Further to my comments yesterday about appeasing Muslim sensibilities, prison officers have been told they must not wear tie pins displaying the flag of St George because it may upset Muslim inmates who are still offended by the Crusades.
“Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.
“A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history,” he told CNN. “They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
“Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It’s also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral.”
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is “not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with.””
Just how far must we go with abasing ourselves in dhimmitude before becoming subsumed by the yoke of Islamic oppression? The issue here is not that prison officers have been told not to wear tie pins displaying an emblem, but the reason given for it. Yes, the Crusades were an appalling period in our history – but they were carried out by a people who are long dead; around 800 years dead. If we are going to nurse long gone grudges, shouldn’t the Islamic world be apologising for their slave raids of 1625? This coin has two sides. Or perhaps we should just recognise that we are living in the 21st Century and rub along together. This means tolerating our differences and not letting it worry us. In practice, it means that in the mosque, church or home, people can indulge in whatever fanciful belief system they wish – and in public places, such as places of work, keeping one’s faith to oneself and not worrying too much if a co-worker wants to wear a St George’s cross on his tie pin or drink from a piglet mug. That is true tolerance; recognising that while ostensibly a Christian nation, we are really a secular one and I would hope that we remain so. For, unlike societies ruled by religious law, ours is one where you can express yourself and your individuality. We lose this at our peril.
And, frankly, why shouldn’t church towers fly the cross of St George? Is this not the English flag? This is England after all. Accusations that it has been hijacked by the far right just don’t hold water. It is our national flag and we should seize it back from the hijackers rather than meekly acquiesce.
If Mr Doyle wants to change our flag in a misguided attempt to appease Islam, he will have a fight on his hands. This flag is not racist, it is our national flag. I’m not offended by the crescent, Muslims have no business being offended by the cross – although I’m rather more inclined to the view that most Muslims aren’t. It is the Dhimmis such as Mr Doyle who are the problem.
Is this helpful, as an example of Britain’s cultural heritage:
http://www.alphalink.com.au/~martinh/
Best regards
The world’s gone mad. Appease the Muslims at every opportunity seems to be the order of the day but they’ll come a time (in the not too distant future) when all these concessions given to Islam will come back not just to haunt the government but the people too. there will be rioting and that’s not an over-statement.
Our flag has been banned from flying over town halls and other public buildings by loony ‘PC’ councils. It’s about time we followed the American practice of flying our national flags everywhere.
”’Longrider replies: Well, if they do decide to ban the St George’s cross and replace is with something more Isalmocentric, I for one will be buying one and flying it outside my home. I will also be displaying it on my bike, website and clothing. And you can be sure I won’t be the only one.”’
I’m afraid I have to side with the anarchists on this one, to have such furore about an emblem for an artificial construct is ludicrous. It can only lead to problems. As a left-winger and an Irishman I had always been suspicious of the flying of the St. George Cross and far more so than the Union Jack, this is because it has been hijacked by the right and misappropriated.
There is an argument to say it should be retaken but then you wouldn’t consider the same true of the swastika which is an ancient Indian symbol.
I think unfortunately that the Americans are far too gung-ho and nationalistic about their flag and we all know where that leads.
Ultimately if someone wants to wear some form of national symbol then it should be difficult to stop them just as I wear an Irish rugby top sometimes the difference is the reason for wearing such emblems. I don’t give a toss what anyone else is but sadly there are far too many that do.
If the government tackled racism and bigotry properly with progressive education it might be easier for such national symbols to be reclaimed without the baggage that currently acompanies them.
”’Longrider replies: I’ve never been one for patriotism, nor for national symbols. However in this instance, I will take issue (you may have noticed). The swastika comparison doesn’t really hold up for me. While the far right have tried to claim the flag, it hasn’t been used in the same way. Unless you consider flying it from church towers on the 23rd of April offensive? What makes me so mad is the one-sidedness of the whole thing. Personally I find the hijab and burqua deeply offensive because they are symbols of religious misogyny. If I complain, will my complaint be taken seriously? No, of course it won’t. I’m afraid we have to agree to disagree on this one. Banning the cross of St George is not only appeasing a religious group, which is morally reprehensible, it affirms their belief that it is a racist symbol, which it is most certainly not. It also affirms their belief that they can impose the rules and sensibilities of their religion on non-believers – and that is deeply offensive to me. I am English, that flag is the flag of my country and, should I choose to do so, I should be allowed to display it without being made to feel that I should apologise for it. Normally I wouldn’t make a fuss about wearing it, but any attempt to ban it will make damn sure I will. As a footnote, you are an Irishman, so I wouldn’t expect you to have any particular affection for the cross of St George. However, if the Unionists complained that the Irish Tricolour was an offensive symbol of republican terror and should be replaced with something less offensive to them, say the union flag, would you not be annoyed? Or, perhaps, like I am now, incandescent with anger?”’
We have a similar issue with the Confederate flag. A lot of people (blacks mostly) complain that it’s a symbol of hatred, rather than a reflection of historic heritage (like your Cross of St. George). I’ve even seen some blacks sporting the flag on belt buckles, T-shirts, etc., so not everyone hates it like they want you to think that they do.
”’Longrider replies: As I suggested, this is not a reflection on all Muslims. I read a comment on this from a Muslim who happily wears an English football strip to his Mosque and no one complains. It is the radicals and their appeasers who wish to subvert us into dhimmitude. It is they who must be vigorously opposed.”’
As usual in many respects we don’t disagree by much it is rather that we fight from slightly different angles. As I’ve said I have less problem with the benign use of a flag (altho’ as I have said I think the anarchists have a point) but this use must be conjoined with proper education about the flag and who and what it represents. I’t’s a tricky balance but as with most things teach tolerance in schools and you prevent much of the problem before it starts.
”’For me, this is less about national symbols than it is about a religious group and its apologists attempting to impose its belief system on others. I’m happy to tolerate Islam. I expect Islam to tolerate my atheism.”’