Blears to insist on 'core values'

[Uthman]

Hazel Blears has said people must not be over-sensitive in challenging ideas that conflict with British values.

The minister said there was a need to be "a lot clearer" about respect for others, equality before the law, free speech and tackling discrimination.

Practices like forced marriages and female genital mutilation needed to be challenged, she said.

"It's not about attacking people's culture it's about saying in this country we have certain bottom lines."

The communities secretary is due to give a speech later on government contact with individuals and groups which promote extremism.

Radical rhetoric

Ms Blears is urging a "dividing line" between those embracing and rejecting British "core values".

She told BBC Radio Five Live: "I'm saying we need to be clearer in setting out what we think is right, what we think is wrong, challenging the views of people which are extremist and do not support the values we have in Britain - and I do think we need to be clear about that."

It will be seen as a warning to Muslim groups that they will not be engaged with unless they end radical rhetoric.

There is a need for moral clarity, a dividing line rooted in our overriding sense of what is right and wrong

Hazel Blears

Ms Blears told the BBC there were clear boundaries about what was tolerated in British society - but sometimes people over-reacted and were worried about offending other faiths, when it was not necessary.

And she said people needed to understand other religions better and pointed to examples of people mistakenly fearing Christmas celebrations would offend faiths.

"Sometimes I think we overestimate people's sensitivities and it leads us to make decisions that are not entirely sensible."

And she said the "overwhelming majority" of people in Britain shared the same values.

"What I don't want to see happen is because people are frightened almost of offending people they are not even prepared to talk about issues."

She denied the speech was a jibe at Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy behind the Equalities Bill who has been at the centre of leadership speculation.

'Difficult and contentious'

"This is absolutely not about personality politics in any shape or form," Ms Blears said.

"This is a serious speech. It's actually talking about trying to tackle violent extremism and recognising that these are sensitive issues."

In the speech, at the London School of Economics, Ms Blears will argue that the government's engagement strategy must be part of its overall anti-extremism strategy. She will call for the government to actively challenge the views and methods of those who go beyond core values.

In order to do that, ministers will have to work in "difficult and contentious territory".

She will say: "There is a need for moral clarity, a dividing line rooted in our overriding sense of what is right and wrong."

Ms Blears' predecessor, Ruth Kelly, reduced official contacts with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2006 over its boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day - which has since been reversed.

Source

[Uthman]

Edited excerpt from speech by Hazel Blears:

We must engage with extremists

Having contact with non-violent Islamists is vital for preventing terrorism – but we must do so without sacrificing our principles.

Barack Obama used his inaugural address in February to tell the world:

Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.

So what is this "far-reaching network of violence and hatred"?

It is rooted in a shifting mosaic of international groupings, with their origins in the struggle of the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in the refugee camps and some madrassas on the Afghan-Pakistan border, in Algeria's political unrest of the 1980s and 1990s, and in the war in Iraq.

Some seek to define this mosaic of organisations and philosophies as "Islamism" or sometimes "political Islam". But here we run into real dangers.

There is the obvious danger that we say "Islamism" but people hear "Islam" or "Islamic", especially as the word translates poorly into other languages such as Arabic. Even in English, where the two words are distinct, many people lack the political literacy to distinguish between a political ideology dubbed by some as Islamism and Islam itself. There are plenty of people, for example the BNP in this country, or Geert Wilders' outfit in Holland, who would wish to conflate the two in order to stir up race hate.

A second trap is that to talk of "Islamism" suggests there is a unified, single movement. But there is no more a unified Islamism than there is a single socialism, or a single conservatism, or a single liberalism. As with every single political creed, from Marxism to fascism, there are internal factions, theoretical disputes, acrimonious splits, personality clashes, revisionism and evolution of thought and organisation. For example, al-Qaida is in conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood over fundamental questions such as the nature of the state and the duty of the individual to fight the perceived enemies of Islam.

