British PM David Cameron on multiculturalism by peacekeeper

This is very scary. He's essentially saying that the govt. has authority to intercede in muslim society to disrupt the social order, in the name of preventing terrorism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
could you post it in writing? or tell us what the gist of it?

He is talking about a slippery slope, as it were, of nonviolent extremist and separatist groups luring young, disenfranchised Muslim men into terrorism.

He says:

We have to stop these people from using publically funded institutions like universities to recruit new terrorists.

Passive tolerance: "As long as you obey the law, we leave you alone." It is not enough. We need to encourage active participation in the community.

We need to establish a stronger identity, that to belong here is to believe as we believe.

-------------

My view? It is creepy.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2011 4:04 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is very scary. He's essentially saying that the govt. has authority to intercede in muslim society to disrupt the social order, in the name of preventing terrorism.

Social order? Like the teaching hate social order? Like the treating women like slaves social order? Yeah, let's protect those rights... it's a slippery slope when we try to crawl out of the 5th century, we should just give up and slide back...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2011 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Social order?

He is talking about limiting the exercise of free speech and demanding the assimilation of Muslim societies in Europe.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2011 4:49 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
He is talking about limiting the exercise of free speech and demanding the assimilation of Muslim societies in Europe.

You see it that way, I see it this way:

"He is talking about limiting the exercise of hate speech and demanding that Muslim societies respect those of the European countries they live in."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 2:16 AM

HARDWARE

Or more plainly; Multiculturalism has failed.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Social order?
He is talking about limiting the exercise of free speech and demanding the assimilation of Muslim societies in Europe.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

Spot on.

In a nation that has a royal family, the square mile, and a long history of genocide and cultural obliteration locally and globally, its been considered a great social achievement that Christian societies are allowed to exist in Britain, without bowing to either the church or Rome. After centuries of bloodshed the govt. Of England, has finally accepted that its own native Druidic societies should be a allowed to exist. After centuries of slaughter and suppression, Britain has decided to allow it's local populations to speak their own native languages.

So why now the sudden 180 into intolerance? "from here forward, we will move backwards to a land where you can no Longer teach your children what you believe, you will teach them what *we* believe!"

Lets rewind: Cameron, during the campaign: "I think it's time we give power back to the Bank of England to regulate the banks."

Ah...

Now I see.

You see, David Cameron doesn't have an issue with islam, the Bank of England does.

Oh, and Pizmo, because I think you're too smart to believe what you just posted, I suggest watching it again. He does not say that hate and violence be a predicate, he says social order. I mean, yes, he sayd the words "hate and violence" and if that triggers your response, watch "interview with a zombie" again. (its a YouTube posted by PN here.) *

But he also makes it very clear that he wants the govt. Of Britain to be able to interfere to destroy any islamic social order which tries to establish itself under the name of fighting terrorism, and he specifically says even if no terrorism is present.

That's not forward thinking; that's just intolerance.

* oh, and if you haven't been reading John's posts, etc. You should. Notice I'm often the only person here defending Israel, except for Mince, and I read them. It doesn't make me anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, it just makes me more informed. And obviously I triple check everything, but sometimes he posts insightful stuff.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
He is talking about limiting the exercise of free speech and demanding the assimilation of Muslim societies in Europe.

You see it that way, I see it this way:

"He is talking about limiting the exercise of hate speech and demanding that Muslim societies respect those of the European countries they live in."

Pizmo

No, he's not. Watch it again. I don't think this is opinion, CTS is right, he is saying what she says he is saying. I really wish he wasn't, because I quite like David Cameron, and he's been quite good up to this point. That last is opinion, I disagree with Cameron on this issue. My disagreement with what you just posted is not on opinion. I mean, sure, you can *choose* to see it that way, but he most explicitly said the opposite. Its like people I know who choose to see that Obama is anti-war, because Obama said that he had a goal to end the war, they missed the part where he said he was sending in more troops and attacking more de facto nations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or where he sent the armed predator drones in, etc. Looks like war. Sounds like war. Sounds like Obama saying "I'm a man of war" wait.

Did I just call him a jellyfish?

That also works.

David Cameron is definitely saying he wants the govt. To preemptively invade and destroy Muslim societies, forcibly mainstream and integrate them, and teach them what he calls "British" beliefs instead of Muslim ones.

Strangely, I don't think that too many actual britons would agree that the GOE holds British beliefs. ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 7:08 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
He is talking about limiting the exercise of free speech and demanding the assimilation of Muslim societies in Europe.

You see it that way, I see it this way:

"He is talking about limiting the exercise of hate speech and demanding that Muslim societies respect those of the European countries they live in."

Pizmo

No, he's not. Watch it again. I don't think this is opinion, CTS is right, he is saying what she says he is saying. I really wish he wasn't, because I quite like David Cameron, and he's been quite good up to this point. That last is opinion, I disagree with Cameron on this issue. My disagreement with what you just posted is not on opinion. I mean, sure, you can *choose* to see it that way, but he most explicitly said the opposite.

I agree with you about Obama :)

I listened again. It's pretty much impossible to know to what extent he wants to take the views in this very general statement, and that's where you and I and CTS will disagree. You say "destroy" and I think that's far too extreme. "Assimilate?" That has such negative connotations, or certainly can, but I wonder if that's how CTS feels in Peru, "assimilated?" If I were going to move to any other country I would make an effort to learn their language and traditions and not expect them to make concessions for my views (heck, I do that when I travel to any). If in my home country my tradition is to blank women, but it is not the tradition of my new country, in fact it is seen as abhorrent, then I have to bow to the new country's policies. I feel that that + his desire to not be so passive when dealing with the seeds of terrorism is what he's aiming at. I do not think it's an excuse to destroy Islam outside of Britain.
I'll admit he is playing pretty loosely with Free Speech - he seems to like free speech unless it's to promote violence - so TECHNICALLY - that's not as comprehensive as the most staunch Free Speech advocates would like. I'm not one of those. I think we should have the conviction and fortitude to take a stand and say we're going to decide to "clamp down" on someone who says "Young men! I implore your to martyr yourself in the name of (distorted) Islam!"

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:"David Cameron is definitely saying he wants the govt. To preemptively invade and destroy Muslim societies, forcibly mainstream and integrate them, and teach them what he calls "British" beliefs instead of Muslim ones."

I did not hear that at all, what I heard was starting at 2:05 his 2 main points:

1. Confronting and undermining extremist ideology - make it impossible for extremist to succeed by:

- banning preachers of hate to come to our countries
- identify hate organizations
- do not fund extremism organizations by asking: do they believe in all human rights? Do they believe in democracy? Do they encourage integration or separation? No public money if they fail this test.

