We need tolerance, not blinding anger

LAST weekend we witnessed demonstrations on London streets where British citizens held up placards that exhorted people to "Behead those who insult Islam". Although there were uniformed policemen standing next to them, no action was taken.

Indeed, the impression was given that the police were there to protect the demonstrators from any abuse when TV news showed a driver get out of his white van to remonstrate with the mob - only for him to be told he had a second to get back behind the wheel "or you're nicked".

This from the same Metropolitan Police that for years stood idly by and watched as the outspoken Muslim cleric Abu Hamza spouted his hatred and incited violence - and did nothing. Double standards? That's putting it mildly.

The Met, however, is not entirely blameless. We now know that it prepared a case against Hamza in March 1999 and June 2003 regarding suspected terrorist links to Yemeni kidnappers who killed three Britons in 1998, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett now says the police, the CPS and MI5 were reluctant to act on Hamza's speeches for fear of inflaming racial tension.

Indeed, the Met ignored Hamza's outpouring of bile until an application by the United States for his extradition in 2004 - which clearly embarrassed it into action.

Now let's be clear who suffers as a result of this lack of political will, this moral cowardice. It is innocent people, black or white, atheist, Christian - or Muslim - going about their daily lives in packed tubes or on buses that are blown to bits; they are the ultimate victims of people that listen to Hamza and his ilk.

There is also a political price. The failure to act gives strength to the political extremists - be they white supremacists or religious militants - both of whom threaten the moderate majority of Muslims in different ways.

Unfortunately, our authorities have compounded the error by applying double standards to Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party. The BNP is not a political force that I have any time for; it offers national socialism, compared to the equally vile international socialism of Tommy Sheridan's SSP, so I have no sympathy for it or its leaders. Griffin was the subject of an elaborate (and no doubt dangerous) police operation that covertly filmed him spouting his views at a BNP meeting.

Fortunately for Griffin his words were more measured - for there is difference in expressing one's prejudices, or even hatred, and one suggesting to others to use force - but at least the authorities were acting.

While our institutions of security and justice took the initiative to try to catch Griffin out they did nothing to snare Hamza. This fuels the sense of double standards and injustice that creates an urban martyr out of people like Griffin and is exactly what groups like the BNP feed on.

So the arrest of a solitary person reading out the names of the Iraq war dead at the cenotaph but ignoring the demonstrators this weekend was a mistake.

Which brings us to the Danish cartoons and the issue of freedom of expression - the apparent cause of the London demonstrations.

There are in fact 12 cartoons and they first appeared in a Danish magazine four months ago in October. Hardly a spontaneous outrage then. No, they are a typical example of how a militant minority uses misinformation to intimidate and marginalise a moderate majority by polarising the issue - in this case it's the question of blasphemous insults.

At least ten people have now died in demonstrations across the world, incited particularly in Arab states because Islam is apparently being insulted. Or at least that's what the extremists would like us all to think - the truth is more complex than that.

The cartoons are not challenging the religion of Islam or the Prophet Mohammed, more precisely they argue how some Muslims will use their faith to justify any violent act against any innocent people. They are against the extremists that use religion as a cover.

That's not to say that all of the cartoons represent the truth or are even funny. They're not. Some are decidedly insulting to even moderate Muslims - which has been enough of a premise for the extremists to start their rioting and thus challenge the political leaders of Islamic nations to show they are willing to defend their faith. So it becomes a trial of strength where even moderate leaders, both Western and Islamic, must show their willingness to criticise the artists and publishers or risk defeat.

So this is not about blasphemy of Mohammed - it is about a power struggle within Islam that is as old as the religion itself. It is a power struggle for the political direction of Islamic countries so that more will eventually become theocracies like Iran with the full force of sharia law. It is a struggle that aims to prevent secular countries with a Muslim majority such as Turkey moving closer to the West.

If it was about blasphemy then the Arab nations and their followers in Britain would not with regularity publish and laugh at the anti-Semitic cartoons that portray Jews as murderous, bloodthirsty Fagins. If plays and films can portray Christ as a sodomite without reproach in the West then followers of Mohammed can expect no special treatment either. If Christianity can survive the ridicule of the Monty Python film The Life of Brian can Islam not survive similar cultural challenges? I believe it can, and like Christianity, be the stronger for it - but it requires reasoned argument, tolerance and peace - not blinding anger and retribution.

The stakes are high and Britain's freedom of expression will not be the only casualty - the moderate Muslim majority will be the losers worldwide if their leaders can't outsmart their extremist challengers.