An open letter to Melanie Phillips

Phillips,

This is not a death threat, but I must make it clear that this is not through any sympathy for you.

I will try and be as restrained as possible, because needless to say you have annoyed me greatly and I’m quite sure it’s not healthy to be this angry for long periods of time. Maybe once I’ve finished I will relax by listening to some classical music or converting a child to homosexuality, but for a glorious fifteen minutes or so you are the centre of my attention. Lucky you.

I’d like to start by highlighting what I think you’ll find is an interesting paradox within your most recent columns. I don’t know if you remember, but you did make some rather interesting points about freedom of religion and whatnot, so I’d like to just briefly pull them up and examine them in comparison to one another (what can I say? I’m an English student by nature). The first of these two comments can be found in your article: “Yes, gays...” (although the tab above it in my browser purports it to be called “Gayness mandatory in schools”, which makes me think it may have been adjusted. Oh Melanie, you wildcard) and it goes thusly:

“The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull... were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition”

“Inquisition”? That’s controversial, Mel. After all, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed people for contravening religious values; I’m a nice guy, though, so I’ll let it slide. I like the way you use the homogenous descriptor “religious” though, at least you’re not implying that Moslems who hold these values are any worse than Christians who hold them, which- oh no wait, I mentioned other quotes, didn’t I? Ones like this one in your column “Calls for me...”

“But here’s the really awful irony in all this. Gay people are dreadfully persecuted under fundamentalist Islam, which dictates that they should be killed”

Oops. Looks like you dropped the ball there Mel. By the way, have you read the Bible? I have. And although I’m a Christian, there are one or two passages that do trouble me deeply; Leviticus 18:22 in particular, which calls for the murder of “men who lie with men”, and is a favourite of many a Christian radical. How, Melanie, can you justify mentioning Islam in such a way, when Christianity -a faith which you defend with, well, religious fervour- plays host to reactionaries with beliefs that are just as bigoted and discriminatory as those of Moslem radicals. You seem to be implying that liberals, or rather, the “totalitarian” left are either defending or denying the existence of such radicals, and are unjustly indignant towards those brave tabloid columnists who dare speak out against the creeping menace of radical Islam, when you yourself are either defending or denying the existence of radical Christianity. Hypocrisy is a Child’s game, Mel, and it’s very silly.

Mandatory Islamophobia aside, you are very brave to accuse the “gay rights lobby” of hypocrisy. Braveness, however, is often coupled with foolishness, and you are no exception. There are a lot of claims to victimisation made in your columns, and the article “Calls for me...” makes a rather big song and dance about it. Yes, you may have received death threats, and I’d like to take a moment to explain to you why. You make people very angry, Melanie. Why? Because you’re a bigot and, put frankly, a fucking mentalist. You twist the facts and tell barefaced lies in order to make your critics and targets seem to be grotesque, “totalitarian” enemies of sense and morality, and it’s just plain wrong. What on Earth prompted you to say:

“As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory.”

Seriously? Are you insane? Are you genuinely claiming that homosexuality is becoming mandatory? That has to be the most mental thing I have ever read. No exceptions. I mean, there is always the alternative interpretation: that you meant acceptance of homosexuality as opposed to homosexuality itself, but really that’s not much better is it? Especially as you go on to call this “an abuse of childhood”. What have you been smoking, Mel? For a start, acceptance of homosexuality is not becoming “mandatory”, it is becoming the norm. This is not because of some sinister “gay agenda” to undermine the institute of marriage and turn everyone into sodomites, but because we simply understand homosexuality more. The reason Hari “furiously demanded why I thought it was ‘wrong to protect gay children’ from bullying” is because you said that mentioning homosexuals as if they were normal people, instead of rapacious paedophiles would be “an abuse of childhood”. Is that really so hard for you to grasp? You are being called out on something you said, is that really difficult to understand? Your belief that homosexuals should not be mentioned in lessons breeds homophobia, which as Hari points out is a major, major problem in modern schools. People are committing suicide because of homophobia, Mel. It’s not a “harmless”, “private” thing, it’s a real, vile and dangerous attitude that you only serve to propagate.