Give voice to those muslims who view these extreme ideologies as a distortion of Islam

2. Clear sense of shared national identity open to everyone.
"less passive, more active liberalism."

7:20 To create a sense of common purpose so people can say:
"I'm a Muslim, I'm a Hindu, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a Londoner, or a Berliner..." If you create a sense of shared community you are less likely to feel like an outsider and want to blow the place up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 7:25 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Not the first European leader to state publicly that multi-culturalism has failed, or at least tested to destruction. People should note though that the nature of Muslim immigration in Europe is different to Muslim immigration in the US: in the US it is more middle-class, individual families and less transplantation of entire communities.

What convinced me that multi-culturalism had failed:

If people are short on time I'd recommend watching the first 2 minutes of both videos to get the gist. The graphic display of the White vs. Asian taxi paths (tracked by gps) was particularly striking evidence of the segregation.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 8:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is very scary. He's essentially saying that the govt. has authority to intercede in muslim society to disrupt the social order, in the name of preventing terrorism.

Well, if there are considerable segments of that society which are geared towards terrorism... it would be a proper function of gov't to do exactly that.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 8:38 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

While I am wary of the government deciding what ideas/ideologies are 'dangerous' and the like, is it wrong to expect Muslims to respect the country in which the live, same as every other group of people and be held to the same standards?

And I'm not talking about 'hate speech' cause that's just gonna happen anywhere. IMO Westboro Baptist hate speech is as bad as any others, but if they really are funding moderate or nonviolent Muslims leaders in an effort to confront violent extremist Islam, shouldn't they be able to expect some results? And frankly, some of this 'pussy footin' in the name of tolerance probably only encourages the terrorist who view this as a weakness.

So what should be done about it? That's a tough call, I'd hate for us or anyone else to compromise our higher ideals to deal with these threats (and no, I have no delusions that hasn't already happened). Still, unless abused (which I fear is a very real possibility) it sounds like Cameron is on the right track.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 9:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I'm not into listening to politicians or watching videos either, so I'm responding to what was written. That, I see clearly and plainly as the "slippery slope" people talk about here that in ANY way limits freedom of speech. That's about as obvious a statement of "government rules" as any I've ever heard; to target one group of people and try to force them into compliance scares the hell out of me. Yeah, we may go too far here in America, but reading what was written (maybe I SHOULD listen to the whole damned thing) makes me ill and scares me if it catches on!

Let the government limit free speech or go after ANY group, and they'll find other ways to utilize the power. This only increases the "them v. us" mentality, and people are quick enough to pick up on that in the first place.

Quote:
While I am wary of the government deciding what ideas/ideologies are 'dangerous' and the like, is it wrong to expect Muslims to respect the country in which the live, same as every other group of people and be held to the same standards?

It goes a helluvalot further than that, in my opinion. It's more like "is it wrong to FORCE Muslims to BEHAVE according to some set standards of the country in which they live"--and don't kid yourself, there are NUMEROUS groups of people who don't respect the standards of society in either England or America. Seems to me this is like saying "we should go after this cult or militia group or that one...whichever we feel threatened by".

(By the way, my first time posting in the new beta edition; it's PURTY! But how do I get colors, fonts, etc., here? It doesn't work the same as the old version did...and I can't find from the instructions how to do it....grrrr)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
"He is talking about limiting the exercise of hate speech and demanding that Muslim societies respect those of the European countries they live in."

That may be. It doesn't matter. Any time the govt wants to limit speech, "hate speech" or otherwise, it is creepy.

Speech, no matter how offensive it is, is speech--and should remain free and unencumbered.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
"Assimilate?" That has such negative connotations, or certainly can, but I wonder if that's how CTS feels in Peru, "assimilated?"

As someone who has moved from country to country my whole life, I feel I can talk about "assimilation."

Immigrants assimilate in some ways and not in others. It is more practical and safer to stand out as little as possible, esp when one is racially different from the local population. I know lots of missionaries that try to maintain their American lifestyle in foreign countries, and it is just silly, if not outright stupid, to everyone else. So yes, assimilate as much as possible. At least learn the local language and behavior; show tolerance, if not respect, for local customs. Certainly, obey local laws, even if they don't make sense.

Having said that, maintaining one's own cultural and religious identity is paramount. You need it to remain sane. You speak your native language in your own home. You share food and hang out with others from the same country. Celebrate your own holidays, such as have Thanksgiving dinner, when no one else is doing it. Go to religious services of the your own religion. And you need maintain this identity despite any clashes with local customs.

It's a tricky balancing act. There will always be those who think you aren't assimilated enough. And then are others (including yourself) who might think you've assimilated too much. Usually, people find their own right balance, a "homeostasis" with the communities they live in. So a Chinese person in Chinatown NYC will have a different balance than a Chinese person in a small town in Iowa.

What concerns me is that this politician wants to make this very personal issue a government problem. This question of immigrant identity is NOT one that should receive government oversight, anymore than what kind of books one should read or what kind of friends one should have. Trying to assert govt approval on what people think and believe, even when they aren't breaking any laws or hurting anyone, is insidiously intrusive and very creepy.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 11:39 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Speech, no matter how offensive it is, is speech--and should remain free and unencumbered.

That's the big question isn't it? Here are some considerations:

1. One size doesn't fit all. Absolutes like that are born to fail. Do they work more often than trying to parse out Just solutions? I'd say in societies where there is little to no accountability in terms of citizen rights, then I'd want to be protected with those easily understood and printed Absolutes. If I'm in a country where I feel I can trust the gov. then it depends on what I'm trusting them with. At this point in time... I trust the US with allowing me to say whatever the hell I want to say, in print, on line, etc., at least up to the point until I infringe on others' rights.

2. It goes well beyond "offensive." Offensive is like dental work or unscheduled car maintenance. This is speech to insight violence and death. I don't think any civilized society should sit by do nothing. If you are given the job of safe guarding the people of your country, would you? This is not just offensive speech.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 11:55 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

What concerns me is that this politician wants to make this very personal issue a government problem. This question of immigrant identity is NOT one that should receive government oversight, anymore than what kind of books one should read or what kind of friends one should have. Trying to assert govt approval on what people think and believe, even when they aren't breaking any laws or hurting anyone, is insidiously intrusive and very creepy.

I think he's making this unprecedented statement now because what was in place before did not work. Immigrants in European and US did not always feel like part of the culture or the country, and that sucks for everyone. When does someone fully adopt their new country? 2nd generation, third? It does happen at some point though if families stay long enough - if kids grow up in one place they think it's home.
I agree that Gov oversight has historically had some very bad results, but I think: "Trying to assert govt approval on what people think and believe, even when they aren't breaking any laws or hurting anyone, is insidiously intrusive and very creepy," is jumping to the most extreme negative conclusions.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
This is speech to insight violence and death.

