Friday, August 14, 2009

Labour minister ‘storms out’ of Muslim wedding

There is quite a bit of ‘Muslim bashing’ going on over this incident, in which Jim Fitzpatrick MP, minister for food and farming, and his wife walked (or stormed) out of a Muslim wedding after refusing to be segregated into male and female areas.

‘Evil Muslims!’ some will cry. ‘Appalling discrimination!’ ‘The unacceptable face of Islam!’ ‘Misogynists!’ Blah, blah.

Cranmer is quite frankly appalled and the arrogance and ignorance of this Labour MP and his wife. His Grace can hear Mr Fitzpatrick now, losing his composure and barking at the hosts: “I don’t just want to sit down, I want to sit down with my wife.” And he adds, contemptuously: “I am a Minister of State, am I not?”

And indeed he is. But the Executive has no status in the London Muslim Centre, where there are people more important than he who hold customs which are not his.

His arrogance and rudeness are symptomatic of this Labour government, which has become insensitive to its traditional supporters and ignorant of its limits.

Where is the courtesy, the grace, the humility, the respect for the fact that this was somebody else’s day? The arrangements were the personal choice of the bride and groom. How they chose to seat people and conduct their wedding was entirely up to them.

But Jim Fitzpatrick has succeeded in turning the biggest and happiest day of their lives into a PR stunt and an anti-Muslim media fest. He has made their wedding day his ‘anti-extremism’ day, creating tarnished memories which will forever overshadow the anniversary.

And he had the audacity to assert that enforced segregation threatened community cohesion. Apparently he fears the growing influence of the Islamic Forum of Europe, which favours shari’a law, some members of which have links to the wedding venue. Mr Fitzpatrick said: “We've been attending Muslim weddings together for years but only recently has this strict line been taken. The segregation of men and women didn’t used to be as much of a strong feature. But it is an indication of the stricter application of rules that is taking place that didn’t exist before. We left so as not to cause offence.”

It is quite incredible that anyone in public life could be so obtuse as not to realise that their actual leaving might cause offence.

And then they chose to talk to the press, doubtless to avoid giving further offence.

Mr Fitzpatrick said: “It is a disappointment. I think the stranglehold influence of the IFE is present more than ever before. We are trying to build social cohesion in a community but this is not the way forward.”

The problem, Mr Fitzpatrick, is that your party has mistaken social cohesion for multiculturalism. You have destroyed community cohesion by pandering to the whims of every minority and creating a hierarchy of rights in which each and every disparate group now vies for supremacy. There can be no cohesion where there is no harmony, and no harmony in a climate of perpetual struggle for supreme rights.

But Mr Fitzpatrick declares defiantly: "I’m not pandering to any minority opinion.”

Labour's raison d'être of the past decade has been to pander to every minority opinion - and principally that of Muslims and homosexuals. Jim Fitzpatrick is either a fool or a liar.

A spokesman for the London Muslim Centre astutely observed: ‘Labour is in complete disarray. Maybe Mr Fitzgerald (sic) is worried about the election next year. It’s yet another case of “let’s just blame the Muslims”.’


George Galloway is to contest the Poplar and Canning Town constituency for Respect, and most of the seat is in Tower Hamlets where an estimated 35 per cent of the residents are Bangladeshi Muslims. For them, George Galloway is almost the Mahdi. If Mr Fitzpatrick is to avoid the fate of Oona King, who was ousted from Bethnal Green and Bow by Mr Galloway at the last general election, he clearly needs to shore up his white, working class vote.

What better way than a bit of Muslim-bashing?

Segregated weddings have always been popular among some religious communities, and they are by no means peculiar to Islam. Mr Fitzpatrick must learn to adjust to the culture and be sensitive to religious customs. If he were to attend a papal audience, would he mind being separated from his wife? If he were to attend an orthodox synagogue, a gurdwara, or a service in the Eastern Orthodox Church, would he insist on sitting with his wife and storm out when he was segregated?

You have simply experienced the reality of multiculturalism, Mr Fitzpatrick. Your political philosophy spawned it and your party has propagated it.

Please don’t blame the Muslims for Labour’s incompetence, inadequacy and insufficiency.


Anonymous philip walling said...

