The horrendous shooting of 17 people in France by Muslim extremists has reopened the debate about how to handle security and what should be the response to militant Islam.
It also rekindles a debate about the freedom of the press, and whether there should be limits imposed on this.
The first problem is that societies which are settled and largely peaceful, value civil liberties highly and resist becoming a police state, even if a benign one. French police already carry guns. British police do not, although there are armed response units in the UK.
"There is no suggestion that the 80,000 police employed in ending the hunt for the terrorists were more effective because they were armed."
In the UK, the 5,000 police in the armed response units would have been in the front line. CCTV cameras are ubiquitous, provoking complaints from civil liberties groups, but wide support by the public who feel more secure. With their high definition pictures, and remote operation, they now play a vital role in crime prevention and detection of all kinds.
Intelligence gathering through widespread surveillance is being extended rapidly (now to include all phone calls and texts in the UK), and we are told has thwarted a number of terrorist plots in the UK and France.
It is generally recognised that the longer term answer to home grown terrorism (which is what the British and French examples were), is to tackle its roots in disaffected communities. Laws against inciting violence exist in both countries, but there are significant differences in the approach of these two countries. The UK has followed a policy called 'multiculturalism.' This essentially allows different ethnic groups to live as they choose, and even encourages them to maintain and celebrate their own traditions, provided these are within the framework of the law.
When I was a councillor, my committee gave grants to help local groups set up cultural centres and Sunday schools to teach the mother tongue and their traditions. This did not preclude teaching Islam in these centers.
Although there are areas with significant ethnic groups, this approach has not prevented a high degree of integration in British society. Polls show most people believe diversity has benefited British society, and Britain has one of the best race relation records in Europe.
However, this approach is not without its critics, and this group is growing.
' A loss of Britishness' is sometimes complained about. A policy of allowing religious schools, funded by the State but run independently has led to the creation of separate Muslim schools, alongside the long established Christian and Jewish schools. Although not exclusively for one ethnic group, inevitably these schools reduce the social interaction between the different communities.
By contrast, France, where nine percent of the population are Muslim, has followed a policy of 'assimilation.' This approach deems that those choosing to live in France should adopt French life styles and values. Freedom of religion is permitted, but the banning of the head scarf for Muslim girls as in French schools is an example of lesser tolerance of diversity. (I believe wearing a cross as jewellery is permitted!)
Attempts by a few schools in the UK to ban the head scarf have been deemed discriminatory and as such, unlawful. France believes everybody should be treated the same (Liberte, Egalite, fraternite are the slogans of their revolution). Its State policies are 'color blind.'
The UK has long practiced 'positive discrimination' believing those with greater needs should be given more. Additional resources for minority groups have been common in UK social policy.
Neither multiculturalism nor assimilation is applied rigidly, but they do represent very different approaches. Both countries debate which approach achieves more effective social cohesion. Cultural enrichment can follow from multiculturalism, but social hegemony is the goal of the assimilationists.
Both societies have suffered terrorist outrages from a tiny minority of young people and both have provided recruits to the Middle East conflict, including ISIS, but these incidents should be seen as aberrations. They are not representative of the views of the vast majority or an indication that one approach is superior to another.
It was not the murders themselves which prompted 1.5 million people to march on the streets of Paris, but the threat posed to the freedom of the press. In this case, a small circulation’s right to print satirical cartoons laughing at all religions, including Islam. The cartoonists were called by name and murdered one by one.
The French and the British have a tradition of political satire, and although nominally Christian countries, are mainly secular. The newspapers also have a strong tradition of independent comment, a right the public value highly, as one of the few remaining checks on the power of governments.
The murder of people in a Jewish supermarket at the same time, was motivated by anger at the French involvement against ISIS, and not really connected to the cartoon issue. Tellingly, it was a Muslim worker in the supermarket who hid a number of shoppers and prevented their death.
The actions of the West in killing many Muslims in the Middle East, does explain much of the radicalization of young Muslims across Europe. It is depressing how little of the analysis and political comment at this time attempts to explain or understand this dynamic. People branded as mad and bad by our media are in their own eyes and those of some of their community, waging the same war by other means. The only way to substantially reduce the threat of terrorism is to establish peace in the Middle East, or at least for the West to withdraw from it. This was a lesson the British learnt when eventually a peace settlement was achieved in Northern Ireland, and the terrorism of the IRA ended.
No comments:
Post a Comment