David Cameron's important speech
With the exception of the predictably sour comments by the usual suspects, David Cameron has had an overwhelmingly positive reaction to his important speech on multiculturalism last Sunday in Munich. At last, people have said, the Prime Minister has thrown off the shackles of political correctness that have paralysed debate and has spoken the truth about multiculturalism and Islamic extremism. Lord Tebbit has even gone so far as to surmise that if he goes on like this Cameron will win the next general election.
Steady on, chaps.
I have three things to say about this speech.
First, the Prime Minister did indeed travel a huge distance from the ruinous position taken by the previous government on both multiculturalism and Islamic extremism. The most important change he made was to end the absurd idea that the only threat comes from ‘violent extremism’. Cameron has understood instead that the source of the threat lies in a set of ideas, and not just in the terrorist actions that sometimes result from those ideas:
‘...we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism.’
He has understood that there is a continuum here, and that those on this continuum pose a threat even if they are not involved in violence:
‘At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia. Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values.’
In other words, Islamist extremism is the sea in which terrorism swims. Quite right. He is also right to identify multiculturalism as an important part of the problem because it has eroded common British values and identity, without which neither Muslims nor anyone else for that matter can feel bound in a shared national project, and has also legitimised a lethal set of double standards:
But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity... So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them. The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared.’
Indeed.
Second, the Prime Minister did not go far enough. Despite the welcome advances in the previous remarks, he qualified them by reverting to some of the pusillanimous incoherence that lay at the heart of the previous failed thinking. The problem – as ever – is that although he identified ‘Islamist extremism’ as the problem, he simultaneously tried to suggest that this was nothing to do with Islam:
‘We should acknowledge that this threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam, and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens...
We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority...
It is vital that we make this distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing...
The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not.’
This is a muddle. ‘Islamist extremism’ is not a ‘warped perversion’ of Islam. It is rooted in authentic Islamic theology and history. What is certainly true, however, is that it is merely one interpretation of Islam. That’s a very different matter. Many millions of Muslims do not sign up to it, and it is important to make that clear; they themselves are amongst its potential victims. That is why I use the term ‘Islamist’, to permit a distinction between the jihadis and those Muslims who pose no threat to anyone.
But to deny the Islamic nature of Islamist extremism is absurd. It reminds me of the conversation I had a while back with a government official, who told me that the approved Whitehall line was that the cause of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims was ‘ideology’. But ‘ideology’ on its own is of course meaningless. ‘What kind of ideology?’ I inquired. ‘Political? Racial? Religious?’ The official looked pained. ‘Just ideology’, he sighed.
Not only is this ludicrous, but denying the religious nature of this fanaticism means it will continue to be misunderstood and thus there will be a continued failure to deal with it appropriately.
Third, does the Prime Minister really mean what he has said? For if he does, then in spite of the caveats above the implications of his words are enormous. Listing the criteria by which the government will henceforth judge whether or not to treat with Muslim organisations, he said:
‘So we should properly judge these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home. At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons.’
Golly. If this is followed, then it means that not only the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Muslim Association of Britain but the supposedly more mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, along with most if not all of its affiliates, will now be deemed to be beyond the pale. Is the government really going to take that approach? Will it, as this also inescapably implies, sack the Brotherhood types who are now acting as advisers on Muslim extremism within Whitehall? Will it finally take action against Islamist groups preaching jihadi subversion on campus? Will it arrest the spread of sharia law, end the Saudi funding of mosques and university Islamic studies departments, and row backwards on sharia financing?
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (38)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Yes campaign launch will cause problems — for the independence movement - Ysenda Maxtone Graham
2 Obama vs Balls - edited by Graham Storey, Margaret Brown and Kathle
3 Cameron's attack on Balls is strangely endearing - Lloyd Evans
4 Susie Squire to take over as Tory press chief - James Forsyth
5 What Farage's offer means for David Cameron - James Forsyth
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Vulture
February 8th, 2011 4:54pmCalm down Melanie dear. You know that Cameron - like his hero Blair - will say anything to please a crowd.
You know very well that he doesn't mean it and that absolutely nothing will happen as a result.
About as empty, in fact, as the words of the last British PM who went to Munich 70 years ago.