Marvellous! Silly little man! Where's the common courtesy?
What principle does he think he's standing up for?
It's another tranche of votes lost to Labour! It might sound with the constituents he thinks he needs to attract, but it will not go down well nationally.

14 August 2009 at 09:26  
Blogger Gerv said...

He claimed on the Today program that he and his wife left quietly, without making a scene. No "storming" involved - and, in fact, that's what the body of the Mail article with the sensationalist headline says. If your Grace does not have evidence that he made a fuss, then you need to withdraw this article with its unfounded speculation of "barking at the hosts".

Or do you think he has no right to leave a wedding or other event at which he feels uncomfortable?

Also, did he "choose to talk to the press", or did someone else notice him leave, tell the press and then they asked him about it and forced him to defend his actions? Do you have any information one way or the other? "In all things charity"?

14 August 2009 at 09:45  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gerv,

The press quote him at length. In order to acquire such detailed opinion, he must have spoken directly to them.

'Storms out' is in quotation marks because it is, err... a quotation (as you observe, from The Daily Mail). Since His Grace was not present at the event, he cannot comment on its veracity. However, the fact that the MP chose to leave over the arrangements certainly amounts to a metaphorical, petty 'storming out'.

And, no, frankly. He does not have 'the right' to leave a wedding after indicating his intention to attend and thereby incurring costs to the families of the bride and groom. And by 'right', His Grace is not referring to those enshrined in law, but to those governed by such notions as courtesy and good manners.

And His Grace is free to speculate as he wishes upon his own blog.

14 August 2009 at 10:02  
Blogger Gerv said...

If you were invited to a wedding and found that it involved the celebration of Mass, would you stay, as a matter of "courtesy and good manners"? I assume you are familiar with the work of John Bradford... Of course, if you'd known beforehand you would never have attended - but the same seems to be true of Mr Fitzpatrick. Given the circumstances surrounding your demise, Your Grace is the last person I would expect to hear promoting the view that principle should be burnt at the stake of not causing offence, or having a quiet life.

I'm not arguing he didn't speak directly to the press - clearly he did, as he was interviewed on Today. I'm saying that there's a big difference between him calling some journalist and saying "I took a stand for diversity this weekend - want to hear about it?", and some journalist ringing him up and saying "we heard you stormed out of a wedding in a huff at the weekend - is that true? If not, want to set the record straight?"

14 August 2009 at 10:09  
OpenID RobertEve said...

Your Grace - this is your best post for some days!!

14 August 2009 at 10:12  
Anonymous Karl said...

Gerv, Jim Fitzpatrick didn't just call the press, he issued a press release, and that's how the whole issue kicked off.

14 August 2009 at 10:20  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"If you were invited to a wedding and found that it involved the celebration of Mass, would you stay, as a matter of "courtesy and good manners"?"

Most certainly.

It is perfectly possible to remain and courteously decline participation. In fact, the president would remind His Grace of the imperative of non-participation.

You appear to have a somewhat jaded and rather prejudiced view of His Grace which is a caricature of your own creating.

14 August 2009 at 10:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Here we have one of the dominant themes of New Labour’s ideology, moral relativism, collide with a religious ideology (Islam).

Of course in reality (by their actions you shall know them) New Labour believes that only its ideology (moral relativism) has the status of absolutism and the rest (that’s us) suffer from what the Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs called ‘false conciousness’.

The intellectuals of New Labour have been successful in degrading the absolutist claims of religion to the staus of morally relative claims through legal instrumets such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2006.

Degrading Christianity in this country created a vacuum filled by a confident Islam.

British Islam now has only one enemy (given that Christianity has been officially degraded): the absolutism of moral relativism of the socialist elite (expressed by Mr Fitzpatrick’s walkout on the couple’s big day).

The situation is worse than most people realise. The EU (Brown’s signature is on all the documents) has signed a pact with counties that surround the ‘Mare Nostrum’: the Union for the Mediterranean. He did this behind our backs.

Forty-three countries (twenty-seven EU); this revival of the old Roman imperium will provide the perfect pretext for endless tensions.

Welcome to Eurabia.