A third trap is to assume that all Islamists are terrorists. Some groups specifically oppose violence but have religious views that are very conservative and can conflict with other values we share in society. Hizb ut-Tahrir, for example, is a party that is overtly anti-democratic, is against the existence of Israel and wants an end to the British state and its replacement by a theocracy, but which nonetheless falls short of openly advocating violence or terrorism. To lump Hizb ut-Tahrir in with al-Qaida is to fail to understand the differences between the two, just as it would be intellectually lazy to lump the BNP with Combat 18, or the Socialist Workers' party with the Red Army Faction.

But the question is the extent to which politically extreme groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir contribute to an environment that makes violence more acceptable or justifiable or makes individuals more susceptible to committing acts of violence, and whether there is a symbiotic relationship between groups whose hate is expressed in words, or whose support for terrorism or suicide bombing is confined to the Middle East but not Britain, and those whose hate is expressed in violent actions. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organisation, but it supports terrorist organisations such as Hamas in Gaza.

Notwithstanding my plea for an enhanced literacy when it comes to discourse about the nature of what we might call political Islamisms in the plural, it is also clear that we can discern some common threads in that "far-reaching network of violence and hatred". A belief in the supremacy of the Muslim people, in a divine duty to bring the world under the control of hegemonic Islam, in the establishment of a theocratic Caliphate and in the undemocratic imposition of theocratic law on whole societies: these are the defining and common characteristics of the disparate strands of this ideology here and around the world.

Violent extremists will use religious language, religious texts and passages, seek to get a foothold in mosques and madrassas in order to spread their messages and exploit international events such as the war in Iraq or the conflicts on Israel's borders to inflame opinion and forge a sense of grievance.

Radicalisation does not lead automatically to terrorism. But no one would strap explosives to their own bodies, in order to kill themselves and others, without first being radicalised. And the essence of terrorism is that a tiny number of individuals can wreak a disproportionate level of violence and fatality.

To dismiss violent extremism as simply "criminal" is to fail to conceive properly its political and societal roots. The Prevent strand of the government's Contest counter-terrorism strategy is designed to empower communities, so that they can spot when people may be at risk of being groomed by terrorists. This means that the government is engaged in an unprecedented level of dialogue direct with communities and the organisations that represent them.

You can see the potential dangers inherent in this approach. But we are clear that engagement is not the same as endorsement. I know our political opponents will seek to make hay with this: they will say that somehow engaging with groups with extremist views shows a lack of proper understanding of them, that we're being hoodwinked, used or exploited by extremists, or that we don't care enough about antisemitism, sexism or homophobia. This is at the core of the argument of, for example, Melanie Phillips.

So there is a need for moral clarity, for a clear dividing line between what we consider acceptable, and what we consider beyond the pale. But if we leave the field clear to extremists, without any engagement at all, we embolden them and undermine our own objectives.

With groups that call for or support terrorist acts, however, there is no room whatsoever for debate, only vociferous opposition. We have to have a clear analysis of the methodology of violent extremist groups. One aspect of this clarity is an understanding that violent extremists, as well as non-violent extremists, operate in a clandestine way. They use front organisations, with innocuous-sounding names. Those extremist groups that engage in democracy, for example by standing candidates in elections, are doing so as a political tactic.

So we must be vigilant at all times, because our opponents will use a variety of tactics to stay one step ahead, and some groups will seek to hoodwink mainstream politicians into their tacit support, for example by invitations to seminars and conferences. The technique was known to Lenin, who talked about "useful idiots".

The left, in particular, must be vigilant. The liberal-left is historically concerned for the underdog, for oppressed peoples, for taking a stand against racism and imperialism. It is part of our political DNA. The problem today is that these valid concerns can be mutated into support for causes and organisations that are fiercely anti-liberal and populated by people whose hearts are filled with misogyny, homophobia and Jew-hatred. Liberals' pathological fear of being branded "racist" or "Islamophobic" can lead to ideological contortions: condoning or even forming alliances with groups that are socially conservative, homophobic, antisemitic and violent towards women.

Therefore, it is right that we stand up against violence towards women, for example, whether it is sanctioned or encouraged by religious and cultural leaders or not. There is a line when respect for other cultures is crossed, and a universal morality should kick in. There are some who say that it is a form of racism or imperialism to disagree with what they see as cultural attitudes and practices. I say: the values that put all humans on an equal footing, with equal rights for all, are not western values; they are human values.

