Anti-Semitism in Europe

37% of British people think anti-Semitism has worsened in the last ten years. A recent poll has discovered that 32% of the population think Jews always defend Israel, even when it has done wrong, and 15% think they talk too much about the Holocaust. However 89% believe Israel has a right to exist. Another British poll found that 21% think Jews have too much power in the business and financial worlds, 15% think they have too much influence in global affairs and 12% that they have too much power over the global media.

Shmuley Boteach, a prominent US rabbi who ministered at Oxford University, said in November 2015 that the “UK is known as a country that is hostile to Israel.” He added: “British academics are arguably the most virulently anti-Israel group in Europe today. It’s quite widespread throughout British academia. They come out constantly with these boycotts.”
The (Jewish) Community Security Trust reported that anti-Semitic incidents in the UK rose by 53% in the first half of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. The Metropolitan Police reported that there had been a 61% increase in anti-Semitic attacks in 2015. These figures may to some extent be due to more reporting by fearful Jewish victims. John Mann MP commented: “I am confident that the UK is leading the world in efforts to combat antisemitism. However our parliamentary visits to France, Germany, Ireland and Holland last year gave serious cause for concern about European antisemitism. The meetings we had in Paris were particularly worrying, as in some cases members of the community feared for their lives.”
Dr Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress said in October 2015 “Over the past few years, tens of thousands of Jews have left [the EU] to seek a safer home elsewhere, and today, one-third of Europe’s nearly 2.5 million Jews are considering emigration.” The EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency reported that 76% of Jewish respondents said that anti-Semitism had risen since 2009.

The President of the World Jewish Congress said recently that anti-Semitism in Europe is as bad as it was in the 1930s and that “European Jews live in fear.” However Jonathan Arkush, Vice President of The Board of Deputies of British Jews, says it is different from the 1930s when Nazis were stirring up anti-Semitism whereas “Today, anti-Semitism is strongly opposed and condemned by governments across Europe.”

Mark Gardner, director of communications at the Community Security Trust, which advises synagogues and Jewish schools, said: “The situation today is very different, but the anxiety felt by many European Jews about antisemitism and jihadist terrorism is real and justified.”

One evidence of the positive attitudes of European governments is the offer from the Spanish government that descendants of the Sephardic Jewish community which was expelled from Spain in 1492 would be granted legal rights to apply for Spanish citizenship. The government stated: “This law acts as a [historic] recognition of the pain and the damage that was suffered in Spain by the Jews after everything they had contributed here.”

ISIS threats

In October 2015 ISIS produced a video in Hebrew for the first time in which a masked member said: “not one Jew will remain in Jerusalem … Do what you want in the meantime, but then we will make you pay ten times over … “look what happens to you after a number of stabbing and car attacks from our brothers in Palestine. You’ve been turned on your head,” he said, using the Hebrew slang for losing control. You’re afraid of every speeding driver and every person holding something in their hand … This is not just talk, this will hit you from every direction, north and south, and our account with you grows daily.”

The New Anti-Semitism

Many commentators believe that anti-Semitism has changed. Irwin Cotler was Member of Parliament in Canada from 1999 to 2015. He was also Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada also Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights. He speaks of the UN clearly condemning Israel far more than any other country in the world, including those guilty of great crimes against humanity. He wrote:

Globally, we are witnessing a new, sophisticated, virulent, and even lethal anti-Semitism, reminiscent of the atmospherics of the 1930s, and without parallel or precedent since the end of the Second World War … the new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the international community, with the state of Israel as the targeted collective Jew among the nations ….
The laundering of anti-Semitism under the protective cover of the UN found dramatic expression in December, when the General Assembly — in yet another annual discriminatory ritual — adopted 20 resolutions of condemnation against Israel, and only four against the rest of the world combined.

And the laundering of anti-Semitism through the culture of human rights occurs each time the UN Human Rights Council singles out Israel for discriminatory treatment. This singling-out is starkly illustrated by the juxtaposition of the Council’s permanent agenda item 7 —“violations by Israel of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories” — and permanent agenda item 8: “human rights violations in the rest of the world.” …..

The UN Human Rights Council, [has condemned] one member state – Israel – in 80% of its twenty-five country-specific resolutions, while the major human rights violators of our time enjoyed exculpatory immunity. Indeed, five special sessions, two fact-finding missions, and a high level commission of inquiry have been devoted to a single purpose: the singling-out of Israel.

