I've got no problem with a lot of what Cameron had to say. I'll go further, here's what he says needs to be done to challenge extremism:
We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries.
Of course we should, whether that person is a Moslem cleric, an extremist Christian preacher, or a Dutch neo-fascist. If you're coming to preach hatred, you're not welcome.
We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism - against people at home and abroad.
Who could object to this?
Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are certainly, in some cases, part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it's in the public interest to work with.
I do have a problem with this. What does it mean? Does it mean groups that simply do not share our views. Or ones whose activity, while in itself not violent, could lead to violence. Like the NRA perhaps? No, that's silly, but do YOU know what he means?
Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement.
I can't disagree with this. There's a lot of laziness taking place, and timidity. People self-censor to the point where they are unwilling to call someone out on some unacceptable positions for fear of being called a racist. If people are going to receive public funds then their organisation should be scrutinised properly. That goes for Christian, Muslim, Jewish groups - everyone.
So let's 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 separatism?
These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations. No public money. No sharing of platforms with Ministers at home.
But does all this go far enough? And can we have confidence that this initiative is not going to be used solely to attack Moslem communities? I don't think for a second that Cameron would have said what he did had he believed this would happen, but this forum bears witness that not everyone who wants to uphold liberal behaviour in the face of Islamism can distinguish between extremism and difference.
Cameron said:
We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie - and that is the existence of an ideology, 'Islamist extremism'. And we should be equally clear what we mean by this term, distinguishing 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.
I've read posts just today that clearly define the enemy as being Islam. They're not the only ones.
So, if we are to adopt an attitude of 'Muscular Liberalism' we need to demonstrate we know the difference between Islam and Islamism, and that we are prepared to apply the same standards to all religious and minority groups.
Here's where Cameron really falls down however. He say that the way forward involves two key changes:
- Tackling extremism
- Promoting citizenship
It's in the second of these that his strategy seems doomed to failure. He says:
A genuinely liberal country does much more.
It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.
Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.
It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.
What happens when these facets of a liberal society conflict with one another? We have been told that in the future we need to be denying a platform to those who preach intolerance. We must be banning preachers and proscribing organisations. If we ban the Muslim Brotherhood for their intolerance towards homosexuals (good, btw) what about the Catholic Church. Were the MB to tone down the violent rhetoric, would we accept their dismissal of homosexuality in the way we give the Pope a free pass to dismiss it?
If Cameron is arguing that those Moslem speakers and organisations that, while not advocating violence, promote an alien illiberal agenda, need to be addressed and challenged and have funding reviewed and removed, why not for other religious groups whose rhetoric, while not violent, is deeply illiberal?
And finally (for now), he says:
It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.
Is that it? Is that all we are meant to have in common? A shared, woolly commitment (not shared by the majority of his own party, I might add) to liberal values. That's all it means to be British? Bugger me! I could've sworn there was more to it than that!