Grumpy true Zionist
February 8th, 2011 4:55pmMelanie maybe, he (the cameroon) just read your book - Londonistan
its certainly been a cornerstone in my understanding (not that I have ever been naive to the threat)
I praise an honour your efforts in the (cyber) war
Gy Gezundt
Suffolkbor
February 8th, 2011 5:53pmA nice Vox Populi soundbite
but nothing more concrete than
that will come from Cameron and co.
cityca
February 8th, 2011 6:01pmCameron talks a good game. Will he actually do anything though? I too will believe it when I see it.
Norm
February 8th, 2011 6:09pmI hope it is true and that Dave has recognised the threats posed by muslims but I doubt it. After all it would be the first time he's actually acted like a conservative. More likely he's noticed the public reaction to the BNP who have been banging on about this for years and the speech was designed to take attention away from them. However if he's sincere about it and the ECHR over-ruling British law then maybe all is not lost yet.
dave s
February 8th, 2011 6:49pmThis speech is aimed at the non Muslim population of Britain both indigenous and immigrant. Vapid words to try to convince us that he, Cameron, is going to do something and has everything under control. Perhaps his advisors have told him that the natives are getting restless- I am sure he never meets any of us- and a nice soothing speech should do the trick for a while. Won't do any good but like all this current bunch of politicians power is all they care about- oh and money of course.
J D Bryan
February 8th, 2011 6:53pmCameron is on the right path. The danger is the Left-wing establishment will render any government action null and void.
Herbert Thornton
February 8th, 2011 7:45pmMelanie -
You say "I’ll believe it when I see it."
Me too - except that I also believe that all I'm seeing is a Hudna.
Paul Freeman
February 8th, 2011 7:53pmYes, and there is a simple test which Cameron can use to distinguish between those whose views represent a threat to our democracy and those whose views do not. As the leading commentator on the subject wrote in her book, Londonistan:
"In the attempt to establish whether 'moderate' Muslim attitudes are truly moderate, there is one infallible litmus test that can be used. It is the attitude to Israel and the Jews. This issue is absolutely fundamental to understanding the terrorist threat against the Western world."
If he has the courage and the principle, let Cameron ask Muslims in positions of power and influence in this country whether they accept the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in the Middle East, governed by Jewish laws and Jewish values, existing side by side with Muslim ones.
Michael
February 8th, 2011 7:58pmwell the idea of multiculturalism is a much larger one than Cameron engaged with here. He did not really, in fact, engage with the concept of multiculturalism at all, preferring instead to focus on the very real problem that exists within the Muslim community - that of truly facing up to the issues of extremism in their own backyard, as it were.
Nothing wrong with that; its quite commendable and about time that someone of his power had the guts to talk straight about it.
However, this was not a speech about multiculturalism in Britain - which I would argue clearly, in the broader sense, 'works'.
cyllan
February 8th, 2011 8:09pmyeah i think it is just political positioning, nothing else
A friend
February 8th, 2011 8:51pmI think Mr.Cameron understands more than people give him credit for, just like Blair.
Blair has been spot-on on these issues after leaving office but what was the fool doing while occupying it? It's not enough to blame your own tepid, regressive and apologist party.
The main problem with Muslim Britain is that of the same of Egypt's opposition: It's only the Brotherhood.
If he actually does enforce his strict rules then most, if not all, of the current Muslim Establishment will wither away slowly and become de-legitimized.
And what then? Aside from the usual cries and howls of 'racism'? It will become clear it's just not "a small minority" who hold these ideas of hate towards the West, America, Jews, Secularism, liberalism in general and all we hold dear.
Ben
February 8th, 2011 9:42pmHe's giving a cast iron promise......
oh dear!
Mark Allinson
February 8th, 2011 9:52pmWhen Cameron speaks of "extremist" views involving "real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values", he needs to include the extremist Marxist lecturers at our universities who are also busily white-anting our culture.
How can we expect immigrants to support "western values" when these values are constantly denigrated within our "educational" establishments?
rippon
February 8th, 2011 10:12pmBut this country, its ruling class at least, has never had an ethical problem with radical Islam: see (for example) 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam' by historian Mark Curtis. Britain has enthusiastically colluded with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the past.
Curtis, maybe Melanie Phillips herself too, has documented how the UK government has deliberately turned a blind eye, sustained and nurtured the radical Islam phenomenon, e.g. ‘Londonistan’.
