The Guardian reports on a 'Phrasebook' drawn up by a Home Office Research unit giving guidance to civil servants on how to "talk to Muslim communities about the nature of the terror threat without implying they are specifically to blame." Some of the phrases proscribed according to the story include 'Islamist extremism', 'jihadi-fundamentalist' or talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas. Anticipating the likely reaction to the guide states:
There are aspects of Islamic culture as seen in some countries that run contrary to fairly fundamental precepts of life in the UK - we need to find the language for this conversation also. The row over the Danish cartoons was a good example - there should've been a way to explain respectfully that religion doesn't receive any particular reverence in the UK and we vigorously defend peoples right to draw and publish cartoons on most subjects. When Monthy Python's 'Life of Brian' was released in the UK John Cleese & Michael Palin debated its merits in a TV studio with Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark. Although Cleese & Palin were respectful throughout they more or less wiped the floor with Muggeridge and Stockwood and it's a victory for enlightened common sense. I've often thought this short piece of film could be used as part of a wider explanation for how we treat religion in the UK - always anxious to avoid deliberate offence or provocation but accepting that religion is certainly not off-limits in terms of mockery.
There is a subtlety here - when Life of Brian was released there wasn't any global campaign of violence inspired by a twisted view of the Christian faith or any serious threat of violence against 'Christian communities'. A similar film made today built on the central story of the Muslim faith would verge on the provocative for me and I'm not ignorant of that different context. It still stands though that at some point in the not too distant future we should be able to enjoy light-hearted mockery of the Muslim faith just as we do all other faiths...
"This is not intended as a definitive list of what not to say but rather to highlight terms which risk being misunderstood and therefore prevent the effective reception of the message. [It's] not about political correctness, but effectiveness - evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them."Drawing attention to language that could be considered inflammatory or ripe for misunderstanding isn't an unreasonable thing to do, one only wishes the calibre of people involved in government was such that it wasn't needed. But there are countless examples over the last 5/6 years of ludicrously blunt language that probably erodes rather than enhances understanding so I take no particular issue with government attempts to refine the language a little. However, I do hope the government realises that this is only one aspect of our dialogue with Muslim communities that needs to be addressed.
There are aspects of Islamic culture as seen in some countries that run contrary to fairly fundamental precepts of life in the UK - we need to find the language for this conversation also. The row over the Danish cartoons was a good example - there should've been a way to explain respectfully that religion doesn't receive any particular reverence in the UK and we vigorously defend peoples right to draw and publish cartoons on most subjects. When Monthy Python's 'Life of Brian' was released in the UK John Cleese & Michael Palin debated its merits in a TV studio with Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark. Although Cleese & Palin were respectful throughout they more or less wiped the floor with Muggeridge and Stockwood and it's a victory for enlightened common sense. I've often thought this short piece of film could be used as part of a wider explanation for how we treat religion in the UK - always anxious to avoid deliberate offence or provocation but accepting that religion is certainly not off-limits in terms of mockery.
There is a subtlety here - when Life of Brian was released there wasn't any global campaign of violence inspired by a twisted view of the Christian faith or any serious threat of violence against 'Christian communities'. A similar film made today built on the central story of the Muslim faith would verge on the provocative for me and I'm not ignorant of that different context. It still stands though that at some point in the not too distant future we should be able to enjoy light-hearted mockery of the Muslim faith just as we do all other faiths...
8 Comments:
Guidebooks on what to say - pure PC, Liam.
There is a link between Terrorism and Islam. Truth , the first casualty as usual. Guess there wasn`t link between Sinn Fein and the IRA either. Naaahh
There are few lines of argument more bogus and devalued than the 'PC gone mad' one James - it's a lazy dialogue. Deal with the issues on their merits or otherwise rather than just rubbishing them by applying an unpopular (and usually misunderstood) label.
NM - "There is a link between Terrorism and Islam"? If so then by reason of the example you quote an equally valid (if less contemporary) link exists between Christianity and terrorism. The point of the document is to find a more naunced way to discuss that link, that's all.
Not necessarily non-contemporary either, Liam. newmania's own example would surely equate Christianity with terrorism.
By the way, when I log on here and that picture of Joyce comes up, I invariably think, "Hell, Liam has changed a bit over the years".
The connection between Islam and violence and is not the same as the connection between Christianity and violence and the contemporary paralell only shows the contrast.
The assumption that between any two views there is an equivalence or middle point of justice only encourages more extreme provocation .In mein Kamf this process is made explicit and it is an apt paralell with the islamo fascists.
Appeasement is always tempting .
Cassie
Agree with your measured, sensible line on this one.
The IRA are non-religious terrorists. Moslem terrorists are religous. What is so hard to understand in that distinction?
LBS - "The IRA are non-religious terrorists. Moslem terrorists are religous. What is so hard to understand in that distinction?"
It's not hard to understand - it's just wrong, not to mention hopelessly reductive and simplistic. Most young Muslim men who engage in terrorist activities have the thinnest of theological backgrounds, their motives are largely political and aren't remotely devout.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home