It's not the Moslems, honest guv!

[Ignoramus]

Once again we see the craziness of PC.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Point taken. But I don't remember much talk about "Catholic extremists" back in those days, either.

Had Dr Paisley been the President of the United States and the terrorism directed at citizens of those states, I respectfully suggest you would have heard that talk as much as we did.

Characterisation of Irish Catholics by the Unionists and many British papers was just as ugly and universal as we now see aimed at Muslims. I will concede, however, that this rarely extended to Catholics of other nations, apart from the more frothing speeches by the good reverend on the evils of papism.

[KukriKhan]

I see. After I typed that, I wondered if it were true on the more local, Ireland, level.

So, given that that anti-catholic (and presumeably anti-protestant) rhetoric has faded 30-some years later, should we just not worry about today's anti-muslim rhetoric - as it too will fade when the conflict eventually resolves, and the shiek sits down with the pm in 2038?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I see. After I typed that, I wondered if it were true on the more local, Ireland, level.

So, given that that anti-catholic (and presumeably anti-protestant) rhetoric has faded 30-some years later, should we just not worry about today's anti-muslim rhetoric - as it too will fade when the conflict eventually resolves, and the shiek sits down with the pm in 2038?

If we resolve some of the issues that inflame eejits to acts of madness, and engage more constructively with moderate Muslims (rather than maintaining that there is no such thing) I can see the rhetoric of today looking as foolish as the papist-proddy nonsense of the Seventies.

Young men are notoriously foolish. When a callow youth, I was very impressionable in regard to the republican cause - not least because my father was a icon of the establishment, contrary to some of my more romantically doomed ancestors. "Atrocities" committed by the "Evil Empire" of the British were red meat and it was easy for us to wind ourselves up over internment, Bloody Sunday, Rev Paisley, the Orange Order and damn near anything.

I have a cut-glass English public-school accent that would shame a 1950's BBC announcer, but I also tend to fall into a soft Munster brogue from time to time. Doing that on the streets of England up until even the early eighties could attract unwelcome attention from Her Majesty's constabulary. There were certainly several examples of men jailed for life for the crime of being Irish after the hours of darkness.

All that is a potent cocktail for the foolish nationalism of youth. When one deludes oneself that the whole world is agin ye, it is easy to ignore the voices of moderation and listen to the radicals. Progressive, democratic achievement looks feeble and doomed compared to the glorious deeds of past revolutionaries. It's a remarkably easy step from nursing a Beamish listening to the Pogues to activism and finding oneself planting a pipe bomb behind a street brick. Or, as many Americans did, funding the ability to plant that bomb and dismissing the dead civilians alongside the soldier as casualties of the Great Cause.

I don't condone any of this, and look back on those days of stupidity with enormous embarrassment. But that experience, allied to the knowledge of terrorist methods gained when I took up the fight against them, informs me about how young Muslims may be feeling when so demonised. We must find ways out for them that are constructive, and laud them for taking the high road, and refrain from generalisations - and then yes, in thirty years' time, maybe the Great War for Civilisation will look as silly as the sectarianism of my youth.

[Vladimir]

Oh dear. You don't want to discuss funding sources of the IRA do you?

[Fragony]

Not our problem BG, at least it shouldn't have been untill someone decided to import it. Never mess with the balance.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A question; did the government ever insist on calling the IRA 'anti-Irish terrorists'?

And I don't see how trying to change the belief of who you're fighting will help when the people you're fighting don't change at all. And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.

CR

[Tribesman]

Nice post Banquo , though when you see stuff like this....

And I don't see how trying to change the belief of who you're fighting will help when the people you're fighting don't change at all. And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.

..it really appears that some simple concepts are just too far beyond the grasp of some

[LittleGrizzly]

And I don't see how trying to change the belief of who you're fighting will help when the people you're fighting don't change at all.

They are not trying to change the belief of the people they are fighting where does it say this ?

