It's not the Moslems, honest guv!

[InsaneApache]

Maybe I'm getting a bit senile in my middle age but this does seem a bit ridiculous.

Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...251965,00.html

OK, not all Moslems are terrorists, as not all terrorists are Moslems but to imply that the 9/11 jokers or the 7/7 retards were not Moslem or influenced by Islam is disingenuous.

Having lived through the bombings of the 70s and 80s, curtesy of the IRA, this would be akin to saying that a little old lady from Bognor was as much a terrorist threat as that guy in DPM and balaclava speaking in a soft Ulster brogue.

[Viking]

It does hurt their case though, to not recognize them as muslims..

[InsaneApache]

Aye, make 'em blush, that'll teach the buggers.

[Fragony]

What was it called nowadays, 'anti-aslimic activity' wasn't it? That's gonna be usefull.

[Viking]

Aye, make 'em blush, that'll teach the buggers.

It'll be worth a little more than blushing when they're willing to blow themselves up for the case.

[InsaneApache]

It does hurt their case though, to not recognize them as muslims..

It'll be worth a little more than blushing when they're willing to blow themselves up for the case.

Somehow I can't see the opinion of 'infidels' causing the boomskis much loss of sleep about their Moslem status. After all, who decides what or who a Moslem is?

I'd put money on it that it's not Gordon Brown.

[Fragony]

Somehow I can't see the opinion of 'infidels' causing the boomskis much loss of sleep about their Moslem status. After all, who decides what or who a Moslem is?

Ya, zero effect and boom is boom whatever you call it. What makes it even more hilarious it the implication that terrorism exists because of the way the west percieves them.

[Andres]

A government telling people what they should say?



The existence of a guide written by the government, telling people how they should talk about a certain issue is frightening. Very frightening.

What happens if a civil servant keeps talking about "Muslim terrorists" in a certain case because, well, in that certain case the terrorists were Muslim? Are they going to put him/her in jail? Will he/she get fired?

[Viking]

Somehow I can't see the opinion of 'infidels' causing the boomskis much loss of sleep about their Moslem status. After all, who decides what or who a Moslem is?

I'd put money on it that it's not Gordon Brown.

It could very well have its effects.

A government telling people what they should say?



The existence of a guide written by the government, telling people how they should talk about a certain issue is frightening. Very frightening.

What happens if a civil servant keeps talking about "Muslim terrorists" in a certain case because, well, in that certain case the terrorists were Muslim? Are they going to put him/her in jail? Will he/she get fired?

It's a guide after all. Tis not an attack on freedom of speech.

[Andres]

It's a guide after all. Tis not an attack on freedom of speech.

Yeah, a guideline on what people should say...

It makes me feel uncomfortable.

Guess it's just me being paranoid when it comes to interference by the government

[Fragony]

It's a guide after all. Tis not an attack on freedom of speech.

It is in a way, it is a set of rules, might not be a limitation on the raw freedom of speech but it is enforced etiquete. And once again it places the responibility on the wrong because it's basicly saying that being 'rude' to muslims leads to terrorism. If all the british government is capable of is spamming eufenisms they are clearly too terrified for the job, any eufenism blows up in your face, all this will do is make people more sarcastic, I love using their eufenisms because they are so utterly rediculous. 'Anti islamic activity', the latest. Not only is it a linguistical atrocity it's also just not true, it's anti western activity, or has england's government already accepted becomming a islamic country? Sounds like it to me.

[Pannonian]

Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.

What's the problem here? Governments of any day and any age have been trying to reconcile their employees' language with current policy. Go back far enough, and one could probably find Roman governors who were removed for being a tad insensitive for central government's liking. Whether or not that policy is right or wrong is another matter, but there is no issue with free speech here - whatever one's occupation, one does not have absolute free speech when acting in an official capacity. Unless, that is, one is willing to back it up by quitting one's job to exercise that right. If you're your own boss, then you can have all the free speech you like. But if you're working for someone, you're subject to their policy.

[Fragony]

These are fine, this one isn't though

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1770&ct=5

[Pannonian]

Once again, one can argue whether or not it is right to call it that, but one can't argue that they have the right to call it whatever they want. Call it idiocy if you will, but don't call it an infringement on free speech, for there is no free speech in this matter. Not during working hours, anyway.

[macsen rufus]

The existence of a guide written by the government, telling people how they should talk about a certain issue is frightening.

Why do you hate the NewSpeak Dictionary?

[Fragony]

Call it idiocy if you will, but don't call it an infringement on free speech

Well I did't, do call it idiotic, and it's simply a turd of a term, I mean common, an attack on english soil would be ant-islamic? What the?

[Pannonian]

Well I did't, do call it idiotic, and it's simply a turd of a term, I mean common, an attack on english soil would be ant-islamic? What the?

Well, Andres raised that point, so I'll apologise for replying to that point to you.

Actually, I take that back. I originally made a post replying to no-one in particular, which you then replied to, so I'll just weasel out of my apology in grand Backroom style by saying that I was merely clarifying my point. Anyway, you won't find me arguing with you over the idiocy of this.

[InsaneApache]

Perhaps we should adjust our rhetoric accordingly. Now what should we call Shrub and Bliars Eyerack policy?

Anti-Western activity?

See, it makes perfect sense now.

