First posted: 1st May, 2010
This time it was a Labour Party candidate, John Cowan, who was the latest victim of political correctness. His crime? He dared to say that he didn’t want any of his children to marry a Muslim. The punishment? The Labour Party suspended his candidature and may soon expel him from the Party itself. Incredible!
Cowan’s Labour Party candidature was suspended for a crime he committed against Leftism and its little sprog, political correctness. A crime against an often-fake Islamophilia, which is just one strand of today’s intolerant and often nasty political correctness.
The blatantly obvious response to this is to say that Muslims themselves absolutely flinch at the idea of their children marrying non-Muslims. Indeed it is very, very rare. It is even illegal in many Muslim or Islamic countries to do so.
So the outrage – yes, yet more fake outrage – is biased in favour of Muslims from the beginning. How can you expect a non-Muslim Labour politician to behave differently from most - or nearly all - Muslims themselves when it come to interfaith marriage?
The Labour Party hasn’t suspended John Cowan’s candidature because it thinks what he has said is wrong. It has suspended him because it wants its Muslim constituents to believe that it thinks that what Cowan has said is wrong. In addition, such outrages against Islam must be punished by all the PC parties of our day. Cowan is, therefore, another sacrificial lamb to both political correctness and Muslims in general.
Not only has Cowan’s candidature been suspended, the Labour Party may well expel him from the Party. I bet Muslims are wetting their pants about this. Rub the infidel Cowan’s face in the shit. That’s right. A bit more.
It’s all a matter of image and presentation. Such a spineless act by Labour is designed to make the party look good to the Muslims who are vital, vote-wise.
The intensity of the Labour Party’s reaction to this tiny misdeed is amazing. One Labour Party spokesman said: ‘Everybody in the Labour Party is extremely angry about this.’
Is that anger aimed at what Cowan actually said, or it is really about the political consequences of what he said for the Labour Party? It’s hard to tell in the duplicitous image-obsessed world of contemporary British politics. My guess is that the Labour Party doesn’t really have a strong moral position on who marries whom within the party - or anywhere else for that matter. The anger is really about what damage John Cowan has done to the Labour Party. And that’s the case even whilst knowing that this tiny misdeed will be forgotten, even by Muslim loudmouth politicos, within a week.
Was this really a terrible crime? Or was the really terrible crime the way the Labour Party has treated this seemingly honest man? Yes, this honest man. There’s not much honesty allowed in main-party politics nowadays. Too much truth will upset the PC and Islamophile status quo.
Cowan wasn’t even punished for what he had done. He wasn’t even punished for his views as such. And he hasn’t actually attempted to stop his children from marrying Muslims. (I presume that his children are still too young to be thinking about marriage to anyone, let alone to Muslims.) Of course the chances of the children of the Labour leadership marrying Muslims will be very slight. I wonder if Gordon Brown and, say, Harriet Harman, would be happy about their own child marrying a Muslim – say, a Salafi or militant Shia. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that Labour’s leaders haven’t opened their mouths and said that they don’t want their children to marry Muslims. They haven’t been caught on tape or on the Internet (as Cowan himself was) telling the truth.
Who knows, perhaps Cowan said what he said because he doesn’t want his daughter reduced to the status of a second-class citizen, as would be the case if she married a Muslim man. Alternatively, he may also be aware of the possibility that his daughter may one day find out that her potential Muslim husband already has a few wives hidden away at home, which is also allowed in Islam. (It’s there in the Koran, plain as day.) So does the Labour Party think that polygamy, sexism and misogyny are OK? No. The Party will of course say that ‘Islam is not sexist or misogynist’ and that ‘polygamy is a distortion of real Islam’ or other such crap.
All the good things in Islam are Islamic. And all the bad things in Islam are not Islamic.
Thus, by Labour Party definition,
All Islamic things simply must be good things.
And if you say otherwise, you’ll be kicked out of the Labour Party.