14 August 2009 at 10:34  
Blogger Ivan said...

The MP was quite right to leave. Did the bride and groom inform him that men and women would be segregated? Was the MP not a big enough man for that elementary courtesy? He had already been to a number of Muslim weddings where there was no such segregation and he would have expected more of the same. Muslims living in one of the most cosmpolitan cities in the world are expected to know how the rest of society behaves, thus he was right to leave in a huff. Had he stayed, imagine the headlines - Dhimmi Labour MP driven into penfold. At times it is best to react at the gut level. Its obvious that Your Grace is having fun at Labour's expense.

14 August 2009 at 10:57  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Singh
A most accurate analysis!

We have a government of people with the employee mentality and they need a master - hence their embrace of the EU.

The absolutism of moral relativism is a wonderful paradox, but moral relativism cannot last, because it is not true (other than in the tyranny it wields) so, here comes the triumph of Islam? Or will Christianity wake up?

14 August 2009 at 11:05  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

Serves his own right for going in the first place. Who the hell in their right mind wants to attend a Satanist ritual like this anyway. Courtesy my arse.

You are beginning to sound like your American Hero Dan the Man. This maybe Labour's own creation, but that does not detract from the fact that Islam is full of intolerance, hate and barbarism, so why in the hell you are trying to make this a political partisan issue simply bewilders me. It is your blog and your opinion, but if you want mine,(if not feel free to delete) I think you are talking crap.

14 August 2009 at 11:20  
Blogger Gnostic said...

The morons making up this government are grand masters at projection - criticising people, in this case the Muslim wedding party, for the Nu-Fascists own shortcomings.

A classic leftist strategy.


14 August 2009 at 11:22  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Maybe this eejit is starting to realise that the monster Labour has created might yet keep it out of government for generations. If he is sincere in his laudable act, he will agitate to uphold the primacy of Christianity in this land, ban the Burqa and close the immigration floodgates that Labour threw open 12 years ago for electoral purposes.

14 August 2009 at 11:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Walling,

You are right. The absolutism of moral relativism cannot last – it has no eternal principles (like the works of Shakespeare – understood by all men; in all places and times).

Islam is unlikely to triumph. It will be defeated by EU law imported into domestic legislation: which Muslim in the public sector would dare to condemn homosexuality?

As to Christianity waking up we cannot rely upon the Grand ‘Mufti’ of Canterbury.

Each one of us must descend upon our knees and petition God to save our country.

Time is short, and the hour is late.

14 August 2009 at 11:32  
Blogger English Viking said...

How disappointing that your grace should adopt such a position of appeasement toward the colonisers and invaders of our once great nation. The idea that we are rude, arrogant or intolerant if we don't follow theirs ways, rituals and customs, that we should integrate with them and not the other way around is plain rot. This kind of attitude has led us to were we are today, on the brink of oblivion, as a Church, nation and people. You are rather like your namesake, a ditherer who only pinned his colours to the mast when he was tied to a stake. Too little, too late from him, don't make the same mistake.

14 August 2009 at 11:34  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Couresy and politeness were not extended to the people on the seven/seven tube train,the twin towers,madrid or bombay,to name but a few of the "enriching" productions of the religion of peace,even the IRA managed to give warnings,so extending the social niceties to these parasitic barbarians takes the cake.

14 August 2009 at 11:50  
Blogger Gerv said...

I fear that the passing of a few hundred years may have changed Your Grace's opinion on the propriety of attending a mass, even in a non-participatory role. I would suspect that the 16th century version would have agreed with John Bradford that even being present was wrong. (His relevant work is called "The Hurt of Hearing Mass".)

14 August 2009 at 11:58  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gerv,

You are changing the parameters of your comparison.

You specifically asked:

'If you were invited to a wedding and found that it involved the celebration of Mass...'

His Grace would not seek to offend anyone in such a circumstance. Your 'and found that' is rather crucial, and you are being disingenuous to infer anything else from it.

14 August 2009 at 12:38  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Singh

Right again!

I pray every day for the salvation of England. I have no doubt that we will be saved, but when and how and in what form i do not know and am becoming impatient to find out.

We also, each of us, has to do whatever we can to hasten our own salvation. It is urgent, 'time is short', but I have no doubt that the Lord will not let us down. England was the most pious country in Europe (more churches in London than any other capital city - see Peter Ackroyd and Eamon Duffy) before the Reformation and i am confident we individually and collectively ache for spiritual revival.

