fairer, freer and more just society.
Today, Toynbee Hall continues to build on that legacy…
….helping young people and local families from all faiths and backgrounds to play their part and succeed in their communities…
So it is right that we come here today to talk about an issue which raises serious questions about all of these values….
….and gets right to the heart of what it means to live in a free and fair democracy:
The referendum on AV.
ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE
On May 5th, Britain faces a massive choice about the future of our democracy.
I call it the mother of all elections…
….because this referendum will affect not just the outcome of the next general election…
….but the outcome of every single general election to come.
Over the last few months, we’ve heard many of the reasons why AV would be wrong for our country.
Many of Britain’s leading historians have said that AV would undermine centuries of political history.
Prominent past and present Foreign Secretaries have argued that AV would limit our democratic influence in the world.
We’ve even heard many leading Liberals – including Lord Owen – saying they oppose AV because it’s the wrong reform for our country.
But this week, an even more important argument has taken centre stage….
…it’s an argument about a fundamental British belief…
…a belief that has been the beacon of British democracy for centuries….
…a principle that has inspired millions of democrats around the world….
…the idea that one person should get one vote and every vote should weigh the same.
Let me explain.
For centuries, generations of British reformers have been inspired by that principle.
They believed that because each person is equal – no matter who you are or what your background – every person should have an equal vote.
It took many years for that principle to become part of our politics.
But today, that principle stands as the cornerstone of our democracy – enshrined in the current system as one person, one vote.
Look around the world and we see the legacy.
2.4 billion people use our voting system.
It’s the most widely used voting system in the world.
By contrast, only three countries in the world use AV.
So ask yourself this:
What on earth will all these billions of people think if they turn to the mother of all democracies after May 5th and find that Britain has turned its back on two centuries of history?
Under AV, instead of one person, one vote – some votes get counted more than others
Instead of everyone being equal, some people are more equal than others!
So it’s absolutely vital that we defeat this disastrous, discredited and unfair voting system.
As Winston Churchill put it in the 1930s:
AV “is the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal” voting system.
It means that elections “will be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.”
And if it becomes part of our democracy: “an element of blind chance and accident will enter far more largely into our electoral decisions..
…..and respect for Parliament will decline lower than it is at present”.
He knew then – like we know now – that AV is totally wrong for our country.
AV AND EXTREMISTS
But today, I actually believe that there’s an even bigger argument to make against AV.
You see, the problem with AV isn’t just that it counts some people’s votes more than others.
It’s the issue of who those people tend to be.
Now AV is such a complicated and confusing system, that you’ll forgive me if I explain carefully exactly what I mean.
Under AV, the candidate who comes bottom after the first round of voting is eliminated.
But the people who voted for that candidate then get another bite of the cherry as their other preferences come into play.
So while all the people who backed mainstream candidates only have their first preferences counted, all those people who picked fringe candidates have, in effect, a second or third bite of the cherry.
It’s not just the sheer unfairness of this which gets me.
It’s the fact that for some completely arbitrary reason, AV gives more power to those people – fringe voters, Monster Raving Loonies, and yes, fascists – who are voting for precisely the kind of extreme policies most people want to marginalize.
You don’t need me to tell you that this represents a serious danger to our democracy.
It means that bigots will be given more power in our politics…
….and extremists will look to gain more influence over mainstream parties.
The danger is that under AV, our whole political system would take a giant leap backwards, becoming more warped and disproportionate as fringe voters hold sway.
Now before I go any further, let me be categorically clear:
I am absolutely not saying that this is something anyone in the Yes campaign want to see.
Of course, the people backing the Yes Campaign rightly abhor extremism and I don’t for one second doubt their sincerity.
What I am saying is that, yes they may be sincere, and yes, they may oppose extremism….
…but by backing AV, they’re backing a system which rewards extremism and gives oxygen to extremist groups.
The fact is that whichever way you come at it, AV has some very worrying unintended consequences – and we need to make this clear to people before it’s too late.
What I am saying is grounded in very solid evidence.
This week, the No Campaign published some very important research about the last general election campaign.
They showed how it is possible that in 70 per cent of all seats, under AV, if you had voted for any of the three mainstream parties – Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat – only one of your votes would have been counted.
By contrast, the average BNP voter could have had at least two votes counted under AV….
…and in some cases, supporters of the BNP and the National Front could have had as many as six votes counted.
Right here in this constituency for example, in Bethnal Green and Bow, it could have taken at least nine rounds of voting to decide the winning candidate…
….and if you had voted BNP, at least three of your votes could have been counted.
Now here in this constituency, in Rushanara Ali, you have a fantastic female Asian Member of Parliament.
We may be from different Parties, but I am proud that it’s First-Past-the-Post that got her there!
So it’s absolutely clear that AV represents a real and present danger to our democracy.
And in particular, I believe that AV risks three very worrying things.
PANDERING
First and foremost, under AV, there’s a real risk that candidates would pander to extremists.
Why?
Because to win a seat, candidates will need to win the support of those whose first choices have already been eliminated – and in many seats, that means the BNP.
This could have serious repercussions on those constituencies where the BNP vote is bigger than the majority.
Take Dewsbury, which has a big personal relevance to me.
Back in 2005 I stood for my home seat of Dewsbury and lost by just over 4000 votes.
At the same time, the BNP vote was 5,066; more than the difference in votes between the top two parties.
So it’s not hard to imagine where AV could lead in places like Dewsbury:
More inflammatory campaigns, and more policies which appeal to people’s worst instincts rather that to the values of the mainstream.
LEGITIMACY
But this is just the start of it.
The second risk with AV is that it could give parties like the BNP more legitimacy.
Let me be clear what that means.
Under AV, voters would be able to register a protest vote without considering the electoral implications – and then transfer back to a mainstream party.
The long-term effects are sadly all too clear:
More people backing fringe parties because they feel they can do.
More votes and more long-term legitimacy for the BNP.
All adding fuel to the fire and giving the false impression that voting BNP is actually ok.
Tied to this problem is another one:
More horse-trading.
Under AV, with hung parliaments more likely, it will be the smaller parties who often hold the balance of power.
Just imagine what that could mean for British democracy.
