Is Douglas Murray changing the social cohesion debate?

Douglas Murray, the founder and Director for The Centre of Social Cohesion, has been getting a lot of airtime lately. Booed by liberals yet cheered by conservatives when Islam is discussed; cheered by liberals yet booed by conservative during debates on homosexuality. He appears inconsistent and hard to pin down. Yet he is gaining a reputation as a man who cuts through political correctness by challenging those whom current orthodoxy is too frightened to challenge.

On Islam he is categorical; Muslims have a right to freedom of worship and the same welfare protection from the state as everyone else. But Islam is not a particularly nice religion, the Koran is historically unreliably as well as morally dubious, and Muslims have no right to demand special privileges such as freedom from media cartoonists. On Homosexuality he is equally unequivocal. Faith groups (particularly Nigerian Bishops), need to be challenged that their views on same sex relationships are morally wrong. They must be exposed by rational argument.

The problem with the debates on social cohesion over the last ten years or more is that liberals supported many illiberal religious and immigrant minorities in the pursuit of social equality. They then found themselves unable to cope with the reality that some of those communities whom they protected had far more intolerant views than those they needed protection from. Some liberals pretended that these illiberal views were not truly representative of these communities, but this was unconvincing. Other liberals were so frightened of causing offence and stirring up far-right hatred by criticising a minority, that they likened any criticism to far-right ideologies.

For Murray however, the answer is easy. You support the equal opportunity for all minorities to enjoy the safety and privileges the west has to offer, but no special favours, and no extra protection. The same civil liberties for everyone. When a community is wrong, or more importantly dangerous, you 'call it out' not 'chicken out' for fear of stirring up hatred against them.

But Murray is no friend of moral conservatives either, and rails just as impatiently against them, particularly on the hot button topic of homosexuality. For conservatives, a person can disagree with same sex relationships and not be a bigot i.e. you can legitimately hate the sin so long as you love the sinner! For Murray, this teaching on homosexuality is preposterous, and the moral equivalent of racism.

Personally, I tend to find that my first reaction to any controversial issue is Murray’s last reaction. In other words he is where my heart is, but not necessarily where my head is. Consequently I usually want to agree with him more than I actually do. He forgets that democracy gives freedom of conscience, not moral absolutes, and I have yet to find where he sources his moral objectivity if he is so anti-faith. Furthermore I think he over simplifies security decisions into traditional good vs. evil battles as all neo-cons like him do. He and I would clash over a number of issues (probably resulting in a pub brawl in fact), but to be honest I admire the guy greatly.  He takes a lot of heat from the “sanctimonious left” (a unique brand of left winger that I made up in my head) who offer no real alternatives but make certain topics “no-go zones” and shut down discussion by accusing concerned people of bigotry (ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown fell into this trap during the election). Even the normally fascinating Muslim academic Tariq Ramadam gets shamefully popularist around him so as to make him look bad.

Very few people are prepared to become the public bad guy to get a decent point across –Murray is. He knows that someone has to be, and he has the intellectual capacity and self confidence to do it. Far from being an inconsistent part bigot/part libertine, he employs the same logic for Islamic issues as he does for homosexuality.

Murray is a Neo-Con and a Libertarian, I am neither. But what I admire about him is that he is challenging the debate to be more honest; freedom for all, but criticism for all too. I don’t always agree with his criticisms (he would not expect me to), but I look forward to arguing in this new environment. Love him, or hate him, watch him closely because I believe him to be the future of the social cohesion debate. His time has come...

I have attached a great mash-up (from 2007) of Murray clips showing how polarising a figure he can be. You can’t watch it without forming an opinion of him very quickly – enjoy.