At the same time there will be others who are informed by opposing strategies (I’ve developed an aversion to the word ‘ideology’).

Perhaps the Libertarian Alliance may be quite close to your thinking.

On the splif thing, David Blunkett did change policy on possession and personal use; but seems John Reid is reversing it. There’s a change in attitudes in record time.

=>”Some of us are equally unenthusiastic about those values, especially if we find that all these religions are going to force eneryone else to adhere to their supposedly common values.”

For the record, the idea of forcing religiously-derived values on others is anathema to Sikhism — in fact it’s a fundamental principle of the religion. I believe the same is also generally true of mainstream Hinduism.

I respect the first, I despise the second.”

Unfortunately, many religions and religious people do not.

You would not think it was a fascist state that ensured that Class A drugs remain illegal.

I would say its not as clear cut as it seems.

If you have a dry state, then for alcohol to remain illegal is not a problem. Presumably. Not just thinking Islamic states here, I believe some of the US states are dry.

Our cultures and mores are in a state of flux and will remain so for a while yet.

It may well prove that the binge drinking experience of our culture will eventually feed into attitudes on alcohol. Temperance Movement may be resurrected, quite what form it will take can’t be forseen.

Similarly, respect, self-respect and dignity may yet become re-defined in the context of feminism. (Some articles seem to be coming through challenging ‘raunch’ and feminism courtesy guardian blog site CiF). And feminism as a source or empowering women may itself come more and more from the developing world.

In the end – some may say they’ve already had the message and hope and expect others to join them; or society as a whole recognises the value of what was put forward thousands of years ago – all through rational debate and contemporary experience. Or even that the outcomes are coincidental.

My point is simply all these bloggers and hacks are from the same cloth – sensationalise to maintain readership. A heavy burden I am sure.

Lets face it – it works. To get attention in the media you got to be somebody or something. (Insert appropriate marlon brando line).

By the way it is not a direct criticism – its just the way the world seems to be working. Studious well researched journalism is expensive, when feeding opinion and rhetoric as news is so much cheaper.

Refresh – earlier when I referred to backpaddling, I was talking about Ridley’s assertion that she was only being provocative because her editors demanded it. Rubbish. She’s invited to write not because she’s particularly good but because she’s built herself up into a personality. And plus, she never specifies what she may have been hasty in proclaiming.

The bullshit about 98% of her response being positive is of course hilarious and no doubt scores of Yusuf’s fans read his prominent open letter and got angry and cussed her for her stupidity, hence her need to come back to the issue and try and say that she was only joking. Gimme a break.

I did make the distinction between making a personal choice and enforcing it on others.

I respect the first, I despise the second.

” I prefer my neighbours to be sober and restrained.” So would i, Don, but I would be much more worried about a society that claimed the right to force them to be sober and restrained.

Of course you are right, there is a paranoid, simplistic, knee-jerk response to the word ’sharia’. But there are also considered, nuanced and powerful objections to its manifestations as advocated (and practiced) by some, objections often expressed here.

I take it that Bikhair means personally choosing to adhere to the principles of her religion which, providing these are subordinate to the laws of the land, is fine and dandy. I prefer my neighbours to be sober and restrained. In that sense it is perfectly in keeping with the principles of freedom of conscience and belief which secularists have wrested from the religious establishment over several bloody and difficult centuries.

As an enforceable legal system, however, I have yet to be shown a positive contempoary working model, and as a parallel ‘community’ based legal system within a non-moslem country, well, we had this discussion quite recently.

What does this mean? I’m Bangladeshi born. i’ll have you know in Bangladesh, it’s common to see women baring flesh.”

precisely.

What does this mean? I’m Bangladeshi born. i’ll have you know in Bangladesh, it’s common to see women baring flesh. And I’m not just talking a mini-skirt hiked procariously over a silky pair of thongs, but butt bobbie naked. As a child I enjoyed scenes of watching our maid servants bathe from the tubewell, from atop my marble floored verendah, naked as the day they were born

It doesn’t actually make me feel less British. My point is that shutting down debate in that manner is not-democratic. And that leads to fascism.

And people do need to speak up – not accept it.