Party leaders striking bargains with extremist parties.
Unsavoury promises and dodgy deals.
And meanwhile, the representatives of those fringe parties enjoying greater stature and credibility as they swan off to meetings with leaders of the mainstream parties.
Now while I’m on this particular issue, let me address head on an argument levelled by the Yes campaign.
They point to the BNP’s position in this referendum and say that Nick Griffin wants to keep First Past the Post.
In response, let me read you this:
‘To continue fighting first-past-the-post elections and securing an ever-dwindling vote is simply a recipe for demoralisation and failure’
Those are the words of Mr. Griffin after his party’s disastrous performance in last year’s election – an election run under First Past the Post!
The point is that you and I know well that there is nothing the BNP say which has any value and it can never be taken seriously.
It’s all about tactics and deals.
And let’s be clear: What the BNP really want is PR…
….because as Nick Griffin puts it, under PR the BNP “could easily fill a bus with BNP MPs”.
AV COULD MEAN PR
And that brings me to the final point I want to make.
Many of those who are campaigning for AV actually don’t want AV at all.
They see AV as a stepping stone to another change in our voting system whereby we adopt PR.
But in the north of England, PR has let in two BNP Members of the European Parliament.
The fact is that of all the main voting systems, first-past-the-post has one of the strongest records when it comes to excluding extremists from Parliaments.
So it’s absolutely vital that we do everything we can to protect it – starting on May 5th.
CONCLUSION
The point about this referendum is that it’s not just a choice between two counting systems.
This is a choice between different values.
Whether it’s right that some people should have more votes counted than others.
Whether it’s right that our democracy should give extremists more power.
And above all, whether we should abandon our simple, straightforward, tried-and-tested voting system and replace it with another which is dangerous as well as unfair.
So that’s why, right here and right now, we need to pull together and fight for our democracy.
Let the message go out from Toynbee Hall:
We don’t just say No to AV, we say yes to our voting system.
We say yes to One Person One Vote.
So when, in years to come, people say: where were you when they decided the future of our democracy?
What did you do to win this debate?
We can all stand up and say:
I was there.
I was there when we protected our democracy.
I was there when we stopped extremists getting more power.
I was there when we protected one person, one vote.
I was there when we said No to AV.
(29th March 2011)
Speaking in Cardiff at the Conservative Spring Forum, Sayeeda Warsi said;
(check against delivery)
8 Members of Parliament. 13 Assembly Members. 171 Councillors.
Coming first in European elections. 380,000 votes in the General Election.
One of the biggest swings in a century.
Our best results in two decades.
This is the Conservative Party in Wales.
CONSERVATIVE PROMISES, CONSERVATIVE PRIORITIES
Now Conference, you know that I speak my mind.
I tell it as it is.
And today, because I’m here with my Conservative family,….
….I know I can be frank about the government that I am in.
This government is led by a Conservative Prime Minister…
…and we are delivering Conservative priorities based on Conservative promises.
Let me tell you what I mean.
We’ve scrapped the jobs tax.
We’re cutting corporation tax.
We promised we’d protect NHS spending – and we have.
A Cancer drugs fund.
A regional growth fund.
More loans to small businesses.
Tax breaks for new businesses.
I could go on – and I will!
We’ve taxed the banks.
Capped immigration.
Put a block on more power to the EU.
50,000 new apprenticeships.
200 new academies.
Cut ministerial pay.
Blocked a third runway.
No more sofa government.
No more spin government.
A national security council.
More power to local councils.
Our freedoms restored.
My point, Ladies and Gentlemen, is this:
In one year alone we’ve achieved more than Labour did in thirteen years.
Because this is one of the most radical, reforming, progressive, conservative governments this nation has seen in decades.
Conference, let me take you back to a year ago.
When we were pounding the pavements, day after day, come what may..
…did we want a government which would live within its means?
Yes we did.
And are we delivering that promise?
Yes we are.
And when we signed up as Conservatives, and when we stood for elections, and when we pinned on our blue rosettes with pride…
…did we believe in a fair welfare system…
…where if you can work, you should work, and work should always pay?
Yes we did.
And are we delivering that promise?
Yes we are.
And I ask you conference, when we thought what would make us proud as Conservatives…
…did we believe we’ve got to give dignity to our pensioners by restoring the earnings link to pensions?
Yes we did.
And are we delivering?
Yes we are.
And did we campaign to stop more power slipping away to the EU…
…did we campaign for less obsession with health and safety and for businesses to face less bureaucracy…
….and did we know that immigration was out of control?
Yes we did.
And are we delivering?
Yes we are.
And this is why I say to you with such confidence:
These are our promises, our policies, our values, our government.
Conference, you cannot exaggerate the scale of our ambition.
We want people in one generation, two generations, three generation’s time…
….to look back at this government and say…
“yes it was tough, yes things were difficult, but they put this country back on its feet.”
So as we deal with the opportunism of our opponents….
…as we face the mass power of the union barons….
…take hope that we are doing the right thing for our country….
…making this one of the most radical, reforming governments the country has ever seen.
And when it gets tough….
…..when it gets so hard you want to give up….
…..just remember what is at stake.
Not just the prosperity of this generation.
Not just the inheritance we give to our kids.
It is the fabric of our economy.
It is the future of our public services.
It’s the success of our country for decades to come.
LOCAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN
This is the argument we need to take to the country.
And that starts with Campaign 2011.
On May 5th we’ve got elections for the Welsh Assembly….
…elections to the Scottish Parliament….
….and elections for more than half of all English council seats.
And let’s remember where we’re starting from.
We hold almost half of all English seats…
…gaining many when Labour were rock bottom in the polls.
So we have a high base to defend.
And let me be absolutely clear:
We are going to be fielding candidates in every corner of the country.
And yes, against every party in this land!
And our message is clear:
Labour councils waste your money.
Conservative councils deliver more for less.
So if we pull together, we can fight a strong and successful campaign!
NO TO AV
Now I believe in our democracy.
I believe in our voting system.
I am passionate about First-Past-the-Post.
Why?
Because it’s based on a fundamental British belief…
…a belief that has been the beacon of British democracy for centuries….
…a principle that has inspired millions of democrats around the world and continues to do so….
