One of the frustrating things about 7/7 is its utter pointlessness. I don't mean the usual pointlessness of terrorism per se, but the actual, literal pointlessness of the act. This is not the IRA or the Germans. Like 9/11, there are no real, or realisable, objectives here (the nature, perhaps, of holy war) which makes it as difficult to fight as to understand.
And no, as Nick Cohen points out, this had as little to do with Iraq as 9/11 or Bali. As someone who opposed the war, while I'm sure Iraq is a useful tool to the recruiting sergeants of Islamicist terror, I never doubted an attack of this kind was inevitable here, only wondered why it took so long to come.
Further, I don't really buy all this "opressed by the west" crap. Are middle eastern Muslims really being more opressed by Britain than by their own governments? What heinous crimes has Britain committed against British Muslims for heavens sake? And if Muslims really are being so terribly opressed, why is it among the comfortable middle classes that the terrorists draw the most recruits? If anyone is being opressed by the west, it is Africans and where are their bombs? The truth is this has nothing to do with opression, perceived or otherwise, but rather is a heady mix of self-pity and fanaticism. Remind you of anything?
Around the time of the French headscalf ban, the Guardian ran a fictive piece positing a nuclear attack on the centre of Paris by two pissed-off Jihadi sisters miffed they couldn't wear the veil to school. Oh those silly authoritarian Frenchies, ran the tone of the article from laid back liberal Britain, now they've got their comeuppance. Yet, neither France, nor Turkey which has similar restrictions, have suffered similar attacks. Oh, actually there were the Istanbul bombings - on British interests.
According to the Times "only" around one percent of British Muslims supports or is actively involved in terrorism. That's about 16,000 people, with about 3,000 thought to have visited AQ training camps. Well that's a relief then - only 3,000! If just one per cent of these are actively planning attacks in this country that makes 10 cells of three...
Even an optimistic scenario would suggest we're going to face terrorism of the 7/7 brand for the next 20 years or so, until the current lot grow up or get caught. And what about those growing up now?
Like global warming, we have to plan now for the long-term, put in place policies that might not come to fruition for generations hence.
But I'm not calling for a headscalf ban in schools, universities and government offices (can you imagine?! Even suggesting it sounds so, well... un-British). What I do believe in however is a pro-integration policy. Drawing on the best practice from abroad, this would mean a ban on all faith schools, public or private with the exception of Sunday (or Friday, Saturday) schools. We must get the children to mix. Where there are cultural ghettos then they should be bussed. There needs to be a balance of all creeds, cultures and colours in our schools to demystify "the other".
Much in the way of affirmative action in the US, pro-integration should be targeted at all our poorest immigrant groups, setting minimum quotas in institutions of higher education. The young need to feel they are wanted by our society.
Religious groups of any kind should be banned from campus. All religious leaders, whether rabbis, vicars or imans must make a generic affirmation to the pluralistic values of our society. If necessary here we could learn from France and Turkey. Pronouncements from all pulpits should be carefully monitored, in the first instance by self-selected councils from the religions, to ensure they are consistent to the affirmation. The bill to ban incitement to religious hatred, if it must come into law, should be as vigorously enforced against religious intolerance as intolerance of religion. Adopting a constitution that enshrines the above principals in law should help too.
Of course there is much more that could be done, particularly vis-a-vis our foreign policy, but at home our priority must be to make any future wired sisters understand that the people on the tube are not infidels, but British citizens like themselves.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Some very sensible suggestions, although I'm not sure whether Iraq had so little to do with it: an event like this may have been inevitable, but when even the CIA admit Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists I think we have to admit that events like this are likely to happen more often and be planned more efficiently.
Incidentally, the analysis by Jason Burke in yesterday's Observer was the most informative, cogent analysis of why this happened, and what may happen next, that I have seen so far.
Yes, you have a point. One of the things that has subsequently struck me is that, given the similarity of this attack to that of Madrid, this certainly isn't a one-off. The Madrid bombers were only really caught because of a fluke. Their next plan was to derail a mainline train.
Given that AQ's modus operandi is to keep on keepin on until it gets it right, my guess is they will move on from tubes to trains, thereby crippling that system too (remember post-Hatfield>). Their next move would likely be roads....
Aha, now we are talking turkey, yes?
There's always a point in any armed conflict. Unfortuately, in this as in any other case throughout history, the motives of those who get their hands dirty are wildly at odds with those of the leaders, 'spiritual' or political, in whose name those on the front line act. Literal blissful ignorance, in the case of Muslims.
As for banning religious assembly in schools and universities, does the ban extend to the banning of the study of theology? Or even the banning of philosophy and history, neither of which can be taught in any meaningful way without reference to areas which are inevitably bound to be contentious. Besides which, what you are basically proposing is an end to religious freedom, and specifically, discriminating against orthodox Muslims whose faith requires prayer each day, wherever they are. There either is or there is not tolerance (in a state/institutional manner of speaking). Half-tolerance is none at all, and the words of Livingstone would have no meaning.
Simon
Admitedly it would be difficult to ban private religious schools, however simple to do the same for state-funded ones - after all this is the situation that already exists in France and the US, simply because the constitution insists on a separation of church and state. Ditto campus societies under the same banner (remember when our own dear alma mater banned the Jewish Society?!). Theology would of course be an approved degree course. It's got nothing to do with freedom of speech... why should my taxes pay for the education of others in an (allegedly) non-sensical belief?
Ironic really, as I am the only actual (nominally) religious person I'm aware of who submits to TETT!
I really don't understand why it's ok to discuss and debate religious matters inside a classroom and not outside. Maybe I'm just very dumb.
Simon
(whose bible is Marcus Aurelius. I'm toying with the idea of starting an Aurelian religion, but the big three might claim they already have copyright on everything he states, essentially as a matter of common-sense and ethics, rather than anything to do with a 'non-sensical'deity.)
Nail, head, hit. Sure I'd like to ban religious schools or at least state-sponsored ones but then what about private ones; oh ban private education he said in a moment of Bennite rashness then realised that he had just turned back the progress of human rights legislation, the end of ideology and woken up in the middle of Dresden during the Cold War.
Has anyone noticed incidentally that a mixed economy is now enshrined in international legislation. ('Eez true comrade socialism really is dead' said the Ghost of Lenin}
Hmm... as someone said last week, 'How can you expect 4,000 anarchists to be orderly for f**ks sake'
Post a Comment