It seems David Cameron's Neocon minders have asked him to safeguard his career prospects by weighing into the popular politician polemics against Muslims, talking of the threat of Shariah law and the oppression of Muslim women. In a speech at a church in Birmingham he went as far as suggesting that Muslims groups were mirror images of the BNP, people who divided society into us and them, which by the way was exactly what Cameron was doing. And whilst he was trying to say that when faced with Muslim extremism one shouldn't blame the whole of the Muslim community, he was actually just adding his voice to the long list of politicians - David Blunkett, John Reid, Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly - focusing on Muslims as the alleged source of all problems of our society. And like those on the government benches before him, he never once mentioned British foreign policy as a contributing factor in alienating young British Muslims.
One sometimes wonders whether these career politicians actually read the speeches handed to them by their script writers or consider the impact of their words before they are in the public arena. Whilst talking about bringing down barriers, Cameron is putting them up and is making dialogue more difficult. And he certainly is stopping British Muslims from considering the Conservative Party as a viable alternative to the Muslim-bashing Labour government. It is almost as if both parties want to create self-fulfilling prophecies by pushing Muslims into the non-British corner from which there is no retreat.
More interesting than Cameron's uninspiring speech is the way the media manipulated it further. The Tory Telegraph carried the story and included the replies by two Muslim organisations: The Muslim Council of Britain and the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Local BBC radio talk shows - two of which interviewed me on the topic - then characterised those two organisations as being the kind of undemocratic extremist groups whom Cameron was warning against. The two organisations have little in common, the former being a previously government-sponsored pretentious umbrella body of Muslim organisations, the latter a pressure group successfully highlighting human rights abuses against Muslims, including in Muslim countries. What they have in common is their refusal to take part in the Holocaust Remembrance Celebrations which Ruth Kelly lately wanted to make the litmus test of Muslim loyalty. Their valid argument for refusal is that since those celebrations do not recognise the genocide against the Palestinian people they elevate the suffering of some people over others and are therefore perpetuating rather than solving a problem.
As the voice of moderate Islam the Telegraph quotes the Conservative-sponsored new kid on the block, the Sufi Muslims Council, their new chosen self-styled representative of the "silent majority of Muslims", just as the Muslim Council of Britain once was the voice of Islam favoured by the Labour party (the all seem to have an infatuation with Councils). Just to show that party divisions in the UK are fake, when this latest Necon creation from Washington was launched in the House of Commons in the UK, Ruth Kelly attended, and Jack Straw is also a fan.
What is transpiring is that British politics is not made in Britain. The British people do not have a say in what the major political parties stand for. Whitehall politics is decided by those parties' financial backers. The crisis of democracy goes deeper than just the cash for honours scandal. The two major parties and their spokespeople are indebted to Jewish financiers with Zionist leanings. When Cameron is joning the anti-Muslim ranting club, he is paid to do so by Lord Steinberg, the gambling magnate who is betting on the Conservatives as the potential winners in the next election, and the media mogul Michael Green, whilst Lord Levy (also known as Lord Cashpoint) and Mr Cohen continue to back the Labour horse. Everywhere else but in Britain it's called corruption, but never mind, keep blaming the Muslims.