…the idea that one person should get one vote and every vote should weigh the same.
Let me tell you what’s wrong with AV.
“It is the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal” voting system.
It means that elections “will be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.”
Conference, not my words – the words of Winston Churchill eighty years ago!
He knew then – like I know now – that AV is wrong for Britain.
It’s wrong that candidates who come third can win elections.
It’s wrong that your fifth choice can count as much as my first.
And it’s absolutely wrong that elections can be decided by the eccentrics who vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party….
…or even worse, the extremists who vote for the BNP.
We must win this referendum.
But it is not going to be an easy fight.
I need each and every one of you to join the campaign!
Of course, on May 5th, I want you to defend the seats we hold.
Of course, we’ve got to take the seats we can.
But above all on May 5th, we need to win the one election which will affect every single general election to come!
So join the campaign – and meet the No2AV team.
Join the campaign – and find out who your local campaign organiser is!
If you’re a candidate – join the campaign and put No2AV messages on your literature.
If you’re a councillor – join the campaign and turn out the vote in your ward.
And if, like me, you know we absolutely have to win this battle…
…deliver those leaflets…
…make those phone calls….
…and fight harder than ever before to win this campaign!
ED MILIBAND
Now on the subject of getting second best, I want to say something about Ed Miliband.
After all, he is the best advert for AV.
He wasn’t the first choice of Labour MPs.
He wasn’t the first choice of Labour activists.
For all I know, he wasn’t even the first choice of his own family!
But because Labour use AV, he’s now running the Labour Party!
And since he’s been in the job, he’s made it perfectly clear:
That he’s not really clear about…
…anything!
Last month, he published a book of his policies.
It ran to 35 pages….
…and it was totally blank!
This tells us everything we need to know about Ed Miliband.
No plans for the present.
And no vision for the future.
But what about his part in the past?
He was there when Gordon Brown wrecked our economy.
He was there when public spending got out of control.
He was there when Brown raided billions from Britain’s pensions.
He was there when Brown sold the gold.
And all he does now is snipe from the sidelines:
Denying the deficit.
Attempting to rewrite history.
Taking the British public for fools.
But it was Labour who doubled the debt.
It was Labour that gave us the biggest budget deficit in peacetime history.
And it is Labour that has caused these cuts.
These cuts are Labour’s legacy.
I know you might have heard this before.
But frankly Labour spent 13 years complaining about 18 years of Tory government…
…a government which in 1997 left them a buoyant, thriving economy….
….and they brought Britain back to the brink of bankruptcy….
…and I for one will never let them forget it.
CONSERVATIVE FAMILY
You know, it’s not always easy being Party Chairmen…
…especially when you’re surrounded by Secretaries of State…
They are followed by flunkies and get driven in special cars….
…and I don’t even get a coat hanger when I visit Downing Street…
…I have to use the railings outside No. 10!
But Conference, since Andrew and I started this job ten months ago, our mission has been all about one thing:
Bringing the Conservative Family Together.
This is a hard-headed, long-term strategy.
And it’s based on some core values.
– That the voluntary party is an essential part of our party.
– That as a party, we do better when we grow our grassroots.
– And that when we work together as one family, we’re not just more successful, we’re also truer to our values!
Later today, we’ve got a Meet the Chairmen event.
Andrew and I have held lots over the last few months.
And this is what we have learned:
You said you wanted us to stay in touch with you…
…and so we hope you’re receiving our new membership magazine.
You said you wanted CCHQ to listen to you…
…and through our new Office of the Voluntary Party, we are.
You deserve to know how we spend the money= we raise…
….so in our Meet the Chairmen events, come and ask us!
Above all, I know you want to be heard on policy….
….and thanks to the new Conservative Policy Forum, you will.
We are listening and learning…
….and we know we are stronger together….
…..stronger when we have one purpose….
And when we work together,
We prepare better,
We fight better,
And together, we win!
CONSERVATIVE COUNTRY
But conference, you know what really unites our family?
The vision we have for our country.
Because being in government is not just about balancing the books – although that’s crucial.
It’s not just about paying down our debts – although it’s vital we do.
And it’s not even about delivering more for less.
We’re doing all this because, as a family, we believe in a fundamental principle:
That no generation has the right to bankrupt the next!
We see a country where jobs are created…
…where businesses are thriving…
…where our hospitals are the best in the world.
A strong country, where we live within our means and pay our way in the world.
A fair country, open to the dreams and aspirations of everyone, no matter their background or where they were born.
A responsible country, where we reward hard work and fair play and back those who do the right thing.
Applying our vision was never going to be easy.
No one said this was going to be pain free.
But because we believe in a country where we all pull together…
…where everyone knows their neighbour and does their bit…
….where families feel that they can save up and get on in life….
….where we give the best possible opportunities to all our kids….
….then that makes the prize worth fighting for.
(7th March 2011)
Published in The Telegraph, Saturday 5th March 2011
By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
Ever since Baroness Warsi was appointed Britain’s first Muslim Cabinet minister she has faced serious threats from Islamic extremists.
The role has made her one of the most high-profile targets in politics — so much so that her family has urged her to step away from the limelight.
But the co-chairman of the Conservative Party, who is 40 later this month, said she believed the cause was too important.
Her rise from a working class childhood to the highest echelons of the Tory party is said to play well with Thatcherite root-and-branch members.
She is aware that for many people she represents the “aspirational, working-class opportunity”.
The baroness said: “I spoke to a girl only about six months ago who said her brother and father were asking her to stand as a councillor.
“She was quite shocked because she never thought this was what her family would ask her to do. ‘Oh we want you to do that because look how well Sayeeda Warsi has done.’ So it has now become an aspirational thing.”
Such conversations — and the threats she has received — have led to her thinking long and hard about the risks she is taking.
But she concluded: “Why go into politics if you are not going to be brave? If you want to stand on the sidelines and not stand up for what you believe in, politics is the wrong game to be in.
“If that means you have a short but productive life, that is worth doing.”
Last month, she stirred controversy after claiming that prejudice against Muslims in this country had “passed the dinner table test” and was now seen as socially acceptable. The remarks caused her to be criticised amid suggestions that she had angered the Prime Minister.