14 August 2009 at 12:51  
Blogger Gerv said...

I don't think so. If Bradford attended a service and found it was a Mass (as might happen, perhaps, if one was travelling and attended the local church on a Sunday), I suggest he would have walked out. (I will not speculate on whether he would 'storm' or not.)

It seems Your Grace is saying that the fact of being caught by surprise should be sufficient to override any theological objection to being present. Is that correct?

14 August 2009 at 13:06  
Anonymous stereodog said...

All Mr Fitzpatrick's posturing proves is that he didn't care very much for the bride and groom. If you like someone then a decent man would not put his own feelings above their own regardless of the situation. Mr Fitzpatrick as simply highlighted the fact that he is in the habit of attending the wedding of people he doesn't really care about.

14 August 2009 at 13:17  
Anonymous stedmancinques said...

Mr Gerv, The normal practice in our church, is that all are invited to take communion, but if anyone wishes not to do so, they can come forward carrying an order of service or a hymn book to receive a blessing- or just stay in their seat. No huffy walkouts are necessary.
The same courtesy was extended to myself and a group of Anglicans recently at the abbey of Bec.
The fundamental problem, rather than the fundamentalist problem, is that the minister has the manners of a lout.

14 August 2009 at 13:22  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your talk of ‘Muslim bashing’ put me in mind of this charming little video where a Muslim scholar explains the rules under which Muslim men are allowed to bash their wives. Don’t worry, though, it’s not as bad as you think—bashing them so hard that their bones break is forbidden.

While we’re on the subject of wife-bashing à la Islam, here’s another helping from Heirs to Fortuyn? by Bruce Bawer (I quoted this a few weeks ago but what the heck):

Non-Muslims aren’t the only targets of Muslim violence. A mountain of evidence suggests that the rates of domestic abuse in these enclaves are astronomical. In Germany, reports Der Spiegel, “a disproportionately high percentage of women who flee to women’s shelters are Muslim”; in 2006, 56 percent of the women at Norwegian shelters were of foreign origin; Deborah Scroggins wrote in The Nation in 2005 that “Muslims make up only 5.5 percent of the Dutch population, but they account for more than half the women in battered women’s shelters.”

•Johnny Rottenborough’s August blog•

14 August 2009 at 13:39  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gerv,

No. It is simply that his theology is based on love.

Since His grace would only really attend the wedding of those he cared about - whether philial or storge - then common courtesy is a minimal requirement.

14 August 2009 at 13:44  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Has anybody noticed the remarkable similarity between Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Alan Pacino (the noted American film-actor)?

14 August 2009 at 15:08  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Had Mr Fitzpatrick been clued up on the Muslim faith and how they celebrate weddings that it is in keeping with their faith to separate male and female at such events, he might not have accepted the invite at all!

Each religion has its own peculiar idiosyncrasies, The Pope does not touch women and so at a Papal Audience the he only shakes hands with men.
Menstruating women are seen as dirty in the Hindu religion and nowadays have to take their shoes off before entering the building for the duration of their period etc …

The fact that Nu Labour are ignorant of the cultural ways of the people that they let in and embraced with open arms is no surprise really.
They fostered the NU labour vision of “multiculturalism” and what they thought community cohesion should be, but in fact isn’t what it actually is. They had no real deeper knowledge of any of these cultures that they have been pandering to all these years at all.

Eurabia is planned to be one of a new three state world.

PS Mr Walling you need to go to Specsavers!

14 August 2009 at 16:12  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

I do not really think that it would be too arrogant to expect that they should have made some serious considerations about expecting people not to be able to sit by their spouse.

There are numerous considerations here why a couple would not want to be separated, many of the reasons would be deeply personal. Maybe 'storming' out was only their way of avoiding any unnecessary explanations.

This is the UK, and if you are going to invite people to such things that require this type of draconian arrangement, then I think that 'storming out' is more than reasonable behaviour......--in fact you would be doing yourself a huge courtesy. It is not often that I can sympathise wih Labourites, but this man has my full support.

14 August 2009 at 16:57  
Anonymous not a machine said...

a strange thing to do , your Graces angle on the incident is better than I could muster , i was thinking he must get out much .