But that's not what he's talking about. Speech to incite violence or death is ALREADY illegal.

He's talking about LEGAL speech. He talks about expecting more than simply not breaking the law. He's talking about legal speech he considers to be a few steps BEFORE the incitement to commit crime, legal speech he feels is a recruitment tool for violence down the road.

If you will, he's talking about certain speech as "gateway" speech, and not tolerating it anymore.

In my understanding, he's talking about legal hate speech equivalent to say, KKK racial supremacy speech in the US. Many see such speech as a recruiting tool for violent neo-Nazism and a gateway to racial violence, for example.

If someone says, "Go out and kill all the non-Muslim people you can find." That's incitement, and it's illegal in the US and the UK.

If someone says, "Infidels (non-Muslims) suck so bad, they don't deserve to breathe." That's hate speech legal in the US, but illegal in the UK.

If someone says, "Religions other than Islam are inferior." That is legal in the UK. THIS is what I understand this PM to be talking about. Legal, but offensive. Legal, but possibly a slippery slope to the illegal speech above.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 1:49 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
One size doesn't fit all.

It has here. We may hate the KKK, White Supremicists or the Westboro nuts, but we let 'em speak. And from what I gathered (was too long to listen to it all, but I got the gist) he WAS talking about one particular group and their speech. That's the very slippery slope we debate here from time to time, and usually we agree it's better to take the bad with the good rather than let them start "limiting".

Give a government an inch, it might well take a mile; we know that. "Free" speech is already limited in many ways other than making it illegal; to give them the freedom to make it so reeeeely makes me shudder. Simple as that.

By the way, numerous cultures don't "assimilate" (or maybe, don't assimilate as much as we'd LIKE them to); we've got plenty right here in the Bay Area. This "Shariah Law" thing is fear mongering, pure and simple; there's NO way any country is going to allow Shariah Law to have precedence over that country's laws, and the "Muslims gonna get us" mentality is pathetic. I look at what fostering it has done in OUR country, and shudder for England, since this is the equivalent of OBAMA saying that here! Crawls up my spine, it does.

Assimilation also means the resident culture changing in one way or another because of the cultures assimilated into it; to me, making them a special case would both alienate them even WORSE and would deprive the people of as much interaction (which lessens prejudice and helps educate), as well as not allowing their culture to really become part of ours. I have friends of several cultures; their society is strong among themselves, yet they are part of the California culture, and I've learned a lot from them.

Hell, why should these groups WANT to work toward peace if they're going to be singled out and persecuted? Because it IS persecution to single out any one group and limit their civil rights. To want to alienate people by limiting the free speech of those working for PEACE boggles the mind. I understand what he's trying to say, but it's bullshit and all wrong in my opinion.

[color=FFFF00]Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off [/color]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 1:56 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think Cantt had some good points about asimilation, finding a ballance is good.

I feel that people need to be allowed to believe how they choose, forcing them to believe something else doesn't work because you can't force belief, so why even try it? Muslims, like anyone else, should have the right to believe what they choose etc. The problem is when your beliefs start bringing about the harming of others. I do think combatting terroristic acts, from any group, is important and part of the government's responsability. I don't exactly like all the wording of what I've read of the speech, there are some things that sound sketchy and he should rethink his plan here, but I do think something probably has to improve over there, here, wherever. But, as bad as it is, I do believe that people have the right to use "hate speech" as explained here, even if I don't like it it is part of free speech so I don't think we can limit it. Why do I think this? Because sometimes other things could be construed as hate speech, and if they are and hate speech is illegal how far will the government go to enforce that rule? So I can understand the outlawing of incitement speech (mostly) but I can't necessarily support the outlawing of hate speech. I do think its wrong most of the time to talk hatefully about others, but that is a slippery slope and people could say that near anything is hate speech if they want, they could twist things around and by like "Oh, you said you believe this behavior is wrong and those who commit it are bad folk, you're going to jail, hahahahaha". Not kosher.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 2:51 PM

Quote:
This is speech to insight violence and death.

Piz

You can keep saying that but it won't make it true. This was a speech specifically about targeting "non-violent" Muslim organizations. Obviously Britain has been fighting terrorism for much longer than the US and has a well known zero tolerance policy, so even if he had said what you claim, it would not be a policy shift. He used that language, but he did state a specific preemptive agenda.

Rap

What are your feelings on the dept of pre-crime?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 2:53 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
To want to alienate people by limiting the free speech of those working for PEACE boggles the mind.

What are you referring to? Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 3:03 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
This is speech to insight violence and death.

Piz

You can keep saying that but it won't make it true. This was a speech specifically about targeting "non-violent" Muslim organizations. Obviously Britain has been fighting terrorism for much longer than the US and has a well known zero tolerance policy, so even if he had said what you claim, it would not be a policy shift. He used that language, but he did state a specific preemptive agenda.

I don't want to "make" something true. I don't have a blue/red/US/anti-muslim agenda - that seems so incredibly narrow, why would anyone? My opinions are admittedly only my best guesses. I did cite time stamps and examples to support my guesses, please help by doing the same for this statement: "This was a speech specifically about targeting "non-violent" Muslim organizations." I may be missing the code you are keying into.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 4:14 PM

Sorry,

your last few posts have been trending rapwards... thought you might be just kneejerk defending either the man, his party or the position

Here's the speech with one round of editing (god he's wordy. I think this could be re-edited. CTS did it above, but essentially, these are his words, without any intent to mislead, just the removal of redundant, superfluous and weighted language which might disguise what the speaker is actually saying) I imagine anyone could do the same to any of Obama's speeches and distill them down to their true political content without malicious intent. I like Cameron, a lot, but I found this speech really disturbing.

Quote:

They don't turn into terrorists over night... chat rooms... groups and organizations... sense of community... As long as they're not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all of this? terrorists…. were initially influenced by… non-violent extremists… to defeat this threat.. it is time … govt. … confront it, in all its forms. We need… national identity… First… Undermining ideology… violent… or not… we must make it impossible… we must ban preachers*… organizations(2)… dealing with those that while they are non-violent are… part of the problem… Think about… Who… to work with.. Some organizations… with public money… do little to combat extremism(3)

Do they believe in universal human rights? equality… democracy… integration… Fail these tests… Not to engine public money… Stop these groups from reaching people… in Universities… prisons… Non-violent… are helping… nonsense… This ideology… Exposing its ideas… Prophecies… of war… muslims vs. the rest of the world… are nonsense… This… is a distortion of Islam (4) Within Islam… engage groups which share our aspirations… A passive society… says "as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone"(5) Liberal society… actively promotes… ""… this is what defines us… to belong here is to believe in these things (6) make sure… immigrants… speak the language…(7) common culture… I'm a Berliner ? … defeating the ideas… confront… identity… vision of citizenship… our way of life… rise… and overcome.

