There was something dull and depressing about the ‘progressive’ reaction to David Cameron’s speech in Munich at the international conference on security and terrorism. There were those who sought to paint Cameron as a racist for talking about multiculturalism, or a fascist for doing it in Munich, or a populist for choosing the same day as the English Defence League demonstration in Luton.
He defined ‘multiculturalism’ (a Humpty Dumpty word if ever there was one) as encouraging ‘different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream’ – a vision no-one on the left would endorse. Nor could he help that this major international event takes place in Munich (pretty much Nazi-free since 1945), or that it coincided with some tattooed morons stirring up trouble back home. The left will have to do better than bellow ‘racist’ or make a Hitler salute when these issues come up.
There’s been a debate inside government, under Labour and the coalition, catalysed by the London bombings in 2005, about how to tackle the mortal threat posed by suicide bombers in the UK. The debate among security officials, civil servants and politicians can be boiled down to this: is it better to focus on violent forms of extremism, and ignore (or work alongside) non-violent forms of extremism; or is there a link between non-violent forms of extremism and violent extremism? That question animated everything from Labour’s ‘Prevent’ funding programme to shouting matches between ministers. For some officials, it was better to support the bad (non-violent) guys, regardless of their hideous views on gays, women and voting, in the hope of using them to tackle the really bad guys (the ones strapping bombs to their chests). This view is typified by ex-copper Bob Lambert, founder of the Metropolitan Police’s ‘Muslim contact unit’, who wrote in the Guardian that ‘falsely classifying Muslim groups as subversive “extremists” either because of their opposition to the “war on terror” or because of their adherence to “political Islam” risks doing more to boost al-Qaida recruitment, influence and support than reduce it’.
For others, there was a belief that no suicide bomber ever arrived in isolation at the conviction that detonating a bomb on a bus or a train was a good thing to do. Each bomber has been subject to a persistent accumulation of concepts, from the illegitimacy of Israel, to the existence of a single Muslim identity which transcends nationality, to the immorality of ‘the west’ and its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s a conveyor belt, ending in the twisted logic – if Hamas suicide bombers are heroic in Palestine, and the 9/11 hijackers were heroic in New York, then why not be a hero in Tavistock Square?
Cameron has planted his flag firmly on one side of the argument (as Tony Blair did before him). Cameron said: ‘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 then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.’
This is demonstrably true. Every suicide bomber in London, Madrid, Bali, New York or Jerusalem believes the same things about the world around them as they plan their murderous final hours. What this means is that challenging head-on extremist views on the legitimacy of suicide bombing in Israel, the existence of a Jewish conspiracy, the place of women and gays in society, the validity of democracy and the purpose of Britain’s engagement in Afghanistan should not simply be important for progressives as forays in a battle of ideas, but as a vital component of our national security.
The bottom line is that those that support the tenets of ‘Islamism’ (which Cameron was rightly at great pains to distinguish from the religion of Islam) are no friends of the left. To loudly condemn and vigorously challenge antisemitism, homophobia, patriarchy or cultural practices such as forced marriage or genital mutilation is the duty of progressives. Democracy, equality, freedom – these are the ‘shared values’ that everyone in the Labour party signs up to. Where these values are rejected in the name of a twisted ideology of hate and conspiracy, progressives should stand in opposition.
Cameron juxtaposed ‘passive tolerance’, whereby if you obey the law, the state will leave you alone, with ‘muscular liberalism’, whereby the state would actively promote freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. The phrase is inelegant, but the idea sound. Indeed, the idea belongs to the left, not the laissez-faire right.
Labour needs a better policy response to these important issues than that offered by its own frontbench to Cameron’s Munich speech. It also needs to rein in those on the left, like Ken Livingstone, who view appeasement of extremism as the way to unlock the bloc votes of segregated, closed communities.
Read also… How should the British left engage with Islamists? by Lucy James, and Ghaffar Hussain on the civic challenge of dealing with those who incite to terrorism
Yes, a sound argument well made. There is no future in making apologies for free people in a free country who espouse hateful views about anyone. That does not mean we do not talk to them though – this is precisely what needs to happen, with more open debate and discussion across communities. However part of the trouble with some Muslim communities seems to be the way that people who do wish to engage with the outside world are subject to disgraceful intimidation – like the cleric in Leyton we have heard about recently. The British state needs to come down hard on those who intimidate, and protect those who want to engage in free speech with outsiders. We are right to be careful about dealing with Muslim sensitivities in the Muslim world, but in the UK we have our values of freedom and tolerance that we should not be ashamed of and should do all we can to protect. If someone does not want to go along with those values they should be subject to the law just like anyone else.
As usual in the right of the labour party, this is looked at solely from the anti islamist pro zionist stance, with no mention of israel’s antagonism of the islamic population thereby encouraging the islamist behaviour you talk about