Cotler lists nine aspects of the New Anti-Semitism:

1. Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
2. Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, de-legitimisation of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world’s evils.
3. Ideological antisemitism: ‘Nazifying’ Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
4. Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian “replacement” theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
5. Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in ‘fashionable’ salon intellectuals
6. Economic antisemitism: BDS [boycott] movements and the extra-territorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
7. Holocaust denial
8. Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
9. International legal discrimination (“Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena”): Differential and discriminatory treatment towards Israel in the international arena.

Others stress that the old form of anti-Semitism is very much alive and well in the world. Some dispute that there is a new form of anti-Semitism but it is clear that there is a growing antagonism towards Israel (some of it created by Israel’s failings) and that the UN is comparatively unjust in its treatment of Israel.

The Vatican document on relations between Catholics and Jews

The Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews has published a paper entitled: “The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable.” There are many good statements in this document. One thing is clear: the Catholic Church is strongly against anti-Semitism and also against “Replacement Theology” – the idea that the church has replaced the Jewish people because God has no continuing purpose for them. However I am profoundly disturbed by some of the statements it makes.

The document states that Jews are our “elder brothers” and we can’t understand the teaching of Jesus or the disciples without understanding its Jewish context. “Given Jesus’ Jewish origins, coming to terms with Judaism in one way or another is indispensable for Christians” (para 14). “Jews and Christians have the same mother and can be seen, as it were, as two siblings who – as is the normal course of events for siblings – have developed in different directions” (para 15). It goes on to disagree with Replacement Theology (also known as Supersessionism, i.e. the idea that the church has superseded and replaced the Jewish community) (para 17).

So, in these times of growing anti-Semitism it is good to have the Roman Catholic Church speaking very positively about the Jewish community.

However, I have to say that I find the Vatican document disturbing in certain aspects about salvation for Jewish people. It is important to say that it makes some statements I wholeheartedly agree with, e.g. “while it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah…” (para 13). “The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith … Jesus Christ is the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is no “other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12) (para 35).

My problem is that the document goes on to say: “From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God … That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery” (para 36).

It also states: “God revealed himself in his Word, so that it may be understood by humanity in actual historical situations. … For Jews this Word can be learned through the Torah [the Law] and the traditions based on it. The Torah is the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with God. Whoever observes the Torah has life in its fullness … By observing the Torah the Jew receives a share in communion with God. In this regard, Pope Francis has stated: “…. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh in the world; for Jews the Word of God is present above all in the Torah. Both faith traditions find their foundation in the One God, the God of the Covenant, who reveals himself through his Word. In seeking a right attitude towards God, Christians turn to Christ as the fount of new life, and Jews to the teaching of the Torah” (para 24).

It continues: “Judaism and the Christian faith as seen in the New Testament are two ways by which God’s people can make the Sacred Scriptures of Israel their own. The Scriptures which Christians call the Old Testament is open therefore to both ways. A response to God’s word of salvation that accords with one or the other tradition can thus open up access to God … Therefore there are not two paths to salvation according to the expression “Jews hold to the Torah, Christians hold to Christ” (para 25).

I have serious difficulties with the statements in paras 24, 25 and 36. The only way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile is through faith in Christ. The document does not refer to John 14: 6 where Jesus says: “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Nor does it refer to 1 Jn 2:23 “No one who denies the Son has the Father” or 1 Jn 5:11-12 “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” I find it disturbing that the document doesn’t refer to these passages

Jewish people cannot be saved through the Torah. I have no problems with Jewish Christians (who call themselves Messianic Believers) celebrating their Jewish heritage, including festivals, as part of their commitment to Christ. But if they don’t have a faith commitment to Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMashiach in Hebrew) they do not have eternal life.

The Vatican document goes on to say that in view of its statements in paras 24, 25 and 36: “The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah [Holocaust]” (para 40).

I’d be the first to agree that because of the dreadful way the church has treated the Jewish people in the past we have to be very sensitive indeed about Jewish evangelism – we are treading on egg shells. But as someone whom God called to head up a mission to Jewish people, I am bound to say I don’t think God agrees with the statements in paras 24, 25 and 36.

So, whereas I’m very pleased by much of what the Vatican document says and its clear witness against anti-Semitism, I think it is also a warning to those of us who are positive towards the Jewish people and believe God has a purpose for them that we must be careful not to compromise the uniqueness of Christ as the only saviour. We must combat anti-Semitism but we must not compromise the Gospel.

Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism September 2006

I will end this paper by pointing out another danger in combatting Anti-Semitism. The All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism stated in it 2006 report: “Broadly, it is our view that any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him is antisemitic. This reflects the definition of harassment under the Race Relations Act 1976. This definition can be applied to individuals and to the Jewish community as a whole” (para 4).

Obviously I agree we must combat anti-Semitism but the problem is that Jewish people can easily take offence at Christians who are sensitively proclaiming the Gospel and pointing out that Jesus is the Messiah and only way of salvation. Does this behaviour contravene the Race Relations Act? I fear it will eventually be seen to do so, even if it is not so regarded at present.

Conclusion

Anti-Semitism is demonic and we must strongly oppose it. But the worst form of Anti-Semitism is to deny Jewish people the Gospel.

It is obscene that 62 of the world’s richest people own as much as the poorest half of humanity combined, according to Oxfam. So, as the head of Oxfam said, one bus load of people have as much money as the poorest 3.6 billion people.

The wealth of the poorest half of the world’s people has fallen by $1 trillion since 2010 whilst the wealth of the richest bus load has increased by half a trillion dollars.

It is true that some of the bus load, such as Bill Gates, may be very generous, but many of them concentrate on avoiding tax by using tax havens. So some pay only 2-3% in tax.

Maybe the selfish rich should reflect on the eternal destination of the rich man who ignored poor Lazarus in Jesus’ story.

In a recent interview Dawkins said: “Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world.” He added “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.” http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.says.christianity.is.worlds.best.defence.against.radical.islam/76416.htm

It is worth remembering that Dawkins experienced sexual abuse at his Christian school. However he commented: “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I have read through the lengthy documents outlining the British Governments Counter Extremism Policy and related publications. Clearly there is a need for such a policy in view of the alarming number of people who have been radicalised by Islamic extremists in this country. Clearly the government has good intentions. But it is not its motives which are the concern. Rather it is the fact that it is trespassing into areas in which it is ignorant, such as theology. It is a cause of concern that already the government’s inspectors and other representatives have shown a certain amount of serious incompetence in this area. Then there is the danger of drift whereby well-intentioned legislation could drift into an abuse of people’s (especially religious people’s) human rights and freedom of speech.

The government want to scrap the Human Rights Act of the European Convention on Human Rights. This convention, has nothing to do with the European Union, but membership is a condition of being in the EU. It protects numerous rights including right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of assembly and association. The government want to replace it with our own British Bill of Rights so that they have ultimate control of decisions.

Government reassurances

The government has published documents about its counter extremism policy which contain numerous reassuring statements. In its Counter-Extremism Strategy document it states: “All people living in Britain are free to practise a faith or to decide not to follow any faith at all” (para 2). “It is not government’s role to regulate faith leaders, but government does have a responsibility to ensure that those working in the public sector are suitably trained. The Government will therefore work in partnership with faith groups to review the training provided to those who work as faith leaders in public institutions” (para 87). “The powers will not be able to be used against privately held views or people expressing their religious beliefs. They will not curtail the democratic right to protest nor will they close down debate or limit free speech: these are rights we will always protect” (para 113).

In its Prevent Strategy document it states: “The ideology of extremism and terrorism is the problem; legitimate religious belief emphatically is not” (Foreword). “We remain absolutely committed to protecting freedom of speech in this country” (para 3:10). Prevent “must not seem to pass judgment on faith or to suggest only a particular kind of faith is appropriate or acceptable” (para 3:26). “The holding of extremist views is protected by Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights and cannot be addressed through criminal law” (para 6:18). This latter quotation is not too reassuring however in that, as we have noted, the government is seeking to scrap the Human Rights Act of the European Convention on Human Rights. “It must not appear to pass judgment on faith in general or to suggest only a particular kind of faith is appropriate or acceptable” (para 8:1). It refers to “the difficulty of the Government taking a position on matters of theology” (para 8:36). It refers to the idea “that Government is taking upon itself the role of theological arbiter” as a misconception. It adds: “We will not want to engage in matters of theology but we recognise the imperative for theologians, academics and communities to do so. We will support their efforts by providing information on the texts which are being used to radicalise people in this country; we want to ensure that counter-narrative work is widely circulated and in a form that reaches as many people as possible” (para 8:56).