1) "of hate" is a pointless talking point. Once he has a banned list, he can put whomever he wants on it.
2) that support terror, also can be undefined
3) Pulling money specifically from muslim organizations that do not "combat extremism"? What about non-muslim ones which also don't? Does this include things that would never encounter "extremism"? Why? Also, WTF is "extremist"? He didn't say "terrorism" for a reason. Earlier, he indicated that "extremism" seemed in his view to be Islam with an islamic identity or community.
4) this is an old trick, calling a religion a distortion of itself while you redefine it. Seems to me that war is not a prophecy ;)
5) WTF? You can obey the law, but if you're a muslim, that's not good enough?
6) That's saying you must be british
7) WTF? A million britons speak native languages rather than the Queen's English. If you were to actively oppose *that*, you'd be booed off the stage. He is arguing against a double standard while setting one. I'm not saying he *should* advocate banning local languages, that's absurd.

That was what I heard the second time through. I transcribed it as I was listening.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 4:56 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

1.) and 2.) I agree with you.
3.) Why should they give money to any religious organizations period, and if so, as with all federal type grants, shouldn't they be able to expect results or have the option to stop funding them?
4.) sorta agree, but I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion that is his intention.
5.) WTF? Sure, his proposal of combating extremist not yet criminal ideology smells fishy, but to outright accuse of them of targeting all Muslims is more than a little misleading.
6.) Not really the conclusion I came too, more like you should identify with your home country as well rather than only by your religion. Still, you can respect your home and roommates/neighbors without identifying with them, so I don't think the identity bit is necessary.
7.) Yeah, I've heard this kinda stuff here in the southern states. Not always prejudice in origin, but there's enough bigots to paint that kind of picture.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I did cite time stamps and examples to support my guesses, please help by doing the same for this statement: "This was a speech specifically about targeting "non-violent" Muslim organizations."

He starts off by talking about how young muslims who search for belonging can lead to extremist ideology. "They don't turn into terrorists overnight." ...Process of radicalization.

I have transcribed the following at around 1 minute into the speech.

Quote:
In chat rooms, ...attitudes are shared and validated. In mosques, hate can sow misinformation about plight of muslims elsewhere (1:19). In our communities, groups and organizations led by young and dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion.

All these interactions can engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply. (1:39) Now you might say, as long as they're not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this?

Well I'll tell you why. As evidence emerges about the background of those convicted of terrorist offenses, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called non-violent (1:54) extremists.

He goes on in the rest of the speech to talk about curbing the activities and speech of these non-violent extremists. He specifically brings up that it is not enough to NOT break the law.

As you can see, he is not talking about incitement or violent hate speech that is already illegal. He is talking about things like "misinformation" about how Muslims are suffering outside of Britain or people "defining themselves solely in terms of their religion." This is not violent. This is not criminal or hurtful. These are normal expressions of discontent or dissatisfaction. Yet, because it occurs in a Muslim community, he wants to red flag it as the path to terrorism.

This is not my exaggeration of negative extremes. This is what he is actually saying. If you want to make me do it, I can transcribe more (but please don't make me do it).

This is creepy propaganda at best. Ominous for British Muslims at worst.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 14, 2011 6:10 PM

Happy,

Those were footnotes to the text, which is printed above.

1) 2) yes, political doublespeak
3) I agree with you, but I gather from context that this *is* available in britain for other religions, maybe it isn't, in which case, he's right that it shouldn't be available for islam either. Here in NY we have a jewish fundie colony which has managed to get a lot of state money, but in the US, yes, this is frowned upon. I wasn't clear on whether he was saying this. He does rail against christians there...
4) he may not, but I suspect someone is.
5) A passive society… says "as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone"... this is what Cameron is arguing *against* he is saying that you should *not* leave alone law abiding citizens *if* they are organizing Islam, you should take a proactive stance to interfere.

And I didn't say he was targeting "all muslims" just the religion of organized islam, in a way that he was not targeting christianity or judaism.

6) same sticky point. He's not opposing "individual islam" he's opposing "organized islam" and doing so with very weighted political doublespeak, but at the same time unambiguously stating that he is NOT limiting it to terrorist organizations, and the he is NOT limiting it to organizations or forms of islam that preach violence.

CTS

I see you and I are doing the same thing ;) but yes...

One of the things I learned recently researching specifics of the incidents of the early holocaust for this forum was that what I had initially heard was that German made a list of 600,000 jews, and then collected them. Actually, they made the list, and 300,000 immediately fled the country.

I would like to think that our own citizenry was this suspicious of its govt. but I'm afraid it's not. I don't think that Cameron is threatening the populous here, just the organization of the religion, but it is very disturbing.

Quote:
CTS:
This is not my exaggeration of negative extremes. This is what he is actually saying.

CTS, yes, and Happy take note...

He has already covered the issues of terrorism, preaching violence and hate speech as criminal activities requiring govt. action, and then he goes on to attack law abiding muslims says that this is not enough, and that organized religion, a muslim identity, etc. are a threat, down to speaking arabic.

I believe this mainstreaming means to end here:

It's okay to be a muslim if being a muslim means you have a crescent instead of a cross, call god "allah" and say Mohammed instead of Jesus (or think that Mohammed is = or > important than Jesus.) But that's where it ends. You will not live your lives in accordance with that religion, dress in accordance, preach that religion to others, have any community, identity or connection cultural, linguistic or religious with the other members of that faith, internal or external to the UK, jihadist or non-violent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 5:23 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sorry,

your last few posts have been trending rapwards... thought you might be just kneejerk defending either the man, his party or the position

Hey now, no need to get ugly. ;)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Here's the speech with one round of editing (god he's wordy. I think this could be re-edited. CTS did it above, but essentially, these are his words, without any intent to mislead, just the removal of redundant, superfluous and weighted language which might disguise what the speaker is actually saying) I imagine anyone could do the same to any of Obama's speeches and distill them down to their true political content without malicious intent. I like Cameron, a lot, but I found this speech really disturbing.

