Last year, the Prime Ministers of Spain and Turkey called for an Alliance of Civilisations to counter the increasing hostility between Islam and the West. But is such an alliance possible? Surely the Danish cartoon affair will have dashed any such hopes. On what common ground could an alliance possibly be based? For the Islamists, the only basis would be recognition of the supremacy of Islam and its laws. This is what lies behind their calls for "respect" for Islam. But to many westerners such a recognition would be nothing short of renunciation of our highest ideals and hard-won freedoms, amounting to surrender to a medieval philosophy that has no place in the modern world. No doubt many Muslims found the Danish cartoons offensive, but the massive over-reaction has been purely political, orchestrated at the highest level within the Islamic world. (see p 5). Most Europeans would reply that burning embassies in response to an independent publication of cartoons was even more offensive. This is not a clash of civilisations but a clash of values.

Political Islam poses a major threat to the very basis of European civilisation, a fact apparently lost on most European intellectuals. With a few notable exceptions the response from both politicians and the media to the cartoons affair has been one of cringing apology. Yet demonstrators calling for "death to the cartoonists" outside the Danish embassy in London were protected by the police. Apparently incitement to murder is acceptable, provided your reasons are theologically sound.

While the world has been focused on 9/11 and the "war on terror", the increasing influence of Islamic extremism among Europe's Muslims has been allowed to grow largely unchecked by governments or police. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke of the need for mutual respect. But while we ought to respect the right of others to hold and express opinions contrary to our own, we would certainly draw the line at respecting laws that discriminate against women, non-believers, or followers of a different religion. Nor can we accept the institution of a parallel legal system for a minority within our countries, despite calls from some European Muslims for Shari'a law.

Europe has made great progress since the Second World War in assimilating immigrants from a variety of backgrounds. Racism, once widespread in Europe, is now, thankfully, greatly diminished. But ghettos still exist and European governments have been slow to recognise the danger of allowing this fragmentation of society to develop. Coming to terms with Europe's multi-ethnic reality is a work in progress.

As Amir Taheri the noted Iranian writer has pointed out, "Islamism is a political movement masquerading as a religion". The Islamists in Europe have become masters at the blame game. They have manufactured the myth of "Islamophobia", creating a false association between racism and fear of Islamic extremism. A phobia is an irrational fear, but our mistrust of Islamic extremism is perfectly rational, and criticism of Islam is perfectly legitimate. But Europe's intellectual elite, fearful of being tainted by any suspicion of racism or of association with the extreme right, have succumbed.

Europeans must understand that our values are now under serious attack. A misplaced trust in multiculturalism, moral relativism and political correctness have so far allowed this attack to go unchallenged. Europe must now begin to explain and defend its values.

Making an Impact

How was it possible for the most technologically and economically advanced society on earth to have fallen so comprehensively under the sway of Christian fundamentalism? How was it possible for the ideas of the Enlightenment and of America's own founding fathers to have been so comprehensively brushed aside? How did this great nation, standard bearer and champion of democracy, descend into idiocracy? Reportedly, 14% of Americans are non-believers. Americans give $80 billion a year to religious organisations. Where are the $11 billion that pro-rata the non-believers should be contributing to secular causes? Sadly, it seems that part of the problem may lie in the way that Humanism and Secularism in America are organised. Where the churches have cooperated on social issues they have been extraordinarily successful, creating a common agenda and hammering it home. Yet to an outside observer American Humanism often seems fragmented, lacking a common agenda and beset with rivalries, a house divided against itself. Surely we need to recognise that the problems we face are too great for any one organisation to tackle alone. United we might stand, but divided we shall assuredly fall.

A word of farewell

This is my last message to you as president of IHEU. My three-year term comes to an end in April and I shall not be standing again. During this time I have tried to lead IHEU into taking a more pro-active role in campaigning for social justice, and I believe that our new structure will provide the framework for greater success in the future. Although I shall be relinquishing the presidency I don't intend to quietly disappear but will continue to work for the cause of international Humanism for as long as my strength may hold. For me there is no greater cause and no higher purpose.

What matters in the end, what really counts, is our commitment to others. And change only ever comes about through individual effort. Every individual can make a difference. It is the responsibility of every one of us who cares about reason, about the poor and oppressed, and about the future of the planet, to do what we can.

Thank you all for the support you have given me over the past three years and for the support I know you will continue to give to international Humanism and to IHEU in the future.

Roy Brown
IHEU President