And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.

wouldn't the plainest way to say it be... terrorist(s) why do we need to add a religion or nationality onto the start of it ? every idiot and his dog nows we are fighting islamic fundamentalists.

What if all the 7/7 bombers were from London should we start calling them london terrorists ?

The point is everytime someone says muslim terrorist your lumping all muslims together which doesn't help in a number of ways

The BNP (british nationalist party) uses the hate this helps generate against all muslims

Muslims will either feel insulted by being grouped with the terrorists or maybe it will make them feel closer to thier cause...

[Crazed Rabbit]

And I don't see how trying to change the belief of who you're fighting will help when the people you're fighting don't change at all.

They are not trying to change the belief of the people they are fighting where does it say this ?

Um, to be more clear, I meant to change the publics' belief of who Britain is fighting, not changing the beliefs of the people you're fighting.

And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.

wouldn't the plainest way to say it be... terrorist(s) why do we need to add a religion or nationality onto the start of it ? every idiot and his dog nows we are fighting islamic fundamentalists.

What if all the 7/7 bombers were from London should we start calling them london terrorists ?

Well, you're not fighting the red brigades, you're engaged with a specific type of terrorist, and it always helps to speak in detail instead of generalities.

If everybody knows who you're fighting, why should the government try to change that? The government is saying the exact opposite of what everyone knows - they are trying to make a 180 degree turn in public belief.

And when they accomplish that, when everyone ignores the mosques preaching hatred because 'we're not fighting Muslims at all', will that be of help?

The point is everytime someone says muslim terrorist your lumping all muslims together which doesn't help in a number of ways

The BNP (british nationalist party) uses the hate this helps generate against all muslims

Muslims will either feel insulted by being grouped with the terrorists or maybe it will make them feel closer to thier cause...

The government isn't doing this because they think it will help, but because they are a bunch of ninnies who don't want to offend and believe in crap like moral and cultural relativism.

And do you think Muslims will appreciate the gov't telling them what is and isn't Islamic?

CR

[Pannonian]

Rabbit, this is the government telling the civil servants what kind of language is useable given their policy. They're entitled to do that, as the elected government directing the appointed government. What you or I regard as plain speaking or whatever is irrelevant. The elected government is the boss, the civil servants are the employees. The boss is entitled to dictate what the employees can or cannot say in an official capacity. If the employees don't like it, they can say what they like outside working hours, or quit their jobs and say what they like when they like.

[LittleGrizzly]

The government isn't doing this because they think it will help, but because they are a bunch of ninnies who don't want to offend and believe in crap like moral and cultural relativism.


I think this is where we get our different opinions on the matter, I believe the goverment is mainly doing this to not insult muslims and for the insult it would save surely its worth it just to omit the word muslim from 'muslim terrorist' i mean if they were trying to convince us the terrorists werent muslim at all it would be a different story, but changing wording just to avoid offence is fine imo.

And do you think Muslims will appreciate the gov't telling them what is and isn't Islamic?

im sure saying terrorism isn't islamic will be fine with the vast majority of muslims, the only muslims i could see having a problem with that would be the terrorists and thier strongest supporters.

[Tribesman]

You are wasting your time Grizzly , such simple things are too hard for some people to grasp .

[econ21]

A question; did the government ever insist on calling the IRA 'anti-Irish terrorists'?

Playing with words can be useful in a hearts and mind type conflict. For example, the UK government was careful not to talk of civil war for fear of legitimising the IRA. Arguably the war on terror rhetoric falls into this trap that the UK avoided.

Another verbal ploy the Conservative British government used was to popularise the term "Sinn Fein/IRA". This packaged the political wing with the military wing and caught on, at least on the mainland. I am not sure if it had any positive role in the province, but it was intended to combat the illusion that the two wings were separate. (I believe Sinn Fein figures like Adams and McGuinness had key leadership roles in the IRA.)

