This week on Radio 4, Any Questions included Matthew Parris. His responses to two particular questions revealed a common double-standard in liberal thinking (with a small l, Parris being an ex-Conservative MP). The first:
Is it ever wrong to name a teddy bear Mohammed?
Well it’s wrong to do anything that offends people, so it was wrong to call the teddy bear Mohammed.
The second, following his approval of the appearance of Nick Griffin and David Irving Oxford Union on the basis that they would be unable to answer difficult questions, and that preventing them speaking works in their favour, was a follow-up question by the moderator of the discussion.
Is there anything which you think is outside those terms of reference, any so ghastly it can’t be spoken in public?
I don’t think so. I wrote a column for the Times the other day talking about the Muslim Woman Malik. Miss Malik’s poem for which she’s about to be sentenced in a few days time under the prevention of terrorism act. She wrote poems glorifying Muslim bombers, murderers, and freedom fighters. They were stupid poems, but I don’t think he was acting to assist terrorism. I believe in the freedom of speech and if we think our way of life is worth pursuing against intolerant people and against fundamentalists then I think we should be able to practice what we preach.
Parris believes in the freedom of speech, including holocaust denial, but draws a line at offending certain groups of people he is willing to infantilise. His comments about Malik are also ignorant of the facts, her conviction did not concern her poetry, but the possession of material likely to help terrorists.
The Mujaheddin Poisoner’s Handbook, Encyclopaedia Jihad, How To Win In Hand To Hand Combat, and How To Make Bombs and Sniper Manual were found on her computer.
The court heard Malik joined an extremist organisation called Jihad Way, set up explicitly to disseminate terrorist propaganda and support for al Qaida.