The New York Times, reporting on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s proposed “new measures . . . to close down mosques and bar or deport clerics deemed to be fostering hatred and violence” — or, as the headline puts it, to “curb radicals who preach hate — quotes Blair as saying:
Coming to Britain is not a right,” Mr. Blair said. “And even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here.”
“This is not in any way whatever aimed at the decent, law-abiding Muslim community of Britain,” Mr. Blair said. “We know that this fringe of extremists does not truly represent Islam.”
Is it fair to interpret Mr. Blair as saying, implicitly, that “tru[e] . . . Islam” “share[s] and support[s] the values that sustain the British way of life”? I’m neither British nor Muslim, but I wonder if Mr. Blair’s confidence on this point is justified. I could imagine a faithful Muslim saying, “actually, true Islam — while it certainly does not support terrorism — is not particularly concerned with the ‘British way of life’, except insofar as that ‘way of life’ is consonant with the will of God.'”
I was also struck by the reporter’s claim that Blair’s proposals “seem to nudge Britain toward policies adopted by the United States – and widely criticized by leaders [in London] – after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ” I wonder if this is right, or how right it is. According to the article, Blair said:
We will consult on a new power to order closure of a place of worship which is used as a center for fomenting extremism and will consult with Muslim leaders in respect of those clerics who are not British citizens, to draw up a list of those not suitable to preach who will be excluded from Britain,” Mr. Blair said.
I certainly could be wrong, but it strikes me that a “power to order closure of a place of worship which is used as a center for fomenting extremism” — unless “extremism” is defined with great care, e.g., as narrowly as “incitement” in the First Amendment context — goes well beyond anything done or contemplated here, either before Sept. 11 or after. Again, however, and I’d welcome correction. (I suppose that “fomenting extremism” could be just a way of re-stating “materially aid terrorists”, but it sounds more far-reaching).
Most striking, though, is Mr. Blair’s (apparent) plan to “consult with Muslim leaders” about those “not suitable to preach”; that is, the plan seems to be to sub-contract out part of the government’s border-control and anti-terrorism functions to religious leaders. Now, I’m not necessarily saying there is something immoral or objectionable about this plan — though there might well be — but I wonder whether people think our Constitution, as it is currently understood, would permit this kind of “consult[ation]”?
Rick
Posted by Rick Garnett on August 6, 2005 at 03:41 PM
Comments
By Rick – “Is it fair to interpret Mr. Blair as saying, implicitly, that “tru[e] . . . Islam” “share[s] and support[s] the values that sustain the British way of life”? “
Well it depends on how you define “the British way of life.” If that definition is basically to worship and do other things in your own manner but not murder British citizens as well as other innocents riding on the tube, then it seems to be fair. I don’t believe he is asking anyone to convert to the Anglican Church.
Posted by: TomH | Aug 8, 2005 4:33:29 PM
Blair’s Rhetoric sounds like he’s willing to do things in a way that would be quesitonable in the US, but we have deported quite a few Muslim clerics, using various different bits of immigration law but always ultimately becuase we didn’t like what they say. Of course the case law on the issue also essentially says that we can deport anyone for any reason we want and the court will do nothing about it, so I suppose if we wanted to put rules in place instituting Blair’s rhetoric in it’s starkest form we could do so (so far as deporting people goes) and, as far as the Supreme Court has always said, the constitution would say nothing about this. (I think this is quite wrong, both morally, as a matter of political philosophy, and as a reading of the constituition, but it’s been the Supreme Court’s position as long as they have looked at immigration cases.) (This of course says nothing about the ‘true Islam’ point. If such an idea even makes sense it’s laughable that Blair knows anything about it.)
Posted by: Matt | Aug 7, 2005 1:19:17 AM
It gets worse. I’m given to understand Blair is targeting bookshops as well. If Labour hadn’t gone entirely flat in the last few years, one might hope for a no confidence vote, but alas.
Posted by: Paul Gowder | Aug 6, 2005 9:33:50 PM