The problem with the current Islamicist terrorism is that it is much less centralised and more diffuse than IRA terrorism. For example, labelling it "Al Qaeda terrorism" might be attractive in that it seems precise and does not directly associate it with a mass religion. However, that would aggrandise a loose organisation that probably plays no real part in many of the atrocities.

For me, it's a challenge to find the right label that precisely identifies the nature and ideology of the relevant terrorists, without slandering a much wider population or associating the terrorists with something seen as virtuous by that wider population. Islamicist may be the best I can think of. However, this seems to be one of the terms the UK government is trying to stop people using, in which case I can't support them.

I agree with the government that talking of "Islamic" and "Muslim" terrorism is clearly inappropriate (as a thought experiment with the terminology "Christian terrorism" reveals). It's too crude and puts the backs up of the millions of people you need on side. Even the label "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" is questionable, given that Islamic fundamentalism seems very prevalent among people in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc who are central to fighting the terrorists. "Islamicist" is not ideal, as it it verbally a little too close to something that is seen as very good by around a billion people on the planet. But I can't think of anything better at the moment. Avoiding labelling the terrorists at all just seems evasive and verging on the Orwellian.

And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.

I think the political correctness is towards UK Muslims, not the terrorists. The US does not have a very visible Muslim population, so perhaps it is not so clear to you. A US analogy with talking of Muslim or Islamic terrorism might be if the US government had kept referring to the Black Panthers as "African-American terrorists" or "black terrorists". Perhaps the label "Pan Africanist terrorism" might be analogous to the label "Islamicist terrorism".

[JR-]

I see. After I typed that, I wondered if it were true on the more local, Ireland, level.

So, given that that anti-catholic (and presumeably anti-protestant) rhetoric has faded 30-some years later, should we just not worry about today's anti-muslim rhetoric - as it too will fade when the conflict eventually resolves, and the shiek sits down with the pm in 2038?

only if we (the western world in particular) comprehensively beat islamo-fascism as a political force.

it tends to be forgotten that the IRA in the 1980's were almost totally compromised by the secret services via sig-int and hum-int methods.

we were:
booby-trapping their weapons caches
ambushing them on terror ops
getting them to kill themselves on false mole-hunts

they were in short on their knee's, and thus ready to engage in what some call a 'peace-process'.

[Fragony]

You are wasting your time Grizzly , such simple things are too hard for some people to grasp .

Moderate muslims are just as terrified as those that represent us, and in their case with good reason because those that represent us settle for beard-whispering instead of letting moderate muslims get their boat afloat. This rediculous pc crap does nobody any good, keep kicking untill they start enjoying it and after that start hitting them.

[Vladimir]

Moderate muslims are just as terrified as those that represent us, and in their case with good reason because those that represent us settle for beard-whispering instead of letting moderate muslims get their boat afloat. This rediculous pc crap does nobody any good, keep kicking untill they start enjoying it and after that start hitting them.

Terrified? Fear is hardly the answer and may be driving this ridiculous language change.

[Fragony]

Terrified? Fear is hardly the answer and may be driving this ridiculous language change.

Yeah but that is what it is, european leaders aren't fit for their job they are too scared for that. It isn't even your usual survivalism that comes with preservation it's the fear of being excommunicated by their network. Normal people would burst out in laughing when dealing with the sometimes rediculous demands muslims are encouraged to make but in european politics everybody is looking at what the guy next to him is doing. They have absolutily no idea how to deal with this and settle for having a bucket of water for the occasional fire, this multicultist thing is nothing more then collective braindamage, es muss sein.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The government isn't doing this because they think it will help, but because they are a bunch of ninnies who don't want to offend and believe in crap like moral and cultural relativism.


I think this is where we get our different opinions on the matter, I believe the goverment is mainly doing this to not insult muslims and for the insult it would save surely its worth it just to omit the word muslim from 'muslim terrorist' i mean if they were trying to convince us the terrorists werent muslim at all it would be a different story, but changing wording just to avoid offence is fine imo.

