THE SPECTATOR –Melanie Phillips: I have previously commented on the government’s craven decision to call Islamic extremism by everything except its proper name, resulting in the Home Secretary’s Orwellian description of it as ‘anti-Islamic’. Today the Guardian reports on a manual of state censorship now issued by the Home Office which enshrines this doctrine of institutionalised deception:
Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the ‘aggressive rhetoric’ of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism. It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a ‘confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures’. Instead it suggests that talking about the idea of shared values works much more effectively.
It shows that the government is adopting a new sophistication in its approach to counter-terrorism, based on the realisation that it must ‘avoid implying that specific communities are to blame’ if it is to enable communities to challenge the ideas of violent extremists robustly… ‘This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness - evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them.’
‘A new sophistication’, eh? I’d call it a new sophistry. As I recorded last year in my book Londonistan, the police have long been avoiding the I or M words, referring instead to ‘international terrorism’ among other euphemisms. Since the police themselves are in despair about the extreme paucity of information about I****** terrorism being volunteered to them from within the M***** community, the strategy would hardly seem to demonstrate ‘effectiveness’. Talking about ‘shared values’ amounts to no more than meaningless platitudes if it is forbidden to talk about the ideology which seeks to supplant them. That ideology can only be defeated if its characteristics are talked about frankly, and that cannot be done if the entire subject is prohibited. Fanaticism cannot be fought if people refuse even to name what they are fighting. Slouching towards dhimmocracy (4) >>> By Melanie Phillips
Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)