So, is the woman apparently prepared to die for her work, now shying away from further controversy or might she make another speech about religion? “Despite what you might read in the great newspapers, David [Cameron] is quite keen for me to do another one.”
The fighting attitude may prove crucial in what she believes will be a dismal few years for the Tories.
The baroness is doing all she can to rally the party. She arrives in Cardiff today for the Conservative spring conference having travelled via Yorkshire, Scotland and London over the past 48 hours.
Baroness Warsi is resigned to several years of electoral meltdowns before her job becomes easier – hopefully in time for the next general election in 2015.
Thursday’s by-election, in which the Tories were beaten into third place in Barnsley by Ukip, was another reminder of the scale of the task before her.
“We will do badly in the local elections and Labour should do very well because of where we are in the electoral cycle,” Baroness Warsi said.
Conservative strategists are privately forecasting that Ed Miliband will recapture at least 1,000 council seats this May, although the baroness refuses to be drawn on figures. However, she said the party was not experiencing any “honeymoon” from being in power.
“We had no honeymoon to walk into,” she said. “They left us with a huge mess … you are not going to be popular. But we did not form this Coalition in the interests of being popular – well, neither of the parties did that – we formed this Coalition to clear up the mess – to act in the national interest.”
Baroness Warsi said the party’s success or failure at the next election would be entirely reliant on the performance of the economy.
“Everything else that we deliver has to be delivered alongside a more balanced and stable economy,” she said. “If we deliver that more balanced and stable economy before the next election then that is a record that we will go on and that is what we are all working towards.”
But, in the coming weeks, the Tory chairman has a more pressing priority — to stop a change in the voting system.
On May 5, there will be a referendum on switching from a first-past-the-post electoral system to the alternative vote in which candidates are ranked.
There is widespread apathy towards the referendum and the Conservatives are growing increasingly alarmed. If the system changes, Mr Cameron may find himself – and his successors – never able to win a general election outright.
Baroness Warsi has the task of trying to increase public awareness towards the “threat”.
She said: “I think it would be a disaster for good, strong democratic elections in this country.
“That’s the one [poll] I am concentrating on and saying to my colleagues up and down the country – that’s what we should be focusing on. Now is the time to get passionate to avoid apathetic politics for ever.”
The Conservatives are clearly rattled by celebrities such as Colin Firth, the recent Oscar winner, who are lining up behind the campaign in support of electoral reform.
She said: “If you can get some stars like Colin Firth and others to add a bit of stardust to it, yes it might sound sexy or it might sound exciting and it might sound like change, but once you start going through the arguments of what it is – people very quickly switch to ‘no’.”
“This situation is far too serious for it to be about razzmatazz.
“I mean if people said to me, ‘would you want to go and do the same razzmatazz?’, I would actually say this is more than about the stardust. This is actually about the fundamental values of our country.”
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi returned to Pakistan six months on from the devastating floods to learn how the country is recovering, to learn what more needs to be done, and to see how more than £200million (27.7 billion rupees) from British people is supporting Pakistani people affected by the floods.
Baroness Warsi was briefed by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and viewed progress on relief and reconstruction efforts. UK based charities and aid agencies,
including members of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) and the Muslim Charities Forum, also briefed Baroness Warsi on their work to help people in Pakistan recover from the floods.
Speaking in Islamabad, Baroness Warsi, said: “When I was here exactly six months ago in August at the peak of the floods with the UK International Development Secretary Andrew
Mitchell I saw scenes of devastation. Today I’ve been heartened to see and hear how the UK is helping millions of people in Pakistan rebuild their lives, but there is much more to do, with widespread malnutrition and the risk of disease outbreaks.
“Some areas of Sindh are still under water and thousands of people continue to live in temporary camps. Reconstructing the millions of homes, bridges, and schools that were destroyed will
take years. “So we must not be complacent, nor relax our efforts. That’s why the UK is continuing to help millions of people in Pakistan to rebuild their lives, get people back on their feet and earn a living again, and get hundreds of thousands of children back in to education.”
“I’m proud of the British people’s generous response to the floods, which shows our deep affinity and kinship with Pakistan; our countries are closely tied together through family and history and the UK will continue to stand by the people of Pakistan on this long road to recovery.”
The total contribution from the UK has reached well over £200million (27.7 billion rupees), which consists of £134 million (18.5 billion rupees) from the UK Government, a further £69 million
(9.5 billion rupees) donated from the pockets of the British public through the DEC appeal, and millions more from British charities and local fundraising activities. In addition, a £10 million (1.4 billion rupees) project to build new bridges and schools to replace some of those destroyed by the floods was brought forward; ten bridges shipped over from the UK are now in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, reopening vital transport links.
The UK was one of the first countries to respond to the floods last year and has helped millions of people affected by the floods, including:
Safe drinking water to 2.5 million people;
Tents and shelter for some 1.3 million people;
Toilets and sanitation for almost 500,000 people;
Food packages for more than one million people in flood affected areas, in addition to nutritional support for half a million malnourished young children and pregnant/breastfeeding women;
Wheat and vegetable seeds, fertiliser, animal stock feed, and veterinary services to more than 115,000 rural families to avoid further loss of animals and dependency on food aid for the next year or more;
Basic health care for around 2.3 million people;
Help for 200,000 children by repairing 1,500 schools damaged by the floods and providing 200 temporary facilities for children whose schools have been destroyed across Sindh and the Punjab, as well as accelerating a project to build forty schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa benefitting another 9,000 boys and girls;
Heath and hygiene education on how to avoid potentially fatal diseases for around one million people;
Help for around one million people in rural areas to earn a living by providing jobs, skills training, as well as farming tools, seeds, and animals so families can restart their farms;
Support to deliver 8,239 metric tonnes of food and other aid by UN helicopter airdrops, serving flood affected people across 160 different locations;
Twelve planes (five Royal Air Force) flown in packed full of emergency aid; (19th Feb 2011)
Published in BN Magazine, February 2011
Interview by Ozan Adan
Baroness Warsi has successfully become the first ever female Muslim member of the cabinet. Her role in the cabinet and as Co-Chairman of the Conservative party is significant, not just as an advocate for women but also, for the Muslim community.