They are trying to remove all trace of Islamist label from the terrorists. They not just saying that the terrorists are not following Islam or whatever platitude is the fad, but engaging in double speak by calling them 'anti-Islamic terrorists'.

The terrorists are driven by their interpretation of Islam, and to deny that, as the government is, is to shroud yourself in ignorance.

But I think you might be missing the point of my post.

For me, it's a challenge to find the right label that precisely identifies the nature and ideology of the relevant terrorists, without slandering a much wider population or associating the terrorists with something seen as virtuous by that wider population. Islamicist may be the best I can think of. However, this seems to be one of the terms the UK government is trying to stop people using, in which case I can't support them.

Indeed, that would be one of the better terms - it avoids offending like Muslim terrorists (though I don't think of that term as being as inappropriate as you do ) while not engaging in double speak.

It seems like the desire by the government to avoid confrontation on this level is part of a refusal to strongly condemn the culture that supports Islamist terror, and a desire to be multicultural and not criticize other cultures.

I think the political correctness is towards UK Muslims, not the terrorists.

Yes, indeed.

CR

[Tribesman]

They not just saying that the terrorists are not following Islam or whatever platitude is the fad, but engaging in double speak by calling them 'anti-Islamic terrorists'.

I think the political correctness is towards UK Muslims, not the terrorists.

I think it is not political correctness at all , and those that cry PC at every turn don't seem to be able to think about the subject .

[rvg]

...european leaders aren't fit for their job they are too scared for that...

Amen, brother...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

[ICantSpellDawg]

capitulation

What a joke. Tell me this isn't the exact thought process that we have been fighting against in the United States for years.

What is the Anglican church? Is it just the ferryman to international Rainbow Islam? No wonder Blair converted immediately after leaving office. What is the point of being an Anglican?

All of the pomp and circumstance of the RC church, none of the conviction or common sense. PLUS it was started by someone for the reason of divorcing his wife more easily and annexing the church coffers.

First Heresy, then Blasphemy.

EDIT: way to beat me to it RVG

[rvg]

What a joke. Tell me this isn't the exact thought process that we have been fighting against in the United States for years.

What is the Anglican church? Is it just the ferryman to international Rainbow Islam? No wonder Blair converted immediately after leaving office. What is the point of being an Anglican?

All of the pomp and circumstance of the RC church, none of the conviction or common sense. PLUS it was started by someone for the reason of divorcing his wife more easily and annexing the church coffers.

First Heresy, then Blasphemy.

You know, Tuff, my heart aches for Europe when I see something like this happening. All the disagreements aside, if Europe falls to this, it will be our defeat as well. If that happens, I will honestly miss Europe for absolutely unselfish reasons.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I must admit, that when I saw this story, I was fuming with outrage too and very nearly bought a Daily Mail for succour.

However, on reflection, and on reading Dr William's actual comments more thoroughly, it becomes apparent that he was advocating the option of having Shari'a available to Muslim citizens for activities such as divorce and inheritance - not for flogging or stoning. The challenge - which we have faced in discussing this subject in the Backroom - is that Shari'a has rather too many schools of thought - and has been tainted, perhaps irrevocably, by the fundamentalist loonies' version.

The principle of integrating religious groups' rules into law is well established. Britain has a blasphemy law, for example, that only applies to Christian sensibilities. Orthodox Jews have religious courts where the faithful go to resolve disputes, and the decisions of these courts are upheld in British law. Recently, Roman Catholic prelates tried to force the government to exempt them from the laws on adoption so their agencies could refuse to place children with gay couples. I didn't read too many right-wing commentators wailing at the end of European civilisation at that prospect. (Quite a lot of lefties though ).

I believe that Dr Williams was trying to address Muslim concerns by suggesting a similar parallel system, operated by the consent of both parties, might be appropriate. I fear he has, in the manner of churchmen, been kack-handed in his commentary, and a little disingenuous about the reality of Islamic practices, even moderate, in relation to women's rights and the pressures put on women to conform, for example. But he is emphatically not calling for the Caliphate.

