Ruthless Kelly

If it wasn't abundantly clear before, it should be now. There is a concerted strategy by the government to bring forward weekly initiatives to say basically the same thing - that the Muslim community is full of terrorists, and they are being complacent about it.

Ever since Muslim leaders got together in August after the Heathrow alert to send a letter to the PM calling for a change in foreign policy to deal with the terror threat, the government has vowed never to be caught on the backfoot like that again. The narrative has to be about what Muslims must do, and how the government can "assist".

John Reid is seen as Blair's successor because of his putting of Muslims into their place. Jack Straw tried to get a piece of the action in his bid for the deputy leadership, and not to be outdone, Gordon Brown put the boot in a few days ago too. Now, up again has stepped Ruth Kelly.

These extremists that the government keep speaking about, won't they just be loving the way the government treat the Muslim community? Because the meanness isn't leading to keenness. But then we know that this government isn't too bothered about giving space to those who would cause mayhem.

A quick breakdown of yesterday's speech:

And it is this help - from the Government and society as a whole - I want to talk about today in assisting the fight within Muslim communities against extremism.

There is no doubt that in this current climate anything that touches on the integration of Muslim communities raises complex issues and will provoke passionate debate. But I am certain, as well, that trying to sweep disagreements under the carpet will ultimately be more dangerous than discussing them openly.

The debate on the veil over the last week is an example of this. How should we respond when some feel uncomfortable when they see British women wearing Bhurkas or the veil?  As I made clear at the weekend, this is ultimately an issue of informed personal choice. No-one is suggesting that in a free and democratic country the state should decide what its citizens can and cannot wear, except in certain settings such as schools.

So Kelly gives the nod that legislation on what is worn at schools may be on the cards. But just as with Straw, who cares if something makes you uncomfortable? And where exactly will that stop? And isn't this New Labour line of preferring women not to wear veils but saying we're not going to force you (unless you sit down with us) just a little bit disingenuous?

Just about every government minister has had something to say about the veil now. This vexing of the whole Cabinet is quite unprecedented. Don't they have things to be doing? Most stupid comment prize must go to Harriet Harman - that the veil is bad because it will stop women standing as MPs. It may surprise those stuck very firmly in the Parliamentary bubble, that not everyone wants to get in - and that doesn't make them bad people, far from it.

Anyway, back to Kelly:

I would defend staunchly the right of anyone to disagree with government policy, including foreign policy. 

I think it is right that we should support the newly elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan but respect the right of those, including some of you in this room to disagree.

That is not the issue, and she knows it. 655,000 Iraqis dead is though.

It was this Government, of course, that also brought in the Religious Hatred legislation. It was necessary and right to do so despite the controversy it caused.

But it is designed to tackle those who incite hatred, not just those who cause offence. If we value free speech and freedom of religious expression, we will all have to accept that from time to time we will feel insulted or offended by other people’s actions or comments.

The last sentence is indeed in the same speech as her comments on veils. Then a dig at the MCB:

There are also some people who don’t feel it right to join in the commemorations of Holocaust Memorial Day even though it has helped raise awareness not just of the Jewish holocaust, but also more contemporary atrocities like the Rwanda genocide. That’s also their right. 

But I can’t help wondering why those in leadership positions who say they want to achieve religious tolerance and a cohesive society would choose to boycott an event which marks, above all, our common humanity and respect for each other.   

Except that Jewish people also see HMD as a pro-Israeli propaganda opportunity. If this is Kelly's idea of tackling extremism, she is beneath contempt.

But we also have to stand together to tackle those fomenting divisions and extremism within Muslim communities.

As the Prime Minister has consistently argued, this is not a problem which has its roots in our intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan. International terrorism affects many countries, many with foreign policies different to our own, and many with majority Muslim populations.

Manure.

As Gordon Brown said yesterday,

“Unless moderates can establish themselves at the centre of their communities and faith, extremists could grow in strength and influence”.

Who's at the centre now - the extremists?

