On Her Majesty's SGO - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
On Her Majesty’s SGO

There won’t always be an England. And — based on all the S*^! Goin’ On over there — a good argument can be made there isn’t one today. It’s not enough to make a liberal shout, “Cry God for Tony, England and St. George!” But it is enough to make you weep. Multicultural Britain — too easily distinguished from that of Wellington and Churchill — is sinking so fast from sight that it may disappear altogether before anyone notices very much. Blame it on Tony Blair, blame it on the UnConservative — Tory leader David Cameron — or, if you choose, blame it on 007.

Daniel Craig’s career as James Bond was unswashbuckled from the instant it began. Disembarking from a fast Royal Navy boat that had delivered him to a press gaggle on the Thames, this new symbol of romantic masculinity thanked the boat crew for scaring the living daylights out of him. (That’s not a quote, but a charitable substitute for his mild obscenity.) From which the new Bond has ascended from a faux pas to an impending box office disaster. Craig has declaimed his hatred for handguns (they kill, doncha know) and agreed to perform in the upcoming and altogether unnecessary remake of Casino Royale. He has also foresworn alcohol, at least in the presence of movie directors, for fear of what he might be talked into while under the influence. No vodka martinis — shaken or stirred — for this tough guy. What next? From swashbuckle to swishbuckle, we must expect Brokeback Bond in which 007 runs off with Blofeld, leaving an unconsolable M in therapy and, oh, never mind. At least Craig is still able to exercise freedom of speech, which is becoming the rarest commodity in Britain.

“Red Ken” Livingstone, London’s chosen mayoral affliction, was suspended from office for a month for accusing a Jewish reporter of acting like a Nazi concentration camp guard. The fact that he was removed for speaking freely — and by something other than the voters — has not caused concern among Londoners. Why it’s only natural to punish someone for saying something, isn’t it? At least Livingstone will be allowed to return to his loutish self soon. Holocaust denier David Irving, an unserious Brit “historian,” is currently doing time in an Austrian jail for publishing his drivel. These EUnuch limits on free speech and freedom of the press won’t be protested in the streets, nor will the Brit Parliament rebel against them. The EU’s proposed “voluntary” code of conduct for the press — still being drafted — will protect Muslim sensibilities by “self-regulating” free speech about religious matters. One of my Brit correspondents recently wrote that the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was a “concentration camp.” Your secret is safe with me, pal. I won’t rat you out to the EUnuch Thought Police. What you said isn’t so bad, not by Dick Durbin’s standards. At least you didn’t profess any faith in God when you wrote to me. That would be inexcusable in Europe.

It’s not just the determined assault on free speech in Europe by the radical Islamists. The radical multiculturalists who have run Europe for decades have nearly succeeded in removing religion from public discourse. They have created a vacuum in EUnuch politics that we have seen before. When religion has been central to European history — as in the Spanish Inquisition — Europe has taken an ugly turn. But when it has been removed from politics, as Stalin did (and Hitler before him), Europe has been ever so much worse. Religion, or the lack of it, has always been a major force in European history.

Multicultural politics — which means all Euro politics — abjures religion but fails to replace it with anything. Understanding this, the Muslim populations of Europe are rushing to fill the vacuum with their own faith and the laws it imposes on its adherents. Because the multiculturalists fight so hard to prevent any other religion from being present in politics, the Islamists may succeed. Nothing, not European religious leaders or the fading Tony Blair, stand in their way.

Tony Blair should be on the front lines fighting for freedom of speech but Blair is more eager to throw it away than most. His antiterrorism legislation last year would have created the crime of “glorifying terrorism” which, of course, meant speaking favorably about terrorists, their ideology, and their actions. Blair and his Commons allies are as fearful of their Muslim population as France is of its own. And they are willing to surrender their right to free speech in order to protect themselves. It’s good that the House of Lords turned this measure down. But it’s no safe bet they’ll do it again. Before Blair can do more damage, his own speech is under assault by the multiculturalists for the cardinal sin of mentioning God while committing a political act.

Once instructed by press flak Alastair Campbell that “we don’t do God,” Blair broke that golden rule last week. Blair proclaimed that God would be his judge on the decision to send troops into Iraq. According to the Independent newspaper, Blair went on to say: “If you have faith about these things then you realize that judgment is made by other people. If you believe in God, it’s made by God as well.” The Independent sniffed that Blair’s remarks would inflame opinion in the Arab world, and to inject God into British politics would be “very bad indeed.” The multiculturalists are shocked, shocked that Blair’s faith is part of his being, just as George Bush’s is. Next thing you know, Blair will be out there lumping Brits with Americans as the foes of radical Islam.

It’s as if Britain were looking at the First Amendment and checking off the freedoms it lists against those Britain can surrender. Our First Amendment protects five freedoms: of religion, of speech, and of the press are the first three. The Brits are giving those up without a whimper. The other two — of assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances — may be next. The beauty of this for those who will destroy Britain is that the Brits lack a constitution to check off the liberties their leaders are surrendering.

Britain can be saved — maybe even James Bond too — if an old prescription can be followed. Having fought in and survived the fierce 1897 battle of Omdurman, in Sudan against a Muslim foe — Churchill found himself in a dilemma. According to the indispensable Prof. Jamie Humes:

Though many of his fellow Lancers fell, Churchill survived the onslaught of the scimitar-wielding Islam fanatics. It was cause for a celebration but, alas, no fuel for toast could be found in the empty mess hall cellar. Undaunted, Churchill mounted his steed for a jaunt to the Nile River. There, he hailed a patrolling British gunboat and cried out for liquid relief. A bottle of bubbly was tossed out by a sympathetic officer…As [Churchill later] raised his glass with fellow officers, he intoned:

“It is altogether fitting to imbibe what the dictates of our foes proscribe.”

The only thing for it is for Tony Blair to have Daniel Craig over to Downing Street for a few drinks. If the two are shaken, perhaps all Britain can be stirred.

TAS contributing editor Jed Babbin is the author of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think (Regnery, 2004).

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!