Quote:

They don't turn into terrorists over night... chat rooms... groups and organizations... sense of community... As long as they're not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all of this? terrorists…. were initially influenced by… non-violent extremists… to defeat this threat.. it is time … govt. … confront it, in all its forms. We need… national identity… First… Undermining ideology… violent… or not… we must make it impossible… we must ban preachers*… organizations(2)… dealing with those that while they are non-violent are… part of the problem… Think about… Who… to work with.. Some organizations… with public money… do little to combat extremism(3)

Do they believe in universal human rights? equality… democracy… integration… Fail these tests… Not to engine public money… Stop these groups from reaching people… in Universities… prisons… Non-violent… are helping… nonsense… This ideology… Exposing its ideas… Prophecies… of war… muslims vs. the rest of the world… are nonsense… This… is a distortion of Islam (4) Within Islam… engage groups which share our aspirations… A passive society… says "as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone"(5) Liberal society… actively promotes… ""… this is what defines us… to belong here is to believe in these things (6) make sure… immigrants… speak the language…(7) common culture… I'm a Berliner ? … defeating the ideas… confront… identity… vision of citizenship… our way of life… rise… and overcome.

1) "of hate" is a pointless talking point. Once he has a banned list, he can put whomever he wants on it.
2) that support terror, also can be undefined
3) Pulling money specifically from muslim organizations that do not "combat extremism"? What about non-muslim ones which also don't? Does this include things that would never encounter "extremism"? Why? Also, WTF is "extremist"? He didn't say "terrorism" for a reason. Earlier, he indicated that "extremism" seemed in his view to be Islam with an islamic identity or community.
4) this is an old trick, calling a religion a distortion of itself while you redefine it. Seems to me that war is not a prophecy ;)
5) WTF? You can obey the law, but if you're a muslim, that's not good enough?
6) That's saying you must be british
7) WTF? A million britons speak native languages rather than the Queen's English. If you were to actively oppose *that*, you'd be booed off the stage. He is arguing against a double standard while setting one. I'm not saying he *should* advocate banning local languages, that's absurd.

That was what I heard the second time through. I transcribed it as I was listening.

DT and C T S : It's a bit of a rorschach test isn't it? It reminds of just today hearing people characterize Michelle Obama's diet campaign for all our fat yet malnourished childlings as being an attempt to control our children. (I think people really do see horns coming out of her head - PN, you must have a picture.) Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The message from The People is often: don't do anything, but if you do nothing then why you aren't you doing something?

He might be wordy but it's still very broad to me - no specifics "we're going to start by having a "Religious Purification Office" that will filter you teachings. If you start from the place that Terrorism is a real danger then you won't conclude that he's going to over step his mandate, that he wants to pursue actions that move life in a positive direction for the majority of Britons. If you think Terrorism is just an excuse to run over people (and to what end I'm not sure, just to be a religious bully?), especially Muslims in this case, then that's what you'll hear.

There's a third option: he's talking tough to serve notice to any would be terrorists, and to make it seem to the people, that he's doing something.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
DT and C T S : It's a bit of a rorschach test isn't it?

Well, no.

He says it in black-and-white that he wants to target *non-violent*, *law-abiding* Muslim groups because he believes they are the first step to terrorism later on, because ultimately, he doesn't like what they are saying.

You're going to make me trancribe the whole speech aren't you, so you can see those words in black and white?

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 6:07 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
DT and C T S : It's a bit of a rorschach test isn't it?
Well, no.

He says it in black-and-white that he wants to target *non-violent*, *law-abiding* Muslim groups because he believes they are the first step to terrorism later on, because ultimately, he doesn't like what they are saying.

You're going to make me trancribe the whole speech aren't you, so you can see those words in black and white?

Well, yes. Transcribe if you want to - that would be funny in a way - we'd have DT transcribing *some* of the words and you transcribing all of them and I'd still not agree with either of you, because ultimately the judgement call - the Rorschach part of it - is in how you interpret what his words mean. You both see the evil hand of TPTB in a lot of the things I think are pretty harmless. We're just different like that. You can't prove he means what you think he does ultimately until he acts in that way, and I can't either. I think he wants to stop terrorism, you think (I'm guessing) that he wants to use "terrorism" as a ploy to reduce the rights of Muslims? or something else sinister.
If some legally formed religious group is found to be encouraging suicide bombers in London then what should be done? "Nothing" because we can't touch their free speech?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
... you transcribing all of them and I'd still not agree with either of you,

I don't expect you to agree with me in how sinister his plans are. No.

But I think we should be able to agree on exactly what he is saying, that he is targeting the non-violent and law-abiding speech of certain Muslim communities, that he wants to limit the influence and audience of their speech unless it conforms to certain specified ideals.

I say this, because you seem to think he is talking about stopping hate speech and violent speech. He is *NOT* talking about encouraging martyrdom and blowing up bombers. If we can't agree on what he is saying, obviously we won't agree on interpretation.

Quote:
I think he wants to stop terrorism, you think (I'm guessing) that he wants to use "terrorism" as a ploy to reduce the rights of Muslims? or something else sinister.

I believe he wants to stop terrorism. I am not attributing sinister motives to his proposal. I disagree with his method. It's the wrong way to stop terrorism, even if it is exercised in the least intrusive way and never gets any worse.

Quote:
If some legally formed religious group is found to be encouraging suicide bombers in London then what should be done? "Nothing" because we can't touch their free speech?

It is not about "legally formed" anything. It is about whether their speech itself is legal. Encouraging suicide bombers in London is already illegal. He can already stop that kind of talk whenever he wants. That is NOT what he is talking about.

He is saying stopping at that level isn't enough. We need to cast a wider net, stopping them earlier when they are simply talking about intensifying their participation in the Muslim community, even when they are not talking about violence or hate at all. When they are complaining about how much Muslims are suffering in the world. When they are talking about having their entire lives revolve around the pillars of Islam, hanging only with Muslim friends.

In other words, he is saying it is ok to be slightly Muslim. It is NOT ok to be VERY Muslim. Being very Muslim is the first step to terrorism, because all terrorists started out being very Muslim and ended up blowing people up.

Now, so far, everything I've outlined is black-and-white what he is saying. This part is not Rorschach. If you keep bringing up "encouraging bombers," then you are making things up that he is not saying, and I will have to transcribe the whole speech to prove you wrong.

--------

Let's take a step back and look at this case.

http://act.presente.org/cms/sign/brisenia/

Quote:
Nine-year-old Brisenia Flores was murdered in her home in Arivaca, Arizona in May 2009. She pleaded, "Please don't shoot me," right before she was shot -- point blank, in the face -- by a member of the Minutemen American Defense Corps (MAD).

Now let's say this becomes more common, and we get repeated incidents of murder and mayhem from MAD. And we look at their histories and find they are all fanatic, cultish Christians from various different extremist sects. Let's say one of them is a member of WBC, and another was a member in David Koran's WACO compound.