It is not good enough to merely sit on the sidelines or pay lip service to fighting extremism. That is why I want a fundamental rebalancing of our relationship with Muslim organisations from now on. Since taking up my post, I have actively sought to develop relationships with a wider network of Muslim organisations, including those representing young people and women. 

In future, I am clear that our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values.

So Muslim organisations are now totally defined by the fight against extremism. It isn't even enough to go about your daily lives, practicing your faith properly - leading by example.

She also makes it sound as if the government has been sloshing about money willy nilly on Muslims. This simply isn't true.

Those Muslims who she spoke down at yesterday should have been wise enough not to go in the first place. I'm further surprised they didn't walk out. Maybe they'll all get funding.

Comments

[Julaybib]

What she means is the government will fund the Sufi Muslim Council. The SMC previously denied, in an email to me, that they receive any State funding.

Wasalaam

TMA

[joe90]

Just a small point of order,

'Boy Wonder' Kelly refers to something called the 'Jewish holocaust'.

I think Kelly has dropped a clanger there - surely what she is refering to is the 'Nazi Holocaust', there is no such thing as the 'Jewish Holocaust'?

Norman Finkelstein refers to that event as the 'Nazi Holocaust' - he is a bit of an authority on these matters and he is quite specific about it
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/>Norman G. Finkelstein

Just to note in passing,
Raul Hilberg is the widely recognised authority and Dean of The Nazi Holocaust - and as we all know, the great people of the Jewish Faith refer to that terrible event, in the Hebrew, as 'The Shoah'.

I might ask the wonks over at Jews Sans Frontieres for an opinion!

Mind you they call it the 'Armenian Holocaust' after the victims, and not the 'Turkish Holocaust' after the scumbag government responsible for it.

[Bilal Patel]

Absolutely spot on Osama. For the life of me, I just don't understand how these sado-masochistic Muslims (or 'moderates') are stupid enough to fall for the same trick day in day out. Why do they continually provide a platform for these extremists (also known as 'government ministers')?

If they want a good kicking, then that's none of my business but they don't speak for me.

Mind you, money talks. They're all probably slobbering away at the thought that they can carry away wads of cash in exchange for doing nothing other than bleat on periodically that extremism is bad.

[joe90]

'Boy Wonder' Kelly fails to mention she isn't supporting the newly elected democratic government of (Occupied) Palestine or the democratically elected government of Lebanon, I wonder why?

She also forgets to put the prefix 'illegaly occupied' before the words 'Afghanistan' and 'Iraq'. She also fails to mention that the illegal occupiers of Iraq were forced to hold elections because of the resistence of the great People of Iraq themselves, and I don't mean violent resistence.

It was the Iraqi people themselves who made the illegal occupation completely unworkable. This peaceful non-violent campaign of resistence received no media coverage, or headlines, in the west. Instead, as usual, it was only the violent aspects of the occupation that the western mass media chose to report - much as in Occupied Palestine and elsehwere, it was the violence of the victims they focused on, almost exclusively, rather than that of the occupier, the primary source of death and destruction.

And here is RAWA on the great democracy of Afghanistan
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=11169>Five Years Later, Afghanistan Still in Flames
by Zoya October 11, 2006

The speaker has to remain anonymous or she'll be assassinated. A common fate for those that speak out against US Puppet regimes the world over.

[Sohaib]

The Times' report focuses on the (hinted/stated) change in funding strategy, and the MCB's reaction:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2400151,00.html

I hope that the MCB will keep forefront in their minds, and in their coming strategy, that they are not working for government money, but for the Muslims of Britain, and so should not waver in their positions.

If the government are going to support this completely worthless "Sufi Muslim Council", so be it. It will only convince more Muslims that the government has no interest in engaging with Muslims.

[Hasan]

The irony was that the three organisations that were on the panel with Kelly, have one thing in common, they actually all have the view that foreign policy is not a factor, but they also have something else in common is that it seems they lack grassroot activism. - Fat chance they can deliver.

[Osama]

Who were the 3 Hasan? I've not come across that anywhere.