And if we don’t like the MB because of their past collusion with the Nazis, then, by that logic, we should be severing relations with America, whose corporations (e.g. IBM, Ford, GM) and government certainly colluded with the Nazis a great deal.
Cameron and his predecessors don't condemn the fundamentalist regime of Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships (e.g. Egypt) - for the simple reason that business interests (e.g. oil) are always paramount, and 'human rights' is simply sweet-sounding propaganda.
Moreover, Islamic terrorism is as nothing compared to our own state-sponsored terrorism (e.g. illegal wars).
Noa
February 8th, 2011 10:17pmMelanie.
Will you be our PM?
EDDIE
February 8th, 2011 10:24pmSilence is complicity. It is never neutral.
r.camillo
February 8th, 2011 10:44pmI have a few days ago replied to lord Tebbits article that you mentioned above. My point is that the only way to put a stop to the islamification of europe, is to stop muslim immigration. This should also apply to other non muslim countries , until the problems are sorted out which, i think is not going to happen soon. I pointed to France, which is a country which has no problem encouraging people to integrate to their culture; actively promoting it even unto tourists, yet its roughly 6 million muslims, over several generations , and of course with some exceptions, have not integrated. Its ironic that to be a good muslim in a democracy, you have to theologically, be a bad one.
Rainsboro
February 8th, 2011 10:44pmI'm no fan of Cameron as I'm a lefty, however the fact he said it is what matters. Whether he means it or not he won't be able to stop the debate kicking off. The really interesting reaction is from the Guardianistas is really funny, utter hysteria and the strong sense that the tide is starting to turn - please God.
St Bruno
February 8th, 2011 11:49pmJust wonder how long it took him to think up this one or was he helped? Better than nothing though. But will it gain traction in the media, don’t think so, it’s another one day wonder bare bone speech with no meat.
How about setting up a Select Committee or an Inquiry or invite the Brotherhood and Hamas for tea at No. 10 and why not while you are at it invite the Ambassador of Israel at the same time, then sit down and have a nice cosy chat.
The BBC must be busy plotting a Panorama Special on the delights of multiculturalism under non-extreme Islamic rule as can be seen all over the world and in our green and pleasant land this very day.
Time will tell in the end and Baroness Warsi will have plenty of that to think up some reasons to be cheerful with another draft for the PM to spout. IMHO (don’t see that much these days)
Ian Hills
February 9th, 2011 2:30amThe speech was made in Munich, to please Merkel by taking her line - Cameron did used to be a shallow PR man, after all. Over here Cameron doesn't want to risk losing ANY Moslem votes. Nothing will change.
J. Isaacs
February 9th, 2011 7:57amThis speech may be a half-step in the right direction. However, Foreign Secretary Hague is simultaneously wagging his finger at Israel's PM Netanyahu for daring to say Israel will reinforce its military defence options in the light of growing Muslim Brotherhood influence in Egypt.
I am also flicking through a new magazine entitled "Sharia Finance" on my corner-shop shelf. As yet there is no mention of stoning, flogging, beheading and limb amputation in it.
Keith D
February 9th, 2011 8:42amrippon@10:12 makes valid points about Western elites attitudes to radical Islam and indeed I would go one step further.Labour used the immigration tool to import a culture that would threaten our values and engender a hostility that would mask their marxist intentions for us all.And it worked until the truth came out.Well,I feel that my face has been well and truly rubbed in diversity thanks Tony and Jack.Well done.
Enough of that though,and to the future.
This is a start,DC cannot unsay his words and if the vast majorities in all parties who are concerned about Islam in the UK can get their act together,as we should on Europe and the ECHR,then if we see genuine democracy in the ME,albeit with an Islamic flavour,our sharia supporting residents should be encouraged to show their support by relocating permanently.Win win I believe.
Graeme Thompson
February 9th, 2011 9:08amAbsolutely nothing is going to come of this. Cameron simply does not have the moral vision or commitment to see it through.
The only thing that is going to stand any chance of giving impetus to the necessary action is a political realignment that I hope one day Melanie, you will look to form. There's a by-electon coming up soon ..
Merlyn
February 9th, 2011 10:03amrippon,
Thank you for that, interesting read.
