In publishing this post, I'm going to do a few things:
- Add to the mountain of "news" around the Islam issue in this country.
- Air some half-baked ideas I've got.
- Open myself up for possible abuse and threats.
- Hopefully learn from my readers through their comments on my thoughts.
I don't really understand where the government is going with its efforts to engage the "Islamic Community". I don't even think there is an "Islamic Community"; maybe there are "Islamic communities". It seems the government is talking to people who are mainstream, who are not involved in the terrorist atrocities and near-misses we've seen in this country. What's the point in that? Didn't we make the same mistake by not talking to Gerry Adams in the first place, instead putting it off for decades? And on the other hand, I see some logic in what they're doing. Maybe they're trying to dry up the water around the terrorist fish. Maybe if the mainstream community could be persuaded to seek out and reject the terrorists in their midst, we'd have less of a problem. As it stands, though, I don't see (perhaps the media isn't telling me) Muslim leaders condemning their fellows for effigy-burning, bombing and incitement to violence. I do see the government funding projects that separate people, including separate faith schools, which I think is a terribly backward step. What got my back this time was reading about the heckling John Reid got. I'm all for politicians getting heckled, but here's what was said to him by Abu Izzadeen:
"How dare you come to a Muslim area when over 1,000 Muslims have been arrested?"
John Reid was later interrupted during a question and answer session by Anjem Choudary to tell the home secretary that Muslims did not need British values:
"We believe Islam is superior, we believe Islam will be implemented one day. It is very rich for you to come here and say we need to monitor our children when your government is murdering people in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Later on, one of the above explained is actions saying that he would not dicsuss these matters with a non-muslim. So it seems that these opinions assert:
- That there are areas in Britain where only Muslims should be allowed to go.
- That the number of muslims arrested has any bearing on the issue of whether people should blow themselves up and take others with them.
- That Islam is superior and that a move to overturn the liberal democracy we have in the UK is to be applauded.
- That British foreign policy absolves Muslim parents of any responsibility for their childrens' upbringing.
- That if you're not a Muslim, your opinion is worthless to a Muslim.
We're told that this is a minority view, Of course. We're told that these chaps don't represent mainstream Muslim opinion. So:
- Why isn't more being done or being seen to be done by the mainstream Muslims who want to live by our laws and by our cultural norms?
- Why does the media give people like Abu Izzadeen the spotlight and not the two women he told to "be quiet"after they tried to encourage dialogue?
- I know there are people out there who want to make this country an Islamic theocracy, but is all the attention they're getting all some sort of media conspiracy?
I don't really see what the problem was with John Reid's speech on its own, other than it stated the bleeding obvious. What he seems to have been asking for was that parents should raise their children to be tolerant and to resist those who would call on them to become terrorists. The simple reaction should have been, "Yes. That's how we bring up our children." The other point that he was making was that if you see a crime being committed or if you see someone premeditating a crime, you have an obligation to report this to the police. The simple reaction should have been, "Yes. That's morally right and it is the law of this country. We agree." The summary of the responses from the crowd in front of John Reid should have been: "And your point is?"