I have much more to say, but I really don’t think it’s worth any more of my effort talking to a heartless bitch like you. Anyway, it’s about time I went on a “witch-hunt”, right?

Not yours,

Oliver James

P.S. Sorry about my clumsy English, I blame it on my rage.

On the burning of poppies and long-winded apologies

I am not here to defend the poppy burners. No, I am as thoroughly offended by their actions as I'm sure the vast majority of you are. My family has a strong military background on my father's side and it would be entirely ignorant and hypocritical of me to defend the actions of those who burned poppies on Thursday.

Nevertheless, I have offended several people with my (perhaps poorly worded) view on the issue and feel I have to explain myself fully before I can be forgiven. My view is that -no matter how blinkered and stupid and unfounded the views of the Thursday extremists are- we must all feel immensely proud that their views were able to be so freely expressed. I believe that, in order to maintain our dignity, we must come to understand and empathise with the poor logic and misguided fury which prompted these Islamist extremists to take to the streets with intent to offend. Finally, I believe that we must above all realise and actively reinforce the undeniable fact that this protest has no firm basis in Islam and is the result of jingoistic generalisations made by hateful fringe-groups.

Understand the protesters? Surely there's no possible justification for their actions? Surely these people are monsters? Yes, quite. It may be impossible to justify the protests but we must must take the time to consider and understand the motives that drove them, otherwise we risk becoming as ignorant and bigoted as the protesters themselves and... well I'll talk about that part later. Just like every murder, every drug addiction, every theft, every crime or wrongdoing ever to take place, these protests have motive; they have their own driving force and their own brand of insane logic. This insane logic is similar to what drives the BNP and the EDL, as well as the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Express. This insane logic, especially when furiously and clumsily pointed out by me on Thursday, is offensive and unpleasant in the most disgusting and contemptible way possible. It is the insane logic of generalisation.

Let me explain: the England Defence League (a violent and despicable far right protest group) is driven by generalisation in that they believe that ALL Moslems share the beliefs of the extreme factions in their number. They believe that it is Islam that is responsible for 9/11 and 7/7 and the Madrid bomb attacks and the deaths of British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; they think that all Moslems are to be held entirely responsible for these inhumane and violent attacks and they could not be more wrong. Similarly (unfortunately this is the most difficult part to explain to people, so please approach with an open mind) these right-wing Moslem extremists are driven by the belief that the entirety of the British and American military coalition is responsible for the disgusting and unjustifiable actions whereby a small number of coalition soldiers (perhaps members of Islamophobic groups such as the EDL) tortured and killed innocent civilians in Afghanistan. This torture, I believe (bracing myself for the flurry of hate-mail and death threats that so naturally flow from my “unorthodox” views) is no less despicable than the 7/7 attacks and, as with racist British groups and their treatment of 7/7 and 9/11, has been used as a generalisation for all British troops. And so we return to the protests of Remembrance day, which were undeniably flawed in their reasoning, but no more wrong nor illegal than protests by the EDL and the BNP. Consider that when you hear about such protests, and I pray you view the EDL with as much contempt as you do the extremists, because they deserve it just as much.

Speaking of the EDL, a much-ignored facet of the story was the EDL presence at the scene. “What?” I hear you say, “the EDL weren't mentioned in the news story I read!” But the EDL were there in number, pushing their own diabolical brand of insufferable bigotry. It just tends to be neglected by the tabloids because, y'know, it wouldn't make as good a story that Britons, good old white Christian-and-atheist Britons, were being to vile as to sully the memory of our brave soldiers. They were there, as they always seem to be, goading and baiting the Islamists, being just as disrespectful -maybe more disrespectful- to the memories of the dead.

I suppose that leads me to a rather abrupt conclusion, as I feel I have nothing much more to say. Except maybe this: next time this happens, as I fear it may, don't just post “What those Islam extremists did was sickening” and have done with it. Remember the EDL, and include them in your Facebook bile, because I bet they'll have been there too, stirring and spitting and defiling the memories of those who gave their lives for your freedom.