So then our president makes a speech that to stop these MAD-type guys from killing Latinos, we have to target Christian speech if they start complaining about how much Christians are suffering throughout the world, or if they start spending more and more of their time in church, isolating themselves from non-Christians. The govt has to limit the influence of Christian speech that is TOO Christian, even if it is not violent or hateful. And this is a good way to stop MAD murders.

My opinion is: 1) This is NOT a good thing to do, even if it DOES work. 2) This is not a good way to stop the crimes. The nets are too wide and the holes are too big. It will just end up stigmatizing Christianity without stopping the crimes.

If you want to disagree with this opinion, I have no problem with that. But let's at least agree on what the guy is proposing.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:43 AM

The rational argument isn't winning out here because of the Halo Effect. Pizmo has already invested and is not able to hear what Cameron actually said.

This is understandable considering the sex appeal of Cameron

Oh, wait sorry, wrong one

Oops. Now I got it

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:05 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

So then our president makes a speech that to stop these MAD-type guys from killing Latinos, we have to target Christian speech if they start complaining about how much Christians are suffering throughout the world, or if they start spending more and more of their time in church, isolating themselves from non-Christians. The govt has to limit the influence of Christian speech that is TOO Christian, even if it is not violent or hateful. And this is a good way to stop MAD murders.

My opinion is: 1) This is NOT a good thing to do, even if it DOES work. 2) This is not a good way to stop the crimes. The nets are too wide and the holes are too big. It will just end up stigmatizing Christianity without stopping the crimes.

If you want to disagree with this opinion, I have no problem with that. But let's at least agree on what the guy is proposing.

I think your analogy is a good one but flawed. "The govt has to limit the influence of Christian speech that is TOO Christian, even if it is not violent or hateful. And this is a good way to stop MAD murders." I don't think that equates to what Cameron said. He doesn't want to get rid of Muslim speech that is too Muslim.

Here's the full transcript. It's more than just the youtube video. One might conclude after reading it that the vid was selectively edited, as in just the last part - I don't know as I have not read the whole thing yet, busy busy busy...

It's from #10's web site and re-posted at the following link, so one may be suspicious equally the other way.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/terrorism-islam
-ideology

I'll number each paragraph for later discussion:

1) Today I want to focus my remarks on terrorism, but first let me address one point. Some have suggested that by holding a strategic defence and security review, Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world. That is the opposite of the truth. Yes, we are dealing with our budget deficit, but we are also making sure our defences are strong. Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% target for defence spending. We will still have the fourth largest military defence budget in the world. At the same time, we are putting that money to better use, focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army. That is not retreat; it is hard headed.

2) Every decision we take has three aims in mind. First, to continue to support the NATO mission in Afghanistan . Second, to reinforce our actual military capability. As Chancellor Merkel’s government is showing right here in Germany, what matters is not bureaucracy, which frankly Europe needs a lot less of, but the political will to build military capability that we need as nations and allies, that we can deliver in the field. Third, we want to make sure that Britain is protected from the new and various threats that we face. That is why we are investing in a national cyber security programme that I know William Hague talked about yesterday, and we are sharpening our readiness to act on counter-proliferation.

3) But the biggest threat that we face comes from terrorist attacks, some of which are, sadly, carried out by our own citizens. It is important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group. My country, the United Kingdom , still faces threats from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland . Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and in Italy , and of course, yourselves in Germany were long scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam, and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens. Last week at Davos I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to recover its economic dynamism, and today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally stark. We will not defeat terrorism simply by the action we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries. Of course, that means strengthening, as Angela has said, the security aspects of our response, on tracing plots, on stopping them, on counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering.

4) But this is just part of the answer. We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia. Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values. It is vital that we make this distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

5) This highlights, I think, a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat that we face. There is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument. If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

6) The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us to confront the former. On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction. They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances, and argue that if only governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop. So, they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say, ‘Get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end.’ But this ignores the fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK and elsewhere have been graduates and often middle class. They point to grievances about Western foreign policy and say, ‘Stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.’ But there are many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who are angry about Western foreign policy, but who don’t resort to acts of terrorism. They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East and say, ‘Stop propping these people up and you will stop creating the conditions for extremism to flourish.’ But this raises the question: if it’s the lack of democracy that is the problem, why are there so many extremists in free and open societies?

7) Now, I’m not saying that these issues of poverty and grievance about foreign policy are not important. Yes, of course we must tackle them. Of course we must tackle poverty. Yes, we must resolve the sources of tension, not least in Palestine , and yes, we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the Middle East . On Egypt , our position should be clear. We want to see the transition to a more broadly-based government, with the proper building blocks of a free and democratic society. I simply don’t accept that there is somehow a dead end choice between a security state on the one hand, and an Islamist one on the other. But let us not fool ourselves. These are just contributory factors. Even if we sorted out all of the problems that I have mentioned, there would still be this terrorism. I believe the root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology. I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity.

8) What I am about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all. In the UK , some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practiced at home by their parents, whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries. But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

9) So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them. The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. And this all leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and something to believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology. Now for sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight, but what we see – and what we see in so many European countries – is a process of radicalisation.

10) Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated. In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere. In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion. All these interactions can engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply. Now, you might say, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this?

11) Well, I’ll tell you why. As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’, and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence. And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past. And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and as societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms. And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone.

12) Let me briefly take each in turn. First, confronting and undermining this ideology. Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed. Now, for governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are in some cases part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with. Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement. So we should properly judge these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home.

13) At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons. Now, some say, this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. Well, I say, would you take the same view if these were right-wing extremists recruiting on our campuses? Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believed that Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in our prisons? And to those who say these non-violent extremists are actually helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.

14) Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not. But, at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are, and that is completely unjustifiable. We need to argue that terrorism is wrong in all circumstances. We need to argue that prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world are nonsense.

15) Now, governments cannot do this alone. The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam, so these arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam. So let us give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the vast, often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview. Let us engage groups that share our aspirations.

16) Now, second, we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home. Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things. Now, each of us in our own countries, I believe, must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.

17) There are practical things that we can do as well. That includes making sure that immigrants speak the language of their new home and ensuring that people are educated in the elements of a common culture and curriculum. Back home, we’re introducing National Citizen Service: a two-month programme for sixteen-year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together. I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power away from the state and towards the people. That way, common purpose can be formed as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity, so people feel free to say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too’. It’s that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries, that I believe is the key to achieving true cohesion.