Baroness Warsi balances her many roles as a mother, wife, party Co-Chair whilst maintaining her influencial position within British politics. Her position and her roots gives her a unique advantage in understanding the current multi-ethnic spectrum of Britain today. The Baroness holds a vast amount of responsiblity on the socio-political front, and has risen to the challenge admirably by facing extremists on both sides of the multi-culturalism issues. Her defence of a tolerant society embracing differences in race, religion and culture has caused some stir within her own Muslim community as well as others who oppose and even confront her.
The Baroness is one of the most important faces of the modern day Conservative party. The youngest female member of the House of Lords personifies the Conservative Party’s attempts at presenting an energised and inclusive image to the public, and thus aiming to increase the support for the party amongst voters traditionally associated with the Labour Party.
Baroness Warsi’s appointment is also significant in that it comes at a time when the issues of multi-culturalism, diversity and globalisation are seen as an important socio-economic issue, and one that is the focus of a lot of public and political deliberation. While many positive elements have come from the multi-culturalism debate, it has also lead to destructive flares such as the Islamaphobia movement across the UK and parts of the EU. The Baroness has worked to tackle this issue prefusely, by both proving to the nation that cosmopolitan notions surrounding multi-culturalism is not a failed experiment and helping ease the increasing feeling of unease and unrest amongst various communities of the UK.
What are your views on greater inclusiveness of all religions in the UK?
I think faith has always been an important part of conservative thinking and religion has always been a part of this landscape. When we talk about the big society and that you have to do your part, we see people in faith groups, churches, mosques, synagogues and so on, and who are doing good work because of their faith. I think the government has to recognise this. Before we said “yes you are doing good things”, but we wanted to hide the fact that people did good work because of their faith. It is wrong of us to deny that people are driven by faith to do good work. Of course there are people of no faith who are also doing good work. But you have to have an acknowledgement of where faith is in Britain and what role it has. If people of faith have created a better level of understanding of each other because they open discussions rather than ignoring each other, then we will clearly support that. It’s not for government to support people to go out and promote their religion, but it’s absolutely the role of a government to support people that are doing good work, and if they do the good work because they are inspired by faith, then so be it.
In a recent speech you talked about the dangers of an increasing casual attitude to Islamaphobia. What do you think should be done as a governmental to tackle a situation like this?
What I said in the end of that speech was that there is not one solution which can deal with this. The response has to be on three levels. Firstly, we need a positive response from society. The British Muslim community especially have to step up to this challenge and deal promptly with those who commit criminal acts and preach hate. As well as that, we have some practical solutions and I gave the examples of the British Jewish community, specifically the community security trust and specific things that as a community they responded to in terms of security, law data and anti-Semitic incidents responding in terms of service prevision and so on. There then has to be a response from faith leaders and the role they have to create better understanding. Which I also put forward to his holiness the Pope, as this is an issue not just in the UK but also parts of the EU. The third is the role of government, whenever there is a level of hatred towards any community whether that is gender based hate or whether it’s homophobic based hatred or anti-Sematic; government has always in various times in history responded by measures which tackle these issues.
As you mentioned this is becoming a problem within the EU whereby more right-winged parties which carry a more Islamophobic rhetoric or target a specific race have emerged. What would you say about this disturbing increase?
If you look at the British National Party and more recently the English Defence league There is no doubt as to whom their target is right now, they don’t talk about community about their races, colour, they don’t even attack the British Jewish community anymore. But now it is especially the British Muslim community and I think some of that is because of this level of misunderstanding, some of it perpetuated by the media and incidences from around the world that play to the kind of sentiment within Britain and how people are viewed because of individual terrorist activity where people start to do things in the name of a religion. I think it fits into the level of misunderstanding and what I call ‘the uneducating’ of the public.
The Recent bill which is being discussed in Parliament suggests that any decisions imposed by the EU Parliament will be put through a national referendum. This seems like a very clever way of Cameron saying – “unless you run everything by me, I will put everything to a referendum in a country where you are not so popular”.
I don’t think he is saying that. I don’t think this is a message out to Europe; it is actually more about our acceptance as a nation. We are a very proud and independent nation, we are absolutely a part of Europe, we have always been in Europe, and we want to play our part in Europe. But I think we have been clear that we do not want to be run by Europe, and if we do pass more powers to Europe then people whose future we are dealing with have the right to say something in that process. This is an interesting government because it is a coalition government where there are things that we campaigned for which we won’t be able to implement and there are other things we didn’t campaign for which we will be implementing as we are bringing two manifestoes together. But I think with what we had with the Lisbon treaty, I think it is absolutely right that people have the right to make that choice when we are giving further powers to Europe, because if people buy into a process and buy into EU institutions, they are more likely to support them.
I just want touch on your charity: The Savayra Foundation; I understand that you are a trustee?
I used to chair the charity when I founded it back in the 2002. I chaired it for many years then I came off and became a trustee because there is so much work going on and we have great guy who’s chairing it now.
It says, I quote – “Aims to empower widows, girls and other financially destitute women by skills and education in private areas of Pakistan and Kashmir” could you possibly elaborate on some of the projects?
I’m still heavily involved actually; one of the recent things that the charity has been involved in is the response to the floods in Pakistan. We had flood fundraisers over last summer and we were involved in the flood relief program. Women run this charity predominantly and it is for women. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is one of the more conservative areas in Pakistan and it is male dominated, and they were interested to see women in a charity who work with women. We had to form the local committee which was made up of women so the women in the community were suddenly becoming the decision makers and were having to determine the needs of that community. We went in and spoke with the women, because we knew that the women were running the homes, we spoke to them and their need became very specific and generally ideal for their situation. All of this helped us do aid with the community, rather than give aid to the communities.
Generally if we look at that region and if we also take into consideration in Middle East and Central Asia it is generally quite difficult for women to enter politics. What would you say is the future role for female politicians? What would you say that should be done to give them more representation and support to go into politics?