In fact, what Dr Williams should be castigated for - and where he should have been guilty of a strategic mistake - is the idea that religion has any standing at all in law-making. Why should believers have parallel legal rights unavailable to the unbeliever? For pity's sake, anglicanism has the right to appoint men to the legislature - let alone the Christian influence on law in the UK. It doesn't matter if it is Islam, Christianity or Scientology - law should be secular, and the idea that there is one law for all, each of whom is equal before it, should mean that religious favours should be withdrawn from all these lobby groups.

[InsaneApache]

Cack handed indeed BQ.

In fact, what Dr Williams should be castigated for - and where he should have been guilty of a strategic mistake - is the idea that religion has any standing at all in law-making. Why should believers have parallel legal rights unavailable to the unbeliever? For pity's sake, anglicanism has the right to appoint men to the legislature - let alone the Christian influence on law in the UK. It doesn't matter if it is Islam, Christianity or Scientology - law should be secular, and the idea that there is one law for all, each of whom is equal before it, should mean that religious favours should be withdrawn from all these lobby groups.

Then the deluded one says....

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

I'm one of those. My recent speeding ticket was a travesty, a travestry I tell thee. Can I have my money back now? It does make you wonder what planet these pillocks live on. Si thee.

[Fragony]

You know, Tuff, my heart aches for Europe when I see something like this happening.

Not europe just the UK, we are a lot less nuts here, almost seems like they are having a pc-contest there. Nothing is being taken it is given away. And it's so terribly simple, this is who we are, and this is what we expect from you. All it takes is a respectable distance.

[Tribesman]

I wondered when someone would go for this , its outrageous In tell ya , absolutely frothing at the mouth outrageous ...
However...

However, on reflection, and on reading Dr William's actual comments more thoroughly, it becomes apparent that he was advocating the option of having Shari'a available to Muslim citizens for activities such as divorce and inheritance - not for flogging or stoning.

So that would be like what the Cof E has , what the Catholics have ...so its OK really as long as its Christians .
Bugger , someone introduced Talmudic law in Britian without much outrage , so why can it not be the same for Sharia ?

[Fragony]

'why not' is the wrong question. If muslims want sharia laws there are perfectly fine deserts where they have it. Go there. If you stay shut up and respect english law just like everybody else. Law isn't a tailor.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I wondered when someone would go for this , its outrageous In tell ya , absolutely frothing at the mouth outrageous ...
However...


So that would be like what the Cof E has , what the Catholics have ...so its OK really as long as its Christians .
Bugger , someone introduced Talmudic law in Britian without much outrage , so why can it not be the same for Sharia ?

it is absurd - i agree wholeheartedly.

I never thought that politically correct people were "calling for the Caliphate", I am against them because eventually, when sensibility is weakened, the Caliphate calls for itself.

The UK did not allow the Catholic church to opt out of the Homosexual adoption issue. It seems as though the U.K. wants to rip itself apart - I say let them. The beauty of an international community is that other countries which I have no ties to are free to try thing out. The more quickly and harshly they fall or undergo terrible consequences, the more fortified public opinion in the U.S. will become against it.

Killing themselves so that others may live - how noble of the U.K.

[Tribesman]

If muslims want sharia laws there are perfectly fine deserts where they have it. Go there.

So shoud Britain also get all jews who have talmud law in Britain to move to Israel ?

But hey how about a question that you are still unable or unwilling to answer Frag .
What is Sharia law ?
Come on you go on about it often enough , what is it ?

The UK did not allow the Catholic church to opt out of the Homosexual adoption issue.

Yes it did .
What the UK government did was say to them that if they wanted to opt out of the legislation covering government supported adoption agencies then they couldn't have any of the government money or assistance that goes to government supported adoption agencies .