I am very happy to engage with you on the substance. We have never discussed your views on Islam. But you made them clear when introducing your ten minute rule bill in the Commons very recently, as you were perfectly entitled to do. I agree that mass prayer in public by large groups without prior permission, that aims to disrupt the activities of others, can be an act of 'domination' just as a sit down on Westminster Bridge or the M25 can be or any other illegal demonstration or one accompanied by threats or harassment. This did not apply to this gathering in Trafalgar Square. It was done with permission. It comprised short prayers followed by an Iftar to break the Ramadan fast. It threatened no one any more than the Palm Sunday procession ( with permission) in which I shall participate shortly where I live and where there will be hymns to the effect that Jesus Christ is Lord. Your original post says that this event 'should not happen again'. You are the Shadow Justice Secretary, perhaps one day the person who will take an oath to uphold the rule of law. As I put to you in my last post, stopping such an event would be unlawful and discriminatory unless you intend to advocate changing the law to discriminate against Muslims. Is that what you are saying? So far you have not attempted to answer this question. Lots of replies to your original post highlight that freedom of religious expression does not exist in many countries and that some of these countries have Muslim majorities and persecute minority faiths. We will, I am sure, have a shared revulsion at this. But this is surely all the more reason why we should stand up for the values of freedom under law which our forefathers have given to us. Finally you suggest that my 'world'' is falling apart'. I am not sure what world vision you are referring to. As a long standing Conservative I am a pragmatic realist about the world and its shortcomings as I might expect you to be too. I also believe that in times when there are challenges to the values of freedom and democratic pluralism there is a need for all people of goodwill to be voices of assertive moderation. Your original post comes across as entirely contrary to this and as a call to confrontation on no valid basis.