« Waterloo Place 1899 | Main | Politically and professionally in a far lower league »

November 15, 2015



Ah, but a terrorism 'expert' from a UK university on Radio 4 yesterday pointed out that the root causes of this type of premeditated slaughter of civilians are poverty and the state banning the niqab.
Apparently. 😕

Barry Sheidan

Of all the elements that coalesce to provide an identify to western culture, one of the worst is its endless excuse making. Whether we are dealing with criminal activity or terrorism, there is constant agonising over where responsiblity lies. To some extent Britain has negotiated this problem by turning on its indigenous people and their history, a campaign aided by the divisive policies fostered by feminism, actions that have reduced resistance to government attitudes. These divisive activities have been aided by obvious bias of much of the main stream media, especially the BBC, which all too often masks events that unsettle, although they are less worried about insulting Christians, the English and white people in general but men in particular. Resentments to this activity have been building, so there is no need for complacency by British authority, who need to consider not only Islamist sentiments but also that of a rather hacked of native populace.


Yes, I thought Malik's piece was useless.

".... the nature of Islam itself". Your analysis is spot on!


"the problem lies not so much in our own fumbling and ill-considered attempts to integrate and live with our increasing Muslim populations.."
True, and I take your point that there are factors more important than the degree of state-encouraged assimilation. But some responsibilities surely lie with us for allowing there to be an increasing Muslim population in the UK in the first place. This might be a situation similar to America and its huge problem with gun crime. The fewer Muslims you have in circulation, the less chance there is for nasty fatal incidents of this nature to arise.


Graham - yes, I heard that woman academic too and wondered how much traction this sort of 'analysis' carries outside academia, the BBC and so on. I doubt that our real terrorism experts - the ones who have to deal with this, our spies - believe a single word.


I find it not only disrespectful to the families of the victims but also irresponsible for the BBC to give a voice to someone like that. It's been known for years that suicide terrorists are more likely to be educated and middle class - poverty has nothing to do with it. Also, Lebanon, the US, Russia, Spain, Indonesia and all the other places that have been attacked by islamists have not banned niqabs. The editors must have had some idea of her views before they invited her on, and I can't see what justification there is for giving a voice to someone whose views are so divorced from reality.


I think Kenan's criticism of multiculturalism is pretty astute. He's been saying the same thing since the 1990s: multiculturalism treats people as if they can be neatly compartmentalised. This result in community leaders being empowered who were most emblematic of that culture. So moderate Muslims would be ignored because they didn't exemplify the culture. It's as if they sought the most stereotypical foreigners to represent everyone else.

I'm not sure where he'd sit regarding your test. He was on the "right side" in the Salman Rushdie and Danish cartoons issues.

In France I think there's another dynamic which Kenan, a socialist, would not recognise. There is a very regulated labour market, resulting in slow turnover, and reluctance to hire. This results in high youth and immigrant unemployment. If you are going to do "melting pot" then you have to accept that you need a lot of entry level jobs that are likely to pay low wages, to get people into the economy. Welfare is not a substitute. Once people are in the wage economy they will progress through it. They get a stake.

Not that I disagree that current events are principally driven by a revived Islamic fundamentalism. In that sense both France and Britain have made a wrong turn. Fear of causing offence is common to us both. But if we want to defeat radical Islam we need to suffer the short term worry of causing offence. Religion are generally risible and literalists the most foolish. We need the freedom to laugh at these people. That will be the cure.

Mick H

Yes, nothing wrong with his critique of multiculturalism. But, as you say, he's been saying the same thing for years. Now doesn't seem an appropriate time to rehearse all those old arguments again somehow.

The comments to this entry are closed.