Weaknesses in the government’s position

We should take these reassurances seriously and avoid cynicism and paranoia. However we should also avoid naivety. A lot depends on how the people who activate the policy (OFSTED, police, etc) understand the policy and define extremism. We should also take seriously the growing ignorance of the Christian faith in society which could lead to fundamental beliefs coming to be regarded as extreme. In addition, whereas we shouldn’t “see demons everywhere” we would be naïve if we ignore the satanic opposition to the Christian faith. Jesus recognised this opposition and so should we. The devil won’t miss a trick in opposing the Gospel. What a great opportunity he has to use the necessary policy of counteracting actual or potential violent extremism to undermine the truth that Jesus is the only way of salvation and other religions are mistaken. Given human failings, this is no unrealistic threat.

I have been fair in quoting the government’s reassurances at some length. But there are other statements which cause concern. A lot depends on the definitions of certain key words. The Counter-Extremism Strategy document states: “there are concerns that some supplementary schools may be teaching children views which run contrary to our shared values, encouraging hatred of other religions” (para 73). But what is hatred of other religions. If a Christian believes other religions are false and influenced by satanic deceit is that hatred of other religions? Besides it is one thing to “hate” what another person believes and quite another to hate the person themselves. A Christian may legitimately hate beliefs that undermine the Christian Gospel and hinder people coming to eternal salvation. But to hate the person who holds those beliefs is quite wrong. It is hatred of people which matters not hatred of beliefs. Here we see the government, in its ignorance, publishing confused statements.

Having said that, I add that a Christian must be careful to avoid unnecessary offence in how he speaks of such differences of belief. The Counter-Extremism Strategy document refers to a video which “shows a speaker at an anti-Muslim rally in Newcastle describing Islam as a ‘disgusting, backward, savage, barbarian, supremacist ideology masquerading as a religion’” (para 11). That sort of grossly offensive terminology should be avoided.

The document continues: “In assessing drivers of and pathways to radicalisation, the line between extremism and terrorism is often blurred. Terrorist groups of all kinds very often draw upon ideologies which have been
developed, disseminated and popularised by extremist organisations that appear to be non-violent (such as groups which neither use violence nor specifically and openly endorse its use by others)” (para 5:34). In July 2015 David Cameron made a speech about countering extremism is which he said: “As we counter this ideology, a key part of our strategy must be to tackle both parts of the creed – the non-violent and violent. This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence – but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative.” Yes, but could that be understood (or become understood) to include Christianity which does not teach violence but regards other religions to be false and influenced by satanic deceit?

Brendan O’Neill, who is an atheist, described David Cameron’s comments that the Government will “tackle” all those who “may not advocate violence” but who do promote “other parts of the extremist narrative” as a “step too far.” He said that non-violent extremism could even cover Christians who do not support same-sex marriage, because this could be seen as not having “respect for minorities”. He concluded: “What May and Cameron view as the pesky distinction between action and speech, between violent and non-violent extremism, is actually the foundation stone of all free, enlightened societies: we police criminal behaviour, but not thoughts, ideas, words.”

The Prevent Strategy document quotes the Public Order Act 1986 which “makes it an offence, amongst other things, to say or do something or to possess or display written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting and which is intended to stir up racial hatred or make it likely that racial hatred will be stirred up.” It also quotes the Public Order Act 1986 (amended in 2006 and 2008) which “makes it an offence to use threatening words or behaviour, or to display any written material which is threatening, if it is intended to encourage religious hatred ….” In the past such legislation would not have seemed relevant to orthodox Christianity. Admittedly both quotations refer to the intention to stir up racial or religious hatred. But experience teaches that such intention can easily be assumed (for example, it tends to be assumed that holding traditional views of sexuality is to be antagonistic to homosexuals). I certainly don’t favour “roasting people over Hell” but could a sensitive and compassionate reference to the reality of judgment and hell come to be regarded as “threatening”?

The document continues that independent schools must “promote tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions” (para 10:14). It continues: “There is further evidence that some schools – and some supplementary schools – have used teaching materials which may encourage intolerance” (para 10:44). But what is the definition of tolerance and harmony? Does it require a view that all religions are legitimate ways to God – a view I believe to be incompatible with Christianity?

In 2015 it was revealed that the government intended to “require all faiths to maintain a national register of faith leaders” and that the Government would “set out the minimum level for training and checks” before faith leaders could go on the register. Haras Rafiq, director of the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam, described the proposal as “Orwellian and totalitarian.” Fortunately, the government appears to have gone back on this policy. However it shows the extremes to which the government was prepared to go.

Jonathan Dimbleby gave the 2015 Prix Italia lecture in Turin in September. He criticised the Public Order Act which criminalised using threatening or abusive language with the intention of causing “alarm or distress” or inciting “hatred.” He pointed out the crucial distinction between causing “distress” which may be a crime and causing “offence” which may not. He commented: “The distinction is not easy for the layman to define, and the two are only too easy to elide.”

