Sharia, Lord Carey and his links to the neocons' think-tank

Tomorrow Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, will tell his successor Rowan WIlliams that he was wrong over Islamic law. Speaking to the News of the World, he will say that suggestions that the British legal system could adopt some Muslim laws would be disastrous in practice. This should come as no surprise.

Last night Newsnight held a bad-tempered debate chaired by Jeremy Paxman on the same subject, featuring a forceful appearance from Douglas Murray, the head of the (provocatively titled) Centre for Social Cohesion, who gave warning about the dangers he saw in hardline Islam.

This appears to have upset some viewers.

Although Newsnight did not say so, this think-tank is firmly right of centre, an offshoot of the better known Civitas, and its mission is "widespread and longstanding concern about the diminishing sense of community in Britain". Murray, who has been described by the historian Andrew Roberts as "the Right's answer to Michael Moore", describes himself both as a neocon (his latest book is Neoconservatism: Why We Need It) and Zionist ("any sensible person is a Zionist", he told a US newspaper) .

Last year, Murray strongly disputed the reporting of a poll in The Times, which showed most Muslims to be "honest, moderate, loyal citizens".

And who is on the centre's advisery council? Lord Carey of Clifton.

Comments

[Chuck Unsworth]

"Although Newsnight didn't say so, this think tank is firmly right of centre - an offshoot of the better known Civitas - and its mission is "widespread and longstanding concern about the diminishing sense of community in Britain"."

Surely you can do better than this? The fact that this 'think tank' is right of centre or left of centre is entirely irrelevant to the debate - or would you hold otherwise? In which case I'd be interested to hear your logical argument. There's far too much of this business of dismissing comment on the spurious grounds of labels.

As to its 'mission' being 'widespread concern', that is complete gibberish. How can a 'mission' be a 'concern'?

It may be that it (the think tank) actually is concerned, about these matters, of course.

Care to define 'mission'? Care to define 'think tank'?

[The Daily Pundit]

Care to define 'Surely you can do better than this?' What did you have in mind, a PowerPoint presentation?

[Chuck Unsworth]

@ Daily Pundit,

No certainly not death by Powerpoint - there are rather better ways of 'communicating', but perhaps you had not realised. The written word is pretty good. The well written word is undoubtedly better - as is an AK 47.

I understand that Sam Coates is - amongst other things - a journalist. To give him his due, he seems prepared to post carping comment from the likes of me. Question is, what are you?