14 August 2009 at 17:51  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

I have several Muslim colleagues and were one of them to invite me to a wedding I would of course accept and follow their set procedures. They would not expect me to particpate in any religious ceremonies and of course I would not, but I would certainly for the sake of good manners participate in tyheir social habits (like removing my shoes in a mosque). Leaving for this custom of gender segregation is at best childish, but more likely boorish. I suspect that he only accepted the invitation for political reasons and he certainly used the ensuing fuss for political reasons. Like so many Labour politicians he is beneath contempt.

14 August 2009 at 18:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terry Hamblin has answered my question of why does this MP accept invitations to attend so many Muslim weddings (to secure the votes of his Muslim electorate) but why is he invited to the weddings of people he doesn't know? Is it common practice in the UK to invite the local MP - of course not. Personally I think that it's very bad form (like sucking up to teacher).

Apart from declining the invitation in the first place, I think that JF should have quietly stayed until the earliest opportunity at which good manners would allow him to leave gracefully.


14 August 2009 at 18:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being 'beneath the contempt' of someone who is happy to follow the 'set procedures' of Islam is a desirable place to be. I certainly would not wish to be identified with this kind of attitude, Binet-Rai medal or not mr Physician. Please keep me nicely positioned 'beneath your contempt' Cheers!

Physician Heal Thy Self!

14 August 2009 at 19:35  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, I agree with your post and I would also add the old pharse 'when in Rome' .

Any thoughts on the Hannan affair, which seems to be occupying everyone else's time ?

14 August 2009 at 20:46  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, I agree with your post and I would also add the old pharse 'when in Rome' .

Any thoughts on the Hannan affair, which seems to be occupying everyone else's time ?

14 August 2009 at 20:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done to the M.P concerned ,whilst surfing the net I have noted many people whom have disagreed with his stance, in the real world however, the silent majority whom have no voice or are not inclined to log on and moan, the average working class brit have sided with him. This is England, we are not a muslim nation and we will not be dhimified despite all the concessions the government makes to islam. I would not leave a mass neither but i would have no part in it, comparing the two is nonsense.

14 August 2009 at 20:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's not a real archbishop, its just pretend !

14 August 2009 at 20:56  
Blogger English Viking said...

Terry Hamblin @18:20

I doubt your social niceties, such as removing your shoes when entering a place of idolatry, will be much use when the kuffars are introduced to their final solution. If you bend any further, you may disappear up your own backside, which is probably a benefit to the rest of us.

14 August 2009 at 21:37  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

It is unacceptable for anglo saxons
to be gender separated at social functions.If the moslem immigrants are so arrogant and ignorant that they are unaware of this custom of the host country then the fault is theirs.Immigrants have to be prepared to relinquish some of their customs which are unacceptable to the host country as a mark of gratitude and courteousy.

15 August 2009 at 06:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Fitzpatrick should go to a gay Muslim civil partnership ceremony to show he is a Labour Minister able to adapt to single sex affairs !

15 August 2009 at 07:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"when in Rome do as the Romans"

I think my old son, that this is the basic problem!

15 August 2009 at 08:49  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

I notice that St Paul appeared on Mars Hill to argue with atheists and pagans. He was willing to be all things to all men in order to win some. You don't win people for Christ by being impolite. Would you expect Muslims invited to a church to not comply with accepted standards? Do you think that things of the outside matter that much? The Lord looks on the inside.

15 August 2009 at 08:51  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Mr. Hamblin
Yes I would expect Muslims invited to a Church not to comply with accepted standards.They don't comply with acceptable standards as
immigrant guests of the nation so why should a Church be any different.Incidentally how many Muslims have you invited to a Church?

15 August 2009 at 09:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The minister was foolish to go. Multiculturalism was called apartheid in South Africa.

Can you imagine a Christian Boer attending a heathen
wedding conducted in a hut decorated with skulls ?

This place was decorated with the skulls of those murdered my muslims.

15 August 2009 at 10:43  
Anonymous RobertTheDevil said... may years is it now that the Islamic tail has been wagging the English political dog?..about 12 years to my reckoning.

15 August 2009 at 10:54  
Anonymous len said...

One cannot be expected to understand the complexities of an alien politico/religious system.
But having been foolish enough to accept the invitation I would think it only manners to have gritted ones teeth and sat it out.

