• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Ruth Kelly on terrorism


    by Sunny
    10th April, 2007 at 3:43 pm    

    The main problem with Ruth Kelly’s initiatives is that they’re narrowly focused on tackling violent extremism without taking into account that it is an issue of ineffective social cohesion. And to build cohesion she needs to involve all of British society, not just Muslims.

    What we need is joined-up thinking across government departments that formulate long-term policy not just a quick-fix solution for the coming two or three years. We need to build new institutions that engage with all our youth as part of the democratic process, not just fund some initiatives that die once the money dries up. In short, Ruth Kelly needs to take off the blinkers and think a bit harder. Such stop-gap announcements won’t really do much good.

    From my article today in Comment is Free.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs






    8 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Kismet Hardy — on 10th April, 2007 at 3:53 pm  

      Apropos to nothing probably, but this reminds me of how the west shot natives in the name of civilisation and bombed insurgents in the name of democracy. All this talk of fighting terrorism in the name of freedom just makes me think how shite western policies to deal with foreigners always has been. It’s all about lumping thousands of people together and putting a prime suspect banner over their heads. Terrorists shouldn’t be termed as muslims anymore than football hooligans should be classed as football fans

    2. Kismet Hardy — on 10th April, 2007 at 4:18 pm  

      (sorry, I know that’s got nothing to do with the price of fish)

    3. Sunny — on 10th April, 2007 at 4:33 pm  

      Just to add to this article, I was responding specifically to Ruth Kelly’s current set of initiatives.

      This isn’t to say that ‘Muslim community leaders’ are off the hook. I think they also have a very active part to play, although some would like to pass the buck, as my debate with Inayat Bunglwala showed recently.

      But given that it is our government that has all the resources, intelligence and legal capacity, they have a vital part in ensuring their policies lead to defeating terrorism, not exacerbating it.

    4. Leon — on 10th April, 2007 at 4:50 pm  

      But given that it is our government that has all the resources, intelligence and legal capacity, they have a vital part in ensuring their policies lead to defeating terrorism, not exacerbating it.

      There’s also the small matter of the social contract to which they should adhere if they want any authority at all…

    5. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 10th April, 2007 at 8:16 pm  

      Terrorists shouldn’t be termed as muslims anymore than football hooligans should be classed as football fans

      Not really a good analogy there Kismit becauses terrorists aren’t a collective group (even if the IRA trained the FARC) there is no Terrorist Community as such.

      What I mean is that all football hooligans are football fans, but not all terrorists are Muslims … but you could say that all Jihadists are Muslim and that all Jihadists are Terrorists …

      This gets more tricky as the definition for Jihadist is very maluabale and can refer to people fighting for a cause using non-violent means.

      However in the non-Muslim world, we are have notice that the people that blow themselves up on the tube etc, make videos claiming to be Jihadists before they do so - hence we make the Jihadist / Terrorist link irrespective of the technical nuonises of the word.

      What you cannot argue, and shamefully some people do, is that not all Jihadists are Muslim. This is equivalent to saying that not all Football hooligans are football fans.

      Although this might be true in one or two expections, i.e. people that have no interest in football, snooze in the stands while the game is played only walking up for the fight at the end. They are undeniably hanging out and mixing with the football fan group, and the fight that they start does pull in football fans.

      As a non football fan I’m not that interested in the argument that the football hooligans “aren’t REAL football fans” - I consider this suggestion to be acedemic in the extreme and not all useful in the real world.

      For football fans we decided to stick them in pens, control thier movement with the police, ruthless route out the trouble makers using survalance and eventually make the game safe for the nice football fans that are there to have a good time without hurting anyone - and unfortunately they are still monitered today to ensure the problem doesn’t resurface.

      Like any problem, to deal with it first you have to accept that you have one. As any dialogue with the MCB shows, they don’t see a problem, after all the people that dole out the violence aren’t real Muslims are they?

      The four dick heads that blew themselves up on the tube - they were part of the group we refer to as Muslims. If it walks like a duck, quakes like duck, it is most likely a duck.

      If the group that we refer to as Muslims cannot sort out their dirty laundry regarding the terrorist actions of the sub group that call themselves Jihadist, a solution will have to be imposed on them from outside of that group.

      This will not be pretty, but how bad will it have to get before these invasions of the privacy are grudyingly welcomed by the group we reffer to as Muslims?

      TFI

    6. soru — on 10th April, 2007 at 8:54 pm  

      Incidentally, what’s up with the phrase ‘violent extremism’? Where did that come from?

      Someone get bored of the word ‘terrorism’, decided it was contributing to a negative stereotype, wanted to distinguish between different types of terrorist, or what?

      It’s not like violent moderation is ok, just as long as you don’t take it too far.

      If you are going to be neutral and accurate, ‘non-military political violence’ is probably the most accurate scoping of the issue in question: you can talk about things like the fire-bombing of Dresden another time.

    7. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 10th April, 2007 at 8:58 pm  

      LOL, dunno, you get all sorts of extremists in this world, not all are violent, but they are all a bit wierd.

      TFI

    8. William — on 11th April, 2007 at 12:02 am  

      Terrorists who are Muslim can be termed terrorists who are Muslim or Muslims who are terrorists or Muslim terrosists or terrorist Muslims. It is a problem when people don’t differentiate in any way in realising that most Muslims are not terrorists and a national/international realisation that not all Muslims are terrorists can be fostered by propaganda.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.