18) So, let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us. It cannot be ignored or contained; we have to confront it with confidence – confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many young minds at their root, and confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries. Now, none of this will be easy. We will need stamina, patience and endurance, and it won’t happen at all if we act alone. This ideology crosses not just our continent but all continents, and we are all in this together. At stake are not just lives, it is our way of life. That is why this is a challenge we cannot avoid; it is one we must rise to and overcome. Thank you.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:43 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

But I think we should be able to agree on exactly what he is saying, that he is targeting the non-violent and law-abiding speech of certain Muslim communities, that he wants to limit the influence and audience of their speech unless it conforms to certain specified ideals.

What specific ideals? I don't see that mentioned, not specific ones. It's still in my mind a pretty general speech. He's certainly not targeting "non-violent and law-abiding speech of certain Muslim communities" unless it is the kind that incites violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I say this, because you seem to think he is talking about stopping hate speech and violent speech. He is *NOT* talking about encouraging martyrdom and blowing up bombers. If we can't agree on what he is saying, obviously we won't agree on interpretation.

Yeah, I think he is talking about the kind of speech that turns people into terrorists.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I believe he wants to stop terrorism. I am not attributing sinister motives to his proposal. I disagree with his method. It's the wrong way to stop terrorism, even if it is exercised in the least intrusive way and never gets any worse.

I agree with you on this. On the one hand he says he wants to defeat it head on and get at the roots of it but isn't that what we've been trying for the last 15 years at the cost of BILLIONS of dollars and proving does not work???

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
He is saying stopping at that level isn't enough. We need to cast a wider net, stopping them earlier when they are simply talking about intensifying their participation in the Muslim community, even when they are not talking about violence or hate at all. When they are complaining about how much Muslims are suffering in the world. When they are talking about having their entire lives revolve around the pillars of Islam, hanging only with Muslim friends.

I don't agree - he seems encouraged by events in Cairo, which was just that kind of talk. See 5) "If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy."

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
In other words, he is saying it is ok to be slightly Muslim. It is NOT ok to be VERY Muslim. Being very Muslim is the first step to terrorism, because all terrorists started out being very Muslim and ended up blowing people up.

What?? I completed reject any part of this interpretation. Please show me where he said that. "Being very Muslim is the first step to terrorism, because all terrorists started out being very Muslim and ended up blowing people up."

???

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
In other words, he is saying it is ok to be slightly Muslim. It is NOT ok to be VERY Muslim. Being very Muslim is the first step to terrorism, because all terrorists started out being very Muslim and ended up blowing people up.

Lol. That was pretty spot on

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:34 PM

Pizmo,

First, thanks so much for finding the transcript. Whew. Sure saves me a lot of work.

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
What specific ideals?

Universal human rights, equality of all before the law, democracy, integration.

Cameron: "So we should properly judge these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home."

Quote:
He's certainly not targeting "non-violent and law-abiding speech of certain Muslim communities" unless it is the kind that incites violence.

Cameron: "Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed."

"Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are in some cases part of the problem."

"And to those who say these non-violent extremists are actually helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense."

Here's my question. He makes it abundantly clear that he wants to target "non-violent extremists." How does he define "extremism"? Why, anyone who doesn't embrace the values listed above (democracy, integration, equal rights) is an extremist. It doesn't matter to him that they are non-violent. As long as they don't embrace his values, they are "non-violent extremists" and shouldn't be allowed to influence young people. Even if they never incite violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky: When they are complaining about how much Muslims are suffering in the world. When they are talking about having their entire lives revolve around the pillars of Islam, hanging only with Muslim friends.

I don't agree - he seems encouraged by events in Cairo, which was just that kind of talk.

There is nothing to disagree with. He said it.

Cameron: "In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere. In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion."

Even if Cairo was "just that kind of talk," he still said all the above. Maybe he is inconsistent. Actually, he IS inconsistent throughout the speech, but that's a different argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
In other words, he is saying it is ok to be slightly Muslim. It is NOT ok to be VERY Muslim. Being very Muslim is the first step to terrorism, because all terrorists started out being very Muslim and ended up blowing people up.

What?? I completed reject any part of this interpretation. Please show me where he said that. "Being very Muslim is the first step to terrorism, because all terrorists started out being very Muslim and ended up blowing people up."

1. "As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’, and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence."

First step: "radical beliefs," "influenced by non-violent extremists"
Last step: "embracing violence," "convicted of terrorist offences"

2. How does he define "radical beliefs" and "non-violent extremism"?

a. "sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere."
b. "promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion"
c. groups that do not believe in universal human rights, equality of all before the law, democracy, and integration.
d. "horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point"

All these points lie on the "extreme" end of the Muslim experience. "Mild to moderate" Muslims (slightly Muslim) focus more on their secular European lives than their religious ones, identify with Western values of equal rights and democracy, integrate with their secular and Christian communities, and certainly do not force marriage on their women. He's ok with that.

He's not ok if they move to the extreme end (very Muslim) and separate themselves into their own communities and make Islam their main identities. He's not ok if they are so emotionally invested in Islam that they are bitter about the plight of Muslims in other countries. He's not ok if they are so Muslim that they treat women unequally, force them to marry, or believe in theocracy instead of a democracy. He's not ok if they are THAT Muslim.

Thank you again for finding the text. Now everyone can read it all and decide for themselves what he is talking about.

For me, there is no ambivalence in his proposal to heretofore reject and obstruct what he considers to be "non-violent extremist" ideology, to reject any expressions of Islam that he doesn't approve of.

Having said that, I believe no public funding should be provided to further any type religion. That way, the govt doesn't have to get into the business of approving of certain types of religion/ideology and rejecting others, which is what ultimately, Cameron is proposing.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:24 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I read the speech, smooth sailing imo until paragraph 8. Mixed in are ideas that make sense, but I do worry about how they're going to define "nonviolent extremism" as Cantt said above. The reason this worries me is because that definition is subject to interpretation. On the surface "regulating hate speech" might sounds good because I don't hate anyone and I don't think anyone else should hate anyone either. But could some really extreme government policies decide that not agreeing with someone, saying what a certain group of people is doing is wrong, is hate speech? That's what worries me. I agree that terrrorism needs to be stopped, but I can't support this new plan fully until I know what they are going to qualify as a "nonviolent extremist). I do believe that there are certain things that shouldn't be allowed in Britain, as in America, people shouldn't be allowed to hurt women and children just because they are women and children or because they behaved in a way that their community finds bad, they shouldn't be allowed to force female relatives to go marry people they aren't willing to marry etc. But "nonviolent extremists" and "hate speech" are too vaguely defined for me to be on board with Britain's new plan. I think they need to work through the ideas better and try again.
And I didn't know that money was given to religious organizations in Britain.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:39 PM

Yes, it's that fine line where it crosses over separation of church and state. I don't know if this freedom was ever officially extended to Islam in the UK as it was here, but it seems like a sort of intuitive human right.

