Distorted Views

The Government is seeking to widen consultations with Muslim communities. In characteristic enlightened fashion, rather than trading beads or fire-water with their little brown partners, ministers have tried to gain their trust by informing them that their view of the world is facile, dangerous, foolish and distorted.

This robust reassertion of the global values of tolerance and democracy came in response to an open letter from forty-odd Muslim individuals and organisations, which claimed that British policy in the Middle East was increasing the threat of terrorism and requested that we "show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion". Obviously, such blasphemy could not go unrefuted. "I have no doubt that there are many issues which incite people to loathe government policies," allowed Foreign Office underling Kim Howells, "but not to strap explosives to themselves and go out and murder innocent people." Nobody could possibly loathe government policies that much, because such an extreme of loathing for government policies is simply not humanly possible. That settles that, then. They must hate us for some other, better reason - perhaps because we're free? The Government can hardly be blamed for that.

Douglas Alexander, the Secretary for Delays, Cancellations and Pollution, said that "No government worth its salt should allow its foreign policy to be dictated to under the threat of terrorism". Apparently there is no difference between giving in to terrorism and doing one's best to avoid the ham-fisted provocation of it. Similarly, the Secretary for the Rest of the World, Margaret Beckett, said that it would be the "gravest possible error" to draw a link between government policy and the threat of terrorism. When compared with some of the Government's errors, that sounds pretty damn grave.

Suggestions of such a link are, in Mrs Beckett's view, "part of a distorted view of the world, a distorted view of life." Whether the distortion is a result of reactionary Muslimity, Muslimity in general, or simply the fact that one is not drawing a ministerial salary, she apparently failed to make clear. Instead, she suggested that we "put the blame where it belongs", targeted blame being what passes for positive action with New Labour. The blame in this case belongs with "people who wantonly want to take innocent lives", Olmert bar Sharon excepted.

The Vicar of Downing Street, in accordance with the theology of the Four Genuine Dates, observed through a spokesbeing that "the terrorism affecting the West today has blighted Muslim countries for several decades", during which the West took no particular interest in the Middle East, and certainly did not discontentify anybody. Perhaps the highly effective response of Muslim countries to the terrorism that blighted them is the reason why Tony now behaves increasingly like a Middle Eastern potentate.

In any case, Ruth Kelly of Opus Dei is going to call on British Muslim leaders to take "greater action to tackle extremism", while once again "seeking suggestions on what the government can do to support them", short of mass seppuku, one assumes. Later this month, Kelly will also launch a Commission on Integration and Cohesion so that Muslims can be shown just where they're mixed up about things, and be converted to that non-facile, non-dangerous, non-foolish and utterly non-distorted view of the world which is privileged to be held by the Government.