[JAG]

Andres - the civil service is part of government, it is the central governments job to offer guides and direction, as to how things should be combated. I think you are blowing this up uneccesarily by saying it is somehow an attack on free speech - the civil servants can say whatever they want when not working, but when they are working and part of the government, they have been asked not to use those certain phrases - I am sure it is the same in the case of not calling Germans, those ex Nazi pigs, or Israelis Zionist scum....

As for the reasons the government have done this, it is perfectly simple and understandable. We do not have to alienate and jump up and down screaming about 'those Muslims', to combat the terrorist threat. By proxy, the nature of the language we have been using in the 'war on terror' has had a tinge of 'they are all the same', whether you like it or not, and it is rubbish. Any toning down in language should be welcomed, in my opinion.

[InsaneApache]

Andres - the civil service is part of government.

It wasn't until those crypto-Stalinists, Nu Lab got their mucky mits on the levers of power. The civil service was traditionally considered neutral.

Nice example of newthink though JAG.

[JAG]

So, they don't carry out government policy?
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/index.asp

The UK Civil Service supports the government of the day, by helping them develop and carry out their policies and administer the public services for which they are responsible.

The Civil Service has been headed by Sir Gus O'Donnell since 1 August 2005. He is supported by the Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executives in each department and agency.

Working with independent experts in key areas, these senior leaders ensure we have the capability we need to help the Government achieve its current and future priorities.

The civil service is politically neutral, of course, but it IS part of government, it is the enabling arm of it. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

[InsaneApache]

The UK Civil Service supports the government of the day

See, it's easy really. They are not part of the government, they are part of the State. A completely different thing. Still, an easy mistake for a Nu-Lab apologists to make.

[Vladimir]

Islamic, Moslem, Muslim, Muselman, Mahomedans, et al. I could have fun with this.

[JAG]

Sigh.

[Fragony]

See, it's easy really. They are not part of the government, they are part of the State. A completely different thing. Still, an easy mistake for a Nu-Lab apologists to make.

Sounds like our WRR, the scientific bureau for government recommendations (would translate in something like that), supposed to be neutral but in reality it's a collection of pipesmoking commies who never come outside and lost all touch with reality, if the lefties can't convince people it's all in their best interest to give them absolute control they order an independant report there.

[Pannonian]

It wasn't until those crypto-Stalinists, Nu Lab got their mucky mits on the levers of power. The civil service was traditionally considered neutral.

Nice example of newthink though JAG.

Erm, isn't the civil service the executive part of government? As opposed to the elected government, which is the directive part? As such, it is the job of the executive part to carry out the projects of the directive part, although senior civil servants, being in their jobs for longer than elected governments, may also play a significant or even decisive advisory role. But the elected government, being elected, has the decisive say in policy.

Or are you suggesting that the elected government should defer to the appointed government as a matter of principle?

[JR-]

OK, not all Moslems are terrorists, as not all terrorists are Moslems but to imply that the 9/11 jokers or the 7/7 retards were not Moslem or influenced by Islam is disingenuous.

Having lived through the bombings of the 70s and 80s, curtesy of the IRA, this would be akin to saying that a little old lady from Bognor was as much a terrorist threat as that guy in DPM and balaclava speaking in a soft Ulster brogue.

agreed.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think this is being done to avoid offending muslims, now everyone nows islamic fundamentalism is the cause of recent terrorism in the west, and islamic terrorism is the terror we are having a war on, so everyone nows its muslim terrorists.

So does it really matter if the goverment tells the civil service not to mention muslim or islam when talking about terrorism as it seems they are just trying to avoid offence, now if they were trying to blame the terrorism on a different religion i would have a problem, but it seems they are just trying to cause less offence to muslims and maybe calm down some of the anti-muslim feelings in the UK.

[KukriKhan]

OK, not all Moslems are terrorists, as not all terrorists are Moslems but to imply that the 9/11 jokers or the 7/7 retards were not Moslem or influenced by Islam is disingenuous.

Having lived through the bombings of the 70s and 80s, curtesy of the IRA, this would be akin to saying that a little old lady from Bognor was as much a terrorist threat as that guy in DPM and balaclava speaking in a soft Ulster brogue.

Point taken. But I don't remember much talk about "Catholic extremists" back in those days, either. Just 'bombers', 'rogue elements', 'thugs', etc. So, my guess is they're just trying to apply the same standard to today's struggle.

[macsen rufus]

"Catholic extremists"

that's not a phrase that's been used in the UK since Mr Fawkes, AFAIK - the IRA and various splinters were invariably refered to as "Irish nationalists" or "Irish Republicans", and again both of those terms covered a grouping much wider than the armed bodies that existed within them. Not all such republicans/nationalists supported the "armed struggle", though many did, and not all that supported it took part. Even then, the term was often "paramilitary" as opposed to "terrorist" (and the same applied to the 'loyalist/unionist' side, too).

Ludicrous though the NewSpeak Dictionary may appear from some angles, the point behind it is to divorce the extremists from the community whose name they invoke for their 'legitimacy'. Part of the success in cooling things down in northern Ireland was Sinn Fein's realisation that to maintain the credibility of representing their community meant they had to embrace that community's weariness of violence, and promote their interests through the democratic process. I think generally most of the Muslim community in Britain is pretty thankful they live here rather than an Islamic state, and the same processes have to be mobilised to isolate and ostracise Islamic terrorists. The big difference is I don't really see a strong political entity in the muslim community that is on a par with Sinn Fein in Ireland, so the ground is too easy for the whackjobs to occupy