Also, the parts about the internet could be a pretense for anything. Certainly recruiting terrorists is not a main goal of the internet, and I would suspect that the places that most of our terrorists enemies come from are some of the few places in the world not to have internet. It sounds like a segue into something potentially bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 6:03 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Pizmo,

First, thanks so much for finding the transcript. Whew. Sure saves me a lot of work.

I forget about the Internet sometimes!

I think we're down to mostly interpreting his words *differently.* I'm reading his words from the perspective of "how is he going to tackle this issue? Could it work?" And you seem to come at it from, "what rights is he going to step on to achieve his goals and are his goals ultimately good and fair?"

Maybe I'm not understanding your words?

You say he's targeting non-violent Muslim groups. That sounds to me like you are saying ALL non-violent Muslim groups. And I disagree with that general statement and say he is not targeting non-violent Muslim groups "unless it is the kind that incites violence."

I do think I read this in a different way than you meant: CTS "…that he wants to limit the influence and audience of their speech unless it conforms to certain specified ideals." I thought you meant he wants to control their speech. But I think you meant he wants to make it harder for people to hear their speech (of the ones that incite violence). I do agree with that. His solution was "Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home." Not "send in the speech police," just: don't help.

CTS: "He is saying stopping at that level isn't enough. We need to cast a wider net, stopping them earlier when they are simply talking about intensifying their participation in the Muslim community, even when they are not talking about violence or hate at all."

In your last quote, you took out the part I disagreed with: "… stopping them earlier when they are simply talking about intensifying their participation in the Muslim community…" I do not believe from his words that he has any problem with young Muslims who want to intensify their participation within their community, unless it leads to extremist views which leads to violence.

I disagree with your interpretation of "being VERY Muslim." I think he feels a Muslim could be Very Muslim without being a radical or an extremist.

I agree with a number of your closing points, especially: "… I believe no public funding should be provided to further any type religion." But to conclude, "That way, the govt doesn't have to get into the business of approving of certain types of religion/ideology and rejecting others, which is what ultimately, Cameron is proposing." is a gross misinterpretation imo. He's ultimately disapproving of a dangerous fringe ("perversion") of Islam that specifically leads to violence. Why would he want to take on regular vanilla Islam - he goes out of his way to specifically separate the 2.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Maybe I'm not understanding your words?

Thank you for asking. Very refreshing on this forum where people usually just tell you what you believe, whether you agree or not. I appreciate it.

You're right I am approaching it from a concern about rights. But the disagreement between you and me appear to be apart from the question of rights. It is a disagreement about WHO Cameron is targeting.

Quote:

You say he's targeting non-violent Muslim groups. That sounds to me like you are saying ALL non-violent Muslim groups. And I disagree with that general statement and say he is not targeting non-violent Muslim groups "unless it is the kind that incites violence."

He never says "unless it is the kind that incites violence." NEVER in this speech does he qualify that the non-violent groups he is targeting is limited to those which incite violence. If he did, I wouldn't have nearly as many concerns.

Let's look at a break down of Muslim groups. I will define "separatist" as those groups not conforming to Cameron ideals (democracy, equal human rights, etc.) and who promote cult-like separation from the larger society in terms of identities, values, culture, and language.

1. Non-violent activities, assimilated (integrated), non-violent speech (does not incite violence)
2. Non-violent activities, separatist, non-violent speech (does not incite violence)
3. Non-violent activities, separatist, violent speech (does incite violence)
4. Violent activities, separatist, violent speech (does incite violence).

Cameron clearly approves of #1, so obviously not ALL non-violent Muslim groups. You think he wants to target #3 and #4. I think he wants to target #2, #3, and #4. Why? Because he NEVER gave non-violent speech vs. violent speech as a defining characteristic of "non-violent extremists." He defines extremism as groups that don't support Cameron ideals and are separatist, period--whether they incite violence or not doesn't matter.

Quote:
Not "send in the speech police," just: don't help.

That's right. I agree with the not helping. But I think the not helping should be extended to ALL religious groups. Period. No place for the govt to decide which groups one should "help" and which groups one shouldn't.

Quote:
I do not believe from his words that he has any problem with young Muslims who want to intensify their participation within their community, unless it leads to extremist views which leads to violence.

Stop at "extremist views." What does Cameron mean by extremist views? He means participation so extremely intense it separates them into a different community with vastly different values. You can intensify it a little. Just not to THAT point.

Quote:
I disagree with your interpretation of "being VERY Muslim." I think he feels a Muslim could be Very Muslim without being a radical or an extremist.

The assumption in my use of the world "very" supposes one continuum, from mild on one end and extreme on the other. I use "very" as a synonym for "extreme." If it is a continuum, Cameron approves of being Muslim up to a certain point, as long as you don't cross the line to "extreme=very" Muslim.

X-------------------------------------------------------X-------------------------------------------------------------X
Mild/"Normal"----------------------------Moderate----------------------------------------Extreme/"Very"
Integrated-----------------------------Fervent, Integrated-------------------------------------Separatist

Quote:
He's ultimately disapproving of a dangerous fringe ("perversion") of Islam that specifically leads to violence. Why would he want to take on regular vanilla Islam - he goes out of his way to specifically separate the 2.

How does he know (how do you know) this "fringe" is dangerous and specifically leads to violence? Does every single person in these groups go out and commit violence? No. If they are just looney extreme (don't support Cameron ideals, want cult-like separatism) but don't ask their members to commit violence (Group #2 above), why target them?

I'll tell you why. Because he is concerned mainly about separatism, not about speech that incites violence. That's neither here nor there.

I think I've nitpicked this topic to death. So this will be my last post on the topic. I'll end with this.

The SPIRIT of what Cameron is saying is: It is easy for people to get suckered into terrorism if they feel it is "they vs. us." It is important for govt to push for cultural unity and common identity so that it is just "us" with no "they." So all Muslim ideologies that encourage separatism, isolation, and differences, whether the ideologies themselves incite violence or not, are potentially dangerous. The govt must do all it can to limit the audience and influence of such separatist ideologies.

In other words, "extremism" to Cameron is defined by separatism, not violence. That is why he emphasizes targeting non-violent groups over and over again.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:06 AM

CTS

well said. Also, there's a sneaky element of preemption to his tactic. It's like how in the whole debate about the Iraq war, there wasn't enough debate about the concept of preemption. I'm surrounded by radical christian and jewish groups who could easily be called extremists or separatists who never incited anyone to attack anyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:29 AM