Multiculturalism, Stalingrad Revisited, Death on the Nile, the Peloponnesian War, the Measure of Moral Worth and Other Minor Issues

Far too much to write about this week. For some discussion on David Cameron's alleged attack on multiculturalism, look at the earlier section of Sunday's BBC1 TV programme, 'The Big Questions', still available on BBC iplayer. I hold to the view that Mr Cameron's 'muscular liberalism' is a contradiction in terms, - like rigid jelly, an angry whelk or a ferocious hamster. And that the principles of 'equality' which he recommends are a) for the most part not British and b) designed to enforce the very 'State Multiculturalism' which Mr Cameron says he is against. For instance, if all religions are equal, then Christianity ceases to be recognised as the dominant faith in the country, and what could be more multiculti than that?

Those who have been fooled into thinking that Mr Cameron is somehow being 'tough' should bear this in mind: The real Fleet Street, in which one met journalists on rival newspapers every day, long ago ceased to exist. But a tiny corner of this lost paradise has been recreated. The Associated Newspapers building now hosts the offices of the 'Independent' and the 'Independent on Sunday' and I occasionally bump into John Rentoul, one of the few remaining Blair disciples and a distinguished IoS columnist. We generally tease each other, with him trying to annoy me by claiming to agree with things that I have written and me encouraging him to support the Cameroons. On Saturday we were both reading Mr Cameron's speech when I bumped into him in the atrium. He pointed out to me that Mr Blair had made more or less precisely the same speech three times.

I shall return later in the week to the removal of Dr Hans-Christian Raabe from the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. It appears (hence my reference to Stalingrad) that it is Dr Raabe's (he is a medical doctor) statements on homosexuality which are supposed to have led to his abrupt removal from a position to which he had only just been appointed. Stories have appeared saying that he 'failed to disclose' a 2005 study in which he wrote the (factual) summary. The ACMD has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality.

He is said by unnamed sources to have been specifically asked to disclose anything about his past which might cause embarrassment to the government or the committee. I am interested as to what the official definition of 'embarrassment' is, or whether Dr Raabe could reasonably have been expected to view what follows as potentially embarrassing to the Home Office or the Advisory Committee.

The study concluded that there was a 'disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles'.
I have no information on this matter myself. Perhaps one of my well-informed contributors can tell me if it is factually accurate? If so, then why is it controversial?

The words used were: 'While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.'

Once again, I am not expert in this area, and would welcome any accurate information which anyone has, in support or refutation.

The report also stated: 'Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population.'

I think this is now generally accepted and uncontroversial. The absurd Kinsey figure of 10% was long ago discredited.

You will have to read the whole paper (I have not yet done so) to make any judgement on the quality of the work. But this event does seem to be an instance of the existence of a new Test Act, under which a person's views on homosexuality can disqualify him from public office, even where that is wholly separate from any matters touching on sexual behaviour.

Two points. If Dr Raabe had not involved himself in the homosexuality controversy, his enemies in the drug liberalisation lobby (whom I believe to be behind his removal) would have had to attack him directly because of his views on drugs, which would have been far harder. This confirms my 'Stalingrad' view, that other more important battles are lost because of the engagement of social conservatives in this futile siege.

The second, that this is a freedom of thought and speech issue, not one about sexuality. The 'embarrassment' clause and the 'disclosure' clause, under which Dr Raabe has apparently been ejected, both involve murky and subjective definitions of what constitutes 'embarrassment', or what is so bad about being 'controversial' and raise important questions about what can and cannot be said. I have written to the Home Office to ask them:

1. In what way is the report (which gives the results of a factual survey) controversial?
2. Who decides what 'controversial' means?
3. How controversial does a report have to be to for its non-disclosure to cause embarrassment?
4. At what level was the decision taken to revoke Dr Raabe's appointment?
5. Were any other factors involved, apart from the allegedly embarrassing report?
6. Will Dr Raabe's successor be chosen from among opponents of harm-reduction policies, so as to ensure that this view is represented on the ACMD?


Egypt

Is it immoral to refuse to egg on a revolution abroad? Is it immoral to refuse to mistake general idealism in distant, unknown places most of us will never even visit, for practical neighbourly charity among those known to us? One contributor quotes William Blake against me. I quote Blake back at him:

'He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars. General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer'.

