Condell’s “Welcome to Saudi Britain”, flawed

Funny for the most part, yes. Addresses genuine concerns for the most part, yes.

The truth? In parts, but not the whole truth and I don’t think in parts, it’s even correct.

Pat Condell, being Pat Condell. (4:34 mins.)

First, let me say that I don’t support the recent banning of this video. I think Dawkins summed it up nicely when he said in response to Google’s re-instatement of the clip, “That some people say they are ‘offended’ by something is never a good reason for censoring it. Incitement to violence is. Pat Condell never incites violence against anybody. He always signs off with “Peace” and he means it.” – Richard Dawkins.

That being said, I think Condell and Dawkins are being quite naive about their on-line audiences. Those that bother to read books like the God Delusion and turn up at Dawkins’ lectures and so forth, are quite different to a popular element of the on-line followers. Read through the comments of a number of prominent participants in discussion at RichardDawkins.net, and you will find a fair number of abusive, cheerleaders rather than just the free-thinking sorts that Dawkins would probably like to foster.

Xenophobic comments like “This is my home, and was my fathers, and his father, and his father. Way back while yours were still roaming the desert looking for a pretty goat.”, are common on the comments threads on all of Condell’s YouTube postings.

It has to be said that Islam as practiced commonly in Saudi Arabia is oppressive and in general, quite nasty. I’m all for speaking unpleasant truths. It also has to be said, as an unpleasant truth, that a rich vein of idiocy runs through the online fandom of Condell and Dawkins. Perhaps not encouraged by Dawkins and Condell, but all the same, extant.

Condell is always hysterical. There is nothing in that, in and of itself that is wrong; Condell is a comedian after all. The thing some people (both the critics and the over-zealous supporters) don’t seem to realise is that you are supposed to take people like Condell, with a grain of salt (I hope Condell takes Condell with a grain of salt).

With the hysteria, truths are overlooked, or not sufficiently appreciated as is normal. But a few of the zealots could do with a bit more contradiction, or at least some loose guidance in how they can apply said grain of salt.

The fact that Muslims are willing to sell beer to Condell (not actually hypocritical for many a Muslim), is in contradiction to stereotypes. A contradiction worth emphasising, but a contradiction overlooked to address the stupidity of a Muslim employee suing their employer in the circumstances Condell points out.

As with most self-avowed “plain speaking” types, emphasis is given to particular peeves at the expense of the elephant in the room.

Condell’s narrative of “The Civilized World” is a fairy-tale. One a good dose of Guns, Germs and Steel could cut though. Enlightenment values weren’t unimportant in the rise of the west, but they aren’t the reason. England was never the exemplar of Enlightenment values, at least not in as far as religion is concerned.

England has and has had for a long time, a state religion. If Enlightenment values were enshrined as sacred by “The Civilized World”, specifically England, this wouldn’t be the case – a constitution would prevent it.

It’s not just England and its Church, the Danish National Church, from Denmark, home of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, violates the separation of church and state. England and Denmark aren’t secular societies, they are nominal, tolerant (to the extent that is politically convenient) theocracies.

“No recourse to the real law…”, Condell says. No recourse to a law founded on a non-secular compromise between monarchists and parliamentarians, would be more accurate than “real law”. Denmark’s 1848 revolutions led to a pretty insipid constitutional monarchy in secular terms.

How one manages the leap to possibly suggest that defence of the culture of Denmark or England is defending secular democracy, is beyond reason. It seems a lot more like nationalism to me. But then I’m just from a secular colony of the empire, aren’t I?

At least in Australia, and although we are subjects of the British Monarchy, Section 116 of our constitution prevents the privilege of a state religion. In the US, who broke off entirely, the restrictions are even stronger. We aren’t theocracies.

This constant attribution of support for Islamic theocracy, to “tolerance”, to the left and to “political correctness” is inaccurate. Sure, new Labour in the UK is pretty dismal, and they can be argued to be facilitating, albeit through a more generic failure of political though. Attributions to “tolerance” are simply quite silly; none of the criticisms of tolerance apply when the (common) Popperian definition of a tolerant society is used, so one can’t sustain this line of argument.

And “political correctness”, I’m sure Condell is speaking the common tongue here (as also with Dawkins), but the term is redundant in as far as the colloquial term is concerned and also has the drawback of appealing to conspiracy mindedness. “Political correctness” is after all (see Lind et. al.) alleged as a conspiracy by neo-Marxist, ex-German Jews to destroy America.

I’m not sure Condell and Dawkins are helping themselves by unintentionally tapping into such lunacy.

There is a line of popular “don’t offend the Muslims”, but the attributions to the left and the rest of the usual suspects (”liberal elites”) is hyperbolic. There is an elephant in the room.

England and Denmark (and others in Europe) have two big issues when it comes to this culture shock; a far greater influx of people from different cultures (esp. Islamic cultures) which does present difficulties (although I’m not anti-immigration I’ll add) and a historic impotence in dealing with theocracy. The existence of state religions is damning in this respect.

I think the whole integration of Muslims into Europe is being mishandled, but the mishandling was inevitable and while involving elements of the left, also necessarily involves entrenched cultural vulnerabilities of the host nations that predate the left’s involvement. In as far as the left is complicit, its involvement is ultimately transient – this relativism thing that some in the left take on board is a fad; it isn’t entrenched like the constitutional woes of several European nations, nor is it as pervasive.

Fixating on the left isn’t fixating on the root causes of the problem.

Why aren’t the theocratic monarchists being grilled for their roll in all of this? If the UK and others had the appropriate constitutional protections in the first place (opposed by said monarchists), things would be very different.

~ Bruce