First of all I think every country is different and if you look at Asia there have been developments with Benazir Bhutto and before that you had people like Fatima Jinnah who helped with the Independence of Pakistan, Indira Ghandi in India, Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh. Also the speaker of the national assembly in Pakistan is a woman. The number of bills being brought forward in the legislative work is done by a high number woman in Pakistan. So there is a phenomenal amount that is being done. I met the president of Turkey when he was here with his wife and she is impressive, she is a phenomenal powerhouse. Not just women who are breaking through in their own political career, but who are very much alongside people who are in politics. So I think there is hope, I don’t think that we in the West have the high moral ground on any of this. If you look at places like Rwanda for example you have more female parliamentarians than you have here. So I think every country is having its own experiences. What I think does matter in females going forward in politics is that they have to be taken seriously, they have to feel that they are playing an equal role, we must have appointments which are quota filling, and we must absolutely make sure that these women have a central role to play in some serious decision making.
So the quota like in some Scandinavian countries?
I haven’t got enough experience with those countries to be able to comment, but I think it has to go beyond that. I met a minister from Afghanistan, she has achieved ministerial status, but she felt deeply disempowered about what she was trying to do, and so what we don’t want is women there who are not empowered, what we want is women who are going to make a real difference and what I want to see in this country is other women from different minority backgrounds coming in. But the great day would be when somebody doesn’t get terribly exited when a woman gets appointed for something.
Speaking at the University of Leicester Sayeeda Warsi said:
(Please check against delivery)
Back in September I made a speech about faith at the Bishops Conference.
It was the first time that a Cabinet Minister had spoken so frankly about faith for many years.
I think it’s fair to say that the speech caused a bit of a stir in some quarters.
The New Humanist Magazine ran a poll of their readers which ranked me the fifth most dangerous enemy of reason last year.
I was about to think that actually, I hadn’t done too badly, when I discovered that the Koran-burning Pastor, Terry Jones, came one place below me!
But overall I believe the impact of the speech was really positive.
And the main thing I discovered by doing the speech was that there is a large, untapped appetite for a more mature discussion of faith in this country.
I sensed that people were fed up of the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media…
….and that sadly there has been a rise in a sloppy kind of religious illiteracy.
So it was important to take stock of where Britain is with faith.
And I am delighted to be here today to build on what I said.
Your University is helping to raise the whole standard of faith-based debate in this country.
And I know that some fantastic people have given the Sternberg lecture before me.
Professor Hans Kung has spoken about his idea of the “global ethic” and the common values of the main religions…
…Lord Carey has talked about the relationship between Islam and The West, and why the idea of a clash of civilisations can become a self-fulfilling prophecy…
…and Cardinal Cormac O’Connor has explored the current global position of Christianity.
But I want to start my speech today by paying tribute to Sir Sigmund Sternberg.
Although he has connections with the Labour Party, I hope he won’t mind if I say that his life seems to me to be the epitome of the Big Society.
Since coming to Britain as a European Jew in the 1920s, he has spent his life helping to strengthen communities.
For me, as a Rotarian, a big part of that was what he did in the 1990s…
…when he re-established Rotary Clubs in Eastern Europe after the collapse of Communism.
But from the point of view of my subject today, it is his work with faith communities which is truly inspiring.
From helping to resolve a row at Auschwitz over a Catholic convent…
…to organising the first ever papal visit to a synagogue…
…to establishing the Three Faiths Forum with Reverend Marcus Braybrooke and Dr Badawi….
…Sir Sigmund has shown just how much one person can do to promote a richer, more tolerant, and a more integrated society.
And that brings me to the theme of my lecture today.
BIGOTRY AGAINST FAITH
In my last speech I made the evidential case for faith in our country.
I showed that contrary to popular belief, faith in this country is certainly not fading away;
I explained that faith inspires many people to do good things which help build a bigger society;
And I announced that the aim of this government is to help not hinder faith communities in the good things that they do.
Today, I want to make a related argument.
I want to make the case against the rising tide of anti-religious bigotry.
In particular, I want to say three things:
First, I want to highlight what I mean by this rising religious illiteracy and condemn the bigotry which it feeds.
Second, I want to explain why I feel these problems are happening.
And third, I want to set out how we can start to deal with it.
In other words, in my last speech, I said that this government does God.
This time, I’m saying we get God.
What I mean by that is we understand faith.
I am not saying that people can’t be anti-religion.
What I am opposed to is the rise of unreasonable, unfounded, irrational bigotry.
Where religion itself becomes a loaded word…
…where free discussion is drowned out by a sensationalist media…
…and where there simply is no room for fair-minded debate.
Now some will be surprised to hear me using the language of reason to defend an essentially spiritual phenomenon – namely individual faith.
Others will say that it’s ok to be irrational about religion…
…because religion itself is not open to rational debate.
I don’t accept that.
Faith and Reason go hand in hand.
This is a point the Pope has made consistently over the last few years.
All through the Bible, there is a close relationship between faith and reason.
Perhaps the most telling are the opening words of the Gospel of John.
“In the beginning was the Word…
…and the Word was with God….
…and the Word was God”.
“The Word was God”
So, at the very heart of Christian faith, we find that Reason and God’s Grace go hand in hand.
And as the Pope made clear when visiting a mosque in Amman last year, this isn’t unique to the Christian religion, but to all the main religions.
“As believers in the one God, we know that human reason is itself God’s gift and that it soars to its highest plane when suffused with the light of God’s truth.”
“In fact, when human reason humbly allows itself to be purified by faith, it is far from weakened; rather it is strengthened to resist presumption and to reach beyond its own limitations.”
The point is just as religion shouldn’t fear reason, so reason shouldn’t be denied to faith.
But my worry is that is exactly what is happening right now.
Controversial stories are inflated by the media…
…detracting from serious faith-based debate…
…and leaving us with a situation where instead of philosophy, we’re fed anti-faith phobias.
One telling example of this occurred in 2005, when Ruth Kelly was made Education Secretary.
Now of course, it’s reasonable to scrutinise that appointment and have a discussion about whether Ruth Kelly was up to the job.
But what was it really right that her faith formed such a big part of that inquiry?
And was the appropriate language about her Catholicism used?
At its extreme, this kind of bigotry descends into absurd caricatures.
Where all Catholicism becomes “dodgy Priests in Ireland”.