( Slightly off thread but as a christian there is no way I would consider entering a mosque)

15 August 2009 at 11:15  
Anonymous Bethel said...

Three or maybe four observations:
-I shan't be inviting Fitzpatrick to any of my weddings, he's a complete jerk.
-I'm no having some of the people on this blog either because they will sit and argue all day.
-His Grace is indeed a man of grace and I would welcome him to share in my moments of felicitation always.

There we are..that's better.

15 August 2009 at 14:26  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Can't he and his wife bear to be apart even for a short time? Pathetic.

15 August 2009 at 14:53  
Anonymous Hilary said...

Bethel stop flirting with His Grace.He's unavailable.

15 August 2009 at 18:37  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"( Slightly off thread but as a christian there is no way I would consider entering a mosque)" - Right, Len, neither would I.

In fact I'd go so far as to say there should be few, if any, mosks in this host country.

Another small question... Is neu lab developing a little, slightly late, campaign for the Christian vote? First Gordo gets God, and now this...? Nasty vulgar way they have of going about it, if they are.

15 August 2009 at 19:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not certain that I understand the problem that His Grace has with the Labour MPs actions. We are in a culture war with Islam, and I think that we should welcome allies wherever we can find them. (There are too few people willing to oppose Islam publicly that we cannot be so fickle as His Grace demands.) Far too many in the political class in the UK would have sat down, enjoyed themselves at the wedding, and then rationalised their attendance at the cult event. Good for Fitzpatrick!!!

15 August 2009 at 20:35  
Blogger Edgar said...

What buffoonery! Our culture and customs are being perverted via the imposition of alien ways. The dreadful hypocrites of the CofE are just as guilty as the Labour Party for facilitating this destruction.

Disgusting party-political posturing in the face of the dismantling of all that England stands for.

Well, when the Muslims finally do start stoning people to death, justice will be served if the first one is a pompous, effete Christian.

16 August 2009 at 02:34  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace

Fitzpatrick is, simply, a thick, arrogant and mannerless oik. He is certainly not worthy of the title of Minister of State. And one might ask if his lady wife agrees with the stance he seems to have taken.

Noblesse Oblige.

16 August 2009 at 17:30  
Blogger March Hare said...

There are any number of things about the Islamic faith to be outraged about (and most others...) but to be so obtuse as to make an issue out of segregation at a wedding is pathetic.

People are segregated at most weddings into groom or bride. I take it, as happens at most weddings, the male and female sides mingle after the ceremony so what is his problem?

17 August 2009 at 12:04  
Anonymous Junius said...

Perhaps he was not aware that there was to be segregation - not all muslim weddings are.

And by staying, as a minister of state his continue presence could have been taken as the government's tacit support of such pracitice. I know a few muslims who would have jumpted at the chance to parrot his implied support.

Perhaps so, perhaps not - but it is a different point of view.

17 August 2009 at 12:24  
Blogger Unsworth said...

@ Junius

Fitzpatrick is 'unaware of' far too much. Worse, he seems incapable of seeking advice before commitment.

What would he have done if invited to an Orthodox Synagogue?

17 August 2009 at 12:50  
Blogger The Armchair Sceptic (Wilted Rose) said...

Mr Fitzpatrick is electoral toast, and he is just exhibiting "Deranged Labour MP syndrome". Nuff said.

18 August 2009 at 20:28  
Anonymous Ben Noah said...

A majority of earlier posts seem to miss the archbishop's point.

Courtesy is not appeasement; nor is it acquiescence. If one accepts to be a guest, one should act like a guest. The incident engenders contempt because the MP was extended an invitation, which he accepted without qualms or hesitations, only to leave when his standards weren't met. Nothing is more disquieting than his expectations to dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable religious expression- and regardless of the religion, that statist behavior should be found intolerable in a free society.

Though, it is a bit amusing that he found the customs and culture unbecoming and was unaware of Islamic practice (I suppose outside of his usual social circle.) It shows a narrow-minded and closed worldview that is ironic considering his party affiliations.

Which is why the veneer and niceties he and his ilk propagate about a "multicultural" society is nothing but drivel at best; a gilded covering for their own feverish faith in a dominating state that silences sincere public expression or conviction.

19 August 2009 at 04:56  
Blogger srizals said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 August 2009 at 13:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older