The Conservative Friends of Bangladesh (CFOB) was established at last year’s Conservative Party Conference. At a well-attended launch event organised by Anne Main MP (pictured above with the former Bangladeshi High Commissioner), the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague MP welcomed the creation of the group and supported its aims to both build better relationships with the Bangladeshi people here in the United Kingdom, and foster a greater understanding about the country of Bangladesh.

There are over half a million British Bangladeshis. Traditionally, Labour has been the political party of choice within the community. CFOB immediately recognised this and set about challenging that attitude. Bangladeshis are entrepreneurial, hard-working and family-oriented people and hence we believed that they should instinctively feel at home in the Conservative Party. Our growing membership since the launch is evidence that we were right. Up and down the country there are ‘key marginal’ constituencies where significant Bangladeshi communities live. CFOB has worked hard to make contacts and listen to the concerns of those communities. One example was the widespread concern about climate change. Bangladesh has more to fear from global warming and consequent rising sea levels than most. Some estimates suggest that over 15% of the country will be engulfed by the Bay of Bengal by the turn of the next century. That would see a forced migration of some 17 million people. We have found that the Conservative Party’s recent emphasis on developing policies that would limit Man’s contribution to that potential natural disaster has been very much welcomed by the Bangladeshi community. By actively listening to such concerns, CFOB has not only successfully spread our fresh political message to Bangladeshi communities that have not previously considered voting Conservative, it has also helped to improve broader community relations at a time when the tolerant British society that we all cherish is under pressure from Islamic extremists. Interestingly, throughout the last year feedback from the Bangladeshis we have contacted has all been very positive.

CFOB has also been keen to encourage a stable and prosperous Bangladesh. It actively supports the principle of secular democracy enshrined within the Bangladeshi Constitution drawn up in 1971. Furthermore, it retains an independent voice in Bangladeshi affairs, as it has no affiliation with any Bangladeshi parties. Evidence of this active support by the CFOB for Bangladeshi democracy was demonstrated at the beginning of this year by a group trip to Bangladesh headed by our Chairman, Anne Main MP. It had been arranged to assess the political situation which had then become very unsettled. CFOB believes that an orderly and violence-free general election held at the earliest opportunity would be in the best interests of all Bangladeshis. For Bangladesh to continue enjoying the economic growth it has seen over the last 15 years, it desperately needs the relative political stability it had experienced until the recent unrest began. Since its inception, CFOB has provided much support to all interested parties in Bangladesh, and has plans to further strengthen ties with the country. Meetings have been held with leaders of all the major political parties and a further group trip to the country is planned for later this year.

In just our first year, CFOB has increased its membership base within British Bangladeshi communities, actively supported Parliamentary candidates throughout the country and forged strong links with Bangladesh. We have every intention of making our second year just as successful for we believe that the Conservative Party has plenty to offer the British Bangladeshi Community.

(this article was also posted here on Conservative Home)

To be honest, I have never been tempted to pick up a Salman Rushdie book. Friends of mine who have dared, have reported that it was a soporific experience. Despite this, I would willingly fight, both in word and by action, to defend the right of Sir Salman, and other authors, to express themselves freely. Furthermore, I would defend the right of the elected government of this country to bestow any honour it chose to award to whomever it deemed worthy, however misguided I felt the decision appeared to be.

The recent events surrounding Mr Rushdie’s proposed knighthood are concerning. Burning effigies of the Queen and British flags in Pakistan, along with calls from Pakistani politicians to remove the honour, should be firmly resisted. The right of freedom of expression should be defended and shown to be a non-negotiable part of a successful democratic country. To not do so would be cowardly.

If society believes in the principle of the freedom of expression, it must apply it to all authors, irrespective of the content of their books. If an author offends a particular group, be it one based on faith or political persuasion, he should be openly challenged. Indeed, society should tolerate the freedom to criticise other beliefs and thoughts. To my mind, any religion or political philosophy is the stronger for having undergone rigorous challenge and assessment. Those followers who call for censorship appear weaker. Religions that need such protection (and I am aware of none) will probably have a short history. Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to name but a few, are all capable of withstanding continual re-evaluation. That is one of the reasons they have retained support across many centuries. Religious observance and the principle of the freedom of expression can, and should, co-exist happily in our society.

I am not too proud to say that a lot of it went over my head but some of the things they mentioned were the things I think about all the time, mainly mass immigration, crime and increased taxes. I paid my £25 there and then -Simone Clarke

The furore surrounding the revelation that a leading dancer with the English National Ballet (ENB) is a British National Party (BNP) member has been interesting to follow for two reasons. Firstly, the media response, particularly from the Guardian (who broke the story), has been very critical, implying that being a ballerina is not consistent with having far-right political views. Secondly, the calls for her to be removed from the cast of the up-coming ENB production of Giselle at the London Coliseum, appear to suggest that freedom of expression is fine for the stage but not when it comes to political views, however extreme.

I think the problem for the media, and the wider public as a whole, has been that Simone Clarke is not someone who people would expect to be publicly supporting the BNP. Her profession and appearance serve as uncomfortable reminders of how prejudice can transcend all social groups. It is much easier for all of us to presume that BNP supporters are working class, white men with bull-dog tattoos on their arms. The image of a delicate and beautiful ballerina from Belgravia holding such political views is difficult to accept.

Because of Ms Clarke’s support for the BNP there have been calls for her to be sacked from the ENB. This I cannot support. I despise all that the BNP stands for, its policies, its image and its distorted view of the Britain in which I live. The difficulty is, however, the Britain I cherish (and would determinedly defend) is based firmly upon the principles of an individual’s right to freedom of expression and speech. It is those very freedoms that allow us to witness Ms Clarke dance beautifully. The same principles underpin our free media which allowed the Guardian to publish their story in the first place. Furthermore, I can write these comments without fear of attack or state censorship because British law on the basis of those principles defends that right. Simply because she holds abhorrent views is no reason to sack and muzzle Ms Clarke. To do so gives her, and her ilk, the very publicity they crave. More effective in the longer term would be to engage Ms Clarke in public discussion, so as to highlight to the wider electorate how ignorant and ill-conceived the policies she supports really are. Public humiliation is always more powerful than censorship.

I have been invited to attend this event on the last weekend in November. The stated aims of the event listed below have my full support:

Any attempt to improve relations, integration and understanding of all faiths should be supported. Full integration and tolerance within a secular society can only been achieved through the direct experience of others from a different creed.

A column in the opinion section of today’s Telegraph has caught my eye.

The alternative to secular multi-culturalism is not an enforced integration, such as we see in France. What is required is a proper and mutually respectful co-operation between religious faith and public authorities.

Enforced integration? At what point were the children concerned given a choice of faith. Religions themselves appear, to varying degrees, to rely upon a degree of enforcement from an early age. I believe that religious belief is stronger if based upon practice not enforcement (or indoctrination). I believe it would be better for all religions (and society as a whole) to have followers who have made an informed choice to follow a particular faith. I do not feel it is the role of the state to fund religious enrolment programmes.

Where I do agree with the Archbishop is his assertion that there is a ‘spiritual vacuum’ within society. Where I don’t agree with him is in believing that separating children on the basis of an acquired faith improves that position. As I have stated previously, I want all people of all faiths to be at peace with each other in this country. All faiths have a responsibility to preach tolerance. The government of this country has a responsibility to protect and nurture British society. An integral part of that responsibility is to actively encourage integration. I fail to see how single faith schools fit into that endeavour.