Jacqui Smith on “The Politics Show” turned in another performance in evasion and Newspeak that I was unsure what she actually said. Not as bad as Simon Sion about the Further Education Councils but a mirror of distortion nonetheless. She is being interviewed prior to the publication of the government’s updated counter-terrorist strategy. Part of this agitprop approach allows Gordon Brown to write his hyperbole in The Observer, claiming credit for the success of others.
Part of the problem on counter-terrorism strategy is assessing its context, its capabilities and its outcomes. If you read Brown’s article, his assessment of the threat from Al-Qaida is straightforward: who would disagree that they are our primary threat. Zero in on his statements and we become more sceptical of the claims and the results.
They are motivated by a violent extremist ideology based on a false reading of religion and exploit modern travel and communications to spread through loose and dangerous global networks.
They are an ideology; they are a religion: their beliefs are more widely shared than Brown states, especially amongst the British Muslim population. Jacqui Smith identified the rise of extremism as a root problem but was unwilling to define an extremist. First, know your enemy. When we read Brown state that our defence is the duty of every individual, we heartily agree. In practice, this is piety shrouding inaction:
And there is a duty on all of us – government, parliament, and civic society – to stand up to people who advocate violence and preach hate, to challenge their narrow and intolerant ideology – in public meetings, in universities, in schools and online.
But accept that our arbitrary laws on hate speech may leave you open to arrest and detention. Who arrested the Islamic extremists in Luton? This doublespeak permeates the entire article with faint aroma of Brownie beans: expenditure, exaggerated claims and comparisons, and the image of Britain as a world-beater. When was Brown ever misperceived as humble?
I believe that this updated strategy, recognised by our allies to be world-leading in its wide-ranging nature, leaves us better prepared and strengthened in our ability to ensure all peace-loving people of this country can live normally, with confidence and free from fear.
In the world of Jacquistan, the words on the page protect us; in reality, their attempt to make political capital of this duty leaves me suspecting that policy is subject to increased political meddling and control.
The more we move into the world of Jacquistan, the more I fear another attack.
Phil,
It is a perversion to on one hand goad people into reacting while on the other, hold the up the whip-hand should they err outside a narrow, accepted mindset. Result? People become paralysed yet on a hair trigger to react. Biddable, in other words.
I can see no other reason for this than to further control, demarcate and disempower.
There were a few people in Luton that opposed violence and hate, and narrow and intolerant ideology.
They were, of course, arrested, by Jacqboots’ henchmen.
.
Didn’t he say much the same thing about his strategy for the economy?
One error is the claim that violent islamism is a “false reading” of religion. It’s one particular interpretation, but religions, as with philosophies in general, do not have some objective interpretation. They are whatever you want them to be. Hell, I just had an argument over at DK with somebody who considers himself a libertarain, and is a member of a libertarian party, who hates the free market. I can say “you are not a libertarian, even if you say you are and think you are” to that person, but I cannot prove it. Likewise a religionist who believes their religion preaches pacifism is just as right, but no more right than one who believes it preaches endless war. You can say “I think your interpretation is despicable” but you can’t actually prove it false. Because it isn’t.
But Labour, like the whole Gramsco-Marxian movement; that is, the entire hegemomic ideology of our current society, believes that there are objective definitions of such things, and furthermore that it is the job of government to decide what they are and enforce them. THere is a Right Way to think, about everything. They are unable to comprehend the idea of diversity of opinion and belief; it is literally beyond their understanding. They are thus mystified by anyone who doesn’t agree with the hegemonic, “objective” view, be they a libertarian or an islamist. They thus fall at the first fence when attempting to deal with, say, militant Islam. They cannot grasp even why it exists. They presume it is an “error” which can be “corrected” by, as ever, “education” and co-option, their primary strategy in dealing with corporate group.
An irony for libertarians like myself who don’t like Islam very much is that the consequence is that Nasty-Islam is the most effective counter-hegemonic force in our society. It takes the gifts offered by the co-option strategy, but is not co-opted into the objective hegemonic view. They will take money, political influence and beneficial laws and then carry on just as they were, regardless. The government, unable to grasp this at a fundamental philisophical level, thus become the major driving force beneath their enemies. Which is ironic, but not very useful.
