Confected Outrage And Bad Taste

Before one wades into a fit of outrage at what someone has written it is better to read the source material rather than rely upon the selective reporting of that source. Thus have I let the latest Boris Johnson scandal stew for a few days and, unlike plenty of others who have pontificated, I have read again what the talented Mr Johnson has actually written. Here is your chance - Boris on the Burka

Read it? Is it that outrageous? After all the headline point is that banning the burka (as Denmark has done) is not the right thing. This central point should please the most liberal of people. But what have caused a furore are the rather weak jibes about the offending garment causing its wearers to look like letterboxes or bank robbers. These we are told betray 'dog whistle politics' and 'Islamophobia'. Let's unpack those two assertions.

Dog whistle politics first. There is something in this. Johnson is clever and I doubt that this calculating man is in the least surprised at the storm that has broken around him. It is what he wants. He can have his cake and eat it - on any comprehensive view of his article, he is on the side of the secular gods, but before the more general court of public opinion he is talking sense. I find this manipulative behaviour on Johnson's part the most offensive thing about the whole circus.

Islamophobia? No. Islam cannot expect an uncritical public reception any more than can the Catholic church for its dogma on birth control and abortion.

Johnson is calculating and by my reckoning that makes him unlovable, notwithstanding his affected clownishness. There are unpleasant echoes (albeit couched in rather more intellectual language) of Trump in Johnson's machinations. I'm all in favour of a bit of bad taste but it has its place. Whether the centre page of the Telegraph is the right place deserves a rather more nuanced debate than we have witnessed for the last few days.