It turns everything on its head,
Paul Henry
February 9th, 2011 10:29amHaving read the text of the speech, I cannot understand what the objection seems to be but the usual suspects are completely outraged so David Cameron probably has it spot-on:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/09/more-division-over-multiculturalism
However, I do disagree with David Cameron and actually agree with Lady Warsi (for entirely different reasons) on One particular thing.
The moderate/extremist Muslim split is inaccurate, muddled and very unhelpful.
Islam itself, a total submission of oneself and ones will to God, is quite simply an extreme belief system.
As Ayaan Hirsi Ali says:
"There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who donâ™t all follow the rules of Islam, but thereâ™s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. Thereâ™s nothing moderate about it."
Richard
February 9th, 2011 10:45amMark Allinson,
'Western values' and 'liberal values' include the freedom to criticise all ideas and political systems. This is one of the main things that distinguishes liberal values from authoritarian, totalitarian and theocratic values. University lecturers are entitled to this freedom as much as anyone else, and their open critical activity is a demonstration of liberal values in practice. Academic feedom is a Western liberal value. Would you curtail it?
aelle
February 9th, 2011 1:38pmOf course, Melanie, if integration rather than separation is to be the basis of Cameron's vision of a future British society, the question might be posed as to how far "integrated" or "separate" the Jewish community in Britain might be cosidered to be.
matthew holdsworth
February 9th, 2011 2:39pmAnd Cameron got a big round of applause from the BNP and the EDL. That says a lot about him.
Jack R
February 9th, 2011 3:35pmAnd when Cameron is next in Turkey with Islamising PM Erdogan, Cameron will repeat all the anti-Israel propaganda, and campaign again to get 80 million Muslim Turks into EU.
Joshua
February 10th, 2011 4:17amAs you rightly point out, the extreme form of Islam is not at odds with the religion because it is one interpretation. The problem is that the religion itself appears not to allow for other interpretations. Irshad Manji, the Canadian author of "The trouble with Islam today" has realised the problem. As a Muslim and as a committed peace loving activist, she struggles to push for a more moderate practice that will incorporate a more tolerant interpretation. Many within Islam, who she challenges however, find her position to be a gross distortion of it.
There lies the difficulty for Cameron and for the Muslim who is tolerant and yet wants to to be faithful to Islam.
Margot
February 11th, 2011 10:51amAnd articles like Seumas Milne's in the Guardian (Thursday, 10th) continue to be written. "Fiddles" "Rome" and "burning" come to mind. A dream coalition would be Melanie Phillips and Douglas Murray. On Question Time the other night it was difficult to see how he could resist walking out after enduring the idiots he was having to listen to.
David, Thailand
February 12th, 2011 3:07amWhen I heard the PM's speech I was overjoyed, that politicians were at least pretending to clue in to what has been public knowledge for more than a decade.
But now that Cameron has made his half-hearted condemnation of the scourge, I expect he will start apologising for having had the temerity to imply that any part of Islam may be less than true peaceloving and tolerance.
Skeptic
February 14th, 2011 9:43pmI agree with your comments about Islamic extremism being fundamentally Islamic, both historically and scripturally. I find it interesting that so few people seem to have discussed Christianity in this context. Like Islam, it has a huge number of vicious and unpleasant ideologies in both its past manifestations and in its central text. Moreover it has a modern history of similar actions - the murder of homosexuals in Africa or of so-called 'witch children' in London are both literal applications of Biblical dogma.
I wish that commentators like you, Melanie, would come out and say this more often. Otherwise it looks as if you are simply anti-Muslim, rather than anti-violence.
Geoff
February 15th, 2011 9:50amDavid cameron was quite right but I doubt very much if any concrete action will follow.
Geoff
February 15th, 2011 9:53amOne test of acceptance of democracry and respect for others has been mentioned, namely, the right of Israel to exist and live within secure borders.
A second test, in my opinion, is whether or not they support sharia law, especially since this was ruled incompatible with Human Rights by the European Court in 2003.
mickeymat
February 15th, 2011 5:03pmWith all due respect, as long as Britain has laws against "hate speech" there can be no reform and Islamism will continue to threaten freedom in your country. Any and all criticism and or requirements to adhere to values of equality and separation of church and state will be labeled "hate" and will derail progress. There are no moderate Muslims in the sense of being able to assimilate with the values of western civilization. Sorry.
Mohammed
February 16th, 2011 12:08pm"publicly-funded institutions like universities"
Yeah right!!!