"Muscular liberalism" - just fascism with a smile?

British Premier David Cameron made a frankly bizarre speech in Munich yesterday, but one packed with prejudice, lies, ignorance and danger.

In summary, after the standard coda that he wasn't referring only to Islam when he talked about extremism and terrorism, he pretty much referred only to Islam when he talked about extremism and terrorism. Sounding rather like an advocate for the odious English Defence League, which was holding one of its biggest ever rallies on the same day, Cameron set out his views on racial and religious relations in Britain.

EDL members expressing themselves.

As EDL members paraded round Luton, a town with a significant Muslim minority, shouting "Allah, Allah! Who the fuck is Allah!", Mr Cameron was busy claiming that white people are essentially persecuted for expressing any vaguely racist views. By contrast, he felt Asians and other ethnic minorities are allowed to express any prejudice or call to violence they wish. Consequently, without being particularly clear about what he intends to do other than cut funding for Muslim community groups, Cameron proclaimed the death of multiculturalism - music to the ears of the fascist street thugs as they proceeded on their demo. In its place, he wants something he referred to as "muscular liberalism".

There is nothing but lies and myth to sustain this worldview. Some racists have been prosecuted in the UK, and rightly so. Some have been white (though BNP leader Nick Griffin was famously acquitted for calling Islam a wicked faith - not much suppression of his speech there, then); but Muslims like Sheik Omar Bakri have been expelled from Britain for their hostile comments; and the infamous Abu Hamza remains in jail for incitement of racial hatred. Meanwhile, the Islamist group Al-Muhajroun was banned by the last Government for glorifying terrorism, along with Islam4UK, Call to Submission, The London School for Sharia and Islamic Path. In all, 46 groups are proscribed, the substantial majority of them Islamic.

So where is this impunity from the law apparently enjoyed by Muslims? Perhaps somewhere other than in the anti-terror realm?

Is it in other criminal cases? Do Muslims enjoy immunity from prosecution for drug dealing? Theft? GBH? As Muslims are 2.7% of the British population, but account for over 12% of the prison population, it seems if you are Muslim you are actually six times more likely to be in jail than if you are white. And indeed, black and Asian people combined, although making up around 6% of the general populace, compose nearly 20% of those in jail. Of course, you'd not know that from the press or the EDL, but you might expect better from the Prime Minister.

So perhaps it is in making comments that Muslims are allowed to say things that whites are not allowed to say? Maybe they can make remarks that white people can't. Perhaps white people aren't allowed to criticise aspects of Islam they don't like? Well, one couple did get into bother from being frankly very insulting to a Muslim guest at their bed & breakfast by calling her headscarf a form of bondage, but when a prosecution followed, they were acquitted - although I suspect no one seeking a pleasant stay would visit their establishment.

Other vicious comments by whites go unchallenged, and not only those made by the likes of the EDL and BNP. Just this week, the BBC's Andrew Neil asked his studio guests what they thought America and Britain could do to stop the pretty moderate Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt. Undeterred by the somewhat more informed words of journalist Rageh Omar, Neil pondered ominously, "Should we not be fearful of the revolution being hijacked by the forces of darkness?" (@ 7 minutes in)

Anti-Muslim comments aren't allowed. Apparently.

The Egyptian crisis has shown the lack of understanding of Muslims by Cameron and his Government. Britain and its allies have maintained the brutal Mubarak for 30 years, contentedly supporting his suppression of any opposition and conniving with his attempts to portray the Muslim Brotherhood as the likely successor regime should he fall.

Although yesterday Cameron attempted to mollify his critique of Islam by pointing to the demonstrations in Cairo as proof of shared Muslim and western democratic values, this morning, his Foreign Secretary William Hague, carefully sidestepped questions about whether Mubarak should resign. Insisting yes, he really does support change, it seems Hague wants Mubarak to stay in power while previously banned liberal parties have time to develop and organise so they can challenge the Muslim Brotherhood in any elections. In other words, elections will be fine as long as the result is what Britain wants.

And that is basically where Mr Cameron's domestic muscular liberalism sits: you are free to be whatever you want to be, as long as you are what we want you to be. It is contradictory, warped and false. It is a design intended simply to bolster the Tories' falling poll ratings via scapegoating demagoguery rather than genuinely address real difficulties in inter-community relations.

But we live in a world where reality is set aside whenever it challenges perception, rather than the other way round. As my wife witnessed in our local town centre one day, when an Asian man parked on a double yellow line and went off inside a shop. A traffic warden came along moments later, remonstrated with the returning driver and placed a parking fine ticket on the windscreen. Next to my wife, an elderly (white) woman turned to her and, bewildered by what she had just observed, said,"That warden will be in trouble now. They're not allowed to fine Asians, you know. My son told me."