PM David Cameron reportedly described an unspecified number of Muslim groups in the UK as “radicalised but non-violent” and is critical of engagement with these non-violent groups.

On 9 April 2009, Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, met Cameron and George Osborne in London “to urge HMG [under possible future Conservative leadership] to engage more on Pakistan”.

Holbrooke pressed Cameron to help combat terrorism by capitalising on the “striking connections” between the large Pakistani community in the UK and “its home country”.

“Cameron noted that most of the approximately 1 million UK citizens of Pakistani origin (mostly Punjabis and Kashmiris) living in the UK were not pro-Taliban but had been radicalised by the Iraq war and were militant over Kashmir. The Conservative party leader agreed that HMG ‘must get UK-Pakistan relations right’ and stressed the Conservatives’ commitment to this goal should they assume power.”

Cameron went on to criticise Labour’s dealing with groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Council of Britain. “On the radicalisation of British Pakistanis, Cameron said the UK had ‘gotten it wrong domestically’ … He argued that PM [Gordon] Brown’s policy had been too willing to engage with radicalised but non-violent Muslim groups … ‘We let in some crazies,’ Cameron said, ‘and didn’t wake up soon enough.’”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/30/david-cameron-radicalised-muslims

The Catholic Heralds leading article on the funding of the Papal Visit to Britain…

This newspaper believes that a state visit will be very difficult to arrange successfully, and not just because the Foreign Office has compromised its professional standards. The event has become a political football: in the second leaders’ debate, Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg all welcomed it but expressed disagreement with Catholic teaching. Moreover, the fact that this would be the first state visit to Britain by a Pope – John Paul II made a purely pastoral visit in 1982 – means that the taxpayer will foot much of the bill. Secularists, backed by the media, can therefore complain that their money is being used to celebrate an organisation they loathe (though Catholics also pay taxes). Their plans to disrupt the occasion are already advanced.

There is one relatively simple route out of this minefield, and that is to make the Pope’s visit a pastoral rather than a state one. After all, its main focus – the beatification of John Henry Newman – is primarily a Catholic event; and one could argue that, by offering his pastoral guidance to an embattled Church, the Holy Father will achieve far more than by taking part in a state-funded public relations exercise. We hope it is not too late for the organisers of the visit to consider a radically different course of action better suited to these disturbing times.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/opinion/o0000366.shtml

The British Humanist Association is a founding member of the Protest the Pope campaign which is organising events this year to protest the state visit.

The Prime Minister said that he had personal experience of a family member who had suffered near the end of their life.

However, he insisted that he still believed it was right to give better palliative care rather than help the terminally ill to end their lives.

Mrs Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis, recently won a landmark legal victory which forced the Director of Public Prosecutions to make explicit the circumstances in which relatives would be prosecuted for assisting the suicide of a loved one.

During a questions and answer session in Leeds, where Mr Brown is campaigning ahead of the general election, she challenged the Prime Minister to go further and actually change the law.

Mr Brown praised Mrs Purdy’s bravery, adding that he understood “the difficulties of families that are placed in this most impossible of positions when people are suffering and they want to do something”.

But, he added: “I have written about this and I have thought about it deeply, and I know that you will probably disagree with me, but I personally think that our duty is to alleviate pain and suffering as much as possible.

“I know this from my own experience, my own family’s experience [we] should be able to give the palliative care and relieve the suffering.”

Mr Brown added that he did not want sick people who were in pain to feel like they had an “obligation” to asked for help to end their lives because “they feel like they are causing trouble to their relatives.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7591263/General-Election-2010-Gordon-Brown-says-no-to-assisted-dying-law.html

The British Humanist Association campaigns for the legalisation of assisted dying for the terminally ill.

Mr Brown’s warning comes a day before Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, will set out final guidelines on assisted suicide. He is expected to make it clear that those who help others end their lives are unlikely to face court action if they acted out of compassion. The guidelines, which follow a series of high-profile court cases, are seen by many as effectively decriminalising assisted suicide by the back door.

Mr Brown says that while Mr Starmer should be free to clarify the legal guidelines on assisted suicide, the law itself should not be altered by Parliament.

Creating a legal “right” to die, no matter what safeguards were in place, would put unacceptable pressure on the sick and old, Mr Brown claims.

“Let us be clear: death as an option and an entitlement, via whatever bureaucratic processes a change in the law on assisted suicide might devise, would fundamentally change the way we think about death,” he says.

“The risk of pressures – however subtle – on the frail and the vulnerable, who may for example feel their existences burdensome to others, cannot ever be entirely excluded.”

Two attempts to legalise assisted suicide have failed in the House of Lords in recent years. In his article, Mr Brown suggested that, rather than heralding a change in the law, Mr Starmer’s guidance could weaken the case for new attempts to legalise assisted suicide.

Story Continues: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7304653/Debbie-Purdy-criticises-Gordon-Brown-over-assisted-suicide.html

Gordon Brown invited the Pontiff, but is understood to have made clear that the Government will not cover all the costs.

“We are now in a situation where we don’t know who’s paying for it,” says an official of the Roman Catholic church. “It’s not in the Government Budget and is probably going to cost the Church about £3million to £6million.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7138643/Gordon-Browns-invite-to-Pope-Benedict-XVI-leaves-Church-anxious-about-costs.html

George Pitcher, the Telegraph’s journalist/vicar, rambles about marriage and suggests the government has tried to “discriminate against” married couples in recent years. He goes on to regale us with an interesting tidbit from a Downing Street soirée.

Just before Christmas, I went to a reception at Number 10, hosted by the Prime Minister to “celebrate Christianity”. Between carols from a male-voice ensemble called All The King’s Men, one of whom apparently writes speeches for the PM, Brown addressed his guests.

I think he told us, rather startlingly, that he doesn’t “subscribe to the naked society”, though I may have misheard him. He certainly said that he didn’t subscribe to the secular society, that he believed passionately in the family and that he thought faith gave our society its moral fibre.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/georgepitcher/6898649/Ed-Balls-has-seen-the-light-on-marriage.html