This is an edited excerpt of a speech by the secretary of state for communities and local government at the LSE on February 25.

Source

To read the full speech see here.

[aadil77]

She has a point, some people do get oversensitive about offending people. Like in my college, apparently the name 'assembly' was changed to 'gathering' to not offend muslims over christians assemblys, which I think is over the top

Theres still the issue over how we define 'core values'. I think people should kind of get out of their little holes and learn a bit more and participate a bit more, because you get some people that are completely outcasted from society and can't get along with other people. I'm not saying engage in the haraam of society or become patriotic, but you know have some general knowledge, be able to talk to people from other than your own little ghetto. Because you get some stubborn people here that try really hard to enforce their whole home culture and do things like not learning english properly, go out wearing their home grown bright coloured clothes etc. Which I find annoying, not because I'm worried what people think.
There's nothing wrong with being a bit flexible and molding in a bit, as long as its halal. Its got nothing to do with being complexed or doing what you want, Its just for you own benefit all you freshiiessss:D:thumbs_up

[Uthman]

Comment by Inayat Bunglawala:

Engagement with extremists is right

But to build trust, Hazel Blears needs to address the government's continuing double standards.

In her speech at the LSE yesterday, Hazel Blears called for greater governmental engagement with those Muslim groups that may hold conservative views on some issues but nevertheless oppose violent extremism, saying:

…if we are to change minds and win this debate, it will not be through restricting our engagement to a select few, but through bringing in new voices: not through concealing what we believe in, but through making our arguments confidently: and not through acquiescing with those with whom we disagree, but through being robust in our challenge to them.

This is welcome news. If engagement is to have any useful meaning then it must include talking and debating with those whose views you may disagree with, sometimes profoundly so.

For the past couple of years the government has adopted the opposite course of action and has instead been seeking to find partners among British Muslims who are prepared to parrot its own views on what are the main drivers behind the phenomenon of violent extremism and in return has been handing out millions of pounds in taxpayers' money to them. That strategy has clearly failed with the government's "partners" universally derided among British Muslims as stooges.

So, it is about time there was a rethink in the government's strategy.
Al-Qaida have absolutely nothing to offer British Muslim youths except the path of isolation and destruction. It makes sense to build the widest possible alliance with British Muslims against al-Qaida.

At the same time Blears insisted that there could be no engagement with violent extremists:

You cannot win political arguments with groups who tell lies as part of their strategy, who change the goal-posts, who spread misinformation and seek to undermine the very process of debate. Agreeing to meet and engage in discussion with such groups would lend a veneer of legitimacy that they have done nothing to warrant.

It is a good point, but I have long argued that in spite of the Labour government's rank dishonesty and fanatical warmongering it is imperative that all of us, including British Muslims, should not blame them forever and should be prepared to work with them for the common good.

Still, it's not easy. Just this week, the justice minister Jack Straw said he would veto the release of the minutes of the cabinet meetings that were held in the run up to the war against Iraq despite the decision from the information tribunal. And this from someone who championed freedom of information when he was in opposition. Talk about "shifting the goalposts" and "undermining the process of debate".

And just look at this utterly lame response from the Foreign Office that we at Engage received after we wrote to them asking questions about the government's reaction to the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza. Does the government seriously believe that such anodyne responses which fail to answer any of the questions we raised is the best way to inculcate respect amongst the public?

The government must be prepared to work in a more transparent manner and to see some of its own actions and statements robustly challenged if it truly wants to generate greater confidence and trust in our democracy.

Blears was right to criticise those who try to blur the distinction between al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood as "intellectually lazy". However, she still then went on to describe Hamas as being "terrorists". Any discourse which would regard the democratically elected Hamas movement as being terrorists but refuses to condemn the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza is hypocrisy of the worst kind. Blears should by now have realised the damage caused by such dual standards.