He went on to quote Salman Rushdie as saying the law meant that, instead of being supported over The Satanic Verses he would have been accused of “insulting an ethnic and cultural minority.” He added: “We are living in the darkest time I have ever known.”

Dimbleby went on to express dismay that the Home Secretary had been considering “pre-transmission regulatory regime” for radio and television which he believed would muzzle them in the hope of stamping out extremism.

Whilst avoiding paranoia these facts are a cause of real concern. At the very least, the questions I have raised need to be borne in mind because. As I said, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

It was interesting to read a recent article by Sandi Dunn who claimed she was radicalised at her Catholic school. She quoted Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of Ofsted, who said his inspectors have found “appalling misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semite teaching material” in textbooks being used by unqualified teachers in private schools. Now I’m certainly against misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic attitudes. But how does OFSTED define them? Do they regard someone who opposes the appointment of women priests misogynistic? Do they regard someone upholding traditional views of sexuality homophobic (which is normally defined as against homosexuals themselves)? If so, they are mistaken. Such views can be held without any wrong attitudes to people.

Dunn went on the say that the school’s teaching about Hell meant she was radicalised. She added: “Abrahamic faiths in particular hold that women are inferior, teach homophobia, and often discourage marrying out of the community or ‘mixing’ in their most conservative forms. This anti-‘mixing’ ideology has to be seen for what it is: institutional racism.” That sweeping statement is based upon ignorance and prejudice. True Christianity does not teach women are inferior or legitimise antagonism to homosexuals or discourage mixing with non-Christians. The issue of a committed Christian marrying a non-Christian is a more complex issue. It means the couple cannot share in the most fundamental aspects of the life of the Christian partner, which is not good for the marriage.

Dunn goes on to say that she aims to petition UNICEF: “for a rethink of their Convention of the Rights of the Child (ratified by 194 countries). My request will be that all children, up to the age of 18, should have the right not to be given religious instruction under any guise, including in the home. The indoctrination of young minds, driven by the fear of Hell, is something that has to be cut off at the source if we want to avoid further radicalisation. Religious teaching is not proper education – it’s old-fashioned brainwashing. And having been exposed to that myself, I know how important it is to root it out and stop it becoming extremism before it’s too late.”

Dunn may seem extreme at present but recent developments in our increasingly secularised society suggest her views may not remain so. Things which at one time would have seemed impossible now happen.

For example, at one time it would have been unthinkable that a Christian bakery which refused to bake a cake which included captions promoting gay marriage would be successfully sued. But it has happened. This is an example of the increasing radicalisation of our secularised society. The judge said: “The defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff on grounds of sexual discrimination. This is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification.” A YouGov poll in November 2014 found 56% of people thought the bakery was justified. 65% disapproved of legal action being taken against them.

Similarly, it would have been unthinkable that cinema chains would ban a Christmas church advert containing the Lord’s Prayer. It shows that the danger of our society oppressing Christians needs to be taken seriously. Even Richard Dawkins condemned this action: “I … strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended.” The assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, said he was “flabbergasted that anyone would find this prayer offensive to anybody, including people of no particular religious belief”.

Fortunately the banning will be investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The chief executive said: “We strongly disagree with the decision not to show the adverts on the grounds they might ‘offend’ people. There is no right not to be offended in the UK; what is offensive is very subjective and this is a slippery slope towards increasing censorship. We also understand why people were confused that a commercial Christmas can be advertised but the central Christian prayer cannot. We will therefore examine the issues raised by this case as part of our major review into the law protecting freedom of religion or belief, and publish our findings in the new year.”

Should we trust the government?

The Rev Dr Mike Ovey is a theologian and former lawyer. He was a parliamentary draftsman in the 1980s when anti-terror legislation to deal with the IRA threat was being framed. He expressed deep concern over the government’s anti-terror policy and said it would be easy to argue that there was a “clear trajectory” between, for example, teaching mainstream Christian ideas about subjects such as abortion and the actions of violent anti-abortion groups. He added: “They are going to say this is far-fetched and will never happen. That is essentially a government saying trust us with your civil liberties. I would say frankly human experience tells us the last thing you ever want to do is trust a government with your civil liberties. The Government is going around saying it is all a time of national emergency. I think I want to say we have been there before and got the T-shirt. It doesn’t work.”