Judaism becomes “murky international financiers”.
Sikhism suddenly seems to be all about a play in Birmingham.
And Evangelical Christianity is seen as anti-Abortion activists rather than campaigners like William Wilberforce.
For some faiths, these kind of characterisations have increasingly become mainstream.
Today, I want to touch on the way my own faith, Islam, is perceived.
Let me say right away to British Muslims that I acknowledge that there is a minority of people that try to justify their criminal conduct and activity by suggesting that it is sanctioned by their faith.
It is a problem that we must confront and defeat.
But that problem should not lead to unfounded suspicions of all Muslims.
Indeed, it seems to me that Islamophobia has now crossed the threshold of middle class respectability.
Let me give one example which is very personal to here:
It was reported several years ago that students at Leicester University persuaded their union cafeteria to ban pork and go exclusively halal.
The trouble was, that turned out not to be the whole story.
In fact, as I understand, it the Student Union decided that one out of the 26 cafes on campus should serve halal food.
And when you consider that there are a large number of Muslim students at Leicester, that makes sound financial sense!
For far too many people, Islamophobia is seen as a legitimate – even commendable – thing.
You could even say that Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table-test.
Take this from Polly Toynbee:
“I am an Islamophobe, and proud of it”.
Or this speech title from Rod Liddle:
“Islamophobia? Count me in”.
But of course, Islamophobia should be seen as totally abhorrent – just like homophobia or Judeophobia – because any phobia is by definition the opposite of a philosophy.
A phobia is an irrational fear.
It takes on a life of its own and no longer needs to be justified.
And all this filters through.
The drip feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice.
So when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think “terrorist”…
…when they hear “Halal” they think “that sounds like contaminated food”…
…and when they walk past a woman wearing a veil, they think automatically “that woman’s oppressed”.
And what’s particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to violence.
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?
So why is this happening?
We’ve got to start by understanding where this bigotry comes from.
We must learn the lessons of history.
Now I strongly believe that the British story of integration is a positive story.
You need to delve deep into the Dark Ages to find a time when the state was under the exclusive control of one tribe or ethnicity.
Instead, for centuries, our state has represented a set of common laws governing a diverse set of tribes, faiths and ethnicities.
The same can be said about the USA.
America prides herself on being a haven of immigrants, where you can be proudly Irish or Italian or Christian or Muslim – and still American.
As it says on the Great Seal of the United States: e pluribus unum.
This idea of unity from diversity runs through our own history.
It has helped to forge the values of pluralism, tolerance and diversity which define our society.
This gives us our moral authority to criticise, challenge and condemn those nations which far too often do not grant their religious minorities dignity, respect and equality.
But the British battle against bigotry will always be an ongoing battle.
And sadly, at no point does it totally disappear.
So Disraeli did become the first Jewish Prime Minister – but the cartoonists still drew him as an East-End bag-man.
Oswald Mosley’s Fascists never became a mainstream party – but the newspapers at the time were still littered with Anti-Semitism.
And now a Muslim woman is a member of a British Cabinet – but a British citizen today can still be attacked for merely wearing a headscarf as part of her religious observance.
Why is bigotry so resilient?
A big part of the problem is the intellectual challenge of reconciling religious and national identities.
If you look back at our history, you see that we have had particular trouble when it comes to this issue.
Again and again, we found it hard to believe that non-Protestants could be loyal to our country.
The debates on Catholic Emancipation in the 1820s are a fantastic case study.
Yes, a big part of the argument against letting Catholics into Parliament was old-fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry.
Up and down the country, the mob cried: “No Papacy”.
But the interesting thing was the intellectual argument which lies behind the rioting.
Deep down, it all boiled down to this:
Whether a Catholic, whose ultimate allegiance was thought to be to the Papacy, could still be a loyal servant of the British Monarchy.
The problem with Catholicism, as the Protestant establishment saw it, was that it transcended British sovereignty…
…ultimate loyalty wasn’t to the King of Britain but to the Papacy…
…which meant being Catholic and British were two irreconcilable identities.
It was only after Catholic Emancipation passed through Parliament…
…and after we began to break with the medieval European tradition of absolute religious conformity…
….that these problems began to disappear.
But fast forward two centuries, and there is still a sense of suspicion towards those subjects whose ultimate loyalty is presumed to lie with a supranational religion…
….or to an extra-terrestrial divinity.
Just think about anti-Muslim bigotry.
One of the most frequent arguments made against Islam in Britain is the idea that all British Muslims want to overturn British sovereignty and obey a transnational, Islamic authority.
Let me repeat again: extremists are a minority of a minority.
But from this flows a steady drip of suspicion and sense of sedition…
…all feeding the rise of a wider Islamophobia.
ISLAMOPHOBIA
Obviously, I find the rise of Islamophobia particularly worrying.
As a Muslim, I’ve had to live with it for many years.
But I strongly believe that my problem is really our problem….
….because of the danger it poses to the whole of our society.
Ultimately, Islamophobia challenges our basic British identity.
One of the most important aspects of our identity is our belief in equality before the law.
But deep, entrenched anti-Muslim bigotry challenges that tradition…
…because it implies that one section of society is less deserving of our protection than the rest.
I commend those who understand and condemn the cancer of Islamophobia…
….whether that be John Denham, Seumus Milne, Peter Oborne, or the Metropolitan Police…
I know that there is also a perverted line of argument which says that Muslims have only got themselves to blame for this hatred.
After all, they’re the ones who blow up tubes and aeroplanes….
….so treating them differently is actually ok.
But think about it for one second, and you see that this argument is self-defeating.
The deeper Islamophobia seeps into our culture, the easier becomes the task of the extremist recruiting sergeant.
Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law…
…they also should face social rejection and alienation across society….
…and their acts must not be used as an opportunity to tar all Muslims….
…or divide our society on the basis of faith.
So what I am saying is this:
At all times, we should be working to drain the pool of people where extremists fish.
The other worrying argument that also forms a basis for justifying Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred is the idea that Islam is a particularly violent creed…
….and therefore that an irrational reaction to it is somehow appropriate.
This line of argument takes place at many levels.
At one level, policy professionals push hard against Islam by focussing on a fraction of what makes up the Islamic faith.