Source

Inayat Bunglawala is the former media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain and is now an Advisor on Policy and Research at ENGAGE, an initiative designed to encourage British Muslims to interact more effectively in politics and the media in the UK.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Muezzin]

She has a point, some people do get oversensitive about offending people. Like in my college, apparently the name 'assembly' was changed to 'gathering' to not offend muslims over christians assemblys, which I think is over the top

Stuff like that is just... ridiculous, and a disservice to all groups involved.

I do agree with what you say about people from all backgrounds coming out of their shells and interacting a bit.

[Uthman]

Comment by Justin Gest:

Blears needs to take her message to the streets

Anti-extremist rhetoric will be ignored by young Muslims who find it difficult to believe the government is really on their side.

In a policy address yesterday evening to the LSE and its Migration Studies Unit (of which I am co-director), the communities and local government minister, Hazel Blears, said that the government must draw a clear "dividing line" between groups which they will and will not consult, isolating those whose outlooks are outside the "core values" of mainstream Britain.

She urged the government to confront extremist groups rhetorically and engage all organisations except for those that advocate violence, in order to establish "moral clarity" about what is "acceptable."

This move responds to a dilemma that ministers have grappled with for decades. Muslim communities in Britain are extraordinarily heterogeneous, making it impossible to discern a single representative voice with which policy-makers can consult and negotiate. As a result, to reach and understand British Muslims, the government has had to interact with what Blears calls a "spectrum" of groups – leaving ministers susceptible to association with some of these groups' questionable moral perspectives.

In light of this dilemma, Blears' new policy is not really policy at all. There is no related legislation. And the only borough that will be tasked with its implementation is Westminster.

This is about how the government conducts business at the national level, symbolising at best as a suggested guideline for the rest of the country.

The problem is that the extremist groups Blears is aiming to exclude do not work in Westminster. They work on the ground in the local boroughs and neighborhoods – in youth clubs, on street corners, in chicken and chips shops.

The government is playing to its strength as a gatekeeper to policy-making and power. But to gain ground, it must instead tackle its primary weakness: its decaying image and credibility in the homes and mosques of British Muslims.

No one is more aware of this weakness than Blears herself.

Her ministry enabled the creation of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, an alliance of Muslim groups that must keep the government at arm's length if it wants to appeal to its constituents. And in her speech yesterday, she stated that "if we leave the field clear to extremists, without engagement at all, we embolden them and undermine our own objectives."

But beyond Whitehall, the field remains clear.

And while much of the non-Muslim electorate might be looking to ministers for tougher rhetoric against extremism, such talk is ignored by many young Muslims who lack faith in the government's interest in their welfare.

The challenge to extremist ideologies must take place on extremists' own turf.

At the LSE, it was clear that Blears has learned a great deal from her admirably comprehensive interactions with Muslims. She acknowledged the diversity of the community and their propensity for activism and integration, calling Muslims a "challenging, feisty, competent people."

However, if Britain's Muslims are so robust, why must they be protected by this new attempt to dictate and monopolise public discourse?

If the government wishes to be the catalyst of a mass expression of public and Muslim-specific opposition, it must first win the support of young Muslims on the ground. And the fact is that few things will alienate Muslims more than the government's assertion of "British values" – as if that is a singular exclusivist concept, and as if many Muslims don't already share them.

It does nobody any good to begin a cultural war over establishing values in a country as diverse and complicated as Britain. The articulation of values is not necessary for social cohesion. Mutual respect and inclusive democratic engagement is.

As it turns out, the government is actually well-equipped to begin a ground offensive against extremism in Britain.

This country has a unique council-based structure of local government that is well-rooted in estates, neighbourhood institutions, schools, and social life. Statistically, councils are also more trusted by Muslim citizens, thanks to the increased responsiveness and redistributive benefits provided by local offices.

While most of us will agree that ministers should not be consulting al-Qaida in the corridors of parliament, I'm not certain al-Qaida has even asked. Instead, it and other extremist groups are more interested in the corridors of council estates and youth clubs where they can exploit young people's confusion and frustration at the fringes of British society.

That is where Blears must go. That is where extremists must be contested.

Source

Justin Gest is co-director of the Migration Studies Unit and Ralph Miliband Scholar in Political Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science. His research examines socio-political alienation among Muslim minorities in western democracies.