I regard most statements of joy in foreign revolutions as mere posturing, the use of someone else's country as a moral playground in which one can be a utopian at no charge. By the time the utopianism has solidified into equivocal (or nasty) political reality, the journalistic poseur is long gone to a new playground and is generally not pressed to defend the regime his views may have helped to bring about . How many of those who posed about the place in former Yugoslavia ever even revisit Bosnia and Kosovo to review the paradise they helped to establish there? How many of those who confused a righteous loathing of apartheid with unconditional support for the African National Congress revisit the increasingly squalid state which the ANC has created in South Africa?

There is no direct connection between my point on the European Union and Britain (the end of the Cold War hugely intensified the centralisation of the EU under German leadership) and the dangers to Britain from a change of regime in Egypt (see below). I am sorry that I was so unclear as to leave anyone with this impression. The indirect connection is this parallel: the freedom of Eastern Europe led to disadvantages for Britain and its people. The 'freedom' (if such it be) of Egypt may lead to disadvantages for this country.

What might they be?

Most likely, more instability in the Middle East. This has limitless bad consequences for us. The last thing our weak, sick economy needs is a new Middle East war. Leave aside the destruction and loss of life, which all will deplore, the inevitable rise in the price of oil and severe inflation which will follow are exactly what we do not need.

Most of the reports of the crowds in Tahrir Square (note by the way - as no reports have - the word 'Tahrir', meaning variously freedom and liberation, which also features in the title of the dread Hizb-ut-Tahrir party, 'the Party of Freedom') seem to me to have been unconsciously self-censored.

I doubt that most of the reporters there have wanted to push the issue very hard. It might even be risky to do so, amid a crowd in times of tension. But during my only visit to Egypt (as mentioned in an earlier post) I found that, among all the highly-liberal, westernised and English speaking people I met - and very charming and pleasant they were too - there was an unremitting, bitter hostility to the State of Israel.

I found this out because I was interested, and because I had discovered the same heated view among similar people I had met in Jordan a few months before. And when I mildly questioned it, I found myself met with something very close indeed to fury. It was clearly something I was not really permitted to discuss, immune to facts or reason.

Now, if this is so among travelled, educated and wealthy intellectuals, how much more intense might we expect it to be among the Egyptian masses, exposed for decades to virulent anti-Israel propaganda, in most Muslim countries the only outlet for the incoherent anger that exists in the midst of the poverty and corruption?

I have only once in the past few days seen a picture of a portrait of Hosni Mubarak defaced by demonstrators with a Star of David, to suggest that he is a Zionist puppet. But I wonder how many more there are which reporters or picture editors sympathetic to the protests (who might not have wanted to draw attention to this aspect of popular feeling) have decided not to mention or publish?

This can happen. When I was in Gaza late last summer I came across - smack in the middle of the city where no visitor could miss it - a professionally executed and prominent wall-painting depicting an Israeli soldier as a hook-nosed child-killer in the style of Julius Streicher. Other journalists must have seen it, and been able to photograph or film it. But I had never seen it reproduced.

The Arab and 'Palestinian' causes tend to be supported by the liberal left in Britain, and I am sure that most such people loathe anti-Semitism and regard themselves as anything but anti-Semitic. (Pedants' corner. Yes, I know that Arabs are Semitic as well, but you know what I mean.) So when they find irrational Judophobia among their Arab friends, they pretend it is not there.

Now that is not to say that the current Egyptian regime is free of Judophobia. The armistice between Israel and Egypt is famously known as 'The Cold Peace', because of the way in which Egypt meticulously observes its letter, while not observing its spirit. One example: Israeli tourists go to Egypt. Egyptian tourists hardly ever go to Israel, and it is said they can run into trouble back home if they do so. There is no friendliness in the relationship, just a sullen acceptance of its political convenience. But the Egyptian regime overcome their dislike for reasons of state, reasons which a new government might not acknowledge (and by the way, how sure is everyone that the replacement government, whose nature is a complete mystery, would in fact be incorrupt and tolerant of criticism?).

My worries about this are not in fact dependent on my support for Israel, though I've no doubt that my knowledge of this conflict makes me more aware of what is at stake. Even if you don't like Israel I doubt very much if you want a new Middle East War. And the current Egyptian regime has prevented war in a highly sensitive part of the world for three decades. And Egypt, though less pivotal than it used to be, is a decisive voice in the Arab world. If it abandoned its peace with Israel, and aligned itself with Hamas in Gaza, I think many of us would find out very quickly how important Egypt's future was to our stability and prosperity.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click here and scroll down.