And at another level, fascist literature used by the BNP circulates sections of Quranic text out of context.
But anyone who is familiar with the main religions can find phrases which aren’t appropriate to modern life in the ancient texts of these religions.
“An eye for an eye”, is the advice from Exodus.
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife…both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death”, is what it says in Leviticus.
And “The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death”, is what Deuteronomy says.
I could go on….
…and I will.
Some of you here might be fans of the “West Wing”.
This exchange between the Catholic President, Bartlet and a bigoted TV presenter seems relevant here.
President Bartlet:
I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
TV Presenter:
I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Bartlet:
Yes it does. Leviticus 18:22….I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here.
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?
While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?
Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?
Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?”
Do you see, Ladies and Gentlemen, you couldn’t make the point more clearly?
These texts from the Old Testament could so easily be manipulated to cause mischief, and indeed have been manipulated in the past.
But being religious means making choices and understanding the central values of your faith.
It also means considering the context in which that faith was formed.
To be an adherent, one must also be a historian.
This is a point the late Benazir Bhutto, the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim country once put particularly well when speaking of teachings in the Quran:
“In an age when no country, no system, no community gave women any rights, in a society where the birth of a baby girl was regarded as a curse, where women were considered chattel, Islam treated women as individuals”.
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
So now that we have traced the rise of religious illiteracy, and explained why this is happening, the question now is what can we do about it?
The answers fall into three categories.
First and foremost, we need political leadership.
Government has got to show that it gets it.
And Andrew Stunnell, the Minister for Integration, has already taken a strong lead.
Not only are we ramping up the fight against all phobias – including homophobia and gender inequality…
…but we are also building on the positive steps taken since the APPG Anti-Semitism inquiry…
….and responding to the concerns of the British Jewish community in a focussed and concerted way.
…like giving funds for Jewish State Schools to improve their security…
…beginning to tackle anti-Semitism on the internet…
… and supporting the Holocaust Education Trusts “Lessons from Aushwitz” project.
At all times, this government is thinking hard about the challenge of stamping out hatred and bigotry…
…and looking at what lessons we can apply from the past, particularly from our work on tackling Anti-Semitism…
…to deal with the new challenges of today.
But in addition to this, we also need to do something else.
We need to think harder about the language we use.
And we should be careful about language around religious “moderates”.
This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot.
It’s not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of “moderate” Muslims leads:
In the factory, where they’ve just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: “not to worry, he’s only fairly Muslim”.
In the school, the kids say “the family next door are Muslim but they’re not too bad”.
And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a Burkha, the passers-by think: “that woman’s either oppressed or making a political statement”.
So we need to stop talking about moderate Muslims, and instead talk about British Muslims.
And when it comes to extremism, we should be absolutely clear:
These people are extremists, plain and simple, because their behaviour has detached them from the thought process within their religion.
Second, we need a response from society.
It doesn’t take rocket science to know what that means.
“Love thy Neighbour” may be a cliché, but it’s a cliche’ because it’s eternally relevant.
Ultimately, that’s the test for everyone in society:
“Do I do enough to make my neighbour feel part of the wider community?”
“Would I be comfortable if my neighbour heard what I said about him?”
“Do I treat my neighbour the way I want to be treated myself?”
Simple questions we need to ask.
As I go around the country I hear many British Muslims raising a number of concerns with me….
… so let me take this opportunity to address the British Muslim community directly…
… if, like me, you feel that anti-Muslim hatred is widespread and rising…
…start to make a difference by doing three things:
First, in his New Year message the Prime Minister asked: how we were allowing the radicalisation of some young British Muslims?
He stated very clearly that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims detest this extremism but they must help to find the answers, together.
Here’s what that means:
Muslim communities must speak out against those who promote violence.
Muslim men and women must make clear that any hatred towards others is wrong.
And above all, not stand on the sidelines, but step forward and help to lead a progressive, united fight.
Second, British Muslims need to learn from and build on the work done throughout history by other communities.
I want to refer particularly to the British Jewish Community and the work done by the Community Security Trust.
Week after week, the CST works with the police and the Jewish community to collect data and details of anti-Semitism in Britain…
….helping to defeat those bigots who say that British anti-Semitism no longer exists.
British Muslims should learn from them.
There is an urgent need for a data collection project.
The first step in addressing the problem is to measure the scale of it.
And I hope that this project will support the work of the newly formed All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia, chaired by Kris Hopkins MP.
Third, and above all, British Muslims needs to remember that with rights come responsibilities.
That means no burying our heads in the sand and denying the problem…
…but standing up and doing something about it.
The reason I came into politics is because I felt my country can be better.
I want more Muslims to do that same thing and help ease the relationship between their country and their faith.
CONCLUSION
Finally, I want to finish with the third response to religious illiteracy.
If we really are going to combat bigotry against religion, faith leaders have to show greater leadership.
This is also your fight – and you need to take the lead.
In Germany, there’s already been a good example of the kind of cross-faith coalition we need.
Archbishop Robert Zollitsch spoke out warning against Europe’s rising Islamophobia last year.
And in America, in response to the ugly debate about Park 51, the Jewish Reform movement joined with other faith and advocacy groups in to take stronger steps to protect religious freedom today.
What we need now is for more faith leaders, and more faith communities, to stand up and speak out in defence of faith.
And not just to defend faith, but to explain it properly as well.
Faith leaders need to explain their religion – in a way that people of all faiths and no faiths can understand.
I had the privilege of raising this issue with the Pope when he was over here…
…and whilst he asked me to build on my speech at the Bishops’ Conference, I asked him to use his unique position to create a better understanding between Europe and its Muslim citizens.
If we do all these three things, together, as government, as society, as people of faith, then we can come a little closer to defeating anti-faith bigotry…
…and building a more open, inclusive and, frankly, a more grown-up society.
During the week of the 31st August Sayeeda Warsi and Andrew Feldman began a tour of the UK on their ‘Meet the Chairmen’ roadshow. Covering ground from Newcastle to Leeds, Leeds to Manchester, Manchester to Coventry, Coventry to Leicester and Leicester to Taunton they set off to talk to our party faithful, with no question off limits.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
