"Islamic Terror Threats" - The Stirrer's Blog for Monday

14-08-2006

Not for the first time in the midst of this mis-named “War on Terror”, a vast swathe of the British population seems left without a voice.

Who speaks for us - those of us who abhor violence, hate racism, and value our freedom?

It seems that once again we've been left as spectators watching high velocity ping pong between spinning ministers and self-interested community leaders.

Here's the John Reid line; Britain is endangered in way we haven't seen since the end of World War Two, and unless we are prepared to accept restrictions on our freedom that might previously have seemed unpalatable we can't hope to combat that threat.

It's a theory most of the British media seem to have bought into wholesale.

Over the last 48 hours, we've even been told that a Birmingham man could be Al Qaeda's chief operative in this country.

The idea that ten transatlantic planes were due to be targetted in a co-ordinated attack is certainly accepted as fact in many quarters - often backed up with stories of countless other plots, leaked by unnamed government or security sources.

Reid's combative style has brought him into conflict with three Labour MP's who were among more than 40 signatories to a letter suggesting that British foreign policy had fanned the flames of this home-grown extremism.

Tony Blair has denied a link in the past; now Reid simply says that terrorists (or the threat of terrorism) shouldn't dictate what we do.

So there it is then; a stark choice between standing up to the evil of wild-eyed suicide bombers and doing anything it takes to defeat them, or else backing away from the cause of international justice because some of our fellow citizens might take up arms against us.

As the “Express and Star” put it on Saturday, in a comment that has been echoed elsewhere in the media; “You are either stand with us, or against us.”

It sounds like a simple choice but really it's a simplistic one.

Of course, Britain should not shy away from defending liberty and promoting justice abroad even if that upsets a substantial minority of the population.

In 1939 for instance, we stood alone against the evil of Nazism and helped preserve Europe from tyranny.

In the same way, it might be possible to construct an argument today for taming the aggressive expansionist tendencies of other nations - especially if they pose a direct threat to our safety.

Iraq, though, posed no such threat, and the case for war there was so dishonest, so patently flawed, that any moral authority this government had has long since vanished.

For many of us, this is simply a source of anger or disgust - something to be borne in mind in the voting booth.

But imagine if you're a member of an ethnic minority that is routinely harassed on the streets by the police, has fewer job opportunities than the rest of society, and is stigmatised daily in the press.

What easy prey you then might become for a poisonous cleric filling your head with dangerous notions of “martyrdom”.

Responsibility for weeding out these militant mullahs rests in large part with the Muslim community itself - and I'm not sure that the presence of these hate-mongers has been a sufficient source of shame to the self-professed moderates within the community.

They must accept greater responsibility.

But the failure of our government to admit its own role in alienating many young British Muslims is profoundly dishonest.

They cannot simply wish away the golden rule of cause and effect.

None of this excuses the actions of any British-born suicide bomber of course; but it goes a long way towards explaining it.

It underlines that the real battle here is one of hearts and minds; and it will be won and lost not on the basis of endless "clampdowns" or ever greater restrictions on our freedom.

That will simply deliver us into the kind of repressive society we are supposed to be protecting ourselves from.

The only way to neutralise the threat is to make all Britons, regardless of their race or culture, truly feel part of British society.

That means tackling the gross inequalities of wealth that still bear down on too many members of our ethnic minorities, and to help them feel that they have a stake in our democratic institutions.

It also means challenging the segregationist tendencies shown by people who belong to some of those communities.

Promoting identity and community is one thing; tolerating ghettos quite another.

Above all, though, it means ruling with wisdom and honesty - two commodities which, right now, seem in very short supply.