I know Muslims who are normal people just like anyone else. Like most people they just want to get on with their lives without hassle.
Terrorists don’t attend protests; its far too conspicuous. Protesting is part of living in a democracy, its a fundamental right.
As an Atheist I see little difference between religions. Islam is less “modern” than most of the others but it will, in time, probably learn to adapt.
Lets not forget this disgusting anti-British “celebration”:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece
Seems to me Netanyahu and Islamic fundamentalists share a delight in the murder of Britons.
John McClain: “Didn’t he say much the same thing about his strategy for the economy?”
It is of course a variation on the theme, “The NHS is the envy of the world”, we used to hear so much of in times past.
That too has been shown to be utter bollocks.
It’s making a lot of noise in the hopes that nobody will notice they’re doing nothing about it, in fear that the catastrophic error they have made could be discovered any day now, and in hope that things hold together until they can safely blame it all on the next government.
Scorched Earth tactics, again?
Don’t panic,don’t panic, Jacqui Smiff has it all under control.
I don’t have enough time to elaborate this now, but I think you overstate your case about the impossibility of objective interpretation Ian. The importance to Kant of his categorical imperative is a commonly understood part of his ethics for example – there is little interpretive disagreement about what he meant, because we can look at the words. The disagreement arises with respect to how we value Kant’s categorical imperative, i.e. whether we think it is true or whether it is ‘good’ and in what contexts etc.
Religious texts ought to be distinguished from works of philosophy more strongly.
Your argument with the ‘libertarian’ sounds like it suffered from the absence of an agreement over definitions, nothing more. It is no good saying everything that isn’t numerical is just subjective (if that’s what you’re saying).
What I’m saying is that in the realm of words, anything can mean anything. Anything can be reinterpreted to mean what somebody wants it to mean; religions, constitutions, laws, whatever. It’s no good saying that anything can be resolved if we agree definitions; the argument will simply devolve to definitions. If your opponent says “I do not agree with what you think that means”, then you’re stumped.
We see this all the time. We see cabinet ministers saying, “We intend to limit that which can be published on the internet. This is not censorship.” Now I might say, the act of limiting publishing on the internet is by definition censorship, but Andy Burnham will simply say “I do not agree.” And there we reach an impasse.
I really thought this article sounded like it was written by the same person who writes the ‘Dear Comrade’ parody of Brown in Private Eye – spot on really, he seems to be growing into his persona.
mike,
But in any “social discourse” or whatever definitions are the thing. The fact social “scientists” can’t agree with each other over the definitions is the reason they, unlike physical scientists, never get anywhere and why the whole enterprise resembles the “Caucus Race” in Alice in Wonderland.
Wanking into an empty bag of Walker’s Salt and Vinegar Crisps is of more utility than studying sociology. At least there is an end to it.
Back to the point.
Basically I think Ian is right. I would just like to add that in the Hegelian dialectic of Home Secs Smith is the synthesis of “useless” and “draconian”.
OK I see what you mean. You’re talking about unreasonable people and the impossibility of reasoning with them – because they are simply not interested in any rational discussion the purpose of which is to enlighten.
Well you’re right that that’s what’s happening now – rational discussion is just simply not valued anymore across whole swathes of the ‘political spectrum’.
But that’s not the same thing as saying that rational discussion is impossible. Words mean things for crying out loud and anyone who disagrees with you when you point to a table and say “it’s a table” is simply not fit for rational intercourse. Such talk is beneath even childishness.
At which point we would seem to have regressed to a pre-civilized state in which violent resistance may have to be substituted for rational persuasion. Would the threat of such violence stimulate a rational response?
I’ve tried challenging Jacqui Smith’s narrow and intolerant ideology now for some time – in public meetings, in universities, in schools and online. The strange thing is, it hasn’t changed anything she appears to believe, or stopped her promoting the destruction of our way of life.
Unlike the Islamotwats, she has some power to achieve that goal. Perhaps we need an emergency programme to train South London kebab-shop owners to spot suspicious loiterers accompanied by detectives.
Only seeing your comment now Nick M – it’s a bit weird.
I didn’t say anything about sociology in reply to Ian B and nor did I study sociology.
Keep your rotten preumptions to yourself and your crisp packets.